[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Moderator 

Bad acting all around during dialogue scenes.

Honestly, I think it was the dialogue. Sometimes stuff that works in print just doesn't transition well to audio.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Moderator 

A few major problems took me out of it:

1. Ozymandias. Terrible casting. Terrible acting. He had this evil nemesis thing going right from the start and that is not how he was portrayed in the book. Plus he was very feminine. Nothing like the book. Just bad all around.

2. Manhattan's voice: Again...too feminine. This is subjective but it took me right out of it. This big strapping guy talking like a 13 year old.

++ on both accounts.

Also, don't have a terribly bad opinion of the blue schlong per se, but I did notice that this movie has set my personal, non-pornographic record for most number of times a guy's ass has appeared onscreen.

greg

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

++ on both accounts.

Also, don't have a terribly bad opinion of the blue schlong per se, but I did notice that this movie has set my personal, non-pornographic record for most number of times a guy's ass has appeared onscreen.

greg

About the blue schlong, we heard a girl in the row in front of us say, "that's impressive". We all got a good chuckle from that.

[ajprice]

Just seen this. I'd never heard of the watchmen before the hype for this film, nevermind read anything, so I was coming into it pretty much fresh.

Good things.
Rorsach was the best character in it by a long shot, he was really well done and lifted the film whenever he was in it.

Bad things
The bits without Rorsach. Nixon's prosthetics were so bad it was funny.

Overall it was long, talky and good but not great. I'd agree with the Rorsach/Joker comparison, but if you gave me a choice between watching this or Dark Knight, Dark Knight would win.

[mdc]

Watched it last night and loved it. I really enjoyed it and think that they did a very good job of getting the graphic novel into a movie.

Rorschach's scenes in the movie were my favourite. I think that he did a great job as him.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Moderator 

I enjoyed it tremendously (read the book).

A few major problems took me out of it:

1. Ozymandias. Terrible casting. Terrible acting. He had this evil nemesis thing going right from the start and that is not how he was portrayed in the book. Plus he was very feminine. Nothing like the book. Just bad all around.

2. Manhattan's voice: Again...too feminine. This is subjective but it took me right out of it. This big strapping guy talking like a 13 year old.

3. Manhattan's shlong: Just too much. Way more in your face than the book. Couldn't they have added a little haze or some glow to conceal it a little?

4. Bad acting all around during dialogue scenes.

5. Nixon - WTF? Are they joking with that. The guy has so much makeup he cant move his lips.


I'll see it again though. Overall I thought it was very very good. Action scenes just rocked. Unreal.

Saw it last night, and I disagree with everything except 5. I thought Ozymandias was PERFECTLY cast, and it was exactly how I had thought about him in the book. I'm not really sure how you could consider Crudup's voice feminine, either.

I went in hearing about bad acting, especially from Malin Akerman. But I was pleasantly surprised at how everyone in the cast did.

As for the blue penis - I don't get the problem. It wasn't in your face at all - it's not like they ever did an extreme closeup or anything like that. It's just a naked human being (well, sort of). Get over it.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Saw it last night, and I disagree with everything except 5. I thought Ozymandias was PERFECTLY cast, and it was exactly how I had thought about him in the book. I'm not really sure how you could consider Crudup's voice feminine, either.

I went in hearing about bad acting, especially from Malin Akerman. But I was pleasantly surprised at how everyone in the cast did.

As for the blue penis - I don't get the problem. It wasn't in your face at all - it's not like they ever did an extreme closeup or anything like that. It's just a naked human being (well, sort of). Get over it.

Agreed. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought Malin Akerman was fine (even good). Rorschach, Nite Owl, and the Comedian were all perfectly cast. As far as the blue penis goes, I guess I shouldn't be surprised so many people are harping on it. It's just a little penis -- it wasn't even erect!

[Chuckit]

It was a large, wiggling, glowing blue willie. It could only have been more noticeable if it jumped off his body and started doing a song-and-dance number. It's like an ill-advised male variant of Gainaxing. The thing was just distracting. Everybody I know who saw the movie, both male and female, made some sort of comment about it (one guy who saw the movie before me characterized the movie as a "glowing blue penis party," and I'd figured he was exaggerating). It was just that attention-grabbing for whatever reason, and it really shouldn't have been. It also wasn't in the comic.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It was a large, wiggling, glowing blue willie. It could only have been more noticeable if it jumped off his body and started doing a song-and-dance number. It's like an ill-advised male variant of Gainaxing. The thing was just distracting. Everybody I know who saw the movie, both male and female, made some sort of comment about it (one guy who saw the movie before me characterized the movie as a "glowing blue penis party," and I'd figured he was exaggerating). It was just that attention-grabbing for whatever reason, and it really shouldn't have been. It also wasn't in the comic.

Problem is, it wasn't wiggling. At all. And his entire body was glowing blue. It was simply there, and I just don't see the big deal.

I've loaned my copy of the book out, but if it really wasn't in the comic (I don't remember, it's been 2+ years since I read it last) then I really don't understand why Snyder decided to add it. But I still think people are making too big a deal out of it...

[mdc]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

. . .It also wasn't in the comic.

It is in the comic. I paged through a few pages now and took the following photo of one of the occurrences.

 

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It was a large, wiggling, glowing blue willie.

It certainly wasn't wiggling and I wouldn't call it large, either. It was definitely in the book; although it was even smaller there, it made more of an impression on me because I was a kid when I first read it. It stands out in the movie at first because you're not used to seeing male nudity in a film, but then it quickly fades to the background IMO.

[brassplayersrock²]

it was wiggling, swaying even, when he walked. and to quote a girl in the row in front of me "that's impressive"

[Jawbone54]

Beat me to it. I swear, no pun intended.

Manhattan's thing is in the graphic novel several times, although it's usually much further away than the above shot. I haven't seen the movie, and likely won't, but there is definitely a healthy amount of Manhattan nudity in the book.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

it was wiggling, swaying even, when he walked.

That's called physics.

and to quote a girl in the row in front of me "that's impressive"

I saw that, but I just figured you meant a young girl. I always thought "impressive" was reserved for 10+ inches...

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

it was wiggling, swaying even, when he walked. and to quote a girl in the row in front of me "that's impressive"

I never saw that. Guess I wasn't watching the penis as intently as you were.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

it was wiggling, swaying even, when he walked. and to quote a girl in the row in front of me "that's impressive"

You stole my line mother****er!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lavar78 

It certainly wasn't wiggling and I wouldn't call it large, either. It was definitely in the book; although it was even smaller there, it made more of an impression on me because I was a kid when I first read it. It stands out in the movie at first because you're not used to seeing male nudity in a film, but then it quickly fades to the background IMO.

For you and maybe two other people who watched the movie, I guess that's the case. For everyone else I've talked to, not so much the case.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

For you and maybe two other people who watched the movie, I guess that's the case. For everyone else I've talked to, not so much the case.

Judging by the responses on Twitter, the responses are nowhere near as skewed as your experience would suggest.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

It was... a blue dude without clothes. Get over it.

greg

[Big Mac]

Yeah, really. No big deal at all. It was really only prominent in a few scenes, and I saw the IMAX version. Anyone who has spent an amount of time on the web should easily be desensitized to that level of male nudity. Porn stars put Dr. Manhattan to shame in that department. I think most of us men do. So who cares?

[lpkmckenna]

I've seen it twice. I think it's great. All the actors were well chosen. There are whiners complaining about Akcerman and Goode, but they were fine. Most of the changes were for the better, including cutting the squid. But...

The movie is unnecessarily bloody. They could have cut the blood and made the movie PG-13. They lost money for nothing, I think.

They made Laurie too nice. She's much more assertive and sarcastic in the comic. Most of her confrontations, like with Rorschach and Comedian, were cut. And the great scene in the Archie, were she suggests more sex and he suggests springing Rorschach, then one-panel pause, then "WHAT!" was sorely missed by me. Funniest scene in the comic.

They also cut too many great lines. "We're all puppets, I can just see the strings" "Nothing ever ends, Adrian." "I did it!" "Did the costumes make it good?" "So impotent." These lines were important for characterization, and were sadly missing.

I think the scene with Veidt and the car makers was silly. Moreover, Veidt isn't supposed to be a successful industrialist; he's a self-promoting whore, selling toys and diet books and motivational guides.

They should have fully cut the shrink and Nite Owl 1. I don't think the child killer story was handled right anyway, and the movie would have been tighter without it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The movie is unnecessarily bloody. They could have cut the blood and made the movie PG-13. They lost money for nothing, I think.

The awful sex scene and glowing man-bits would still be there.

[Shaddim]

It upset me that they cut out a lot of the smoking, which added a touch of noir.

[- - e r i k - -]

Loved the movie and haven't read the novel. Surprised at the amount of focus there is on the male nudity here and elsewhere. Are you really that insecure?

I'm planning on picking up the Ultimate Watchmen now, damn A$120 though. At least it's only one volume as opposed to Ultimate Sandman (of which I only have vol 1 so far).

Great story.

My only beef comes from the source material itself. Naming the hero-turned-main-villain Ozymandias seriously ruined that whole "twist". He might have called himself "Hitler", "Satan", or even "Judas" instead.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Loved the movie and haven't read the novel. Surprised at the amount of focus there is on the male nudity here and elsewhere. Are you really that insecure?

In insecurity the only place you can imagine a person might get a sense of aesthetics that does not look favorably on glowing blue wangs? I don't even see how that has to do with being secure at all.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

In insecurity the only place you can imagine a person might get a sense of aesthetics that does not look favorably on glowing blue wangs? I don't even see how that has to do with being secure at all.

Because it's just a piece of skin that's part of 50% of the human race? Really.

This intense focus on it makes me think of kindergarten kids giggling over "naughty" words. It's an exaggerated reaction to something completely natural.

It wasn't gratuitous, erotic or shocking. It was simply part of the character.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Because it's just a piece of skin that's part of 50% of the human race? Really.

And poo is a natural body function for 100% of the human race, but I don't see anybody going, "Oh, you juvenile people who think 2 Girls 1 Cup is gross need to stop being so insecure." The fact that a lot of people were distracted by Dr. Manhattan's Little Boy seems to indicate that it was indeed outside of our cultural norms. Nothing to do with insecurity — it's just not something we're conditioned to ignore.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

It wasn't gratuitous, erotic or shocking. It was simply part of the character.

Sure, a part of the character that was barely in the comics but all over the movie. I'm sure it was totally necessary.

I almost changed that "barely" to "hardly," but that really doesn't help the unfortunate punnage, does it?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The fact that a lot of people were distracted by Dr. Manhattan's Little Boy seems to indicate that it was indeed outside of our cultural norms. Nothing to do with insecurity — it's just not something we're conditioned to ignore.

Fortunately your cultural "norm" isn't shared with most of the world.

 

You'll get there some day

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

In insecurity the only place you can imagine a person might get a sense of aesthetics that does not look favorably on glowing blue wangs? I don't even see how that has to do with being secure at all.

It doesn't have anything to do with insecurity. Just the blatant prudishness of Americans. They won't complain about graphic violence but a few glimpses of a flaccid penis and they're up in arms.

[Shaddim]

What the hell? I can't comprehend how a blue penis (or wee-wee for the faint of heart) has some people up-in-arms. Do you guys freak out at the gym? Blush at the doctor's office?

I'll admit that I have very little innocence left, probably none at all, but to believe that there's something "dirty" about the human body is just absurd.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

What the hell? I can't comprehend how a blue penis (or wee-wee for the faint of heart) has some people up-in-arms. Do you guys freak out at the gym? Blush at the doctor's office?

I'll admit that I have very little innocence left, probably none at all, but to believe that there's something "dirty" about the human body is just absurd.

I don't think it's dirty. Dr. Manhattan looked pretty clean — heck, he was glowing. The problem is more that it's distracting. It's a bit like if they'd had Richard Simmons sweating to the oldies right behind the characters in every other scene.

[Big Mac]

That's surprising, Chuckit. It's a feature of the source material. And it wasn't distracting to me at all, mostly because it didn't even look remotely real. I'm no fan of male nudity in the media, trust me, but Manhattan's member was of no issue. If anything, Nite Owl's ass was more annoying.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Manhattan's member was of no issue. If anything, Nite Owl's ass was more annoying.

I smell a Salty style future outing.

[Big Mac]

I find it difficult to believe that I'm among the most tolerant participants in this thread.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I find it difficult to believe that I'm among the most tolerant participants in this thread.

Me too. *high five*

[lpkmckenna]

I barely noticed the blue dong. It didn't leap out of the screen or anything. And the lousy sex scene wasn't particularly shocking. I'd take a teenager to see this film, if it wasn't for the pointless gore.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It upset me that they cut out a lot of the smoking, which added a touch of noir.

I'm neutral on this. I thought the cigarette "bulbs" in the comic were gimmicky, and didn't care whether they carried into the film or not.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I barely noticed the blue dong. It didn't leap out of the screen or anything. And the lousy sex scene wasn't particularly shocking. I'd take a teenager to see this film, if it wasn't for the pointless gore.

I didn't think the sex scene was shocking — more lame. It wasn't so much "I can't believe I just saw that!" as it was "I can't believe I had to sit through all that."

[olePigeon]

I just find it funny that the movie got an R rating while Orgasmo got an NC-17 rating.

I hate the MPAA rating people. Everyone should watch the Bullsh*t episode on the organization, it's great. Bunch of crooks.

[Big Mac]

Orgasmo, an hilarious film, got an NC-17 because it had a lot of pornographic material in it. Not too shocking.

I really don't think Watchmen was that violent, truthfully, and the sex scene was tame. Are you arguing it should have been NC-17, olePigeon?

Contrast Watchmen with a film like Natural Born Killers - that's a far, far more disturbingly violent movie. I'd say Watchmen is tame by comparison.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Orgasmo, an hilarious film, got an NC-17 because it had a lot of pornographic material in it. Not too shocking.

Pornographic material? The extent of any pornographic material was the giant dildo on top of Dian Bachar's head (which, for some reason, is extremely funny.) That was about it. There wasn't even nudity in the film. It took place in the pornographic industry, but there was nothing pornographic about it. You can't argue an NC-17 film rating for Orgazmo when Boogie Nights got an R rating.

To see the ridiculousness of the MPAA rating group, just look at South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut. Trey Parker and Matt Stone are my heroes. They made complete asses out of the MPAA.

There's a movie I have to rent now which I somehow missed called "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." Apparently they really expose the MPAA ratings group.

[Pendergast]

LOoooooooooooved Watchmen.

Humanity in Superhero bodies. Awesome!