Watchmen - Director's Cut

Watchmen is without a doubt a movie that was "by the fans, for the fans" type of ordeal. I'm a huge fan of the graphic novel, so needless to say I was eager for the director's cut.

With an added 25 minutes, I have to say that I was blown away by the new footage, which really helped the movie flow better.

If you liked liked the theatrical release, prepare to be blown away by the death of Hollis Mason scene with it's "Raging Bull" vibe, and Patrick Wilson's performance when he finds out about Hollis' death. I was stunned at how violent that scene turned out to be(and believe me, that's saying quite a bit since the movie is quite grisly in general.

As always, it would be disrespectful to deny Jackie Earl Haley's performance of Rorschach. Even Alan Moore, who strongly boycotts any of his adaptations, would be blown away by him.

Haley's performance was one for the history books, like Heath with The Joker.

You guys should definately check out Little Children if you like JEH, granted some scenes are disturning as hell but he does a great job.

The Hollis Mason scene was awesome. I really liked how they made him put up an actual fight.

However, the acting by pretty much all the Knot-Tops was horrifically sub-par. Almost as bad as Malin Ackerman and Carla Gugino's performances as both Silk Specters.

Originally Posted by Sailboat

The Hollis Mason scene was awesome. I really liked how they made him put up an actual fight.

However, the acting by pretty much all the Knot-Tops was horrifically sub-par. Almost as bad as Malin Ackerman and Carla Gugino's performances as both Silk Specters.

But you cannot deny, Carla did a magnificent job in her 1940 flashback scene.

I swear the Japanese trailer had that bit on it, now I'm SO getting it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVeg78Yfp7g

Just watched the Not-Director's Cut version last night, and I have to say that this was one film that complemented the novel very well (mainly because of how faithful it was); I certainly didn't feel like it had bastardized the book, like some fans thought.

I'm not sure if anyone else got this feeling, but the ending felt a little rushed. Adrian didn't quite live up to the comic, in my opinion, and as has already been said Silk Spectre II's actress did far from a perfect job, that seemed to get suddenly worse as soon as she dons her costume. But everyone else was surprisingly good. It was a fantastically graphic experience, a mix between the dark and gritty, and the comic-like and unrealistic, even if some scenes felt gratuitous.

And I heard a lot about the new ending, and people disappointed by the change, but as far as I could see it was almost identical to the comic; changes were purely cosmetic and made no difference to the actual storyline.

Still, might have been nice to see a they handled a giant CGI psychic organism explode in New York.

I'll be looking forward to watching this version when I get the chance.

Haven't seen the directors cut (and probably won't), but I watched the normal version recently for the first time, and have to add my voice to chorus of people who say that this does not work as a movie.

There were also some changes, especially involving Ozymandias, that were completely unnecessary, and detracted from the character.

Some things that made the movie suck complete ass when compared to the book:

-Casting Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre II.
-Casting Matthew Goode as Ozymandias.
-Silk Spectre's COMPLETE change of character.
-Ozymandias's final speech (it sucked).
-Making Ozymandias the leader of the Crimebusters (and changing Crimebusterst to "Watchmen")
-Dr. Manhattan's confrontation with a cancer-ridden Janie on TV (I was laughing out loud at how ridiculous that scene was).


And most importantly, the movie was TOO faithful to the book. It seemed like more of a fanservice than an actual movie. Zach Schneider played it far too safe, he needed to take a gamble to please both Watchmen fans and Non-Watchmen fans.

Well, no one really likes Ozy and SSII that much as the rest of the characters.

Did anyone find it ironic that Ozy mentioned he isn't "a film villan" in the comic, whereas in the film he said "comic villain"?

I thought he said "Serial Villain" in the comic book, as in a villain from some sort of series, but a "Serial Villain" is pretty much applied to villains from comic books.

Originally Posted by Sailboat

I thought he said "Serial Villain" in the comic book, as in a villain from some sort of series, but a "Serial Villain" is pretty much applied to villains from comic books.

"Dan, I'm not a republic serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome?"

Ironic isn't the word I'd use, since it was intentionally done to be self-referential.

Hmmm, I swear that's what it said...

*checks*

Ok, my bad. Must have remembered wrong...

Remember that in the world where Watchmen takes place, comic books weren't about superheroes because there were such heroes in real life. Probably the same applies to super-villains.

So he'd probably say "I'm not some pirate captain" if he was going to refer to comic book antagonists.

Didn't the guy at the newsstand say something about superhero comics, "back in the day"?

I remember him saying something about "Super-man, Flash-Man... etc" or something.

I actually felt that the director's cut took away from the movie. Adding in the scenes such as the death of the original Night Owl, with a lot of the major undercurrents present in the graphic novel removed, made me all too aware that I was watching an abridged story

Originally Posted by Sailboat

Some things that made the movie suck complete ass when compared to the book:

-Casting Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre II.
-Casting Matthew Goode as Ozymandias.
-Silk Spectre's COMPLETE change of character.
-Ozymandias's final speech (it sucked).
-Making Ozymandias the leader of the Crimebusters (and changing Crimebusterst to "Watchmen")
-Dr. Manhattan's confrontation with a cancer-ridden Janie on TV (I was laughing out loud at how ridiculous that scene was).


And most importantly, the movie was TOO faithful to the book. It seemed like more of a fanservice than an actual movie. Zach Schneider played it far too safe, he needed to take a gamble to please both Watchmen fans and Non-Watchmen fans.

I'll agree, I wasn't a big fan of that scene. It kinda screamed aaron spelling to me.

As for making Ozymandias the leader, I thought it was a brilliant idea. He does have good skills to make him a good leader, I mean, he is the World's Smartest Man, after all.

Originally Posted by -Link-182-

As for making Ozymandias the leader, I thought it was a brilliant idea. He does have good skills to make him a good leader, I mean, he is the World's Smartest Man, after all.

Not the point. In the book, after The Comedian burns the map it shows Captain Metropolis in the midground saying to the backs of everyone else leaving the meeting, "Somebody has to do it, don't you see? Somebody has to save the world..." while in the foreground you see Ozymandias contemplatively examining the burned map. It's an important bit of foreshadowing, plus it also shows perhaps where the idea first struck him.

My vote for 'stupidest unnecessary change that actually detracts from the story' goes to change in Rorsarch's origin where he repetitively chops the head of the child-killer, rather than set a fire and leave him handcuffed with a saw.

Originally Posted by Sailboat

Didn't the guy at the newsstand say something about superhero comics, "back in the day"?

I remember him saying something about "Super-man, Flash-Man... etc" or something.

Superman gets mentioned in the comic, The Flash doesn't.

The basic idea is that Superman, as in real life, started a super hero craze in comics. However, shortly after the craze started, real "super heroes" appeared, so the escapist novelty of the comics vanished: Who wants to read about the fantastic world of super heroes when it turns out you're living in it already?

So super hero comics died out (rather like "crime" comics did here (though here that was due to the comics code, not loss of interest.)) before WW II had even started.


So referring to super villains would be rather like someone now saying "Do you really think I'm a villain from Crime Does Not Pay?"

It's possible to figure out what's meant, but it's not exactly obvious.

Originally Posted by nolan

My vote for 'stupidest unnecessary change that actually detracts from the story' goes to change in Rorsarch's origin where he repetitively chops the head of the child-killer, rather than set a fire and leave him handcuffed with a saw.

I didn't think it made as much of a difference as Ozymandias leading the crimebusters.

That rorschach thing just seemed a lot less badass. And yeah, the change was completely unnecessary. However, I like how they got rorschach to get his gear back, instead of just making him go "oh look I had extras".