Poll: Did you think Watchmen was good

[PedroSteckecilo]

Yes and no...

Yes the characters were all well cast with the exception of Silk Spectre,
Yes it was an accurate transfer of the comic book to the film medium
No it was not a good movie in its own right. It felt sloppy, sensationalist and lacked a lot of the deep character depth that came from the original graphic novel.
As well it gained NOTHING from the transfer to film, the only original moment in the entire film were the phenomenal opening credits.

This is nobody's FAULT really, you can't deeply explore the mythology of a super hero universe in 2 to 3 hours, in the case of Watchmen, there is just too much.

 

[ShotgunSmoke]

Adored the movie, adored the book.
Definitely one of the best movies of the 21st century (yet). It was amazing. Kinda hard to describe it, you just have to see it yourself.

 

[Goldeneye103X2]

Good adaption, although the whole meat clever scene was kinda unneccasary. I realise some edits had to be made, but why bother giving after taking so much?

 

[cleverlymadeup]

simply put where was the joke? the joker is all about pulling a joke, not just randomly killing people. so he totally missed it and even from The Killing Joke, he missed it

and from what you're saying you also don't under the Joker and who and what he is and what he represents

I think you missed the point of Heath Ledgers Joker. The joke was sanity. He found Sanity hilarious and that was the joke. Prehaps not as flambouyant as previous incarnations of the joker. But every joker has their own joke. Killing Joke/ Heath Ledgers Joker = Sanity. Jack Nicholsons = Beauty. The Very first joker = Order.

So just because something puts forward an Idea that isnt your own dosnt automatically mean its wrong.

sorry you're trying too hard to find meaning and failing pretty bad. you're trying too hard to grab meaning from it and to justify how they actually missed the point of the Joker

the thing is with the Joker EVERYTHING he does is for a laugh and cause he finds it funny. you should seriously read some Joker stories and how he acts and what he does

 

[Fat Hippo]

I never read the book, but thought the movie, while not horrible, is often overrated. It can be stylish at times, painfully slow at others and just plain over the top sometimes. Overall, I just felt it didn't flow, a complaint I also had with the Dark Knight. Both have terrible pacing.

 

[comadorcrack]

sorry you're trying too hard to find meaning and failing pretty bad. you're trying too hard to grab meaning from it and to justify how they actually missed the point of the Joker

the thing is with the Joker EVERYTHING he does is for a laugh and cause he finds it funny. you should seriously read some Joker stories and how he acts and what he does

First things first, not sure why you decided to assume I've not read any joker stories. Infact I've read quite a lot. Just thought you'd like to know that.
While I agree that the joker does everything for a laugh, my point was that certain adaptations of the Joker have the Joker focusing on a certain "joke".
Also, if you wouldn't mind rephrasing that first paragraph because it made no sense what so ever...

 

[PersianLlama]

The book is one of my favorites, but I haven't seen the movie.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

Disliked the film, enjoyed the book. Snyder missed the point of making an adaptation when he had a scene for scene recreation of the comic book. You have to tweak and adjust things for a movie, not just slap it on screen as if Moore was writing storyboard. Otherwise, what's the point?

EXACTLY. I'm glad I'm not alone in that thought that it was just a mishmash of scenes that didn't really mesh together. The blatant apology-like fanservice at times didn't help either, like the news vendor and the kid and other things.

Yes and no...

Yes the characters were all well cast with the exception of Silk Spectre,
Yes it was an accurate transfer of the comic book to the film medium
No it was not a good movie in its own right. It felt sloppy, sensationalist and lacked a lot of the deep character depth that came from the original graphic novel.
As well it gained NOTHING from the transfer to film, the only original moment in the entire film were the phenomenal opening credits.

This is nobody's FAULT really, you can't deeply explore the mythology of a super hero universe in 2 to 3 hours, in the case of Watchmen, there is just too much.

I was nitpicking to be honest during the film, but things like 'someone's picking off costumed heroes' sounded a bit silly. In the book they never referred to themselves as heroes, and Rorshach only called them masks in the Graphic Novel.

And as for it not being possible for mythology of a superhero universe to be explored in 2 to 3 hours, everyone who read it knew this, and I'm sure they knew this when it was in the ideas pile, yet they still attempted it. It was called 'unfilmable' for a reason, and I still think it is.

Oh and here's something funny. Walking out of the cinema with my friends, another viewer said 'man, that film was kinda crap! It had some good things in it but it was confusing! Oh well, Watchmen 2 should be better'

You poor soul...

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I enjoyed the both. The book was better, as the panel for panel adaptation of the movie made the process seem confused and disjointed.

 

[Ken_J]

I loved the movie. Can't wait until it comes out of DVD. Haven't read the book, but I know a guy who might let me borrow it. From very little I actually did read of the book, the movie is a hell of a lot alike it. Even the angles of the camera are identicle from the book. And Rorschach is the greatest character EVER!

I can't wait for the DVD either, anyone know when it's coming out.