Ending aside, was the Watchmen movie a good adaptation?
Absolutely not.
Very. It made The Dark Night look like a children's film.
Steve jobs
Why?
It was a dishonest adaptation that insisted upon itself, which is an apropos way of describing Zack Snyder's entire filmography
Well It was the last genuinely good movie Zack Snyder ever made so I take it as you will
We could not have had better.
We got the among the least bad possibilities
it was a bad adaptation the second you saw this guy on screen. Ozys not supposed to come off as some insane nazi caricature but, zack being zack, needed him to look like a nazi because hes like a unearthly combo of a dudebro and an art student.
the movies good due to the material hea adapting, what he brings to the table is maudlin or trite.
No, the ending was only part of the issue, or maybe more of a symptom.
The real issue was Snyder being taken in by the seemingly grimy, grim dark atmosphere without understanding what the comic was about at all. Frankly, while the ending was annoying it was at least understandable. What really irked me was the addition of action and slo-mo for seemingly no reason. The fight in the prison was born out of like a single panel in the comic where Nite Owl and Specter sucker punch two drunk guys.
the only thing it did right was copy and past some visuals
having the slow-fast fighting making the fights "cool" and borderline superhuman misses the mark as an adaptation
in a vacuum, it's a decent movie that got me into the graphic novel and I'm sure more people have read it because of the movie so that's something to say for it
as an adaptation, it missed the point and doesn't critique super heroes as a concept at all
I wonder if Snyder's occipital lobe is relatively big or active compared to the rest of his brain, because he's got an eye for visuals but little else
>it missed the point and doesn't critique super heroes as a concept at all
So it's just like the fans of the graphic novel?
No, because it tried deconstructing 'Modern' superhero movies without understanding the basis the superhero movies were based on. It would be like if Watchmen only satirized Adam West Batman by juxtaposing that goofiness with over the top violence, but kept in the POW ZAM BIFF sound effects. It was too on the nose, too lacking in subtlty, and for a regular movie that might be fine but Watchmen was a book so carefully written there are background images to explain God Himself was as blind to the big picture as a random ass painter in an airport.
Ozymandis was also terribly cast, but that's a minor issue to the greater problem that he just didn't understand what he was trying to tear down.
Not even a little bit.
Are fans supposed to critique superheroes as a concept just because they read a book with vague themes that ultimately are less important than the overarching narrative of interesting characters trying to make sense of a situation they cannot understand until it's too late? Even if they do find the idea of a godlike being akin to Superman finding the goings on of the world boring until he uncovers the deeper meaning in the creation of something new and wholly improbable to be a nice jab at the boyscout they read, how easily lead would you have to be in order to declare this means you must critique the concept of every book you read, rather than taking them for their own creation and world and judging them based off those merits?
Who's Steve Jobs?
How does he look like a Nazi to you?
Don't you know? All white men are Nazis now.
blonde hair
watery blue eyes
weak jawline
Ligma balls
By trying to set Rorshach up as some ridiculous caricature to have him blasted apart by "blue", the film became self-parody that actually supports his point of view.
The film was full of other commie horseshit too.
Good movie. I don’t care what anyone says.
Not really. It was faithful in the sense that a lot of it is a panel for panel adaptation but it did a poor job of conveying its characters and black comedy. Ozymandias and Rorschach especially suffered.
I've seen weaker jawlines
Yes. Ligma.
The movie tried to make the characters seem cool but the comic intentionally made them washed up and pathetic
>slo-mo
Honestly the fight with Ozymandias is some of the cheesiest shit ever. It felt like when early 2000s hack directors saw Matrix and thought "huh, I can do it too".
comic ozy was a handsome rugged man who you didnt expect to be the main villian of the story. movie ozy looks like an evil david bowie.
of course since he's going to kill 6 million new yorkers, he gets an off accent and his actor plays him distant and cold to hammer in "aryan villian here!" cliche. but, to be fair, everyone except Nite-owl was kinda shit, and I blame the director more then the actors.
>everyone except Nite-owl was kinda shit,
Bullshit, Rorschach was pitch perfect to the comic. Jackie Earl Hayley absolutely knocked that performance out of the park.
He absolutely was not. Snyder was more concerned with making him a cool action man rather than a psychologically fucked-up hobo who happens to be a pretty good detective
>The film was full of other commie horseshit too.
>an adaptation of an Alan Moore comic has commie horseshit
Sounds faithful then.
It was mostly bad
however the Dr M origin sequence was fucking perfect with the Koyaanisqatsi score.
Also Billy Crudup was a perfect casting.
I haven't seen the film, what is different about the ending?
Some scenes were 10/10, but the movie as a whole was uneven and bad. Just like all Zack Snyder movies.
Manhattan nukes instead of squid
also the aftermath is WAY less graphic
ahh. Well that kinda ruins the whole point of Ozzy's plan doesn't it? To have the world united against an external threat? Do the Americans just assume it was the Ruskies and the whole world goes to pot?