Watchmen..

[Michaelas10]

So instead of watching the movie I started with the book first.

And now I'm PISSED!

So many inaccuracies.. I could accept that those inaccuracies were purposefully done to give the movie a distinctive feel than the book. But all they're really doing is make the movie seem more gory and hardcore so it could appeal better to teenagers (who should be watching this movie in the first place, mind you).

Why did Zack Snyder not choose to make things subtle? No one angry or frustrated ever said "fuck" in the novel, and it worked perfectly. All those over-blown action scenes are stupid. Rorschach DID NOT FUCKING STAB A GUY REPEATEDLY IN THE FOREHEAD. He also ruined the ending, but I won't spoil it to anyone.

[Lagerkapo]

Read Novel: 99% hate for movie rate.

Didn't read novel: 1% hate for movie ratio.

You're a bit late.

[Elios]

As long as you're not going to complain about blue penis, we don't care.

[FattyWhale]

The fact that people are still angry about this is fascinating to me.

[Doom-Fan]

I heard it was a great movie, regardless of the things left out. The Watchmen would've been like 8 hours long if it was directly following the book.

But I agree, it's like The Lord of the Rings all over again.

WHERE THE FUCK IS TOM BOMBADIL?

[TheSilverGuitar]

I only heard that there was some genitalia action involved, and I wanted to see the movie ever since. But yeah, this thread is kind of a restating of the classic "book was better than the movie" or "lots of stuff was left out of the movie" sort of complaint.

[AlStOrthevilclown]

Fuck you man that movie kicked ass.

[Michaelas10]

At 3/26/09 06:11 PM, milinko959 wrote: The fact that people are still angry about this is fascinating to me.

Reading the novel took about two weeks..

At 3/26/09 06:12 PM, TheSilverGuitar wrote: this thread is kind of a restating of the classic "book was better than the movie" or "lots of stuff was left out of the movie" sort of complaint.

That's not the point. The point is he changed the best parts of the book so it could appeal to an entirely different age group who shouldn't be watching this movie in the first place.

[homor]

all i know is Alan Moore is a crazy looking mother fucker.

look at this, no human being should ever look like this:

[MsiScars2780]

At 3/26/09 06:15 PM, Michaelas10 wrote: That's not the point. The point is he changed the best parts of the book so it could appeal to an entirely different age group who shouldn't be watching this movie in the first place.

No, he changed the book because movies and books (even fucking comic) are two different forms of entertainment.

Plus, like an hour of the actual movie was cut because of Fox.

[TheSilverGuitar]

At 3/26/09 06:15 PM, Michaelas10 wrote: That's not the point. The point is he changed the best parts of the book so it could appeal to an entirely different age group who shouldn't be watching this movie in the first place.

Yes, the movie was a disappointment. It happens all the time. I've learned to keep the series/book pure by just not watching the movie they made of it, if they did at all. If you've read the book, you should know everything that's in the movie, seeing as how the movie cut out content anyway.

[Michaelas10]

At 3/26/09 06:18 PM, MsiScars2780 wrote:

At 3/26/09 06:15 PM, Michaelas10 wrote: That's not the point. The point is he changed the best parts of the book so it could appeal to an entirely different age group who shouldn't be watching this movie in the first place.

No, he changed the book because movies and books (even fucking comic) are two different forms of entertainment.

Like I said, that would be understandable if it was like that. But he changed the WRONG parts. The movie could benefit from subtlety. The Dark Knight did, why does this movie has to be like 300 instead? It sucks.

[PolarBearWP]

I hate to see it, but I just couldn't get into it. All I really saw was the opening credits, some old guy got choked to death, and Rorshach was talking about some guy from Hanoi. That's it. My date and I were a little drunk and ended up going to watch Push.

But I agree it's highly f*cking annoying how really inaccurate Hollywood likes to take movies just to make them more "appealing" to their kind of audience, who are pretty much ignorant dipshits anyways. I hate to say it, but I was looking forward to when DareDevil came out, and that movie SUCKED. They made a friggn RiffTrak to it for gods sake! I was so damned angry with how horrible it was and how Hollywood will strip the guts out of something great to make a film *they* think will make money. Bastards. I mean, hell, they're making a Three Stooges movie with BENECIO DEL TORO. W.T.F.

I'm just hoping they don't rape Max Brook's World War Z in 2010.

[Ledgey]

I read the graphic novel way before and I still liked the movie. Yeah, Moore was right in saying that it's impossible to make a movie about it, but to be honest, I couldn't imagine a more faithful translation.

Considering how long it is, I doubt they could have added much more for the theatrical release. The DVD release on the other is supposed to add so much, including the death of Hollis Mason.

[Silent-G]

just because they made a movie instead of a live action comic book (which is impossible) doesn't mean you have to throw a shit fit.

[WooldoorSockbat]

I quite liked both really.

[Gagsy]

At 3/26/09 06:10 PM, Lagerkapo wrote: Read Novel: 99% hate for movie rate.

Didn't read novel: 1% hate for movie ratio.

You're a bit late.

I read the novel first and I like the move still, but then I remember not to expect better things from the film versions. Books will ALWAYS be better.

[doctorjmcgee]

teenagers should NOT be reading watchmen. watchmen is an appreciable piece of literary art that should be treasured and only brought up into conversation with silk gloves. Basically, it's the Citizen Kane of comic books, and most teenagers don't know how to appreciate such a work of fiction.

[theshadowwolf]

I'm sorry, I could never take superheroes or anything to do with them seriously since I was 11... So I never saw it, dont plan to.

[creepyboy]

At 3/26/09 06:44 PM, Ledgey wrote: I read the graphic novel way before and I still liked the movie. Yeah, Moore was right in saying that it's impossible to make a movie about it, but to be honest, I couldn't imagine a more faithful translation.

I´m totally agree, the movie was as faithful as they could make it, and its an entertaning movie for those who hasn´t read the novel. and Alan Moore doesn´t care about the movie is because the hate he feels about Hollywood movie industry.

[NeverHundred]

I felt the same way when I read V For Vendetta than watched the movie. I was so pissed after I saw that movie after reading the graphic novel.

But I didn't feel that way about Watchmen. At least it didn't completely stray from the plot. And although the may have taken a little bit out here and there, and changed a couple of scenes... it wasn't nearly as bad as how they butchered V For Vendetta.

So I could live with it.

[carlosbarn]

At 3/26/09 06:48 PM, Silent-G wrote: just because they made a movie instead of a live action comic book (which is impossible) doesn't mean you have to throw a shit fit.

But aren't they coming out with the technology to open up a comic book and it all comes out like a mini-television like the 30,000 "In the future" presentations?

They all lie

[doctorjmcgee]

At 3/26/09 07:40 PM, theshadowwolf wrote: I'm sorry, I could never take superheroes or anything to do with them seriously since I was 11... So I never saw it, dont plan to.

It's the most realistic superhero comic/movie you'll ever read. My English teacher LOVES it and he detests super heroes. It's more of a mystery than anything.

[MushookieMan]

At 3/26/09 06:11 PM, Doom-Fan wrote: I heard it was a great movie, regardless of the things left out. The Watchmen would've been like 8 hours long if it was directly following the book.

But I agree, it's like The Lord of the Rings all over again.

WHERE THE FUCK IS TOM BOMBADIL?

DUDE TOM BOMBADIL IS FUCKING AWESOME! I'm sure you know it; he can dissapear without the ring and stay visible with it on, and he's like a bajillion years old and super powerful and can run to the hobbits at the speed of light pretty much. There needs to be a whole spin-off movie about him, especially since HE WASN'T IN THE FUCKING MOVIES!

[xscoot]

Yes they changed a lot, but don't really care about inaccuracies or things that are left out. wo great examples are Akira and The Godfather. In the manga of Akira, Tetsuo basically takes over a now destroyed Japan and starts his own militia of people with psychic powers. None of that happened in the movie, and a lot of characters are missing or changed, yet it still is a classic piece of animation. In the book form of The Godfather, there were 9 different sections. In the movie, 2 sections were completly obliterated, and almost all the side-stories and subplots from the other sections were cut out, yet it still is a great film.

When it comes down to it, I will judge Watchmen based on how it feels. Strip away some of the details, and just look at what the movie is. If you can truly say "This is Watchmen", then it's good. Besides, I like the changes. I don't want the movie just to be a rehash of the book, what would be the point of watching that?

I hope I can say the same thing about the upcoming live-action Akira remake.

[Dragonberry]

Bitch Moan. If you've seen the thousand other comic book movies, you know they're largely inaccurate, where accuracy is sacrificed for box office hits on special FX.

[Chumbawamba]

At 3/26/09 06:16 PM, homor wrote: look at this, no human being should ever look like this:

Well, I dunno, pick any bum off the street, and you've got a pretty close match.

[Zerok]

Really? Jeez, compared to how Hollywood typically changes novels into movies, this one was actually VERY close to the graphic novel. All the cuts were perfectly understandable, IMO.

=\

[Parlux]

I thought it was alright. Sure they did cut alot of things out like the giant squid thing, but they still manage the time to put in 6 minutes of on screen sex time and rape

[Chumbawamba]

At 3/26/09 08:30 PM, Parlux wrote: but they still manage the time to put in 6 minutes of on screen sex time

Yeah, that was a bit awkward... Got my girlfriend in the mood, though. :o