WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

^ I was responding to Madvillain. I felt like he was suggesting the opening fight scene was realistic, and the later ones were over-the-top. I think they are both very over-the-top, but in different ways.

_________________
"Computer unnecessary."

Oh okay.

Gotcha

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

"There's a cello in your house now."

I wasn't necessarily implying it's realistic, all of the action is over-the-top, which is the point. The difference is when they're in costume versus when they're not in costume and what is shown. The in costume fights are almost like a parody of a typical superhero showdown. Out of costume they display how un-heroic these people really are.

^ Okay. I completely agree. Never thought of that. Good observation.

I think people misinterpret Watchmen as a story about realistic superheroes. It's not. It's about realistic implications of superheroes in the world.

_________________
"Computer unnecessary."

Wow, Moore has misinterpreted Watchmen a lot then.

(I mean, if we agree that there what you have written is THE way to interpret watchmen.)

The comic's not extremely realistic either.

Blue super beings?

Hiding in fridges without dying?

Hiding in fridges period?

Psychics?

Psychic squids?

Tight latex masks with no visible way to breathe or see?

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

"There's a cello in your house now."

Yea, there is a lot of unrealistic stuff in the book. I actually did notice.
Even, as you rightly point out, regarding supernatural powers, which Rorschach seems to have.
But I think one can tell that its not done to show that Rorschach doesn't have to breathe. It's done (perhaps slightly sloppy) to characterize Rorschach. And frankly, it didn't bother me when I first read the novel. I thought about it later, thought 'hey, that's unrealistic', and it still didn't bother me.
The fights and the cheezy splatter in the movie did bother me the very first time I watched it.

Perhaps they work without the GN in mind. I can see they work for the most of you; good for Snyder, and for you, coz you have a movie you enjoy.



I also really wonder about that:

1. You mean, that just wouldn't be Watchmen-the-Movie.
There are no such scenes in Watchmen.
The movie is an interpretation of Watchmen.
If this interpretation works or not is our debate here.
Or at least mine.

2. Funny, re the two smilies, I have similar feelings re the action and the violence. To me it doesn't look realistic, to me it looks as a silly attempt to cater to certain tastes.
(And if the director was Nolan I'd dislike just as much.)
So the second smilie, to me, looks like a young person who is totally happy with this movie.

But whatever. I apparently don't get it. Nevermind.

I'd almost agree with you if Snyder didn't state his intentions regarding the gore in interviews. He wasn't trying to make it look cool. He wanted it to be (maybe over the top) gory to show that fighting has consequences. I can think of a million movies where a bunch of action happens or people fight each other and then it never shows the aftermath. Snyder called this irresponsible violence.

The example that always comes to mind in my head is Transformers. There's that big fight in the city at the end and buildings are blowing up. Afterwards, if you think about it you know that a ton of people must be dead but at the end of the movie everything's just kind of happy.

And what ROR-SHACK meant with the smiley face comparison was that some people would want a true to life absolutely realistic Watchmen when Watchmen is really supposed to be a story with ridiculous characters (superheroes) and ridiculous situations (giant alien psyhic squid) with real life ramifications.

So even though everything's pretty ridiculous, it's treated as it would be in real life. And the over the top stuff in the movie like the fight scenes are meant to contrast with the realistic parts of it and to reflect the same type of over the top stuff that happens in comics like Superman.

Edit: I think I misread your post and thought that you didn't get his smiley comparison.

Anyway, something to add. One could argue that there are even over the top instances of action in the book. The Comedian gets thrown through a window. Ozymandias catches a bullet. The alley fight scene is really the same as the movie except the movie shows more. In the movie, they just ramped that type of stuff up more at some places.

Oh yeah. Nite Owl and Silk Specter also take on prisoners in mid-conversation. A good example of over the top satire from the book if I ever saw one. ...but then again there's the bullet catch. Which, by the way, looks a million times more realistic in the movie.

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

"There's a cello in your house now."

That's very thoughtful of Mr. Snyder (and I honestly think that he's a nice guy). But I see a great difference between the intention and the execution. Whatever he had in mind, I judge what I see on the screen. It does look 'cool', and it doesn't look realistic.
Has anyone seen Seven Samurai by Kurosawa? Often people complain about its 'unrealistic' fight scenes. People who are used to fight scenes and violence done Tarantino/Ang Lee/Snyder style.


No. Really, no. It was stylish.
The hammer fight in Oldboy just comes to my mind. Heh, and the sex scene, too. Those felt much more realistic (and not a pain to watch) for me.

I haven't seen Transformers. I think one of the main difference of us who disagree here is age and cultural background and the movies and films we're watching, and enjoying.

(Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood: I'm not claiming superiority here. I'm a bit out of touch with modern stuff, which is ok for my age; but on the other hand I spend way to much time on the internets and post stuff that makes people think I was 16. I know my limits.)


Right. Ozymandias is close to having super-powers, that's a point of the book. Someone has written (dunno where) that the fight scenes and apparent super powers in the movie took much away from the impact of Ozymandias catching the bullet. In the book it was a WTF?!? moment. In the movie it was 'Yea, whatever. They can take chunks out of walls, they can almost fly, they can catch bullets.'

It is not! No gun in the book. Much bleeding noses and Laurie going for the crotch. A twisted arm.

Heck, yea. But they didn't jump up the walls by doing that (neither in the book nor in the movie, thankfully). There's a difference, to me, between satire and exaggerated over the top action.


One thing I am unsure about though: if Snyder had done things as they are in the book, would that have worked on the screen?
Perhaps he had to take things farther, so that modern audiences, who are saturated with extreme action and violence, could accept the movie.

I can't really, not as an adaption of the book, but I'm a kid of the 80ies.

Well, the comic's really stylish too. It's not really very gritty or realistic. I mean, it is in its own way but the movie's just as realistic in that sense if not more so.

The comic is bright color bonanza.

The movie has a ton of moments of cold, hard, realism too though. To me, Rorschach repeatedly hacking away at a guy's face with chunks of it coming off as he's doing it seems more realistic than him setting him on fire and calmly walking out of his place.

Also, giant alien squid.

Giant alien psychic squid.


I'm sure that this wasn't the case. If he were trying to do that then Watchmen would be 90 minutes in length and have the story of a Michael Bay film.

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

"There's a cello in your house now."

Oh you bring up Rorschach butchering Grice. That was, to me, one of the most out-of-character and also extremely corny scene. Utterly unnecessary, too.

You know what? Let's just agree to disagree.

Clearly.

I can agree with that but


WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!?!

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

"There's a cello in your house now."

No, I completely agree with him.
Like I've said before, it's meant to be an epiphany, not the birth of a badass.
He explains this as he watches the house burn. If you didn't understand that, then god help us all.

_________________
Say, Doc, did I ever tell you I'm the only metal that's liquid at room temperature?

WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Seriously though, I don't see it as "the birth of a badass" and I don't think that was the intention of the scene at all. You want badassery? How about burning people alive?

Rorschach breaks down and kills Grice in a fit of rage. I don't really see how the scene is out of character or corny and I don't see how you can use the phrase, "birth of a badass" in relation to that scene in the movie but not in the book.

In the book he sets a guy on fire and then walks out without stopping or anything. It's like cool guys don't look at explosions. Don't get me wrong, I love that part in the book, but I almost think the movie does it better.

Edit: Actually, I think the movie only does it better if you're going to take the speech out afterward. If not, then the book one is better because of the speech.

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

"There's a cello in your house now."

Perhaps we should define "badassery".
(Hard for me to do it in English.) Perhaps — something like acting specially fearsome, cool and swashbuckling.

I don't see GN Rorschach as badass. I see him cold (not 'cool'), deadpan, rigid.

The guy in the movie is emotional all the way through. GN Rorschach doesn't 'break down and kills [...] in a fit of rage'. That's the point of being Rorschach. He does what he thinks is necessary, and is totally unemotional about it.
That's a whole different kind of insanity than movie-Rorschach losing it.



Couldn't resist, eh?

Well, did you see him crying at the end? Also, he may have done it in a more methodical fashion in the book but he still basically broke down and murdered Grice. And I think that almost everything Rorschach does is out of anger. He's not cold and logical like Dr. Manhattan.


I suppose a badass is someone who does something...badass.

Anyway, it doesn't mean swashbuckling. In any case, Rorschach is certainly a badass in both the book and the movie. If you break people's fingers and light people on fire then you're badass.

But I don't know does that make serial killers badass? ehhhhh Damn slang.

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

"There's a cello in your house now."

Edited my last entry after you answered, so here goes again:

Him burning Grice and watching is not an act of badassery. It's not a breakdown either. It's a moment of transformation, and of epiphany, as Smutty wrote.
Kovancs' normal human thinking, normal emotions etc. are burned away.

And yep, he cries at the end, when he takes off his mask to be killed as Kovacs. Not as Rorschach.

I don't know if you know this but they're the same person.


Or are they hacked away?

Anyway, I see your point but I disagree.

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

"There's a cello in your house now."

No shit!
But Rorschach/Kovacs doesn't think so. That's what makes the difference.

And so the disagreeing continues.