CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Television › Damon Lindelof's WATCHMEN, Coming to HBO
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Damon Lindelof's WATCHMEN, Coming to HBO - Page 2

post #51 of 114
Everyone knows that all the best fantasy filmmaking has drum machines and synthesizers on the soundtrack. Does thronegame?
post #52 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

You're all just trying to trick me!

 

post #53 of 114
Season one: "Winter is coming..."

Season seven: "Winter is here."

Woof, that took a while.
post #54 of 114

The journey is more than worth it and if you get into it, with all the characters and places and conflicts you visit, you might find yourself lulled into complacency about what's really going on. However, every season for an episode or two, the show reminds you that there's a huge fucking problem creeping up on everybody in that world. They primarily tease you with it until about the tail end of Season 5, when they give you both barrels.

 

I'm telling you, man, it's not too late to get caught up in time for the season 7 premiere. You've got a few weeks. 

post #55 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

Everyone knows that all the best fantasy filmmaking has drum machines and synthesizers on the soundtrack. Does thronegame?

 

I do not understand this reference.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
 

The journey is more than worth it and if you get into it, with all the characters and places and conflicts you visit, you might find yourself lulled into complacency about what's really going on. However, every season for an episode or two, the show reminds you that there's a huge fucking problem creeping up on everybody in that world. They primarily tease you with it until about the tail end of Season 5, when they give you both barrels.

 

I'm telling you, man, it's not too late to get caught up in time for the season 7 premiere. You've got a few weeks. 

 

Or, maybe, all  the people in the world, including all the non-D&D people who gave it a chance, are wrong.  That's also a possibility.

post #56 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

Everyone knows that all the best fantasy filmmaking has drum machines and synthesizers on the soundtrack. Does thronegame?
I do not understand this reference.
post #57 of 114

The only factor that makes this a bad idea is that it's too soon after the movie.  The movie was a bad idea, because there is simply too much material for one movie.

 

So, I think it would be better to wait another ten years or so.

 

Having said that, why not?  A one season series is the perfect medium to do this story.  They should just go for it.

 

Of course, they will to milk it for multiple seasons - pad it out.

 

I predict it will all end in tears.

post #58 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by t3cii View Post

While I am onboard for this, (since I thought the movie was a poor adaptation) I also feel Watchmen is a great comic series not because of its story, but because of how it told its story. When you change the medium, you change what made it special in the first place. Then all you're left with is a fairly dull murder mystery.

Not least because Moore wrote Watchmen as a commentary on the comics medium. If they're not going to turn the project into a commentary on the medium that it's delivered in, then we inevitably end up with an imitation that doesn't have as much to say.
post #59 of 114

Snyder's Watchmen tried to be a commentary on superhero films up to that point... but with hindsight we can say that it came out too early, at least relative to everything that has come out since 2009.

post #60 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

Snyder's Watchmen tried to be a commentary on superhero films up to that point... but with hindsight we can say that it came out too early, at least relative to everything that has come out since 2009.

 

It was also, aesthetically, as completely wrong as it could possibly be.

post #61 of 114

heheheh and how!

 

I wonder how a Watchmen movie made now would try to comment on the aesthetic split between the blandness of marble and the ridiculous slick grit of DC?

post #62 of 114
I still can't help but like the movie. Yes NOW I realize what's wrong with it but seriously...it's gorgeously made. Misplaced gorgeous slickness but still....just for its aesthetic qualities alone I'm glad I own it. I would've never read the book if the movie hadn't made me aware of the whole thing, after all.

I wish I had a link to it but I seem to remember hearing Viggo Mortensen talk about the film (for what reason...I can't recall) and how much he liked it. The thing that sticks out in my mind was him praising the change in the ending (no squid) and saying how he thought that the change worked so much better for the movie than if they'd attempted to go the far stranger but more faithful route..
post #63 of 114
The squid change is the one thing the movie gets right. That and big blue dong.
post #64 of 114
If they could've gotten the squid even REMOTELY right...I would've been all for them attempting it, no matter how much it added to the running time. That would've been some crazy ass shit to see happen in an actual film. But yeah...changing it was definitely for the better if the movie must be streamlined. Without the squid, Bubastis' being in the movie makes fuck all sense but whatevs...I guarantee Snyder never considered WHY Ozy had a pet Chimera..
post #65 of 114
I should not have walked out of Watchmen thinking "Well, Malin Akerman was naked, so that's a win..."

Also, a minor complaint in a raging sea of them, but while I actually like Crudup's performance, I was never too keen on how big and ripped his Dr. Manhattan was.
post #66 of 114
I'm really glad I didn't read the book before seeing it. I would've definitely not had the same reaction.

Seeing it without a clue what it was about was an interesting experience. It wasn't hard to tell that there must be a shit ton of details missing from the source material. But between the visuals and just how 'out there' and crazy weird it was....I enjoyed it. I can't even compare the book and the movie. But....if I DID then yeah, the book is everything I'd heard it was and more. It's the only graphic novel I've ever finished. Not just finished but have read multiple times over..
post #67 of 114
Who among us, if they were disintegrated and could figure out how to reconstitute their bodies, would come back out of shape and with a little dick?
post #68 of 114
This is so very very true..
post #69 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

Who among us, if they were disintegrated and could figure out how to reconstitute their bodies, would come back out of shape and with a little dick?

I get that, it's just the rendering of the bulky bodybuilder physique that looks cartoonish to me. I would have preferred something a bit more understated.
post #70 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


Aw man, thought you were referencing Ladyhawke.
post #71 of 114
I watched Ladyhawke for the first time a couple months ago. Was half of a great movie. If only Matthew Broderick weren't in it. I fucking hate Matthew Broderick. Like....a Saxon/Bradley Cooper level of hate..
post #72 of 114
Save Ferris!
post #73 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

The squid change is the one thing the movie gets right. 

 

I have to disagree. I get that the squid is a bit out there, and requires a lot of, quite frankly wacky, exposition, but I feel like that made Veidt into a "comic book villain", in his own words. That he came up with this preposterous, and ridiculously complicated plan. Only his plan worked. Besides that, while the movie has a number of gruesomely violent scenes, the one scene that absolutely should have horrific gore is gore free, since much of the city is in rubble. 

post #74 of 114
Godzilla. Oh Lordy Lordy the pain of sitting in the theater through Godzilla that one time I watched it. It would've been a shit pile no matter who it starred but with him? Nigh unbearable..
post #75 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

Godzilla. Oh Lordy Lordy the pain of sitting in the theater through Godzilla that one time I watched it. It would've been a shit pile no matter who it starred but with him? Nigh unbearable..

yes yes!

 

edwards' dullzilla is the worst!

 

YES!

post #76 of 114
Crazy talk..
post #77 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil spurn View Post

Aw man, thought you were referencing Ladyhawke.
That too! The '80s were a glorious time for synth-backed fantasy cheese!
post #78 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

I get that, it's just the rendering of the bulky bodybuilder physique that looks cartoonish to me. I would have preferred something a bit more understated.

It is a bit overdone, I agree... Doc Manhattan's dong upgrade from the comic to the movie is pretty amusing in particular-- in Gibbons's art, he's like Vitruvian Man, in the movie he's practically Dirk Diggler. They really did Cruddup a favor there, I guess.

...

I'm of two minds about that movie. It is tonally and aesthetically all wrong, as folks have pointed out. In other respects, though, it really is a crackerjack example of adapting a sprawling narrative into a feature, and still getting at least some of the big ideas across. One wonders how that same script would work under a director who isn't a style spastic...

Although, credit where it's due, some things like Manhattan's interludes on Mars still work remarkably well in that style. And a good chunk of the casting and performance-- mainly Haley and Morgan-- would be fucking hard to top in a new version.

It's frustating. I almost (almost) put it in a category with, say, Coppola's Dracula-- a seriously flawed adaptation that nails enough things to maybe render another attempt redundant, even if the new version turns out better overall...

As a cable series, though, I could see "Watchmen" being worthwhile, but I think it might require radical departures from the source material. I hope we get to see how that turns out.

Speaking of departures from the source:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t3cii View Post

I have to disagree. I get that the squid is a bit out there, and requires a lot of, quite frankly wacky, exposition, but I feel like that made Veidt into a "comic book villain", in his own words. That he came up with this preposterous, and ridiculously complicated plan. Only his plan worked. Besides that, while the movie has a number of gruesomely violent scenes, the one scene that absolutely should have horrific gore is gore free, since much of the city is in rubble. 

I'm definitely in the camp that believes getting rid of the squid was the movie's best choice. You can set aside the sheer weirdness of comic Veidt's scheme, or that it introduces a sci-fi concept that isn't Dr. Manhattan (the existence of psychics) late in the game.

But from the book, I never thought that the new order that Veidt built could be sustainable for any period beyond simply avoiding the imminent nuclear exchange. The fact that it was "ridiculously complicated" suggests that it's a trick he could only pull off once-- and after the world realized that no alien invasion seemed to be coming, I feel that everything would gradually settle back to the status quo ante, which in Moore's premise leads to humanity's eventual destruction.

Now, I do think Moore makes clear that Veidt is to a great degree a shortsighted victim of hubris ("Nothing ends, Adrian.")-- and you've hit the nail on the head, IMO, that the whole thing makes him into the "Republic serial villain" he denies being. It's something I feel is ignored by folks who like to consider Veidt the hero of that book-- Moore gives him all the qualities of a meglomaniacal crank who murdered a bunch of people in service to a plan that is doomed to ultimate failure, even if he beats out the childish heroics of his former colleagues.

And that's what makes Veidt's scheme in the movie such an ingenious-- and more frightening-- improvement. With the looming threat of Dr. Manhattan, the continued ability to replicate his destructive power, Veidt really is in a position to bend the world's future any way he wants.

I do agree that, in a movie that had a gratuitous shot of gangster guts dripping from a nightclub ceiling after Manhattan obliterated them, we probably also ought to have seen some real, disturbing carnage in New York and the other (four, five?) cities that Veidt destroyed. We ought to have seen the human cost.

Anyhoo, sorry about the rambling, gents. A six pack of tall boys and Watchmen will bring that out in me.
post #79 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slim View Post


It is a bit overdone, I agree... Doc Manhattan's dong upgrade from the comic to the movie is pretty amusing in particular-- in Gibbons's art, he's like Vitruvian Man, in the movie he's practically Dirk Diggler. They really did Cruddup a favor there, I guess.

...

I'm of two minds about that movie. It is tonally and aesthetically all wrong, as folks have pointed out. In other respects, though, it really is a crackerjack example of adapting a sprawling narrative into a feature, and still getting at least some of the big ideas across. One wonders how that same script would work under a director who isn't a style spastic...

Although, credit where it's due, some things like Manhattan's interludes on Mars still work remarkably well in that style. And a good chunk of the casting and performance-- mainly Haley and Morgan-- would be fucking hard to top in a new version.

It's frustating. I almost (almost) put it in a category with, say, Coppola's Dracula-- a seriously flawed adaptation that nails enough things to maybe render another attempt redundant, even if the new version turns out better overall...

As a cable series, though, I could see "Watchmen" being worthwhile, but I think it might require radical departures from the source material. I hope we get to see how that turns out.

Speaking of departures from the source:
I'm definitely in the camp that believes getting rid of the squid was the movie's best choice. You can set aside the sheer weirdness of comic Veidt's scheme, or that it introduces a sci-fi concept that isn't Dr. Manhattan (the existence of psychics) late in the game.

But from the book, I never thought that the new order that Veidt built could be sustainable for any period beyond simply avoiding the imminent nuclear exchange. The fact that it was "ridiculously complicated" suggests that it's a trick he could only pull off once-- and after the world realized that no alien invasion seemed to be coming, I feel that everything would gradually settle back to the status quo ante, which in Moore's premise leads to humanity's eventual destruction.

Now, I do think Moore makes clear that Veidt is to a great degree a shortsighted victim of hubris ("Nothing ends, Adrian.")-- and you've hit the nail on the head, IMO, that the whole thing makes him into the "Republic serial villain" he denies being. It's something I feel is ignored by folks who like to consider Veidt the hero of that book-- Moore gives him all the qualities of a meglomaniacal crank who murdered a bunch of people in service to a plan that is doomed to ultimate failure, even if he beats out the childish heroics of his former colleagues.

And that's what makes Veidt's scheme in the movie such an ingenious-- and more frightening-- improvement. With the looming threat of Dr. Manhattan, the continued ability to replicate his destructive power, Veidt really is in a position to bend the world's future any way he wants.

I do agree that, in a movie that had a gratuitous shot of gangster guts dripping from a nightclub ceiling after Manhattan obliterated them, we probably also ought to have seen some real, disturbing carnage in New York and the other (four, five?) cities that Veidt destroyed. We ought to have seen the human cost.

Anyhoo, sorry about the rambling, gents. A six pack of tall boys and Watchmen will bring that out in me.

 

One of my issues with the film making Dr. Manhattan the looming threat is that he's so closely associated with the United States, which could lead to two complicated scenarios: a) other countries believe the attack was a false flag operation carried out by the US government, which would inevitably lead to a war of some kind or b) other countries blame the US government for having lost control of Manhattan, which would make even an initial period of peace difficult to establish. Whatever issues the squid/alien invasion plan may have, the creature doesn't have the same association with a specific country that would lead to those suspicions.

post #80 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slim View Post

But from the book, I never thought that the new order that Veidt built could be sustainable for any period beyond simply avoiding the imminent nuclear exchange. The fact that it was "ridiculously complicated" suggests that it's a trick he could only pull off once-- and after the world realized that no alien invasion seemed to be coming, I feel that everything would gradually settle back to the status quo ante, which in Moore's premise leads to humanity's eventual destruction.

Now, I do think Moore makes clear that Veidt is to a great degree a shortsighted victim of hubris ("Nothing ends, Adrian.")-- and you've hit the nail on the head, IMO, that the whole thing makes him into the "Republic serial villain" he denies being. It's something I feel is ignored by folks who like to consider Veidt the hero of that book-- Moore gives him all the qualities of a meglomaniacal crank who murdered a bunch of people in service to a plan that is doomed to ultimate failure, even if he beats out the childish heroics of his former colleagues.

This is very much the point, though. Veidt murders millions of people, and it's for a stopgap solution. Within hours of the 'alien' attack, talking heads are saying it was a one in a million occurrence and unlikely to ever happen again (and only Dr. Manhattan sees the TV with that broadcast, since Adrian is up in his meditation room and Dan and Laurie are having a post-coital nap by the pool). It's also, ironically, probably unnecessary. The bunker scene that opens Chapter X very strongly implies that Nixon is not going to launch a first strike. And the Russians don't need to launch nukes to take Afghanistan.

 

And in the movie it doesn't work because Veidt makes it look like Dr. Manhattan has attacked a dozen countries besides the US. The reaction of the rest of the world when America's super weapon attacks them of its own volition isn't going to be 'Whoa, hey guys. Let's take a breather here and work our shit out peacably!' It's going to be 'WHAT THE FUCK AMERICA?! BOO FUCKING HOO NEW YORK GOT HIT, TOO. NONE OF THIS WOULD'VE HAPPENED IF YOU HADN'T MADE DR. MANHATTAN' [edit] Or what Draco said.

 

It has to be a threat completely outside of human experience, and it has to only hit the US to work.

post #81 of 114
But we still have the show of Dr. Manhattan leaving Earth after his TV appearance, which should serve as notice, to powers (and their intelligence services) paying attention, that he's no longer working as America's weapon. Then Veidt uses the Manhattan Effect to hit several targets, including-- and, yes, this is key-- New York City.

That places Dr. Manhattan as a looming threat over the entire world, regardless of his origins as the US "walking deterrent". How is that less likely to spur international cooperation than a one-off alien incursion that only destroyed a US city, and that doesn't turn out to presage some ongoing threat? (Witness how long the era of solidarity lasted after 11 September 2001.)

And, again, movie Veidt retains the ability to use the Manhattan Effect against other targets, to keep everyone in line-- it's not as though he has to go and clone a whole new giant squid with a telepathic brain again in that scenario.

And Fafrd: as far as Veidt's scheme being perhaps-- and ironically-- unnecessary given the US/Soviet intentions over the conflict, that's never been my reading. It's always seemed to me that Veidt's immediate goal to avoid nuclear war is premised by Moore in that interstitial Professor Glass article, that says Dr. Manhattan's existence has pushed the superpowers closer to that conflict than they otherwise would have been (a notion I find rather dubious, but hey, it's Moore's story).

So given the conditions Moore sets up, I don't really argue that comic Veidt's not succesful in the short term-- just that over time, the previous conditions would prevail, leaving Veidt with the same problem, and no move to correct course...

I'll just put it another way: If I'm the Smartest Man on the Planet, it makes more sense to me to harness the power of the superhuman that does exist, which I can use in the future, rather than cook up some cockamamie telepathic alien that doesn't. That's just me, though. wink.gif
post #82 of 114
Getting rid of the squid was a wise decision, but to be fair, I think the squid had been cut from every other prior attempt at an adaptation as well, so it's not an innovation particular to Snyder's film.
post #83 of 114

I can't remember if this is in the comic, but the movie makes it a point to have one of its last shots showing how Veidt's electric cars and other advancements dominate the city. I think the implication is that Veidt has long-term goals to solve the world's energy crises, and in the process create jobs that will help improve the economy.

 

And one could argue the very existence of Doctor Manhattan would cause large swaths of religious groups to abandon their faith around the world.

 

So if there's no more war over energy or religion, and Veidt's improved the economy, what's there to fight over? 

post #84 of 114
Undercut in the comic and movie by the presence of Rorschach's journal, the implication being that someone will eventually read it.
post #85 of 114

Sure. But I'm talking about Veidt's plan. It's not so much creating an incident (the squid or Manhattan) as it's creating enough time to save the world with his long-term goals.

 

And undercutting Rorschach's journal in the comic is the fact that the reporter can't read the chicken scratch. Layers of ambiguity! 

post #86 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
 

Sure. But I'm talking about Veidt's plan. It's not so much creating an incident (the squid or Manhattan) as it's creating enough time to save the world with his long-term goals.

 

And undercutting Rorschach's journal in the comic is the fact that the reporter can't read the chicken scratch. Layers of ambiguity! 

 

The journal was also written by a well known nutcase. I doubt society at large would believe it even if it did get published.

post #87 of 114

My interpretation of the ending is that Rorsach's journal, particularly given the nature of the publication he sends it to, will be published, but it'll be the Loose Change or Turner Diaries of the Watchmenverse - something that has a devoted set of fans who believe in its truth, who go on to use that to sow discord. 

post #88 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

I can't remember if this is in the comic, but the movie makes it a point to have one of its last shots showing how Veidt's electric cars and other advancements dominate the city. I think the implication is that Veidt has long-term goals to solve the world's energy crises, and in the process create jobs that will help improve the economy.

And one could argue the very existence of Doctor Manhattan would cause large swaths of religious groups to abandon their faith around the world.

So if there's no more war over energy or religion, and Veidt's improved the economy, what's there to fight over? 
What's there to fight over? Have you MET a human person lately? Do you read history? There'll ALWAYS be SOMEthing for people to think that starting a war is the answer..
post #89 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slim View Post

It's frustating. I almost (almost) put it in a category with, say, Coppola's Dracula-- a seriously flawed adaptation that nails enough things to maybe render another attempt redundant, even if the new version turns out better overall...
 

 

That's a point of comparison that never would have occurred to me, but I think it works well.  I don't think the script for the movie is really a problem, or could be drastically improved while still cramming the story into a 2.5 hour movie.  It just looks all wrong, which is a big deal but can't be "fixed" without feeling largely redundant.  

post #90 of 114

Of course, but you're talking about reality. I'm talking about in terms of the story's narrative, does Veidt succeed or is his plan destined to unravel?

 

I think he succeeds, but not because of the squid/Manhattan. That's just delaying nuclear destruction. The next part of the plan involving energy and economics is his real goal.

 

For all of the hoopla over whether or not DC messes with Watchmen characters showing up in the main universe, I'd rather see a sequel set in the present day and see what all the, now octogenarian, characters are up to and what the world is like.

 

I mean, I don't really want that but it'd be better, either as a comic graphic novel or this HBO show, than just doing Watchmen again.

 

And I guess Rebirth kind of is a sequel for Doctor Manhattan, in that Watchmen ends with him saying he's going to create life, and now the implication is that he created the DC universe (at least the New 52).

 

But still...

post #91 of 114
There's too much in the narrative that hints at whatever "peace" Veidt accomplished not being sustainable. It totally paints his victory as a hollow one at best. And even IF it bought him enough time to implement his sustainable energy plan and world religion were irrevocably altered...nothing he accomplished would, just for example, eliminate racial prejudice. Conflict will always rear it's ugly head again. If there's something that people CAN fight about....most likely they will..
post #92 of 114

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure. Hence the "nothing ever ends" line.

 

But in terms of internal logic (race, as far as I remember, doesn't play into the novel or the movie at all) I think Veidt "wins." You can argue it's a temporary victory, but temporary only in the grand scheme of history. I'm thinking Veidt's actions have lasting repercussions, in terms of peace, long into the world of Watchmen's 21st century.

post #93 of 114
Well sure it'll have lasting repercussions. It was a global event that scared the shit out of the entire human race..
post #94 of 114

Fraid, I can't tell if we're agreeing or not!!!

 

Where's my The Thing dvd?!?!

post #95 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

Fraid, I can't tell if we're agreeing or not!!!

Where's my The Thing dvd?!?!
I just PMd asking about that DVD. Fuck, man....if it hadn't made it by now it really must've gotten lost. I checked and then rechecked and then re-rechecked the address again when I was mailing it so, I have no idea what could've happened. Maybe it'll make it eventually? Or come back to me and I can try again?
post #96 of 114

No biggie!

 

I will put it on hold...at the library!

post #97 of 114
I know dude, but I'm still sorry:/
post #98 of 114

I'm sorry your disc may be lost!

post #99 of 114
Well it was YOURS if it'd ever made it there. I wasn't expecting it back lol. Every blu ray I've ever bought that had a DVD with it, I've given the DVD away. That's a shit ton of movies..
post #100 of 114

Are you guys gonna get to fuck, or what? 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Television
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Television › Damon Lindelof's WATCHMEN, Coming to HBO