quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Mar. 9th, 2009 11:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dagibbsI went to see The Watchmen on Friday with kattale, ox, bixkitty, and mikepictor. Given the (perhaps intentional) difficulty of filming the graphic novel, it was reasonably well done.
Some quibbles, and a bunch of discussion points (that are probably quite spoilerish if you haven't seen the movie) behind the cut.
Of course some things had to change. I tend to believe, when adapting, that the minimal neccessary changes from the original material are the best choice. And, that, generally, excision of material is the expected, while the addition of extra material or changes are less to be preferred. I also feel that maintaining the "message" of the original is important.
"The Tales of the Black Freighter" were completely cut. I expected this -- of all the bits that were least connected to the rest of the story, that was it. It set mood. It was an important part of the comic. But it would go.
The big change -- the disaster that Veidt/Ozymandias caused. In the book, it is an alien invasion, with psychic broadcast of images/feelings of horror, and only in New York. In the movie, it was a set of explosions with an energy signature that matched that of Dr Manhatten. I'm not sure if this was neccessary -- it did simplify some things, provide less stuff that also had to be explained. But, I don't think Dr Manhatten as the "enemy" is a good enough choice. Now, it may be that we (the readers/watchers) know more about the power that he wields than the world -- he has become god. An enemy that is SO untouchable, so powerful -- I don't think could work, and I think Veidt is smart enough to know that. Also, Dr Manhatten is American. Sure, he also "attacked" the USA, but the rest of the world is so deep in paranoia that this would, still, be seen as a trick. Why the too powerful not working? I think, if people realized he was that powerful, they wouldn't even think of uniting against him, but would, in fact, try to compete in appeasing him. You don't fight angry omnipotent beings -- you run away, you appease, you try to convince them to kill the other guy, not you. You sacrifice to them, and hope they will accept the sacrifice and pass you by. But you don't unite. The vanguard of an alien invasion -- you can fight that. God? No.
Now, given the big change, at least carry through. Bubastis (the genetically engineered cat that is Veidt's pet) should not have been in the movie. With the disaster being created with genengineering, Bubastis as experiment/practice and work towards that made perfect sense. But with the disaster being a physics based thing, Bubastis made no sense.
Rorschach was very well done. Ok, the actor wasn't really ugly enough (hey, it's a movie), but the insanity -- the absolute lack of compromise. The brutality. It was well done. Also, I felt that The Comedian was well portrayed as well. Actually, the fact that so many of the characters were not sane was very well portrayed.
Violence -- the move was very violent. But, so was the book. Ok, I think the slo-mo bits were utterly unnecessary. But, other than that, things seemed about right.
I found Dr Manhatten's "blank look" very distracting in conversation bits. I always had the feeling he was looking away from the person he was facing/talking to. I think it was the effect that if you see a bunch of someone's white in their eyes, you assume that their eyes are turned away from you, and it had the same affect with Dr Manhatten.
Where did they come up with the idea that Dr Manhatten could "send" Laurie on flashbacks? Ok, maybe it was an excuse for a flashback, but really?
On Mars, it should be Laurie that realized Blake (the Comedian) is her father, not Jon (Dr. Manhatten). Also, she destroys Jon's toy by throwing something at it, not pounding on it with her fist. (This makes more sense, too. A sharp impact from another glass object is more likely to shatter glass than hitting it with fists.)
There were a lot of places where dialog was taken directly from the comic -- this was nice.
Archie ejaculating. OMGWTFBBQ.
Ozymandias catching the bullet -- in the comic it is done barehanded, rather than in fairly thickly padded gloves.
I found that on the whole I liked the music selections. And they used the German version of Ninety Red Balloons, which I appreciated. (I prefer the German to the English.)
The ending -- several things. Dan should not have witnessed Dr Manhatten killing Rorschach. And, Dan attacking Ozymandias, and Veidt letting himself be beaten up? WTF? Nope, not happening. I do not believe that of Veidt's character. Dan & Laurie consoling themselves together with sex (as in the book) makes more sense. We also miss the (highly symbolic) bit where Dr Manhatten walks on water. Veidt's discussion with Dr Manhatten, and asking/begging for absolution was, also, unwitnessed, and (I think) more ambiguous in the comic. In both, Dr Manhatten does the "neither condemn nor condone" bit -- but it goes further, Veidt asks if it "all works out in the end" and Jon says that "nothing ever ends" then disappears leaving Veidt without the absolution he wanted. This felt more ambigous, even, than the movie.
Also, if I recall correctly, Veidt asks Jon, "haven't you regained interest in life", getting the response, "yes, I think I'll create some" in the movie -- while in the comic, it is very clearly, "human life" that Jon is going to go and create. Perhaps this, plus the walking on water, would have been just too strong a statement that Dr Manhatten has become God for a film to be released in the USA?
Also, we don't see nearly as much of the "normal" people in New York (or elsewhere), so aren't as attached to them when they die in the disaster Veidt creates.
The narrative doesn't jump through time, and between various different parallel stories, as much as the comic. This is understandable -- it would make the movie harder to follow.
Rorschach electrocuting the 2nd guy into the cell -- made more sense with an arc-welder level of current than regular current.
Improvement: they did away with the "password incomplete: do you wish to add rider" prompt from Veidt's computer system. I couldn't believe that in the comic -- password systems do not, and have never, worked like that.
The Watchmen was, in many ways, a deconstruction of the superhero genre, the four-color comic. What might these people really have been like? As such, it was an incredibly powerful statement in the field. The movie, while doing a reasonable job of maintaining the mood, story, etc of the comic, does not make nearly such a statement about the field of movies, or even about the field of super-hero movies. Perhaps that is its greatest failure, and perhaps that was an unachievable goal. Being the recreation of another work, it couldn't be a groundbreaking statement.
Some quibbles, and a bunch of discussion points (that are probably quite spoilerish if you haven't seen the movie) behind the cut.
Of course some things had to change. I tend to believe, when adapting, that the minimal neccessary changes from the original material are the best choice. And, that, generally, excision of material is the expected, while the addition of extra material or changes are less to be preferred. I also feel that maintaining the "message" of the original is important.
"The Tales of the Black Freighter" were completely cut. I expected this -- of all the bits that were least connected to the rest of the story, that was it. It set mood. It was an important part of the comic. But it would go.
The big change -- the disaster that Veidt/Ozymandias caused. In the book, it is an alien invasion, with psychic broadcast of images/feelings of horror, and only in New York. In the movie, it was a set of explosions with an energy signature that matched that of Dr Manhatten. I'm not sure if this was neccessary -- it did simplify some things, provide less stuff that also had to be explained. But, I don't think Dr Manhatten as the "enemy" is a good enough choice. Now, it may be that we (the readers/watchers) know more about the power that he wields than the world -- he has become god. An enemy that is SO untouchable, so powerful -- I don't think could work, and I think Veidt is smart enough to know that. Also, Dr Manhatten is American. Sure, he also "attacked" the USA, but the rest of the world is so deep in paranoia that this would, still, be seen as a trick. Why the too powerful not working? I think, if people realized he was that powerful, they wouldn't even think of uniting against him, but would, in fact, try to compete in appeasing him. You don't fight angry omnipotent beings -- you run away, you appease, you try to convince them to kill the other guy, not you. You sacrifice to them, and hope they will accept the sacrifice and pass you by. But you don't unite. The vanguard of an alien invasion -- you can fight that. God? No.
Now, given the big change, at least carry through. Bubastis (the genetically engineered cat that is Veidt's pet) should not have been in the movie. With the disaster being created with genengineering, Bubastis as experiment/practice and work towards that made perfect sense. But with the disaster being a physics based thing, Bubastis made no sense.
Rorschach was very well done. Ok, the actor wasn't really ugly enough (hey, it's a movie), but the insanity -- the absolute lack of compromise. The brutality. It was well done. Also, I felt that The Comedian was well portrayed as well. Actually, the fact that so many of the characters were not sane was very well portrayed.
Violence -- the move was very violent. But, so was the book. Ok, I think the slo-mo bits were utterly unnecessary. But, other than that, things seemed about right.
I found Dr Manhatten's "blank look" very distracting in conversation bits. I always had the feeling he was looking away from the person he was facing/talking to. I think it was the effect that if you see a bunch of someone's white in their eyes, you assume that their eyes are turned away from you, and it had the same affect with Dr Manhatten.
Where did they come up with the idea that Dr Manhatten could "send" Laurie on flashbacks? Ok, maybe it was an excuse for a flashback, but really?
On Mars, it should be Laurie that realized Blake (the Comedian) is her father, not Jon (Dr. Manhatten). Also, she destroys Jon's toy by throwing something at it, not pounding on it with her fist. (This makes more sense, too. A sharp impact from another glass object is more likely to shatter glass than hitting it with fists.)
There were a lot of places where dialog was taken directly from the comic -- this was nice.
Archie ejaculating. OMGWTFBBQ.
Ozymandias catching the bullet -- in the comic it is done barehanded, rather than in fairly thickly padded gloves.
I found that on the whole I liked the music selections. And they used the German version of Ninety Red Balloons, which I appreciated. (I prefer the German to the English.)
The ending -- several things. Dan should not have witnessed Dr Manhatten killing Rorschach. And, Dan attacking Ozymandias, and Veidt letting himself be beaten up? WTF? Nope, not happening. I do not believe that of Veidt's character. Dan & Laurie consoling themselves together with sex (as in the book) makes more sense. We also miss the (highly symbolic) bit where Dr Manhatten walks on water. Veidt's discussion with Dr Manhatten, and asking/begging for absolution was, also, unwitnessed, and (I think) more ambiguous in the comic. In both, Dr Manhatten does the "neither condemn nor condone" bit -- but it goes further, Veidt asks if it "all works out in the end" and Jon says that "nothing ever ends" then disappears leaving Veidt without the absolution he wanted. This felt more ambigous, even, than the movie.
Also, if I recall correctly, Veidt asks Jon, "haven't you regained interest in life", getting the response, "yes, I think I'll create some" in the movie -- while in the comic, it is very clearly, "human life" that Jon is going to go and create. Perhaps this, plus the walking on water, would have been just too strong a statement that Dr Manhatten has become God for a film to be released in the USA?
Also, we don't see nearly as much of the "normal" people in New York (or elsewhere), so aren't as attached to them when they die in the disaster Veidt creates.
The narrative doesn't jump through time, and between various different parallel stories, as much as the comic. This is understandable -- it would make the movie harder to follow.
Rorschach electrocuting the 2nd guy into the cell -- made more sense with an arc-welder level of current than regular current.
Improvement: they did away with the "password incomplete: do you wish to add rider" prompt from Veidt's computer system. I couldn't believe that in the comic -- password systems do not, and have never, worked like that.
The Watchmen was, in many ways, a deconstruction of the superhero genre, the four-color comic. What might these people really have been like? As such, it was an incredibly powerful statement in the field. The movie, while doing a reasonable job of maintaining the mood, story, etc of the comic, does not make nearly such a statement about the field of movies, or even about the field of super-hero movies. Perhaps that is its greatest failure, and perhaps that was an unachievable goal. Being the recreation of another work, it couldn't be a groundbreaking statement.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 05:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 02:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 02:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 11:05 am (UTC)Apparently Tales of the Black Freighter will be there, possibly intermixed with the story, on the DVD. I suspect there will be more of the city scenes on the DVD but the movie was on the longside for theaters as is.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 01:27 pm (UTC)I don't really know though.
edit:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=3955&show=review
no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 02:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 09:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 01:26 pm (UTC)Bubastis should have been dropped though, I agree.
I also liked that Ozy caught the bullet with a gloved hand, it made the whole thing just a fraction more plausible. Still amazing, but just maybe possible.
As to Manhattan's look, I was actually caught off guard, that right at the end (I think just before he killed Rorshach...or maybe when talking to Ozymandias), I could see his iris and pupils as subtle shades of blue. All through the movie, just that empty stare, but right at the end, in a close-up, there were actual eyes. I am not sure if that was meant to say something (like he can focus for the first time), or if it was just a consequence of a close-up.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 02:01 pm (UTC)Catching the bullet with a gloved hand -- more believable, yes.
I didn't notice his eyes at the end. I don't know how much of Manhatten was actor, and how much CGI. But if he was wearing "blank" contact lenses, it is possible that in the closeup, the iris/pupil showed through a bit. It is possible, too, that he rebuilt himself, the 2nd time, a touch differently... a bit better... a bit closer to human?
no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 02:11 pm (UTC)Honestly, humans are persnickety things. I am not sold that the alien in the comic would have united anyone either, especially when it only hit one city. I think the notion of hitting multiple cities was a much better component (even if it was an alien in multiple cities). I also thought the alien would be easier to disprove as a genetic construct in the long run. I always thought in the comic world, further down the line, people would grow suspicious of it as a legitimate alien threat, and it had no notion of ongoing consequences if we didn't "behave". The idea that Jon may still be watching us from Mars or somesuch is a more looming threat.
As to his rendering, everything you see of him is cgi. The actor movied around, and wore a suit of blue LEDs for the glow, and I think they modeled the facial movements on the actor, but you never see the actor directly.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 02:27 pm (UTC)The alien -- yes it only arrived in one city, but the psychic attach/shock was powerful enough to be felt around the world, at least by some people. It wasn't just the physics/biology of the horror of the other, but a psychic broadcast of the horror of the other to reinforce the strength of the message.
Hm... I think, also, part of the build up in the movie & comic is that John has stopped caring about humanity (Veidt pushes this, he works to alienate John). The crisis peaks because John has given up and left. So, he spanks us on the way out -- but we're supposed to believe he has started caring and watching over us again, so we should be good? That doesn't work for me as a believable solution. Maybe I'm just too agnostic.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 02:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-16 09:33 pm (UTC)Entirely unsurprisingly, we were trying to discern on Saturday whether particular portions of his anatomy were CGI-enhanced. Foms found some entertaining links online, but barring nekkid pictures of the model (Greg Plikt or something like that) for the CGI-physique, nothing official.
More seriously, the character was all CGI (but based on a a real model for the musculature, and on Billy Crudup's face) because it was easier for them to film it that way - particularly with such elements as his being able to change in size.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-17 04:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-15 05:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 02:10 pm (UTC)After being so disappointed with 'The Spirit', this one was close enough to the book to be appealing.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 03:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 03:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 03:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 04:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 04:21 pm (UTC)I like Bubastis so I'm biased, :P.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-11 02:07 am (UTC)I did like that they managed to keep a lot of the more significant dialog the same.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-16 09:34 pm (UTC)Telephathic squid?
Was it a suicide quid?
no subject
Date: 2009-03-16 09:36 pm (UTC)On Saturday we (con_girl, ragnhildr, foms, me) were theorizing that the reason for Dan attacking Ozymandias might have been to convey the same doubt Veidt has that causes him to beg Dr Manhattan for absolution in the book.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-17 04:01 am (UTC)