Watchmen, confusing?

[Fencer X and Y]

I am a huge Watchmen fan. I saw the movie (and liked it) but I think that in trying to keep too much to the book yet still keeping it a reasonable length, Zack Snyder made it too hard to follow for anyone who didn't read it. So here's my question (for people who did not read the book first, and who generally had no idea what the movie was before going in to see it):
Did you understand everything that was going on or was the plot/characters/themes confusing?

[JackOfHearts]

I read the book beforehand, and I was able to follow along rather well. My aunt, who saw it with me, was able to follow along, but was rather... surprised at some parts. Plot-wise, she thought Veidt could've used more development. That's pretty much her only real "complaint".

[Fencer X and Y]

If you read the book I think that the movie was very easy to follow (seeing how closely it follows the book) I just felt that they had to cut out a lot of stuff that was vital. Veidt is definetely one example but character development for pretty much anyone was not done very well, Especially if you compare with how well the book does such a great job of illuminating each hero's story, motive and history in general.

[Rabid Monk]

I have never read the book.

I spent most of the movie wondering what the hell was going on.

I figured out the plot, but some of the details/sub-plots/sequences seemed, to me, to be completely random.

And what was the deal with the blue cat? It does nothing. My friends, who have read the book, were wondering the same thing. Did they just get near the end and have FX money left over?


Edit: And Dr. Manhattan: Get some pants. Seriously.

[JackOfHearts]

Considering what was trying to be accomplished, I felt character development for most of the cast was alright. Veidt and Dan's history weren't covered as in depth as most of the other characters, and for Dan, that works better than it does for Veidt, considering the role of the latter in the movie. Dan, as a character, is developed throughout the story, whereas Veidt is just "There". You don't really get a sense of who he is or why he's important until the end.

[Fencer X and Y]

The "Blue Cat" is explained much more in the book. Just like Veidt's palace in the Antarctic. And many other points. RM based on your answer, can I assume then that you did not like the movie?

I actually thought that Dan's character in the movie was overdeveloped compared with the book. But I completely agree with you about Veidt. He does sort of come out of nowhere in the movie. Waht I didn't like the most was how little they showed of Rorshach. Everyone I know (including myself) that have read the book think that he is the best character in that whole book. But in the movie they butcher him. I hated hte way that they cut his interviews with the psychiatrist. IMO that's the best chapter of the whole book and they spend maybe 5 minutes on it.

[JackOfHearts]

Highlight the next part to read as it contains spoilers. Just a warning. I'm assuming you don't care. Good, I'll continue.

The blue cat isn't important in the movie at all, since they chose to vilify Dr. Manhattan rather then use the Giant Squid or Octopus, which in the book was genetically engineered to pose as an alien. The psychic energy released by the death of the creature was what caused the devastation, well, that and the explosion as a result of the teleportation process, which was explained in the book. The cat is the result of the genetic engineering experiments, a kind of test subject done to prove the theory before making a giant monstrosity to wipe out New York. So while it does serve some purpose in the book, it is completely superfluous in the movie.

[samh]

Best part of the movie: Laurie's line, "Jon would say that things never end" about two hours and forty minutes into it - half the theater broke into weary laughter at that one.

Overall it was pretty faithful to the comic but that didn't make it a good movie. One of my favourite things about the comic is just how much is going on... Moore alludes to politics, culture, and narrative stereotypes often and then goes and does crazy things with the expectations that he's created in his audience. He explained in an interview how reading a comic differed from a film because with a comic you could go back and look at previous frames whereas in a film you're going along at a constant 24 fps rate. Because of this, some of the details were lost in the translation.

[Rabid Monk]

The "Blue Cat" is explained much more in the book. Just like Veidt's palace in the Antarctic. And many other points. RM based on your answer, can I assume then that you did not like the movie?

Suffice to say it isn't my favorite movie. I don't think it was worth the $10 ticket price. I don't think it'd be worth the $3 to see it at the cheap seats*, either.


It's just too muddled. Like Memento or Crank.


On the other hand, I didn't flat-out hate it, as I did with Phantom Menace and Battlefield Earth (which is a half-decent space opera as a novel, once you get past the "psychiatrists are evil" nonsense).

[mrbiggs]

I had some problems with the movie, most notably the changes they made at the end, which I thought were unnecessary. It's weird that they took out the most important parts of the conclusion after being faithful to the book on a frame-by-frame basis earlier.

But I'm pretty frustrated with the complaints that it was too confusing. It's not a simple plot. When I finished the comic I didn't understand 100% of it, and I'm sure I still don't after reading the book twice and seeing the movie once.

That's why movies suck nowadays. Because people want to understand everything about a movie the first time through.

Enjoy Fast and Furious.

[foibles]

I enjoyed it well enough. I believe I followed the plot correctly. I have not read the books. I did have to answer a couple plot questions for my sweetie walking out of the theatre though.

The Hallelujah song during the lovemaking scene was laughable. I thought the night hawk costume a bit silly. The gravelly voice of Roarchak was far less annoying than the gravelly, stuffy-nosed voice of the recent Batman.

I thought it interesting that, in a way, the movie basically justified Hiroshima.

[migopod]

I went to see it over the week end after having read the wikipedia entry for the comic series and having seen a few trailers. I thought it was a pretty fun movie, although not mind-blowing in any particular respect.

Since seeing it I've started reading the comic, and actually think I'm getting more out of the comic because of the having seen the movie. Maybe not, but prior attempts to read the comic have been met with getting bored and abandoning it for non-graphic novels.

Also, "human bean juice".

[Nolano]

I saw the trailers and I had no idea wtf it was talking about or why people seemed excited.

I'm apparently the only person who'd never heard of The Watchmen.

[Insipiens]

Suffice to say it isn't my favorite movie. I don't think it was worth the $10 ticket price. I don't think it'd be worth the $3 to see it at the cheap seats*, either.


It's just too muddled. Like Memento or Crank.


On the other hand, I didn't flat-out hate it, as I did with Phantom Menace and Battlefield Earth (which is a half-decent space opera as a novel, once you get past the "psychiatrists are evil" nonsense).

I really enjoyed Memento and didn't think it was at all muddled; I haven't seen Watchmen yet but I often think people who complain about a plot being too complicated seem to want something that is just really basic.

[Gav]

It's just too muddled. Like Memento or Crank.

Hm. Memento muddled? Didin't seem that way to me and a comparison that includes dross like Crank is a little odd. If anything Memento was incredibly well plotted.

[Fencer X and Y]

I really enjoyed Memento and didn't think it was at all muddled; I haven't seen Watchmen yet but I often think people who complain about a plot being too complicated seem to want something that is just really basic.

I want to clear something up. I completely agree that movies that make a moviegoer think are amazing and there are not nearly enough of them being made. I loved Mememento and watched it three times just to see how well the movie's plot works. I also love M. Night Shyamalan (well not "The Happening" btu that's a whole different post) becuase I think he's an inventive storyteller who's not afraid to make movies that aren't formulaic derivatives of one another. My question about the Watchmen isn't "is it's plot confusing?" but is it even possible to understand the movie on it's own. Bubastis (the "blue cat") is the perfect example. Obviously I knew exactly what that was and I think I know why Mr. Snyder decided to include it in the movie (see JOH's spoiler above for more) but for anyone who knew nothing about the book there is no way that they would understand what that thing is and where did it come from. There is no introduction to it no explanation what it is and none of the characters comment on it or are surprised by it. (In the book everyone knows about the cat therefore no one is surpirsed by it in the final scenes) To me that's not just a complicated plot that's just a movie not making sense. So what I was, and am, asking is, for those that haven't read the book, can this movie stand on it's own or are all the parts that were cut out just too much and you have to read the book in order to enjoy the movie. That is all. Thank you.

[Rabid Monk]

I really enjoyed Memento and didn't think it was at all muddled; I haven't seen Watchmen yet but I often think people who complain about a plot being too complicated seem to want something that is just really basic.

It's not that the plot of Watchmen was too complicated.
Rather, so much of it had no explanation. At least, not in the movie.

The thing on Mars was never explained, the cat was never explained, the Pharaoh obsession was never explained, character histories were either unexplained of occurred in seemingly random spurts, and so on.

I've no doubt that this is all clear from the novel. But as a stand-alone movie, it's muddled nonsense.

And I must be the only one who found Memento muddled. Yes, I understand why the movie was backwards. But it was still a mess.

[Gav]

I don't know why they kept the cat in. I found that puzzling at the time. Presumably some plot element was excised in the editing process. This happens a lot in heavily edited films.

I have read the comic so I suppose I have a head start, however the points you complain about are not that better explained in the comic (though I would have to read it again to be sure). Ozimandias pretty much states his motivation (pharoah obsession) in one line at one point.

I am pretty sympathetic to people who don't get the movie (or the comic). It's certainly not the simple superhero fair that is normally served up. To me it's more of a movie about superheroes. The central premise is fairly simple "what would happen if we had superheroes in real life and what would they be like?" All of the characters are ciphers for other [famous comic] characters.

What annoyed me was the slavish following of the book at the start which seemed to be chucked out of the window in the last quarter. Why start out that way then change your mind? It seems to be a pretty schizophrenic way to adapt a book.

And I must be the only one who found Memento muddled. Yes, I understand why the movie was backwards. But it was still a mess.

Hm. It's considered a modern film classic these days and is much discussed. Lots of people will have to agree to disagree with you on this point.

[Insipiens]

I might actually go and see it next week. As I haven't read the book I will not be prejudiced by that.

[trickery dickery dock]

The movie was much more entertaining than others I've seen recently, although I could have done without the little blue penis.