The graphic novel titled Watchmen might be one of the greatest graphic novels ever written. Creators Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons created a true masterpiece that many have tried to adapt over the years. When Zack Snyder brought Watchmen to the big screen, at first it was seen as the most accurate adaptation of it's source material. Though upon further inspection, Zack Snyder's Watchmen may suffer from almost being too faithful. Coming off the back of his hit adaptation of 300, it seemed Zack Snyder was truly the one that could bring Watchmen to the big screen faithfully, but did his commitment to the direct translation end up hurting the film overall?
#watchmen #zacksnyder #alanmoore #nerdstalgic #dceu
The issue with Snyder's Watchmen is that it's a celebration of Watchmen and not a criticism and satire of superheroes.
This is just my personal take, but I don’t read watchmen as necessarily saying “superheroes bad”. But rather as a warning about trying to put superheroes in the real world. Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and the rest are, at the end of the day, a fantasy. The idea that Superman could be the most powerful being in the universe yet still fight for truth justice and the American way, the idea that Bruce Wayne, a man with so much wealth power would entirely devote his life to helping the downtrodden, or the idea that Peter Parker could go though so much suffering snd grief and yet remain a good man and a great hero we should all aspire to be are all, sadly, fantasy. The idea of people being given power and using it to do good simply because its the right thing to do is tragically more fantastic then any superpower, gadget or secret identity. Making superheroes realistic is bad not because it diminishes the hero, but rather because it destroys the very notion of them being heroes.
Exactly. He just thought "let's make a cool, dark and edgy movie without any of the messages of the comic"
That feels like all Snyder movies to some extent - he's really good at articulating what he, Zack Snyder, thinks is cool.
Perfectly put. If Snyder had any meta-cognition whatsoever, he would've known the film, like the original graphic novel, needed a bedrock of superhero criticism. If adapted now, the film would've killed - as it was, in 2009, it stands as an odd standalone venture that was way too early.
I can agree 100%
Fun Fact: Jackie Earle Haley was the only one of the main cast who was already familiar with the graphic novel. He actively campaigned for the part of Rorschach.
And he absolutely killed it. I mean I think he was the highlight of the movie easily.
JEH honestly was one of the best castings ever for a comicbook/graphic novel/ superhero movie
Rorschach was also, honestly, the best part of the film too.
One of the things that kinda hurt this film in my opinion was that all the performances felt pretty phoned in and lifeless. Except Jackie Earle Haley. He arguably makes up for nearly everyone and pretty much every scene he's in is elevated above the rest of the film. Jeffrery Dean Morgan (the Comedian) does a good job too.
I prefer the motion comic's rorschach's voice, as he's supposed to be calm, not this edgy tryhard (though it is good on its own)
I still smile whenever I think that Alan Moore created Rorschach to be disliked, but succeeded in achieving the opposite.
Honestly what gets me is that there are basically 2 Republicans in watchmen and both of them are the worst kinds of people. Rorshach and the comedian. Both of them Republicans seem to be looked at as heroes and they're not supposed to be seen as heroes cause one is a killer and the other is a rapist.
The characters who are the most damaged and dysfunctional are often the most fascinating ones.
@@BiohazardEXTREME Exactly. Same reason people end up idolising Walter White
people dont tend to identify with something they can never be half gods only get whorshipped so...
@@youraveragepasser-by7367 yeah, but people kinda get Walter white wrong too. He's a man that constantly shoots himself in the foot cause he's a jealous man that refuses help cause he sees it as some form of weakness.
Aesthetically, Snyder's Watchmen is beyond impressive for how effectively it translates the graphic novel's iconography to live-action. But in making everything look cool/badass, you could argue he undermines the book's deconstructionist themes of why superheroing is... not all that great. Still, the Doctor Manhattan twist works fairly well as an ending.
I've always said that ZS is a very shallow storyteller but an amazing visual director.
U totally missed the point of the film. It doesn't glorify superheroes at all. The violence is slow motion and over the top violent on purpose. It's not supposed to look cool and fun, but silly and over the top. The violence os supposed to make u feel discusted and shocked. Snyder didn't try to make them look cool, he is trying to make themselves feel cool, but make the audience mock them how stupid they are behaving. He does this element in most of his films from 300 to Sucker Punch. He constantly creates "epic scenes" that are on purpose over the top to make fun of how silly the people he is presenting are
@@MarkFilipAnthonyI think you're giving Snyder too much credit
@@MarkFilipAnthony This is incorrect. Snyder missed the point of the comic book. He does make them look cool by giving them badass costumes and slow-motion action sequences. Snyder doesn't have the emotional depth to trick the audience into mocking his characters.
@@tavo7465 or perhaps he CHOSE to make that specific note from the source material different.
I love that you say "just a few human lives" when the comics showed that a majority of NYC was killed by the octopus monster lol.
Technically it's not the monster that kills people it's the monster teleporting in.
Well I don't want to entertain Ozymandias' point, but it's the difference between the city or the world which was definitely on a Mutually Assured Destruction trajectory even without Veidt's intervention.
Half, actually.
Imo, you don't change the ending of something like this.
I think my biggest issue with Synder's Watchmen was the casting of Ozymandias. The actor is too young, and didn't have the screen presence to effectively portray the character. In the movie at the end, Ozymandias looks sad and remorseful that he had to kill all those people to fool the world. In the books, he is smirking and gleeful that he was RIGHT. Killing most of New York and all of his trusted staff is an afterthought for him. It doesn't matter to him that he's changed the world based on a lie, because it's HIS lie. In the movie, Ozymandias is a sad emo kid. In the books he's an arrogant monster. The difference in tone is huge, and it's very telling that Snyder didn't see it as a bad change.
I saw the film before reading the book, and, while the characterisation wasn't the same, I think he was still good in the film. He still came across as arrogant and self-satisfied.
Agreed. I’d like to add that the actor also looked very little like the character from the book. And the way the actor portrayed the character was all wrong. He played it smug and sleazy… it was so obvious he was the villain.
I would have picked Michael Fassbender. His portrayal of "David" in "Prometheus" was about 80% Ozymandias. Matthew Goode kept reminding me of "The Church Lady" from SNL.
@@TighelanderII Fair chat. When Watchmen was being cast Fassbender was hardly known though. Matthew Goode was actually a bigger star. Hard to fathom now.
@@surj1023 I read that he worked with Snyder before Watchmen.
One thing that can never be faulted for this movie is production design. The production designer Alex McDowell (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Minority Report, Fight Club, and visual consultant on two of the best looking animated movies Fantastic Mr Fox and Rise of the Guardians) gave a lecture when I was in college the day before Watchmen came out. He talked for a long time about how meticulous they were in creating real things and spaces from the blueprint of the comic. He said lots of the drive for the accuracy came from Snyder, and I have to agree when you say Snyder’s strength is in his visuals because I love how this movie looks. Good soundtrack too.
I think Gilliam was essentially right. Nothing is literally unfilmable, but is something worth filming if all you can make is an inferior version? The whole thing is written very specifically for the comic book medium. Doc Manhatten's chapter is absolute genius, the way it lets you into the perspective of a man who sees through time and has the power of a God, and in such a clear way. You couldn't film that, not in a satisfying way.
I don't know, that sequence in the film is one of the best I've seen in any comic book/fantasy-sci fi adaptation. Pretty hard to beat that in my opinion.
I am one of the biggest critics of Snyder and his DCEU films but his Watchmen is one of my favorite movies of all time. Giving him props where props are very much deserved.
Are you a fan of the original book?
Snyder’s the goat
Yep, I'm no fan of Snyder's generally but I will defend Watchmen and his Dawn of the Dead remake to the death, those movies are awesome
I totally agree. I was looking forward to his DC Movies but then they were released. 😔😔😔😔
it’s far from his worst movie but i’m still not a fan of his watchmen adaptation
The directors cut or extended edition is the only way to watch this movie
I would say the director's cut. The extended edition adds that comic cartoon that really bogs down the movie.
@@bartok1378I guess I’ve never seen that version then.. just the directors cut when it was on Amazon prime awhile ago now.
@@bartok1378 Agreed, not everything that works in one media works in another and The pirate tale sprinkled throughout in the middle of the movie just confuses and really bogs down the film. The director's cut is for Watchmen THE version to watch.
No, the theatrical is definitely my favorite
The director’s cut goes from slow motion punch to speed up reaction too many times, for me the theatrical cut is the only watchable version
Zack Snyder LOOKS at graphic novels, he doesn't READ them. It's all superficial and containd no real depth of character.
It’s not perfect but Snyder obviously had a deep love for the material. For something considered un-filmable, he knew the book intimately enough to be able to dismantle it and put it back together as well as he did.
Disagree. Snyder's interest in the material is surface level. He clearly didn't understand the actual purpose of the story. He saw cool pictures of grungy violence and wanted to film that, and that alone.
@@ToonamiT0M it doesn't matter, he achieved what he wanted, got younger people interested in it. If it wasn't for the movie I would have never read the comic book.n
@@Sebastianrdz41and it twisted the audiences' minds as the movie went to the route that the book was meant to criticize
@@spiderjerusalem4009 didn't twist mine, if anything it just gave the characters in the book voices. Even Zack Snyder said the movie was never made to replace the comic
@@ToonamiT0Mit's sad that ppl like you don't give Zack the credit he deserves on this. You can look back at it now in 2024 and say whatever you like, but place yourself back in 2009. Superhero movies were solely for kids back then. Marvel had just started producing movies, and the long running X-Men and Spiderman films had ended, then here comes Zack and says not only does he want to make a superhero film that won't star anyone from Marvel or DC, but he wants to make it violent, gory, ugly, with sex, cursing and nudity, AND he wants it to be 3 hours long. Today no one would arch an eyebrow to that request, but he must have seemed like a madman back then. And yet he produced one of the greatest superhero films ever made, and it's because it was possibly the world's first ANTI-superhero film. Ppl just dont get it. Watchmen walked so The Boys and Invincible could run.
While Snyder would change things like Dan’s costume being sleeker and sexier, he then shows you that Dan can’t “get it up” without the thrill of the fight. That’s as much satire to me as what Moore wrote for Dan.
The only problem I have is that Ozymandias walks away thinking hes the good guy. He killed those people for a brief temporary peace and the movie doesnt even tell him.
No he literally saves the world
@@ozymandias3097 😏 Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends. Entropy is inevitable.
I think he's perfectly aware of that. That's why he lets Nite Owl beat him up after his plan is revealed. I personally like this subtle approach.
I'm not sure, everyone leaves him alone, having to live with the atrocity he committed in secret. I would've loved if they kept his conversation with Jon though, with the "nothing ever ends."
I still quote Watchmen to this day, that's how you know a movie did something right. And the line in question is "I hope you're ready, Rorschach." " When you are." His delivery there is...epic.
Been grappling with this for a long while, because I worked for WB during the aborted Gilliam version. Snyder's version would have worked if he realized violence isn't to be celebrated, but to be grieved.
It's interesting that so far most of the superhero deconstruction has happened on TV - The Boys, Invincible, Watchmen. I do hope we someday get a movie that does for the superhero film what Watchmen did for comics.
Invincible really isn't a deconstruction of superhero media. It's still mostly about heroes saving the world from threats. The fact that some of those threats are betrayals of 'good' characters is just a twist. The show is extremely good, the best show on the list, but it's not a deconstruction. The other two shows are good, worse than invincible but much closer to deconstructions (although I'd argue the boys is more of an inversion - the regular boys are the good guys and the super powered team are the bad guys, but its mostly about Butcher & Friends saving people/murica).
While I haven't seen The Watchmen movie, despite the fact that ironically it's the reason I even discovered the comic, I agree that ending from the comics could've been changed to potentially great effect. Moore and his editor on the series Len Wein outright disagreed with each other about how they wanted it to end, and to be honest, when I read the ending myself I couldn't help but think something went wrong even if I couldn't pin it down.
I love the Watchmen, still among the best five superhero flicks ever made.
And that's the problem, Watchmen, the comic book, was never written as a superhero comic, but as a critique of that genre.
@@alphatrece9208 is still part of the genre even if it's a critique.
@@alphatrece9208 Any artist that writes a comic book about superheroes and then tries to pretend they are above the genre and just critiquing.....I am more than happy to ignore their intentions and enjoy a film. After all, most artists are good because they suck at being normal people.
@@IDontBuyIt50 The level that some of you go to justify Snyder is really impressive.
@@buccob The film also doesn't work as a critique of superheroes, in fact it idealizes them.
Out of all the comic readers I’ve talked to, I have never heard anyone criticize the switch from the giant octopus monster to Dr. Manhattan. I read the comic first and I always felt the alien was just a bit off, and Manhattan just up and leaving didn’t sit right with me. In the film, it solves all of that in a believable fashion.
as a dutchman it hurts to hear "Drieberg" pronounced as "Dreiberg" in Dutch and standard German the "ie" and "ei" are completely distinct sounds. comparable to the the English "brain" and "Brian"
One change from novel to movie is completely puzzling for me: Rorschach is one of the most fascinating protagonists in the entire genre. In the novel, he has a _very_ specific creation story, including explicitly the very moment he was created, embedded in a gut-wrenching sequence. The movie not only ignores the creation moment, it also milktoasts the entire sequence and skips over what I think is best line in the novel. (Yes, better than Rorschach's line in prison.) Why?
He also skipped rorschach's reply to laurie regarding the comedian's rαρe on sally, which he referred to as "moral lapse" You know why
The movie literally shows the moment he became rorschach when he killed the pedophile
Although I hold the extended version of the movie in same highest regard as the original comic, this was still a pretty interesting viewpoint. Thanks!
Snyder would get more love and respect if his cut of his superhero movies were released as the theatrical version. Yes, they're long but they're cohesive and far more streamlined. Nothing changed my opinion more when I watched the snyder cut of BatmanVsSuperman.
"The boys" is the better deconstruction of superheroes.... but 'Watchmen' is a great movie to enjoy
I get that people don't like this film for the fact that it isn't faithful to the graphic novel. But it is still probably one of the best most original super hero movies we've gotten. I remember when I first saw it and walked out of the theater disappointed. But I rewatch this movie probably every year because it takes it's audience seriously and has a generally different take on the whole genre.
No no, we don’t dislike it because it’s not faithful - it’s very faithful apart from the end. It’s that he fundamentally misunderstood the tone required to adapt the material. Thematically it’s a failure, stylistically it’s amazing - Snyder in a nutshell.
How is it "not faithful" to the book? Except for the tweaked ending, of course. But it's about as close as you can get story wise. What you're referring to, likely, is the stylistic choices to have the heroes "fight" and "pose" and "look cool," which you should understand is the point of making Watchmen a movie. The comic was satirizing comics. The movie should satirize superhero movies. Some decisions are pretty obvious like Ozy's costume having Schumacher Batman nipples. Others you can only gather from intently watching the film, like how goofy they look fighting and posing. There's even exaggerated sound effects harkening back to the old Batman TV shows.
@@Whaddayamean13 I dunno. Some people think the movie glirifies superheroes whereas the graphic novel focused on making them out to be seriously flawed. So I guess that's their main gripe about them.
This is a pretty decent adaptation, it has issues and miss calculations in my opinion, but overall it’s pretty enjoyable and well done
I’m a fan of both the film and the original source material
"Watchmen" is my favorite comic book. I love the movie adaptation. Snyder's visual style works really well. Also, the cast and soundtrack are great.
The only problem I really agree with is the glorified fights but that really applies to Silk and Nite Owl, which I dont mind. Remember, movies are completely different from comics, so we need some good characters (especially let the extreme ones pass too). Watchmen came out right as the hero movie craze began. I think the original watchmen was to respond and subvert the genre while the movie is trying to predict the genre. Which could be right since almost all of our heros are boiled down versions of what they used to be.
I dont get how the world would unite against doctor manhattan since throughout the whole film he is shown to be an american weapon. Wouldnt every country just asume that they are being attacked by the US?
Explain that to the ones who thinks Snyder fix the ending
Of course they would. Another problem: Assume they all buy it; the world is now at war with Doc Manhattan. Very stupid idea or incredibly stupid idea?
Watchmen gets better everytime i watch it.
*read, or *watchmen's motion comic
@@spiderjerusalem4009 I did and I wasn’t impressed by either: the Motion Comic was hilariously bad with there being only 1 voice-actor for the whole damn run. Terrible voice-actor too imho…
I have read the novel front to back 100 times over. And I STILL love the movie. I think Zach is the only one who will be the closest anyone will ever be to adapting the book from page to film. I'm aware of its flaws, but I will never call it a bad movie, let alone a bad adaptation.
I think that if a movie completely misses the meaning of the original work, it is a poor adaptation.
@@alphatrece9208 Did you ever consider that he did this on purpose? He didn’t “miss the point”, he voluntarily chose to create his own version of the story and characters as he saw fit with complete awareness, and produced not only a superior version of Watchmen, but also a damn-fine Superhero film that is the greatest around as far as I’ve seen: truly a cinematic masterpiece in every regard. It glorifies the dark, gritty, thought-provoking, sleek and sexy and cool sub-genre that is the dark side of Superhero films, and it is BEAUTIFUL.
@@dogewood5499 Yes, sure, you only have to see how Alan Moore treats the rape scene in Watchmen and how Snyder treats it to know how "wonderful" his version is. Zack Snyder: "Batman can get raped in prison. THE ENTIRE PLOT OF SUCKER PUNCH. Zombies rape women. What if the Amazons get mass raped." "He gets to go a Tibetan monastary and be train by ninjas. Ok? I want to do that. But he doesn't, like, get raped on prison. That could happen on my movie. If you want to about dark, that's who I would go." The guy has the mentality of a 12-year-old. "If only" we had Zack's other films to prove how "subtle" and "intelligent" he is when he unleashes his basic instincts.
Two things Snyder could have done with changing the squid to Manhattan were set up early in the film anyway. First is the device only kills humans by exploding them leaving behind grissly remains as opposed to the nuclear blasts in the movie. Second is send images to the minds of survivors (like Silk Spectre got from Manhattan) of why Manhattan is upset with all of humanity and he will kill more if they don't repent and work together basically making a fake wrathful god. With these changes, there's no mistaking or guessing like in the movie. Humanity isn't united to fight an alien, but instead out of fear of offending a very real god that can kill everyone. The horror of the major cities corpses along with the visions ensure this happens. It's just the real Doctor Manhattan didn't do it.
the best thing is rorschach is fucked and nearly everyone goes 'yeah he's the hero'
Nah, you and everyone else who disagrees or hates Rorschach are just too morally soft and emotionally weak: too Progressively Liberal and Politically Correct. You lack drive to do what must be done morally and ethically in an objective manner: you compromise whenever the opportunity presents itself because you hate Conservative ideals.
Truly one of the best opening credits sequences I've ever seen!
I think Snyder did kind of ruin watchmen by making the violence and cowed crusaders “cool”. This is just my personal take, but I don’t read watchmen as necessarily saying “superheroes bad”. But rather as a warning about trying to put superheroes in the real world. Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and the rest are, at the end of the day, a fantasy. The idea that Clark Kent could be the most powerful being in the universe yet still fight for truth justice and the American way, the idea that Bruce Wayne, a man with so much wealth power would entirely devote his life to helping the downtrodden, or the idea that Peter Parker could go though so much suffering snd grief and yet remain a good man and a great hero we should all aspire to be are all, sadly, fantasy. The idea of people being given power and using it to do good simply because its the right thing to do is tragically more fantastic then any superpower, gadget or secret identity. Making superheroes realistic is bad not because it diminishes the super, but rather because it destroys the very notion of them being heroes.
Totally agree - it's in the name and epigraph of Juvenal's quote "quis custodiet ipsos custodes". How do you hold power to account - or in this case, super powers? I really enjoyed the book, how much tragedy is in pretty much every one of the characters.
I absolutely saw no problems with Snyder’s Director’s Cut of the film: I actually enjoyed it far more than the source material in every way that it was adapted to the big screen. Now, many fans of the graphic novel will say that Snyder missed the point of Moore’s original work, etc., and you know what? They’re right: he did and it was intentionally made to be both interesting plot-wise, while also looking cool as Hell and overall glorifying the dark, gritty sub-genre of Superhero movies. This is THE GREATEST Superhero adaptation ever directed and filmed as far as I’ve seen the past 30 or so years. If you disagree, you can go read the (in my honest opinion) inferior source material, or the abysmal HBO sequel series. Nobody’s stopping you, and Snyder’s version of Rorschach is STILL my favorite vigilante character EVER: FIGHT ME!
Idk man, the deconstructive message certainly landed with me. And I never read the comics.
I feel that this needs to stated for others that attempt to interpret Alan Moore's work on to other mediums. One that comes to mind is V for Vendetta.
Here's the problem: zack snyder has never been a good filmmaker
I think he’s just not as smart as he thinks he is and hence never gets smart enough people around him
The problem with changing the ending is that Dr Manhattan is treated as an asset of the USA (in both the film and the comic they use the phrase "The Superman/God exists, and he is American"), and the film has Ozymandias frame Dr Manhattan of not just New York, but several cities on both sides of the Cold War. The US would have been blamed for losing control over their greatest asset, not united with the USSR against a common, unknown (if fake) enemy. Movie Ozymandias' plan wouldn't have ended the cold war, it would have escalated it even further.
Is this a seasonal video (looking upload date)? I really admired watchmen as a response to the sam raimi spiderman, men and hulk films of the 2000s; those were culturally significant enough to provide a context that could be challenged. The nite owl scenes are largely dorky, with the restricted movement of the cowled costume, nobody left the theatre wanting to be nite owl in the same way they did bale's batman. I appreciate that a lot of snyder's films fall flat, but I think the tone of watchmen is one of the main strengths of the film in isolation (i have not read the comics to my shame). My only issue with the film is the female roles aren't well developed nor well executed in my opinion, but I also don't know a lot about acting, just the silk spectre intergenerational dialogue felt hauntingly artificial to me
Maybe if Snyder was a competent filmmaker, this film would’ve been successful
Watchmen was awesome.
this is very interesting snyder doesn't get what makes other people's characters who they are that's wildly obvious from the way he characterises superman and batman
In some alternate reality "Watchmen" would be a significant movie to me along the lines of Terminator 2 or Aliens; it just feels like it should have been great. Many of us watching comic book movies didn't read comic books, so some of the sincere adaptation is lost on us. I'd never heard of Iron Man until his movie, and with this one it was like, "Oh, that's where's the Smiley Face pin with the drop of blood on it came from." I love the movie's look, with glossy visuals that look like it was filmed on Cinemascope, the music by Philip Glass, and depicting a 1985 that seemed frozen in an earlier time where many of our pop culture motifs never happened. What we got, both in the source material and the movie, is a mess. A world where Nixon is on his fifth term after repealing the 22nd amendment. Many older liberals acted like they saved the world from a Sauron like madman with the counterculture revolution. In reality Nixon had enormous popularity and was ending the war in Vietnam but blew it via his ego and the unneeded Watergate break in to monitor his enemies. We get their idea of the overused term "fascism" with what would happen if Nixon had stayed in office. A world where superheroes are all Batman. People stronger and more powerful than normal but still very human and now with moral failings, making you wonder about the sanity of running around in a cape and mask with some made up character name. A world where the one true superhero with enhanced abilities is a naked blue man who can function as a God and sees all at once, but still thinks and acts in linear time, and his greatest weaknesses are malaise and ennui as he narrates his story in a simp voice. It was underplayed that World War Three was about to happen; those of us who lived in the Cold War it was an ever present subcurrent, so it wasn't clear a crisis was about to burst. And the creepy and weird villain is actually the hero who saves the day by killing millions to unite humanity against Dr. Manhattan (never mind he'd never acted evil before) and have us lay down our arms. The aliens in the book was a better idea--unknowable, mysterious, could be anywhere, a good foil for people's paranoia. Uniting against Manhattan is like uniting against God, just what the heck are you going to do?
Man, if it was only a medocire film for true watchmen fans, than i can hardly imagine how next level incredible it could of been for lamens like me. I was only 16 sure but that was one of the first films watched that hit so hard i just sat there in silence for a good while after while my subconscious was surely having its mind blown. All that is to say i feel like i still got the deeper meanings in regards to the villainous of and feer felt towards the superheroes. And the whole villian doing what needed to be done to save the world, that hit me. Dunno, i feel like it hit on a deeper level than most comic fans who already knew the material felt.
🎶 They made Watchmen without the slimy squid! And he'll have you know that that's pretty low, but not quite like the standards of the 90s Kid🎶
I liked the movie tbh, maybe because i knew the graphic novels i thought it conveyed the themes and ideas well idk
This reminds me of a few years ago when Moviebob did a deep dive into Snyder's filmography and arrived at similar conclusions.
7:24 with his love of superficial aesthetics and lack of deeper meanings, a Warhol biopic would be the perfect project for Zak!
Somewhat different than the novel, still my favorite super hero movie
My man! 100% agreed! FOR THE EMPEROR!
I was a huge fan of the story before seeing the movie. I’d read so much of Alan Moore’s stuff from through the past two decades (1963, ABC Comics). The point in the movie that I realized it sucked was when Rorschach leapt out of the window and instead of hurting his ankle and getting arrested, went into Matrix mode and kicked a bunch of cops’ butts before getting arrested. Zack Snyder loves and glorifies physical violence. Alan Moore does not.
"Elevator shoes". Shows how insecure Rorschach really is, and how it appears he chose the persona of this unyielding vindicator because otherwise he'd just be lost into the abused childhood. I loved the book and have re-read it several times, and the movie is visually amazing but it always feels like it's missing a bit of the soul of the book - mostly how most of the super heroes are not really that heroic and very ethically compromised.
You completely missed the point. If Watchmen is to work as a confrontational piece of media in movie form, it HAS to exaggerate those movie tropes. In superhero movies, that's what you get. All the fighting, posing, and "action" you don't get from the graphic novel is precisely to mimic traditional superhero movies. But the result is the guy gets arrested, bones break, blood spills, guys die, etc. Everything is a deliberate imitation of scenes you typically see in comic book movies, only for it to be blown up at the end. It's stylistic satire, much like The Matrix (which you coincidentally mention), and Robocop, A Clockwork Orange, which are some of Snyder's favorite films. Snyder's a lot smarter than you think.
The vibes of the movie are immaculate,,, even if some messages are a smidge muddled. Still a good time tho.
The theatrical release missed 2 key scenes from the gn : Ozymandias looking at his lone shadow on the wall, when most other shadows are of pairs of people. Also, the admonition from the editor: “Take some responsibility.”
Have you seen the extended cut and especially the ultimate cut which shows the black freighter
I quite disagree with the change to the ending. Ozymandias has the Squid created to be an enemy that not only had no ties to any nation but was to also be beyond human understanding. I get that Dr. Manhattan technically denounced his humanity, but to other nations he would still technically be Human-made. And thus the fear that another nation could or would make another will be there. Hell, if i remember correctly Russia was already trying to make their own by testing on dogs. Not saying the Russians would figure it out but the fact that the possibilty is there means not conpletely beyond human understanding. The squid liquified and flowed into the ocean making it impossible to resarch. Not only that but he tampered with the mind of the squid to release nightmarish vision across the world upon death to haunt the dreams of people for decades to come, to keep the fear alive.
The fidelity of an adaptation to it's source material shouldn't be subjective to your ideological identity. I'm tired of being told that I missed the point of a film, or that the director didn't understand the underlying theme or subtext. The adaptation that is presented to us is an adaptation period. Unless the creator of the source material is the sole creator of the new material then it will never share the same context verbatim. Even having the same creator doesn't guarantee a fully faithful rendition. I've read Watchmen, I've also seen the film and the TV show I've read V for Vendetta and I've seen the film I've read Fight Club, Forrest Gump, Charlie and the Chocolate factory and countless other books that have become films. Not a single adaptation has ever converted the original accurately. That's not a bad thing either, it allows people who are unfamiliar with the source material to discover it, and appreciate the different interpretations of the message. The original is not inherently the "real" "authentic" or "best" Stop praising inclusionary adaptations based on identity representation while simultaneously dismissing inclusionary adaptations based on ideological representation. Just because you are not the intended audience doesn't hurt the appeal to the everyone else.
I always seen the film as a companion piece to the graphic novel. A way to see some key scenes recreated.
I love the film. I used to be embarrassed about saying that when I realised how unpopular and disliked it was, but it made me feel something and I always go back to it.
0:35 - such a cool shot
A lot of people walked away from the movie siding with Rorschach, a fascist who was clearly reactionary in his actions and choice of words in the comic. Snyder's way of portraying his actions in the movie was extremely poorly done in my opinion and completely misunderstood the moral narrative of the story. Not to mention making Dr. Manhattan the enemy would make all superheroes the enemy, not a singular external threat to humanity as people still think of Manhattan as a man-made-god, not some alien external threat that humanity could unite against.
I wonder what people would've thought of the HBO series if this movie(that turned out to be the very thing the book was meant to excoriate) had never been released (but then again, the 21st century cultural war had polarized well, so the reactions wouldn't have seemed to be much of disparity either) The funny thing is that the series was more of anti-woke/anti-sjw or whatever you call that (from Redford's 7th term, just like nixon, etc that i can't mention more due to the shαδοωβαηnίng algorithm)
Watchmen remains my favorite Zack Snyder film. Yes, it doesnt quite get everything right, like making superhero-ing look cool, but the visuals, costumes, and almost all casting choices are near perfect. I mean Jackie Earle Haley is anazing. I guess you could say Snyder made Rorschach "too cool" but I think people befofe the movie was even thought of, thought Rorschach was a cool/interesting character to read. Majorly flawed, but his tragic past makes you feel for him a bit. And of course, Rorschach's dialogue is just fun to read. Ever watched the video of Alan Moore reading Rorschach dialogue? It's pretty dope lol.
Snyder’s work is visually appealing, but lacks substance and does not hold up even to basic scrutiny, his work is the cotton candy of cinema.
Wrong: this film is his best one, and is now a Cult Classic Superhero film. Truly, the Director’s Cut of Watchmen is a modern cinematic masterpiece.
"It's a fun Superhero Movie" I don't know if I would describe it as "fun" but sure why not. Also, I wanna point out that Carla Gugino happens to be both in Watchmen (2009) and Sin City (2005). Pretty good pics for Comic Book movies. She's in a ton of stuff too, like working with Dwayne The Rock Johnson three times
One question: have you watched the graphic novel, and if yes, do you highly recommend it? I haven't, and I watched the film years ago (after I had watched some MCU movies) and I found it very enjoyable, in some terms "groundbreaking" and overall a great time to watch. But please, educate me. PD: this is maybe the best YT channel there is, always making you question and revisiting works of art.
Zach Snyder is a great scene director, with beautifull photography and style, but a movie is more than a colection of scenes pasted together, most of his movies bombs at the movies cause of that, as pointed in this video, he is way to focused on nailing the visuals and not so much on the narrative in his movies
I love Zack Syner movies but most of them struggle to get to the end well enough... I've watched Watchmen more than 7 times but getting to the end is always a struggle
One thing everyone fails to note in the adaptation is that only Doctor Manhattan is a superhero with powers. Everyone else is just people, no superpowers.
snyder’s version of JL felt like watching an episode of “The Boys”. the man NEVER understood Superman or the JL. he’s a huge fan of ayn rand, so MoS was basically his adaptation of “atlas shrugged”. his proclivities were perfect for 300 and maybe Watchmen.
For me, the biggest thing the Watchmen movie got wrong was Ozymandias. In the comics, Ozymandias is a critique of the benevolent capitalist/genius. He's a fundamentally good man who wants to do the right thing for the most amount of people. However, his genius makes him believe that the only way to bring about world peace is to eradicate an entire city using a psychic squid, which is an inherently ridiculous plan. And when he accomplishes his mission, he genuinely feels guilty and wonders if he did the right thing. However, in the movie, Matthew Goode plays Ozymandias like an evil genius villain, which completely nullifies the deconstruction/critique from the comic. Ozymandias in the movie should've been a good Tom Hanks, basically.
This movie is a underrated gem and one of the best superhero movies ever made!😁👍👍
Are these motion comics original? Well done.
It's such a polarising film. I think it's one of the best superhero films ever made yet a lot of people think it's no good. On the other hand I can't stand the Nolan Batman flicks but most people think they're high-art.
Am I alone in finding the film a snooze? I enjoyed the original Alen Moore story back in the late 80s, bought a graphic novel of it.
I think the director cut is tremendous, like the book. I don’t agree that ZS failed to understand or deliver layers and nuance. Maybe there was room to do better, but I am impressed by the film.
Basically Snyder is the triumph of style over substance personified, the movie in a technical way is a great achievement, but he got so focused into making everything being cool and badass, he threw off the window the real meaning behind the visual novel, although the movie's ending framing Dr. Manhattan feels that works really well especially thinking about the science and responsibilities of this particular setting but also with the ideas presented by the movie. Basically yeah, great superhero movie, bad adaptation.
Snyder's ending sucks for two reasons: 1) The destruction of Moscow would trigger an immediate Soviet counterstrike. 2) Starting a war with God is _not_ a smart way to save humanity.
So happy to see a video essay that verbalizes how Ive always felt about Snyder. Hes all flash without any substance. He loves hero stories but doesnt understand them. Look at 300. Look at Watchmen. Snyder is a manchild with a multi--million dollar budget.
- Hey, Zack Snyder, why didn't you reinvent the Watchmen comic-book and made a towering achievement? - What, and someone else did?
Watchmen is a hidden gem
I am absolutely convinced that snyder was very very insistent they animate dr.manhattans glowing nuclear dong.
Movie had great world building but pacing of story was inconsistent, it looses focus many times that i had to watch it on 2 parts as i i snoozed off on parts that had the pacing of a lullaby.
Personally, I found Watchmen to be a complete bloat-fest... I do believe there is a good movie in there but it's in dire need of some serious editing to make it more streamlined and watchable.
Lucky for Znyder , watchmen was a short read, he is not a comic fan, in the same way he fails at understanding Batman and Superman and DC in general, because he just reads 2-3 popular graphic novels... and that's it, that is his source material... Watchmen is a Good adaptation in a time Super heroes were not l a mass product thing in cinema, they were still peaking..
There seems to be an overwhelming amount of disagreement in the comments to the viewpoints in this video. Personally, Watchman is one of my favorite superhero movies of all time.
The only thing i was not a fan of was the main change from comics i always thought having a external threat would bring people together rather than having dr manhattan appear as the threat
It also begs the question, what if Manhattan had retaliated? Framing him as the main threat introduces a factor that Ozy can't control.
In the comic, I agree with your point. In the movie I feel that using Manhattan really drives the point that superheroes are the danger, just as we the audience are starting to believe that forcing the heros into retirement was a misguided idea, we see just how much devastation and destruction just one going rogue can cause and that while it's supposedly for the overall benefit of mankind, it's still an evil plan.
It works unless you think about it, and realise an American military asset has gone rogue, so it makes absolutely no sense for the Russians to make peace over this issue.
The Motion Comic (which you use generously throughout the video) is excellent! Still on HBO - Watch it!
I hated it. I couldn't finish the first episode. I didn't like a man's voice coming from female characters. If they didn't want to spend the money for different voice actors, they should have at least put a filter on the narrator's voice when he's reciting a woman's part.
Actually, Watchmen was designed, think and draw for the comic medium exclusively, and not other medium. That was, I think, Alan Moore´s goal.
5:12 So True. Thank you that you made this!
forgot a blurr aye? 6:45
I have frequently found myself to be in the deep minority on this one, but I honestly never liked Watchmen. I found it too be a film that felt like it took far too long to tell certain parts of the story, while others were obscenely rushed. A couple of the actors really phoned it in, as well(NOT Jackie Earl Haley! That guy is total gold), and Snyder's obsession with edgy slowmo REALLY blares like JJ-Lens-Flare in this one. In other words, there are(imo) a LOT of problems with Zack Snyder's Watchmen.
Was ready for this to be an April fools joke somehow
He's right, tho. Watch the video. People who have actually read the graphic novel , they know that Zack completely missed the point.
The movie got me into the comic and other works by Alan Moore. It remains Zack Snyder's best work, specifically because he kept true to the source material. Zack Snyder has yet to make another movie with a great plot and with such great characters. Sure 300 is more iconic, and Dawn of the Dead helped reinvigerate the zombie genre and give us things like The Walking Dead and the Last of Us, but Watchmen is the only Zack Synder movie you can watch and thing 'holy f*ck, Batman, that was amazing'. I'm struggling to remember another Zack Snyder movie where the plot wasn't dumber than a Michael Bay movie. Sure if you read the graphic novel first (not a comic book like is repeatedly stated here), you might be a little disappointed but as a general rule in life, stop watching movie adapations of books you love because you will almost certainly be disappointed (with the exception of Life of Pi, Casino Royale and Jurassic Park, or if Danny Boyle reimagines it like he did with Trainspotting and Slumdog Millionaire).
This discourse on Zack Snyder's "Watchmen" points to the need for a great balance between fidelity to the source material and ensuring that creative leeway is given for adaptations. One wonders rather importantly: when and how does a director have to navigate the fine line of staying true to the original and yet finding innovations in order to bring new life to the narrative and thematic possibilities of a tale? One rather obvious thing that's missing from it is an opportunity to further explore the narrative mechanics and thematic critiques that make the graphic novel the groundbreaking work it is. "Watchmen" is by no means a story, but rather a deconstruction of the superhero genre that largely discloses the reality of a superhero and his implications upon society in a bold manner. While commendable for its faithfulness to the look of the novel, however, strictly focusing on merely the look and feel of the thing without capturing the very essence of the novel's critique means to create an adaptation that-by its very nature-can only ring as deep. It is an interesting discussion point that would be a case study in the general argument over adaptations. Therefore, the conclusion of the film appropriately falls into the core thematic exploration of the dangers of the superheroes, in light of the story's critical edge. It diverges with the original climax of the graphic novel, on the other end, with staging a fake alien invasion to bring the world together. Thus, it also departs from the single critique earlier dispensed by the film: threats from the outside and shared fears that define human unity. That is, these changes symbolize the kind of formidable tasks that it takes to adapt complex narrative stories, balancing expectations from existing fans with the creative vision and medium constraints. Arguably, the essence of an adaptation lies in its ability to reinvent, not just replicate. A more subtle approach might have been to use the medium of film to criticize this growing culture of superheroes in movies and make that similar to how the novel criticized comic book superheroes. Therefore, it is this layer of meta-critique that was able to be added to the adaptation, lending a new view while still paying the respects to intentions of the original. In conclusion, adaptations offer a unique opportunity to explore familiar stories through new lenses. Directors are free, and in fact it's incumbent upon them, to take creative liberties with the original text in such an adaptation, provided that such changes deepen the narrative and thematic essence of the source. The ending debate is one of the best demonstrations of the complexity of this kind of adaptation and, through that, heavily underscores the delicate balance of innovation and fidelity that is part of the adaptation process in art.
The movie's ending is so frustrating. Because on paper, devoid of context, the film's ending is better and feels more cohesive. However, it utterly changes the impact. In the book, Ozy's plan probably will not work. And the final page being the clock at midnight further suggests this. OTOH, movie Ozy's plan probably *will* work. So it completely changes the takeaway. I get the feeling that Snyder didn't understand that Ozymandias - and Rorschach - weren't intended to be seen as noble or heroic. They're the characters he most gets 'wrong,' in terms of the book, and the changes to them makes Snyder's Watchman into a Nietzschean power fantasy.
A nitpick about the nitpick about the fight scene in the alley, killing someone in self-defense is not murder. We should be cheering for our heros.
Killing in self defense is absolutely murder. When you plead self defense you are basically saying, "Yes I killed him/her/them, here's why you shouldn't punish me for it." You might be justified in your murder, but you're still guilty of murder.
@@ttd0000 No, it's literally not murder. The word you are confused and looking for is homicide. When you argue self-defense, you are arguing that you committed justified homicide. When they charge you with murder, they argue that you committed criminal homicide.
@@OregonOutdoorsChris I feel like that's a distinction without a difference, but fair enough. You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.
@@ttd0000 But it's not a distinction without difference, words have meaning, and it's especially egregious when people try to equivocate between self-defense and murder by intentionally misusing the words, like apparently the comic was attempting to do. When in reality there is a substantial moral difference between self-defense and the thugs who were looking to hurt innocent people.
Zack Snyder I guess was dumb but visually talented enough to get and actually try the project. Bro should’ve been a music video director.
I loved this movie, but I don't know anything about the source material
Nice video! Where can i find the animated version of the comic book please?
KZhead