Watching the Watchmen
I'm so glad that I had resolved to finish the book before watching the film because the moment the credits started to roll, I muttered that if you didn't read the book, you really wouldn't know what on earth was going on. The reviews said that Zack Snyder tried to be so faithful to the graphic novel that he seems to have followed everything word for word and dialogue for dialogue. I can see why they said that, but that is certainly not true at all: certain important details I felt were left out of the film, not to mention that the ending was altered so it was slightly different in the film, but ended up totally different thematically and conceptually.
From the perspective of someone who had not read the graphic novel, I felt that the parts which Snyder chose to incorporate which could have been omitted slowed down and jarred the flow and momentum of the film (the woman on my right yawned at least 10 times throughout the screening), and parts that he could have expanded, he chose to follow the flow of the graphic novel-which is OK for boxes on paper, but taking into account the speed of the film, resulted in several scenes being too abrupt as well as some of the characters being underdeveloped. He also didn't really tie everything up at the end to explain the point of the whole thing, so if I hadn't read the book, I think I'd certainly be left floundering.
However, from the perspective of someone who has read the book, I was aghast at how he twisted the ending, failed to explain certain key scenes, and therefore blindly followed certain parts without linking or developing them. But to give him credit, I think if there hadn't been reviews saying that he stuck completely to the original graphic novel, I wouldn't have expected a completely faithful rendition and would have have given the usual leeway that film adaptations have, and so thought it much better.
From a cinematographic point of view, it was brilliant. I loved the way he filmed it, where you can see elements of the graphic novel style, like where the Comedian breaks through the window and where Rorschach jumps through it later, the overhead shot where Laurie first meets Dan for dinner, and where Rorschach's silhouette is seen through a dark, open doorway.
And Malin Åkerman is damn hot as Silk Spectre II lah.
Anyhow, in the interests of not revealing any spoilers, here are my list of grouses, so if you don't want any spoilers, skip the whole indented part:
Oh, before the film started, when the trailers were on I saw this commercial for anti-glue sniffing and I commented to EL about how the teenage glue sniffer is made up to look a hell lot like Jay Chou-probably because Jay Chou really does look like a glue sniffer, hahahaha!
And speaking of Jay Chou, I found this on Youtube. Seriously, don't these local Chinese singers have any originality at all besides ripping off nice English songs, singing them exactly the same way with Mandarin lyrics, and do they all have to look like a certain Taiwanese glue sniffer?
§ Technorati tags:
music;
reviews
From the perspective of someone who had not read the graphic novel, I felt that the parts which Snyder chose to incorporate which could have been omitted slowed down and jarred the flow and momentum of the film (the woman on my right yawned at least 10 times throughout the screening), and parts that he could have expanded, he chose to follow the flow of the graphic novel-which is OK for boxes on paper, but taking into account the speed of the film, resulted in several scenes being too abrupt as well as some of the characters being underdeveloped. He also didn't really tie everything up at the end to explain the point of the whole thing, so if I hadn't read the book, I think I'd certainly be left floundering.
However, from the perspective of someone who has read the book, I was aghast at how he twisted the ending, failed to explain certain key scenes, and therefore blindly followed certain parts without linking or developing them. But to give him credit, I think if there hadn't been reviews saying that he stuck completely to the original graphic novel, I wouldn't have expected a completely faithful rendition and would have have given the usual leeway that film adaptations have, and so thought it much better.
From a cinematographic point of view, it was brilliant. I loved the way he filmed it, where you can see elements of the graphic novel style, like where the Comedian breaks through the window and where Rorschach jumps through it later, the overhead shot where Laurie first meets Dan for dinner, and where Rorschach's silhouette is seen through a dark, open doorway.
And Malin Åkerman is damn hot as Silk Spectre II lah.
Anyhow, in the interests of not revealing any spoilers, here are my list of grouses, so if you don't want any spoilers, skip the whole indented part:
- In the film, the group of superheroes are actually called the Watchmen instead of the Crimebusters. This may not be apparent to those who didn't read the book, but conceptually it is very important. The term 'Watchmen' do not appear in the book at all except for the graffiti 'Who watches the watchmen?', and is also a play on Dr Manhattan's original ambition to be a watchmaker.
Usually you can tell who has actually read the book and who hasn't by observing if they refer to the superheroes as the Watchmen-those who do probably have never read it. - The part where Nite Owl II and Comedian break up the riot, not enough emphasis is placed on Comedian's remark that they are protecting society from themselves-a crucially important statement. And tied in with that, after Comedian shoots the graffiti painter, more important thematic material is omitted when they skip the entire part where Comedian observes that the 'Who watches the watchmen?" has appeared more and more often, "like they don't trust us or something".
- On that note, I really don't like how they made Nite Owl up to resemble Batman, in the way he drops down from Archie during the riot scene and especially the part where he swoops down on his cape during the prison break. In the book he lands Archie and runs out like normal people. Even his outfit looks so much like Batman's.
- Incidentally, maybe I wasn't paying attention but I don't think the 'Who watches the watchmen?' graffiti appears as often in the film as it does in the novel.
- They also didn't explain the significance or origin of that line. Even a simple 'sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes' end title flashed on the screen after the last scene and attributed to Juvenal (like the last page of the novel) would have been better than nothing at all.
- The Doomsday Clock motif-which ends every chapter in the book-is featured only once in the entire film.
- They made sure to show the scene where Dr Manhattan draws his logo on his forehead, but don't explain why he did that (because he was against the original publicity stunt logo) or what it is (it's a hydrogen atom).
- Also, they made sure to show that Dr Manhattan was originally going to be a watchmaker like his father, but they simply said that changed when Einstein discovered time was relative. In reality, his father threw out the pieces and made Jon Ostermann become a nuclear physicist when the first atomic bomb was dropped because that effectively made watchmaking obsolete by threatening to destroy all mankind. Also, the significance of the Einstein quote "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking... the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker" is omitted.
- They showed Rorschach killing the girl's murderer but they didn't explain how he got the mask with the moving shapes or even why the blots move. Needless to say, the connection between the mask blots and the Rorschach Inkblot Test was also never covered.
- The first meeting of the Crimebusters was hosted by Ozymandias in the film instead of Captain Metropolis in the novel-this is important because it seems to imply that Ozymandias has a grudge against Comedian or that Ozymandias is a lofty idealist instead of the cynic that he is.
- Ozymandias is made out to be a simple bad guy, and not enough character development is done to show that he had good intentions for what he tried to achieve, only that he had a radically different and morally incomprehensible way of perceiving the world.
- Similarly, Nite Owl II is made out to be a classic good guy, because they omitted the part where he realises that one of the gangsters in the bar killed Nite Owl I and promptly loses it, almost resorting to resolving it the 'Rorschach way'.
- The entire Keene Act is mentioned but not explained so those who haven't read the book will either wonder what on earth it is, or pay no attention to it at all.
- The interspersing of the scene on Mars with Nite Owl and Rorschach's pursuit of Ozymandias is just too disjointed to flow properly. Also, in that scene, Dr Manhattan says his lines seemingly only because they are in the novel, without really developing his thought process properly.
- There is no mention of the significance of Rameses II as Ozymandias's password-making it seem as though it was just a lucky guess by Nite Owl. Also, the significance of Ozymandias's obsession with Alexander the Great is not elaborated.
- There is also no mention of who/what Bubastis is; it was introduced so late in the film and the entire character could have been removed with little impact to the film storyline.
- It is also not very apparent how Ozymandias tricked Rorschach into going to Moloch's place and getting framed for his murder.
- The part about what Comedian was saying as he was weeping in Moloch's bedroom is critical in the novel, but is not really explained in the film.
- On that note, three words: NO GIANT OCTOPUS.
- The ending was really changed. Ozymandias frames Dr Manhattan for destroying the cities instead of blaming alien attackers, and Dr Manhattan just leaves for another galaxy. The critically important words he tells Ozymandias: "Nothing ever ends" (referring to how human nature will always just go back to where it was) is glossed over into being an aside statement muttered sotto voce by Silk Spectre II.
- To set up that ending, there is this whole bit about Dr Manhattan working with Ozymandias to transfer his power and energy, which is not in the book.
- It is also not explained why Rorschach told Dr Manhattan to obliterate him; that whole bit about how he understood the need to preserve the illusion that the superpowers were under attack from a common foe but he could not compromise his principles was glossed into a couple of statements muttered by Rorschach as he walks out.
- Little details were covered but not explained, like the last scene features an electric car plugged into a public charging point, but there is no mention of the significance of how that setup came about.
- The whole Tales of the Black Freighter is missing, but that's actually a good thing in my opinion.
Oh, before the film started, when the trailers were on I saw this commercial for anti-glue sniffing and I commented to EL about how the teenage glue sniffer is made up to look a hell lot like Jay Chou-probably because Jay Chou really does look like a glue sniffer, hahahaha!
And speaking of Jay Chou, I found this on Youtube. Seriously, don't these local Chinese singers have any originality at all besides ripping off nice English songs, singing them exactly the same way with Mandarin lyrics, and do they all have to look like a certain Taiwanese glue sniffer?
§ Technorati tags:
music;
reviews