WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

You're right in the sense, that as a novel Watchmen has more mass appeal. Books and comic books require the reader to put effort into it, to get anything out of it. A general audience accepts that. When they do decide to read a book, they know they must put some effort into it. In a movie however, the general audience is used to being spoon-fed most of it. Also true, is that as novel Watchmen can do things a film couldn't dream of doing, everything in then novel feels seamless.

You're totally right, in theaters the UC could never hold it's own against the DC. But you have to understand that the UC isn't totally in the same medium that the theatrical cut was in. The UC was released as a home video. That means the viewer has control over what they want to see. Often when I'm watching a movie on blu-ray or on my computer I rewind if I don't understand a certain scene. Similarly, if the viewer doesn't understand something, or if they need clarification, they are free to just skip back, similar to turning back pages in a book.

If the viewer is granted those abilities, than the UC is superior than the DC.

A valid point about the theater being a different environment than the home. But that's not exactly what I'm referring to when I say pacing.

In a book, the reader is driving the story. It takes effort to make the story progress, because you have to make the decision to keep reading, and you can do so at your own pace. Some people can read Watchmen in a couple hours, for others it takes more like 8 or 9 hours. The only way a movie could mimick that idea is for some viewers to watch the film in slow motion. Which is clearly not how its meant to be viewed (no Snyder-vision jokes. You guys know what I mean). It takes EVERYONE approximately three and a half hours to watch the UC.

In a film, the viewer is being pulled along by the story-teller. In a book, the reader is pushing the story along.

All this to say that saying "if you don't like the movie then you won't like the book" is absurd. They're different mediums with different strengths and weaknesses. And the idea of intercutting TBF is something that lends itself MUCH better to a graphic novel than a film.

Another reason TBF works better in the book is that in a GN, you are actually able to see multiple moments in time at the same time (in other words, multiple frames at the same time). This concept is pretty much unique to graphic novels. This makes it easy to seamlessly integrate TBF into the story. You aren't being jerked out of one story and thrown into another whenever something from TBF comes up. You can still see the other story mixed in. Whereas, in a film, you are being jerked out. The other story simply vanishes. (This is also a reason why Doc's non-linear origin flashback works better in the GN than the book. You can actually see multiple moments in time at the same time, which is a great picture of how Doc experiences time. It's a great scene, I love it, but it works even better in the book)

_________________
"Computer unnecessary."

Uhh this joke is a little late but here it goes.

Of course I understand but don't call me Shirley.

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

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

Where is DDC's review?

_________________
"Computer unnecessary."

who needs DDC's review when we've got Gle- er, your review, ROR-SHACK.

_________________

I think Glenn Beck's review of Watchmen would go something like this...

The government's putting stuff in the water, people! Don't trust the elites!! Think for yourselves!!!

Oh the irony of that last one.

_________________
"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 lol'd.

_________________

Finally saw it.

My big problem is that the Black Freighter clips may as well have been commercial breaks for how much they contributed to the pacing and content of the story. One of the reasons that Black Freighter worked so well in the comic is that the main narrative continued over the comic with juxtaposing voice-overs, like the Dr. Manhattan interview did with the alley fight (both in the movie and in the comic). Without that two-way commentary, Black Freighter just isn't firing on all cylinders. Moreover, the TotBF short ended with the captain very harshly condemning himself and detailing all the ways in which he went wrong. On its own, that works as a nice commentary to tie the cartoon to the main narrative. In the Ultimate Cut, it's just too much. The captain spends at least a full minute chastising himself while Ozymandias is trying to justify his actions and that pretty much destroys the moral ambiguity factor.

As for the Bernies -- and believe me, it breaks my heart to say this -- I felt that they were grossly underutilized. The Bernies were always meant to be a kind of Greek chorus, giving their thoughts on the comic's events from a "man on the street" point of view, but they just didn't have the screen time to do that here. Additionally, I didn't realize until now just how much time our heroes spend talking about the incoming holocaust. That was nice for the TC and DC, but it leaves very little for the Bernies to talk about in the UC.

The only good addition, in my opinion, is the scene where that knot-top ridicules Bernie for reading a comic book. That was a great bit of commentary about the mainstream perception of comic books and it was perfectly welcome in this film.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

It doesn't have to. It works without the real time commentary.


To be fair, most of the lines with captain were lifted directly from the book.. The only difference is where it is was placed.Sure the movie loses a bit of it's moral ambiguity but it does a better job getting the anti-superhero themes across. Hell, when the movie came out in the theaters, most people I talked to, thought the moral of the story was that Veidt was right, and Dr. Manhattan made a "noble' sacrifice for the greater good. Even with the new TBF before the destruction of NY, it's still pretty morally ambiguous. If you were a first time viewer, after the TBF and NY scene, Veidt's actions are shone in a positive light all the way through-out the movie until the last shot of Rorschach journal, which might cast a little bit of doubt on Veidt, but then again if you were a first time viewer you wouldn't even think of that.



Well they were only meant to help segue in and out TBF. In the movie, the Bernies with TBF wouldn't have made any sense, since most of the scenes revolved around TBF.

Which is a HUGE difference. In the book, it's not clear that TBF is about Veidt at that point. It's a connection you might make after reflection, or maybe not even until second reading. The movie makes this very simple and makes the connection for you by placing the scene just before New York is destroyed.

But I never think that "well, that's how it was in the book" is a legitimate excuse for any flaw in an adaptation. It is what it is. A flaw is a flaw. A problem is a problem. Adaptations, in my opinion, should be judged as stand-alone pieces first. That's what I am trying to do here.

_________________
"Computer unnecessary."

Weren't you complaining before how viewers of the movie wouldn't get the black freighter scenes like they would in the book?

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

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

What do you mean "get the BF scenes"?

_________________
"Computer unnecessary."

By "get" I meant understand their relevance. I think this was the quote I was thinking of.


You meant the individual scenes but the point is still clear in the movie. Which um kind of brings my point around and crash landing into itself uhhh

Well I think it needs to be made clear in a movie. As you said, they can't look back as easily...ummm

You know what I don't even know what I'm saying anymore.

I'll return with a more elegant argument later.

EDIT: By elegant, I meant to type eloquent. The only reason I put this edit here instead of just changing it is because it's so very very ironic.

_________________
"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 was refering to all the TBF segments when I said the relevence wasn't clear. For example, the shark attack occurs after Dan's nightmare in the UC. What is the significance is that? Is there any reason that scene was put there, instead of somewhere else?

In my review, I said I appreciated that in the UC, it was pretty clear that the ending of TBF was talking about Veidt. I may need to retract that statement. Well, not retract. But, take some of it back. I like that it was clear, but I might have been TOO clear. It might have lacked subtlety

It seems like the filmmakers just can't win with TBF. I have many complaints, but few suggestions. I can't think of a way to make intercutting TBF work. The very idea of it is inherently uncinematic.

_________________
"Computer unnecessary."

Nope. But you need the whole thing if it's going to make sense or have an impact.


That's one of the reasons it's so cool and I think it works none the less. I'll repost my earlier long argument here since it's relevant again.



I rest my case.

(Not really)

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

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

There are other connections to TBF besides the Veidt allegory. Many of them ironic. One example:

Turn to page 17 of Chapter 5. Read the TBF dialogue boxes, and compare it to Bernie's comments. They're an ironic connection there. When did that happen in the movie? Only once or twice.

In the book, it's clear that the TBF story is commenting on the "real story." What exactly it is saying about the real story is not always clear. But it's clear it's saying something about it. I didn't get that feeling at all in the UC, except at the very beginning and the very end.

The main reason for this, I mentioned in my review. For some reason, in a movie, you can't justify cutting away to TBF for less than a couple minutes. In the book, it often cuts away for just one panel and then cuts back. Sometimes, they don't even take up a whole panel. Just a dialogue box. In this way, TBF becomes seamlessly integrated into the narrative. Unlike the UC, where you are completely pulled out of the other story and into a separate one.

_________________
"Computer unnecessary."

actually the shark attack was a reflection of a few things. i may end up explaining this horribly, so bear with me.

the shark is symbolic of Rorschach, the captain is Veidt, so shark attack -> rorschach's mask-killer theory somehow (i think that's what it said in another thread). the relevance of having it after dan's dream? well, dan's dream -> fear of possible mask-killer/nuclear doomsday/not getting to fuck laurie before he dies. does it make sense yet?

_________________

Umm I don't know if you're arguing for or against the Ultimate Cut with this comment so...not much.

You're arguing....for several meanings and thus it working in the movie right....?

In any case, the shark/Rorschach thing could still work in the movie even though it's in a different spot. I understand that there's no "raw shark" line but that's what I referred to earlier as just "cutesy" not serious stuff.

*Reads Watchmen*

Me: Oh I get it! Because it sounds like Rorschach!

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

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

^ *Shrug* I suppose it could relate to that. The connection doesn't seem very powerful, but since I can't think of a counter-argument at this time, I'll concede the point. It does have some possible relevance. But TBF still is not seamlessly integrated into the story. I like how Curi called them commercial breaks. They are completely separate from the main narrative. Unlike the book, we're they're woven into the very fabric of the story.

This is why I think it's absurd to say that if you don't like the UC, that means you won't like the book. The UC comes nowhere close to capuring what makes the TBF segments so amazingly well executed.

I also disagree that the UC is somehow the closest to the book. I think the DC captures the spirit of the book more than the UC. Mainly because the UC is a complete mess. Poor story-telling. The book is complex story-telling at its finest. The DC pales in comparison to the book too of course, but it still stands alone as a well-told story.

_________________
"Computer unnecessary."

We're never going to agree on this but I do think it's closest to the book and although it's not seamlessly integrated into the story (because there is no way that it really could be) I think it works really well. Even as a stand alone 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."