This seems to have been the guiding philosophy behind the adaptation: "In 1986, the graphic novel took apart all the assumptions the reader made about superheroes. It made readers view them in a different way. It made their behavior seem less heroic, and more disturbing, which is probably what it would seem like in real life. ... Lets have the movie do the same thing to superhero movies today that the GN did to comic books in 1986."
Yea, you people told me so before, I don't think it's a dumb idea, Snyder's try just doesn't work for me.
Wow, Moore has misinterpreted Watchmen a lot then.
What Moore quote are you referring to?
No quote, just my impression. Unless I find a fitting quote please excuse my assumption and let me correct myself (and add what you wrote, too):
As far as I understand Watchmen Moore has made a story about realistic superheroes AND, yea, realistic implications of superheroes in the world. Both actually. And I think the realistic superheroes are very important, and I miss them in the movie.
It has nothing to do with enjoyment or being "cool." It has everything to do with making a point about how superhero movies trivialize violence.
And that doesn't work for me, and if it works for other people: good for them and Snyder. That remark does look a bit snarky, but I honestly don't mean it that way. I wish I liked the movie more than I actually do.
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.
Here's where I think you're off track. The goal is not to directly transfer the scenes in the comic to the screen.
I totally agree about that being the goal. I just think that this goal wasn't reached.
I wish there were less shots that look like panels from the book and more translation of the GN's theme into another medium — as eg. V for Vendetta
Or even, like Trufaut did with Fahrenheit
, something that's not the novel but something else and new that works on its own.
As it is I got many GN visuals, and much stuff that feels superficial and unfitting to me, and not new at all.
The GN's fight scenes look very similar to the kinds of fights we see in comic books, except that we see the consequences of their actions. The movie's fight scenes are similar to fight scenes we see in movies, except that we see the consequences of their actions.
I saw fight scenes that weren't much different from many other fight scenes from many other movies. And the consequences? Actually I found the moaning masses in Kill Bill 1
, maimed by the bride (you know, the scene with the Yojimbo
-nod), more chilling and even more realistic for the consequences than anything I saw in Watchmen
you have a man holding his own sliced off arm, staring at it in horror and disbelief. That's showing consequences.
This is good adaptation. In 1985, it was pretty shocking to have superheroes beat up thugs in such a violent and bloody way (there is definitly blood in the book). Today.... not that shocking. People are used to it. It would not have the same power today.
That's what I thought when I wrote
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.
That, by the way, is the reason they changed the way Rorschach kills Grice. Today, we have seen superheroes indirectly kill villains (Batman does it at the end of Batman Begins). So having Rorschach just burn the house down and walk out would not have the same power.
Um, no. There is more to that scene than just burning a man in a house.
I can accept it when I accept that the movie is a new thing with new characters. (Which I am willing to do.)
When I want to see Rorschach from the GN the scene fails.
It's not supposed to look realistic. It's supposed to look absurd and over-the-top. If they looked realistic, I would criticize the fight scenes. It's all about satire/commentary through contrast: Absurd, silly fight scenes contrasting brutal violence. Superhero movies do that, but do it in such a way that the audience doesn't think about it. Watchmen confronts that issue head on. Why are you so convinced the fight scenes should look realistic?
Because in the GN they are fought by mere human beings in funny costumes.
As I said before, there are many movies that contain absurd fight scenes combined with brutal violence. Kill Bill
comes to mind again. I can believe that Snyder had a different agenda when he did those scenes, but the result is nothing new.
ABSURD: Doctor Manhattan. A naked blue guy who reassambled himself, and now experiencs time all at once, and has the power to destroy whole countries if he so desired.
REALISTIC: The United States using him as a way to bully other countries around.
The character is absurd and over-the-top. But the implications of such a being existing are realistic.
Yep. I agree, and that certain point comes across in both the book and the movie.
And I still don't like the masked vigilantes having superhuman powers in the movie, and I never will.
As long as I try to see the GN as movie.
And I still don't got the DC to check if the movie works on its own FOR ME.
I do understand what you're saying, ROR-SHACK, did so before, it does make perfect sense, I just don't think Synder achieved it.