6 years later, we've hit 100,000 views! Thanks, everyone 😁 Since I'm here, I might as well give a little epilogue: I always wanted to make a follow-up essay on the Watchmen TV show after it finished airing, but 2020 happened and I stopped making videos for a while (I now make videos about Phoenix Wright). So to close this lid, I'll say this much: Watchmen HBO is my favorite TV show. It absolutely understands the material it's adapting in so many ways the film never did. Most importantly, it's _not_ an adaptation of the graphic novel, but instead a _sequel_ to it. Watchmen HBO is faithful to the book in that, just as the book did in 1986, the show responds to the world in which it was created - late-2010s America, in this case. So many people complain about the show's social politics, and for what it's worth, those people are stupid. They're the type of person who will find a video titled "WATCHMEN Doesn't Get 'Watchmen'" and use it as a means to leave some idiotic comment about a TV show, even if the video was made long before that TV show even came out. Watchmen HBO is a masterpiece and one of the best pieces of superhero media made during the golden age of superhero stuff we're slowly exiting. But please, feel free to whine about wokeness or w/e in the comments of this video - engagement is always good 👍 Thanks again for 100K!
I remember that in the graphic novel Night Owl and Silk Spectre were crying after failing to save New York but in the movie they remain perfectly calm as if they’ve trained for a situation like this. Also Ozymandias doesn’t show a humble side and instead is just super sure that his plan will work. It’s not just their fighting ability but their emotional well being. Silk Specter and Night Owl are just normal people, they never really thought they would fight a criminal who was committing genocide, or fail. And Ozymandias is not fully sure that his plan would work.
I think this film is the perfect example of Zack Snyder's mentality and beliefs. Zack glorifies violence. And he glorifies those who aren't meant to be aspirational characters. Dr. Manhattan - comic (emotionless sociopath with a complete disconnect from humanity) movie (god-like mysiah with all these cool abilities) Rorschach - comic (deranged, violent psychopath) movie (badass, brooding vigilante) Ozymandius - comic (the extremist antagonist who kills millions of people, but at least feels those he killed) movie (brilliant savior who feels no remorse for all those people he killed)
You miss the most obvious example, the Spartans. Their entire society was absolutely psychotic yet Snyder uncritically glorified them, even the eugenics.
@@snapgab Isn't that kinda the point of 300 (the comic)? It's the story told through the perspective of the Spartans themselves, which is why they are portrayed as heroes whereas the persians are all monsters. It's purposely kind of over the top ridiculous
A lot of the violent scenes in the novel were supposed to be seen as horrific. A great example is the scene of the Comedian and Manhattan massacring Viet-Cong soldiers. When the Comedian incinerates a wounded soldier, gleefully smiling, you’re suppose to see the Comedian as a monster, as someone who has no empathy for those he kills, someone who knows what he’s doing is wrong but doesn’t care. In the movie, the scene is portrayed as being EpIc BrO, with the Ride of the Valkyries being played in the background.
This exactly this the movie glorifies the brutal and unlikable characters like the comedian and Rorschach especially Rorschach being portrayed as a much more complex character that people can find relatable instead of the deplorable hypocritical monster he is who should not in any way be seen as good
Really?? I felt like that scene came across with the blackest of humour . It acts as if it isbthis big triumphant moment , and that's the point .Especially considering that straight after we see the vietnamese citizens marching in the street celebrating their American opressors 😂 The movie taps into a certain absurdity . When I was a teenager I took the film seriously but now I realise its a pure parody . If viewing the movie on a purely surface level your just not getting the most out of it .
I need to re read, I’ve always seen super hero’s as hero’s so I thought well, they are in super hero suits, they are the main characters. They are the good guys. Time to re look at life
Even after seeing the Ultimate Cut, something about Snyder's Watchmen just felt hollow and I couldn't put my finger on it. I just reread the comic for the first time in probably 15-20 years, and now I totally see why I had that reaction. Snyder himself is an Objectivist and as you brilliantly point out, the Watchmen comic was a total takedown of Objectivism.
Yeah the biggest problem w the watchmen movie is that Snyder was sucking the shit outta Rorschach. Like Rorschach was the baddest coolest dude on the planet.
Thank you. Too many people idolize Rorschach as the underdog protagonist of the story and completely miss the point that his black and white mentality doesn’t work in a morally gray world
Rorschach is well written character but wasn't supposed to be idolised and the movie basically completely stray's of the theme of Watchmen comic books, still will be waiting for a good Watchmen show as a movie is physically impossible to make
Rorschach has flaws like every other character in the book. The difference is he is the only one who actually wants to stand up to corruption. Today it seems like people are lauding Veidt as the hero. As if "for the greater good" isn't the most horrifying concept in all of human history.
Except anyone with even a semblance of rational thought recognizes that genocide is never a means to an end. It's what the Nazis did, it's what the Soviets did, and it's what the Turks did. It is common sense to stand against authoritarians that wish to commit genocide to achieve their goals, regardless of how "empathetic" or "magnificent" their goals are. If you need to kill an entire group of people to prove you are right, then you are most definitely not right.
@A92348Q3ATEP Y92385NP239S He doesn’t stand up for “corruption” he just wants to be a hero. His actual revelation of “truth” would’ve killed humanity in an all out war. “Keeping the peace” in this context means buying time. Would you rather kill all of humanity for the truth or try to find a better way by keeping everyone alive at least for a couple of decades? Rorschark doesn’t care about “justice”, he just wants to be right. He didn’t think of the consequences because he’s too fucked in the head to realise this.
@@patrickzantomasterhypothetical- if you had access to the Epstein list but exposing the list causes the destruction of the world and keeping it hidden doesn’t, would you expose the list? Because me personally I would expose the list regardless and I think that’s why people can relate to Rorschach
Thanos Becomes Darkseid still doesn’t make it any better. Whether he made Batman first or not, whether WB rushed it or not it was destined for failure.
Omg right?!! My least favourite and the laziest if all critiques of the movie. If Adrian has the reflexes of a God (and apparently bulletproof skin) due to "his intellect" and that makes sense, why would it not make sense that after 50 years of being a superhero AND in a life or death situation Blake was able to punch through some drywall and break a bit of brick?
@@jonocossey1 The comic has SOME instances of superpowers, like the psychic, Manhattan and even Ozy himself doesn't feel like just a human. In the movie, everyone is superpowered, and a scene where the comedian is supposed to be pathetic is instead demonstration of this change.
Here is a quote that pretty much sums up how Snyder sees Watchmen: “I had a buddy who tried getting me into normal comic books, but I was all like, ”No one is having sex or killing each other. This isn’t really doing it for me.” I was a little broken, that way. So when Watchmen came along, I was, ”This is more my scene.”
What is comes down to is that Watchmen was a critique of Ditko's worldview, then the film was adapted by a man who shares Ditko's worldview (granted, Syder's objectivism is quite a bit toned down compared to Ditko's). On top of that, Snyder doesn't really care about stories as much as he cares about images (which is very good at making).
@E Eh, I would disagree. That's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. He actually has great directing talent and abilities. He even has *gasp* subtlety. He's not just great with the camera. In sequences and in moments, he's strung together some brilliantly edited moments. He also really understands how to use sound better than most. His talents are more than just cinematography. He hasn't been able to put all the pieces together though and make a great through and through coherent whole consistently, but HE HAS DONE IT at least a few times. He always misses something. Directing is harder than anybody thinks it is.
I think he does have a great artistic talent, it awesome seeing his scenes. Hes a visionary director after all. But in the end of the day, his movies is style over substance. He was *never* good at developing characters, I never really cared about them in most of his movies. The action scenes looked awesome unlike anything of MCU movies, but without the weight of seeing characters you love trying their best, the scenes just becomes bland.
@Bobo Boy not that he didnt do his best, it's just i dont care about his particular version of the character. It was away to early to do death of Supes, and his Supes didnt fully develop yet. I just felt litte to no shympathy.
This is entirely right. The film, while having its moments, fundamentally misinterprets core tenants of the original story or distorts them to the point where the original themes are rendered moot. The film wants to have its cake and eat it too, portraying the Watchmen all as above average people which renders Ozymandias’ superhuman feat of catching a bullet moot at the end. Furthermore, Ozy gloats about how the NY massacre is a punishment for getting so close to the Cold War in the film instead of making him a severely misguided hero with good intentions, even axing the pivotal conversation with Manhattan at the end about nothing really ending. The song choices are frequently too on the nose (the best exceptions are Phillip Glass which fit the Manhattan birth perfectly and the opening title credit with Bob Dylan) and seem at odds with the story the film is trying to tell, doing little but making the film feel more badass with AATW during the Antarctica trip. Making Manhattan the central culprit for the massacre also makes sense at first, but who’s to say the USSR wouldn’t immediately retaliate or get pissed America wouldn’t keep its own weapon/God under control? There’s no scene devoid of sound or dialogue where the clock hits midnight and it shows the remnants of the massacre. Instead it’s played like every other slow-mo action piece with cool effects. I feel like Zack Snyder knows he diluted certain aspects of the source material for Watchmen and it does really play out like an advertisement for the original; however, the adaptation is almost completely divorced from the source material’s themes, using them only as costumes for simpler points. TL;DR - it’s an alright adaptation and was a bit underrated on release, but it doesn’t capture the scope and nuance of the plot and ends up falling victim to some of the clichés the original satirizes.
Go in Antarctica in plain coat, be there on open space for at least 10 minutes (you may not step on snow,but be in open area). Or get local gang angry at you (you may call One woman to help you) and try to beat all of them without receiving any serious injury, you cannot use any weapon unless you grab something from them. Call 911, say you killed man and try to survive SWAT raid in tight stairwell with nothing but spray, lighter, airsoft pistol with one charge and pepper. Try to climb skyscraper (around 20-40 floors) with rope on your own, in elevator shoes. Get yourself in one of nastiest prisons as prisoner, provoke people around and try to survive. Accomplish at least ANY of these with video evidence and I will believe you that Crimebusters like Nite Owl and/or Rorschach are just "ordinary people", unlike Watchmen Nite Owl and/or Rorschach .
Yoo Hoo then he wouldn’t have made it an action movie. Your not supposed to really like the characters.
4 ปีที่แล้ว
@@genericusername566 well, considering Moore's comments about Rorschach fans he himself didn't succeeded with it neither in comics. And film is as much action as comics was.
Yoo Hoo the movie has way more action. Characters like Night Owl who hates fighting in the comics and Silk Specter are basically super powered in the movie.
4 ปีที่แล้ว
@@genericusername566 no it doesn't yeah, and they very average in comics, with being able to beat up gang, with nothing more than fists, without taking any serious damage.
@ He didn't fail he just didn't leave it written on Rocharch's forehead "you shouldn't idolize me", it's not Alan Moore's fault if superhero comic readers are stupid, in fact if you really think Rocharch was badly written you should stay away of high literature and mainly of books like Lolita
This puts it into words very well. I remember walking out of the cinema and thinking how wrong the tone of the movie had felt. The constant slow motion during fight scenes, the sleek violence and extended fistfight at the beginning. The movie was trying to have its cake and eat it too - being a deconstruction of comic book movies while pretending really hard to be one. Imo they picked entirely the wrong director for this.
Yoo Hoo the comics literally portray their characters as lame (the exact opposite of comic book characters at the time) while the movie portrays their characters as fucking badass (like most comic book movies at the time). Take the BS elsewhere.
Yoo Hoo it’s a movie that becomes the very thing it’s trying to “satirize”
4 ปีที่แล้ว
@@madnizz1511 "comics literally portray their characters as lame" Is it lame to be able to build flying ship? Is it lame to being able to catch bullet? Is it lame to being able to successfully survive attack by a street gang in alley with no damage after abandoning any training for years? Is it lame to survive Swat? Is it lame to being able to climb highest skyscrapers by the rope in a coat and shoes with lifts? Is it lame to be able to survive getting shanked in jail, or beating opponent without even fighting him? Is it lame to be able to survive a few minutes of Antarctic in just fall coat, scarf, full mask and hat? If so, can *You* do at least *One* of those "lame" activities?
Yoo Hoo The main characters are definitely smart and slightly more skilled than the average person, but at the end of the day, are still people. They just aren’t meant to be borderline superhuman badasses, like they are in the film.
They should've done the movie right now, in the 2020's. The movie would subvert from other mainstream comic book movies like the original graphic novel did from classic comics.
No it wouldn't. Deconstructed super heros was already the defacto norm in Superhero movies prior to Watchmen and really the comic industry as a whole. It was a return to bright colored costumes etc...that the Marvel movies brought which was actually subversive, to say not every Superhero movie has to be a bleak reimagined distorted mirror image of our own.
After watching the ultimate cut I went looking for someone that could put all my thoughts and frustrations into video. Thank you for that. This is an incredibly well put together video essay.
A miscpnseption is thinking an oppinion can change with fact.Espicially if oppinion is supported by fact.So if fact support a false oppinion that is wronged by fact than can we trust 'facts'.(Dont lnow where im going with this)
Honestly one of the biggest signs you can tell this movie doesn’t get its source material comes in the form of how little we see of Rorschach’s own biases and prejudices effect how he perceives the world. We don’t get those racist filled monologues about people who cheat on welfare in his eyes, his shameful condemnation of a single mother he presumes doesn’t know who the father of her kids are, we don’t see the full lengths of bigoted caricatures that are shown in the frontiersman in their racist political cartoons and misses the point of Rorschach and why him interacting with the two characters involved in the black freighter subplot is important as well. Rorschach like his name implies only projects what he wants to see in the world around him like a Rorschach test but fails to see how the two characters involved in the black freighter plotline, the young black kid and the store owner who sells and iirc reads the frontiersmen himself betrays what Rorschach wants to see as moral decay due to urban life when these two perspectives are shown to openly discuss and evaluate a piece of art without the biases and prejudices Rorschach would like to ascribe to people in general and yet he fails to notice this connective opportunity that an urban setting can provide despite being one of the store owner’s constant customers and witness to this back and forth.
Zak Snyder has an almost superhuman ability to miss the point of the works he's adapting. The funny thing is that when he's working on Frank Miller material it actually *works* to a greater or lesser extent.
Bobo Boy then why did Snyder give non-super heroes borderline super-powers/strength. The whole point was that they are just regular people in masks. Except for DM of course. This took me out of the film a bit.
It seems as if Snyder was trying to be gritty with the violence in Watchmen, but the excessive blood just came across as over-the-top. It reminds me of the deliberately exaggerated violence in Turbo Kid, which the director described as "Looney Toons for adults."
4 ปีที่แล้ว
@@Panyc333 they are not regular people. Unless you want to try to survive even 10 minutes in Antarctica in nothing more but coat. Or beat up gang with nothing more than your own fists. Or climb skyscraper by the rope. Or survive SWAT raid without getting killed. Or survive shank attempt at prison. Go away, try any of those. And post here a link from Goggle Disk of your video proof. Prove that heroes from comics as "regular people".
Yoo Hoo by regular people I mean non super human. The heroes are certainly exceptional but not super human. Veidt catching the bullet was about as close as that got. I guess I should have been more specific to save you the trouble.
the point of the opening fight with comedian in the comic is a guy who thought he was king shit, dies a weak old man in a whimper. with the film, he goes out fighting, which doesn't really encapsulate the point of that scene
Yeahhh, maybe I think Snyder loved badass superheroes and anti-heroes too much to make a film that was meant go be a cynical parody on them. Snyder would do a great job of writing anything related to Frank Miller, and would have probably done a good job with any noir film. But this was a project that he could not be less suited for its message
Love this video. You are spot-on in your criticism. And Lindelof also absolutely gets what Moore was doing and saying and has carried that forward in his own show, while abandoning slavish and hollow imitation of that work. Anyway, here's an interesting interpretation for you: we know that Moore intended his work as a commentary and criticism of Ditko's Objectivist views in his own work, but I got to thinking about the characters and while I agree that Rorschach is not Batman, what if he is meant to be a split of Batman? What if Ozymandias and Dr Manhattan represent two aspects of superman (the nietzsche Superman and Man as God) and Rorschach and Nite Owl as two aspects of batman (violent prowling vigilante and the rich inventor with all the trappings). Read this way, beyond the primary message of how ineffectual and monstrous that heroes would be in the real world, I think Moore may have wanted to hone his criticism in on the two most popular characters. So we have the engaged Man-as-Superman who decides to kill millions to save billions while the aloof Man-As-God ultimately agrees on rational grounds. That's a central criticism of the superhero: their power removes them from human context and enables terrible actions. Our Batman characters are powerless to stop them, because this is beyond the scope that their moral absolutism encompasses. This is a central criticism of vigilantes: their violence cannot solve the large problems.
I think that's a pretty good read. The Charlton characters were just the springboard. As the project developed, I feel like it became a lot more than just criticizing Objectivism and also included criticizing the genre as a whole. And through that lens, your observations about the Batman/Superman parallels make perfect sense.
You’re right on the money with the difference between Rorschach and Nite Owl II. No wonder they’re friends, they’re both Batman! XD Also I find it kinda hard not to read some commentary into the fact that Nite Owl II (Dan) didn’t use any of his amazing nite owl tech to help the world. If I had that stuff, you bet I’d try to make a company and sell it. Or sell it to a company so they’d make it. Either or
@@TheEvolver311 possibly! But Moore doesn’t seem to lean to simple or straightforward efforts so i suspect there’s much more there given the amount of work he put into it. Not saying that my speculation is what he had in mind.
Ya know A lot of people have there issues with this movie, but they’re usually vapid points that end with “and they didn’t do the squid.” But this didn’t even say you didn’t like it. You weren’t harsh about what’s actually different, just honest. I’ve always liked the movie as a companion piece to the book, but I never really thought about how Snyder’s directing style clashes with the material. Again excellent video.
Unpopular opinion: I think the TV show captures the comics' essence way better than the movie did. I mean, it truly manages to feel like it's within the same universe as the comics, besides all the "this show is woke garbage" criticism (which I think it's pointless. The comics had an intense political message, so the TV show has it as well)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU STUPID FUCK "The comics had an intense political message, so the TV show has it as well" yeah, cause it was a very political atmosphere, a possible and literal doomsday looming in due to the cold war... the TV show does NOT have an equivalent at all, and is already garbage without such a plot device. i still cant get over the fact that most the story took place in fuckin NY, but now we have this new plot wayyyyyy over there past Kansas... all of the plot, and all the fanfare... like how did Rorscharch's legacy of vigilantism IN NEW YORK, lead to white supremacy neo nazi movement halfway across burgerland? thats like Batman existing and the people of Gotham he somehow failed to inspire but yknow, Arizona of all places is inspired by Gotham and starts a vigilante group of their own with Batman's likeness... how the fuck is the script so bad??? oh yeah, cause its woke... woke garbage.... yknow... a VALID criticism, because of stupid one liners like "I SMELL BLEACH", or the fact that Neonazi white supremacists from the cold war are inspired by a homeless ginger in a mask and not someone more important or like them such as the killer of MLK jr... again with the woke bullshit, the Rorschach mask is only used at all because they thought it was cool iconography, there's no fuckin way this bullshit makes sense in universe...
@@elgatochurro In watchmen (comic) Rorschach's favourite newspaper is a pretty much white supremacist sexist paper. He also mails his jornal to the same post so yeah you can see how it went all the way to tulsa. Hope i helped with your doubts
@@rafamullermusic "white supremacist sexist paper" You act like those words got ANY meaning nowadays where literally everything is sexist, white supremacist, neo nazi, etc
Thanks for watching! There was actually an entire section dedicated to Zack Snyder’s direction (he was behind the Comedian’s little wall punching), but I cut it for feasibility, as well as not framing the film’s problem as entirely on ONE person, the director though he may be. I also didn’t know Zack Snyder was an Objectivist - I just assumed as much, but it wasn’t enough concrete evidence to warrant a mention.
While it can be considered as a pseudo-sequel to the graphic novel, the HBO show somehow manages to capture the tone of Moore and Gibbon's text far better than Zack Snyder's 'faithful interpretation', not to mention reveals the movie's gradually apparent cracks and the director's misunderstandings of the context behind both the overall plot and characters.
5 ปีที่แล้ว +246
I said it before and I'll say it again: Zack Snyder has zero reading comprehension.
He's the same director who based Batman versus Superman on The Dark Knight Returns, but totally didn't understand the relationship between the two characters. After all, he had Batman trying to murder Superman while in TDKR, Batman and Superman had friendly rivalry.
@@edkruse9541 Superman was definitely not treated kindly by Frank Miller, but make no mistakes that they weren't friends. Their relationship was strained at that point, but weren't they playing golf together or something? They were two close friends who developed serious differences that strained them, but that was it. It was NOT the hatred and disdain in BvS.
I dont think they have superpowers. I think they are just great at what they do. the same way batman can seem superhuman after all these years because of his years of training and discipline.
Which is exactly what Moore didn't wanted them to be. Even their costumes are really cool while in the comic they look like bad cosplayers. Snyder took a deconstruction of the superhero genre and turned it into another superhero story.
lacrarte zorok not really, and i guess i used the wrong word not great, but experienced. Because all of them, just like in the comic are still far from any sense of the word hero
lacrarte zorok also just like with other movies that are taken from books, be they Novel or Comic Its not ment to be a 1 to 1 translation. Personally i found there were thing i liked more in snyders take, while at the same time there were things i liked more in moores take.
Darryl Jack But the point is, like the video says, that it failed to translate the escencial part of the story, that these characters aren't really superheroes, but very screwend up people who become vigilantes as a expresion of their faults and traumas. In the comic is sugested that, apart from Dr. Manhattan, they're inconsecuential to the world(Veid only becomes relevant when he retires and becomes a bussinesman) But that beautifull intro give us the idea that they shaped their world.
@@lacrartezorok4975 You are clueless. Snyder's movie deconstructs superhero tropes just like Moore did, except he exaggerates them stylistically. If you think the slo-mo face punches, close-ups of latex costumes, over the top poses, and ridiculous stunts are serious, then you simply misunderstand the art of cinema. You should watch the movie and think: "This whole superhero thing is pretty absurd. Why do I like watching this stuff?" The film confronts the superhero movie fan and shows them their underside. That's why his film has grown as time progresses, because superhero movies have become ever more repetitive and cliche. Snyder pulled the greatest practical joke in human history.
I actually think this movie actually did a great job in advertising the comics because when I when I watched this movie as a kid, I thought everyone was a badass and this movie was cool and complex when it wasn't. It was a deep dive into the mere surface of the story, but I think that's what makes your first read of the watchmen a great experience afterwards tho. Because you truly learn the meaning behind the story and you see a complete different perspective. Its kinda nice that you can watch the movie, then read the book, because the deeper meaning of watchmen hits even further because it completely changes your perspectives and tells you that you're wrong.
It's easy to understand why they did the film the way they did it. And as a person who didn't read the comic book i liked it. But watching this TV series on HBO, and listening to many Podcasts I've come to understand why it upset so many people. The film missed the point of the novel entirely. But the show is a proper representation of the source material. It's utterly magnificent.
"If my movie is an advertisement for the book, great." =/= "I intend for this movie to be as true to the source material as possible." I don't agree with your characterization of Snyder's intent (at least not based on the quote you used). Those just aren't the same. And in some ways he was right because I'm one of the folks that went and got the books because of the movie. (Same with V for Vendetta, but I digress...) Also, I don't think you can really say he gave them superpowers. Folks who are trained in and regularly engage in hand to hand combat are able to do things that others just can't. Punching a wall might stop most folks in their tracks, but not somebody who punches people for a living. Dry wall ain't that tough. Sure, they gave the fight scenes a lil sexy, but it's a movie. You can't get away with bad fight scenes, no matter how true to the source material you are. And honestly, I remember thinking after watching the movie that these "heroes" were sorta miserable people. Some were more adept at dealing with that misery, but none of them really had a superhero ending. Ozy "won" in that his plan worked, but I don't believe he was happy or "fulfilled" in any way. These folks seemed cursed. I get where you're coming from though. But a lot of the differences, I chalk up to "print vs movie". Movie audiences are different and must be treated as such. Books are consumed at the pace of the reader. They can turn back to reread pages, put it down for a while and come back, take it with them to the toilet. For moviegoers, you have to set the pace for them and you've got to keep that attention. All that said, nice video.
What I think it’s missing is a lot more Ozymandias scenes. I always thought in the opening credits we should have seen Ozymandias in the fields of Africa or something handing out medicines so we understand he gives to charity. Because they don’t really focus on his humanitarian side it’s not a shock when he’s bad.
I was a big Watchmen fan and an even bigger fan of Alan Moore's body of work in general when I watched the movie and got excited about the fact that it was supposed to be a panel by panel adaptation. The Zack Snyder-style action scenes that glorify violence stood out to me as just not belonging in the movie. For example, in the comic book, Rorschach tries to escape the police and hurts his ankle when he jumps out of the building, but in the movie, he lands with style and continues fighting the police to rock music like a movie action hero.
I think that the problem with the film is that all of that changes seems to be made to attract casual viewers, what I mean is, the flashy effects, the costumes, and the super strength seems to be add to attract the viewers of hero movies like batman or spiderman. Maybe they where scare if they didn't fulfill some expectations of the general public, after all, it was WB who where paying the movie
8:47 Not ALL of its characters. Snyder clearly thinks Ozy is objectively in the wrong, and that Rorschach was a goodie good boy who didn’t do anything wrong.
@@ZrodyApo Well Ozy clearly has something wrong with him, they all do that's the point, but if I have to choose between the saving lie and the damning truth I think you would be an idiot to choose the latter. Rorschach might not have been a hypocrite but what he stood for was awful.
@@aqualitymagentachickenmask3298 like someone else said on another topic about the subjet, we experience most of the story through Rorschach's eyes so it kind of makes us sympathetic with him even tho he's an awful human being. And there's something that i've been thinking about the characters of Watchmen is that nearly everyone of the team loses his humanity is some way and differently but we're only told about how Dr Manhattan is the one who's lost his humanity. Except maybe for Nite Owl, I feel that he stays the most human between all of them but i may be wrong about that :D
Thank you for this. This is the best critique of the film I’ve heard. You criticized it in a non-toxic way and that’s refreshing. The graphic novel makes me actually put it down and think about what it just told me. The film I can sit back and enjoy with popcorn and not think twice about it. Both can be enjoyable.
He completely misrepresented Objectivism, called Rorschach a bigot, completely misunderstood Zack Snyder's film, and also called Lindsay Ellis the "best film essayist on youtube". I would say this is far from the best critique of the film.
5 ปีที่แล้ว +1
Watchmen 2019. Hold my fuckin' beer. As a DC Adaptation it's almost up there with "Doom Patrol". I bet my left nut that if Alan Moore was to watch it, even he would concede that it seems to have got everything right so far. Grumpy old git.
This is legitimately a great video essay and it pains me that you don't have more subscriptions. I'm eager to see what else you have to say in the future.
in a comic it's easy to say: they have all human strength, but catching a bullet, and lifting a full grown man with only two hands and throwing him out a thick glass. However in movie logic that doesn't make any sense. If one person can do these things, it makes sense that the others also have the same or at least similar strength. Even in the comics it is commented on how strong the comedian is. And nightowl, silkspectre and rorshack don't have super human strength, they are simply good at martial arts
Ehh he actually says its cause of enhanced reflexes for Ozy specifically. In the comic, the whole bullet catching thing was a feat he hadn't achieved yet and Ozy wasn't sure if he could despite all the training and intelligence he accumulated in his time as a mask. When he catches the bullet it's done near the book's climax and is a sort of "cherry on top" for his whole masterplan. Ozy's big character moment/theme is that intelligence and indomitable will can topple God.
@@MarkFilipAnthony in the graphic novel, Ozy caught a bullet with his bare hands. While in the film it was his gauntlets. That's a lot more realistic.
4 ปีที่แล้ว +1
@@melontusk7358 I am not the one who claims that people that can beat up bunch of armed thugs after 10 years of retirement and no training, people that can climb super tall buildings by rope, or survive Antarctica frost in plain fall coat and scarf are just "very good at martial arts" Comics Crimebusters are far from average. Not even mentioning that Dan built aircraft on his own. Or Rorschach survived SWAT raid alive, or won battle with prisoner without single punch.
Here's a problem I have when comparing the comic series with the movie. I watched the movie before I ever read the comics. The themes jumped out at me. The same themes in the movie to me are pretty much the same in the comic. To me what really brought certain themes was the emotion that the actors brought in the scenes. Them being super heros I would hope they could beat people up pretty easily. Like they did seem better then the average person and thats a reason why they were super heros. But, it greatly showed that they were also just people. Same flaws, failures, emotions, and everything. They just had resources (money, intellect, wit) and could kick ass. It's an adaptation of a vision of the comic novel. I don't think it was a bad one. Just different because it was a movie and a style.
But see your comment just proves the video's point. You're not even meant to consider the 'heroes' as kick ass. In the book the characters are despicable, pathetic, misguided or a some combination of these; their 'ass kicking' should not even be something you take away about the characters. If this was just an action movie completely unrelated to Watchmen then it would be great, as Snyder's action direction is great. But the fact that the Watchman movie puts so much emphasis on action shows that Snyder fundamentally doesn't understand the point made by Watchmen.
An excellent essay! You had vocalised what was missing between the book and the film as many have said here. I hope Snyder sees this as a more mature film maker. The other adaptation that failed between the book and film was Ghost in the Shell.
A. At no point is the group ever referred to as “the watchmen”. This is one of the biggest misconceptions about this work. B. The comic was specifically designed to showcase what the comics medium could do which makes adapting it to another medium completely redundant. If you’re adapting it into a film then shouldn’t it be to showcase what the medium of film can do? C. Why couldn’t Damon Lindelof just make a historical drama about the Tulsa Race Massacre? Why did he have to hijack a property like Watchmen?
I thought the movie was pretty good and that made me want to read the graphic novel, and I thought it was great. I think the movie does in fact follow the source material in spirit. Rorschach certainly has his dark side, but the movie emphasized more his sympathetic side and he is really a tragic figure. Dave Gibbons likes the movie and that’s good enough for me. It’s certainly a better adaptation than Extraordinary Gentlemen and V for Vendetta.
After you've made valid points while comparing Watchmen the comic vs the film, when are we going to see and hear your comments regarding the HBO TV series?
I disagree that a movie showing the main characters as looking cool inherently means its endorsing them. Starship Troopers looks cool as shit but its still a satire. Like, ok the book/movie is about how the superhero fantasy is flawed, but it also ought to be able to capture the idea that flying around in a spaceship taking out thugs kinda looks fun as hell. Its up to the viewer to make the moral judgement on what they're seeing. I read an interview with snyder once where he mentioned that in the scene where dan and Laurie are beating up the muggers it was important that you see breaking bones and blood and such in the slow mo, so that the viewer was kinda like "this is kinda cool but also kinda horrible?" I dont think he made a good adaptation but I dont think he was totally ignorant of that aspect of the novel either.
I like the movie because it gives some aids when I go back and read the book. Like being able to put a voice to Rorschachs speech bubbles. Or a sound effect to Jon’s teleporting. But in some areas it fails to capture the right emotions of the novel.
Ever since I watched the visual novel god Watchmen, I’ve grown to resent the movie more and more. I’ve been saying exactly what you said for a while now
I genuinely don’t know how you can read Watchmen and think that the events or characters that are in the story are cool. Watchmen couldn’t be any less glamorous
You simply misunderstand. Snyder actually understands the source material as well as anyone, he just chose to represent the ideas in a more cinematic fashion. The reason it appears the crimefighters have "superpowers" is because the over the top stunts are really mocking superhero movies. The slow-to-fast action cuts, slo-mo face punches, absurd spins and posing are all very intentional. Just as the graphic novel showed the underside of comic books as a medium, Snyder's film shows the ridiculousness of comic book MOVIES. It's extremely self aware, and while he didn't match the precision of Moore's comic, it captures the spirit and the entire thesis of the source material quite better than other filmmakers would.
The over-the-top stunts don't evoke any particular superhero film, or even superhero movies in general. The heavy use of slow-motion and slow-to-fast cuts don't visually resemble what you would see in The Dark Knight or a Marvel Film, they're pretty particular to Snyder's directorial style. And this was also before he had been closely involved with other superhero properties. You can't say the stunts "mock superhero movies" if they don't even resemble superhero movies of the time.
Zennistrad2 you still don’t understand. They’re not mocking any particular superhero movies. The images are meant to make you uncomfortable about what you like to see in superhero flicks. The violence, sex scenes, and “end of the world” plot are all subverted to show the absurdity of those tropes.
@@Iknowthelaw13 And you seem to assume too much about what Zack Snyder was intending with those scenes, if you look at his previous film 300 it has the exact same type of over the top scenes with the goal of making you feel '''this is cool'' about the Spartans so he applied this directly to Watchmen too because he found the characters in those comics cool too. The comic also had those scenes to subvert tropes yet never wasted so much of its frames on those scenes, yet the movie does.
Not really? Like, in the comic Hollis' death was a tragic beatdown of a powerless and helpless old man. In the movie it's framed as a heroic badass last stand kind of thing. Hollis in the comics didn't get a single punch in, while in the movie he gets some pretty good offensive hits in. They're pretty clearly going for different things.
When I first saw this movie with a friend, we hated it so much that we almost walked out. A couple of years later, I stumbled upon the graphic novel. I heard about all the praise it had and despite my opinion of the movie, I still read it, thinking it will get me to maybe learn to open up to the movie or at least tolerate it. HELLLLL NO! The book was so good it made me despise the movie even more. How can a movie be so faithful to a comic and yet stray so far from it? It's so odd to me!! All this movie did for me was to further prove that the comic is impossible to adapt properly, like most of Alan Moore's work.
Zack Snyder either: A. Probably liked watchmen, but didn’t think that a poetic masterpiece would make bank B. Liked Watchmen, but for the wrong reasons C. Just doesn’t like comics, considering his future works.
Something just struck me regarding your interpretation that Watchmen was supposed to be parodying Ayn Rand - I had just been coincidentally re-reading both Watchmen and Atlas Shrugged and noticed - the Watchmen plot point, where all the best artists, architects, bio-engineers, writers, etc. - where they're all vanishing one by one and going to Ozymandias' Island (to build his squid alien) - was that supposed to be a straight-up play on the plot of Atlas Shrugged, or am I just over-interpreting? In Atlas, genius physicist John Galt topples the U.S. economy, and by extension society, by convincing all the country's best and brightest minds to leave without trace and come to his hidden valley deep in the Rockies. If so (again, since Moore and Gibbons never actually stated that as a theme of the comic, so maybe we're all just over-reading) but if so, does that make Ozymandias basically (and maybe literally) a bizarro-world parody of John Galt? 🤔
i disagree with the part about Rorschach being the most morally objectionable character, because at the end he is 100% morally correct. he is the only one that is not complicit in genocide to push a lie to try and achieve some utopian society. i think the guy who thinks killing millions of people with the end goal of world peace through fear is unquestionably a more reprehensible character. even if Ozymandias's plan did result world peace, it would only be temporary. immediately after there may be peace, but you are always just a few generations away from things getting bad again. just look at real life history, like 9/11, less than 20 years ago. right after everyone was all unified, but now people couldn't be more divided. any utopian society is ridiculous and unrealistic. also the characters who are complicit in going along with that plan are not much better either.
The point is that the choice Rorschach makes at the end has nothing to do with morals but with the fact that Ozy's action has shattered Rorschach's simplistic view of the world. Through out the series Rorschach, (just like Ditko's Mr A) sees everything around him as good and evil, black and white. He see everything through his mask, or face as he calls. The fact that his mask is made of white cloth and black spots, always moving but with the colors never merging together in shades of gray is exactly how Rorschach views the world: "There is good and there is evil. And evil must be punished even in the face of Armageddon". He only deals in absolutes. Through the issues he was ready to face ultimate, unquestinable evil. But when Ozy's does a bad thing to "save the world" it shatters his world view, he cannot understand it, he rebels and in the end he just gives up. Not because morals, he just doesn't get it. He even takes his mask to take the final blow from Manhattan, and dies as Kovacs instead of Rorschach. Rorschach is a comic book hero in a realistic world of Watchmen, but comic book morals will not always work in the real world.
Here's a little piece of trivia that most people dont know... and that even Alan Moore still doesn't acknowledge... the later Eddie Blake-older version of Comedian was loosely based or inspired by an old french movie called "Mr Freedom".
I remember reading that some scenes in the comic were lifted from other works. The scene with Rorschach handcuffing a guy to a pipe in a burning building, and saying, "the pipe will take too long" as he throws him a hack saw, was from a movie.
"Head writer Damon Lindelof." That doesn't sound promising at all. If there's one thing people should know about Lindelof, it's that he's the head writer on Lost and Prometheus, and a co-writer of Star Trek Into Darkness and Tomorrowland. And I don't need someone as pretentious a writer as him working on a deconstructive project like a Watchmen TV series.
CaptainRaccoonWhitly yeah I'm still worried about the Watchmen show. People say he is a good writer because of Left Over, but one work does not make him a good writer. Left Over wasn't all that great and it was pretentious.
I don't love Lindeloff's writing. I honestly don't know enough to know enough about it. But WATCHMEN is the most pretentious graphic novel out there - and I love it for that reason lol So it's funny that you call a writer pretentious. Ironic even.
No superpowers? Well, yes and no... take into consideration that Adrian was a brilliant geneticist (of german - possibly nazi origin, who might have also genetically altered himself) ...who was able to dodge and stop bullets with his bare hand. The Comedian who (at the time of his death) is an old man in the body of a 20 yr old power lifter... they were ordinary in the sense when compared to other super heroes the same way batman and captain america are "oridinary humans" but comparable to real world people (which the comic alludes to) they were people who have the physical speed of olympic runners, the physical stregth of "strongmen" with the reflexes of circus acrobats and the minds of physicists... all rolled into one. Basically ...go try and dodge a bullet -see what happens lol. I do agree with you about the movie ... it was shit... the HBO series is closer to the feel of the comic then the movie -which seems like more of a frank miller take on the watchmen... if he had written it instead of alan moore.
@Bobo Boy it can't possibly be as bad as the bad acting from from the movie ... seriously bro, Malin Akerman (whos a comedic actress) was so miss- cast as SSII, Billy Crudup was like a MrSpock on quaaludes, the only actor that did a great job was Jackie Earle Hayle as Rorschach...
I don't really have a beef with the "superpowers". The characters are amped up only slightly. It would have been better if they weren't, but that's not why the movie wasn't as good as it could have been. I felt the main problem with the film was that it stuck too close to the book. Graphic arts and cinema are two different mediums. What works in one does not necessarily work in another. A graphic novel is read at a different pace than a movie is presented, and its images are presented and viewed differently. Panels are seen alongside other panels, and the content composition of the panels is designed so that entire pages and spreads are seen together. Cinema is much more serial though. You can't see the composition of a scene alongside another scene. Larger panels or full-page scenes get a boost on paper, but not on a movie screen where everything is the same size. Snyder duplicated a lot of the graphic novel onto film, and it's not as effective there. It makes you feel like you're seeing the graphic novel, but it feels off because it's not.
This is spot on. I rewatched it recently after also re-reading the book and was just in awe of how Snyder could miss the point so completely. My opinion of the movie tanked and it makes me appreciate the book even more.
@@TheRealHaloLover I really liked the show for the most part. Overall it felt closer in spirit to the comic’s world building and didn’t miss the point so much.
Just watched this, and it summarized vague thoughts I’ve had about the film for years in a cogent manner... great job, honestly. I’ll now point people to this video to explain my problems with the movie
Watchmen is a film that needed a director like Martin Scorsese to transfer the themes to the big screen correctly - it needed to be made kinda cheap and dirty with the budget saved for mainly the ending etc. IMHO
Good film. I understand the take however I did not come away thinking the movie characters had super powers, rather that they were extra dangerous due to their drive and training. This is what Snyder is effectively showing. There is no doubt in the film that Dr. Manhattan is the one with superpowers. I have read the comic and felt that Snyder made an amazing job conveying its themes without making it look contrived or silly. I thought that music choices are spectacular and the opening scene is a masterpiece.
Rorschach is relatable because he stands for individualism and principle. Ozymandias basically gives Rorschach an ultimatum - either join his collectivist utopia, or die. He chooses death. Your oversimplification of Objectivism, which is also completely wrong, is also the exact same idea which Moore had when criticizing Ditko and his characters. That's why Moore was so pissed about lots of readers siding with Rorschach. He went out of his way to mock and make a fool of Objectivism and Ditko, yet despite all of that, people still sided with his obvious lampoon character. This is also another reason a lot of people don't like Snyder's interpretation, it's more sympathetic to Rorschach. And there is nothing in the original comic that paints or portrays Rorschach as being a bigot. Stop injecting your own politics into the characters. "THEY GAVE THE WATCHMEN SUPERPOWERS" - I mean....Ignoring the fact that Dr Manhattan has superpowers, no, Comedian does not have superpowers. Him punching through drywall is not a superpower. In fact anyone of relatively high strength could do that. It does not take super strength to punch through a wall, unless that wall is concrete. Watchmen is not a "reaction" to 50 years of comic books, it is a reaction to the trend in 70's superhero comics to make superhero's "gritty" and "realistic". If you knew anything about comics, you would know this. Go back all the way to 1971, and you get "Snowbirds Don't Fly", where Green Arrow comes face to face with the reality of his side kick being addicted to heroin. Moore didn't like how superheroes were being inserted into the "real world" (ignorant of comics of the 30's and 40's, to say the least), and wanted them to be exclusively made for kids, which they never were, superhero comics always had a broad appeal. Watchmen was his critique on the "maturing" of comic books. It is not a critique on superheroes as a whole. That is objectively wrong. Also, calling Lindsay Ellis the best film essayist on youtube; LOL!
There's several explicit moments that reveal Rorshach's bigotry via direct statements about homosexuals, and implied beliefs of a far right wing tabloid he reads, and which ideology he echoes throughout, such as his long spiels about degenerates, intellectuals, and liberals. Read harder. You are projecting your preferred reading onto the text, rather than seeing what is right there on the page, presumably because of cognitive dissonance and it being counter to your own deeply held beliefs. Ideology goggles are the antithesis of critical thinking and logic.
I dont really agree with your take. I watched the movie in theaters without knowing anything about the comic whatsoever and i never misunderstood the characters as being super-powered. Obviously they were inflated to make the visuals more interesting, but i immediately recognized it as a style choice rather than taking it to literally mean that, everyone or these specific characters have super strength. Your point about the opening scene with the comedian punching through walls being unrealistic? Ive punched through walls on accident bro...its not hard to do. A secret agent specialized in combat, fighting for his life punching through paper thin apartment walls doesnt seem particularly out of the ordinary to me. I was honestly much more confused about the rorsharch mask constantly changing. Like does everyone else in the world see that? Is that just how he imagines himself? Is this commonplace technology in this universe? Is it just some kind of visual metaphor for the audeince? Anyways, while i understand the point youre trying to make, i believe you chose a bad example. To me, the fact that they have a 120 lbs girl in high heels and latex or silk beating the shit out of hardened criminals and masked men grappling up a 50 story building already brings it into the world of campy make believe and improbability. Not some dude putting a hole through his apartment wall. The original world of watchmen wasnt one that was so grounded in reality that it couldnt be exaggerated for the sake of entertainment to reach a wider audience.
I agree with you what you said about the Synder's Watchmen, but the move still has a lot of problems. Some of the acting is really bad like Silk Spectre II actress. Some of the song choices are weird like when Manthan and Silk Spectre leave mars they have a rock song, and doesn't feel right with the mood of the film. The subtlety is thrown out of the window like Dr. Manthan wear clothes in the comic but became more clothesless. It shows that he is losing his humanity, but Synder ignores that part. Some add stuff in the film is unnecessary like the two cops shooting at Rorschach was pointless. The makeups are pretty bad like Silk Spectre's Mother wig was is so obviously a wig. There are some continuity issues like Silk Spectre fighting is obvious that she doesn't have heels, but when she isn't fighting she has heels. The films drugs on to much like the prison fight were too long. Death of the First Owlman doesn't matter because he wasn't fleshed out too much. Bubastis came out of nowhere and wasn't established in the film. It would confuse the audience what is the cat come from.
Alot of people don't remember when this movie came out The hype for this movie was insane despite the trailer having trouble capturing the concept( I remember people calling it discount batman bc of niteowl) So many kids in my middle school had this comic on their desk despite the content And superhero movie were more traditional at this time their was no logan or dradpool So seeing blood for the first time was shocking. Having a complicated plot with flashbacks was the first The Dark Knight started the more dark and realistic superhero movies but this movie carried it further to rated R comic movies like the boys, Logan etc
Holy shit how does this not even have 600 views? This was right up there with the "big" essayists on this website. Amazing stuff, man. Subbed as _F U C K_
It should've stayed in development hell. The studio didn't seem to get the book, in many cases it even portrayed the opposite of what was mentioned in the story.
@@melontusk7358 jesus you people are just brain dead parrots. Nobody cares about you whining about people acknowledging racism and making media about it. It's a good ass show. I bet you didnt even watch it and are just repeating stuff.
@@billbutton8468 I bet you didn't even read the book. Was there anything about white supremacists in there? No, it was about more complex themes like consequentialism, free will, the human nature, all on the brink of nuclear extinction. Not some petty woman hating on dumb racists. Symply addressing racism does NOT make it good. If that was the case, films like "White men can't jump", "White chick" and Netflix's Bright would all rank higher than The Dark Knight and The Lord of the RIngs, a film trilogy where everyone is white. Wake up, sheep.
@@melontusk7358 did you delete your original comment? And I'm literally reading it right now btw because i really like it. I'm literally EXACTLY at the point where the news said that Kovacs' landlady described him as "NAZI PERVERT" so idk why tf youre pretending there's nothing in the whole book that mentions such things. Also the show wasnt meant to retread the same exact themes, bud. Race wasn't a theme at all really in the book and that being different in a sequel is a GOOD THING. Why tf would you want it the same? It's a different story from a different era. "Not some pretty woman hating on dumb racists" ohhhhh so you didn't watch the show or were too busy whining about race having a part of the story to catch the actual themes involved such as generational trauma or how you cant heal under a mask? "Simply addressing racism does not make it good" where tf did this come from? Nobody said that. You're so random. Addressing racism doesn't make it bad either. But that's probably why you deleted your comment so you could deny that you were implying that. What makes me a sheep? For enjoying a show that i was told i wasnt supposed to like because it was "woke SJW garbage" ??? I'm sorry that youre a sheep and fell for that shit but that doesnt mean you need to project that on to me for having my own mind and liking what i like. Quit making shit up in your head so you have an excuse to call anyone who disagrees with you a sheep (which is how BRAINDEAD SHEEP argue). And Quit blindly calling shows you've never seen before trash because you were told that's how you're supposed to feel whenever racism is addressed. I'm sorry that i liked the show. I'm sorry if that upsets you for some reason. But that doesnt mean you should imagine some weird reality where i only liked it because it mentioned race or something. Grow the fuck up and accept people have different tastes than you idiots who cry whenever media tackles the issues of race because some youtubers said thats bad and you believed it without thinking.
@@billbutton8468 Nope. If you haven't read the comics, you don't get to judge. There's no room for you to have an opinion when you haven't even finished the source material that came out more than 30 years ago. "Nazi" is a pejorative, it does not mean Rorschach is racist in the context of the chapter. Ozymandias also called The Comedian a Nazi, that's because of all of his imperialism, war crimes, and violent nature. How do you know I haven't seen the show, or are you just making that up, delusional idiot? I started watching it when it first came out, thinking it would have anything worth seeing. The truest sequel to Watchmen is Doomsday Clock, which comprehends the original masterfully. Sequels bringing in new ideas and themes are always welcome, but in this case the message is unrelated to the comics. Imagine someone making a sequel to Shawshank Redemption but now instead of being about freedom, it's about fidget spinners, because such things are "contemporary" and "a modern take". They're irrelevant to the original themes. If this sounds out of place, that's the point I'm making. And nope, I didn't even bother to delete my comment, as you imagined that scenario with your uncultured mind, any comment posted in the notification section on my crappy browser won't be updated and therefore automatically deleted.
@@melontusk7358 exactly. People like you haven't read the watchmen and haven't etched the show can't judge either of then. You're just sheep repeating other people's bs. There's no room for your opinion. Yes. Nazi is a pejorative used against Rorshach in the book. If you would have read the book you would know this. Just cause you don't like the idea of him being racist doesn't mean that him bring called a nazi doesn't imply he's racist. Sorry. "How do you know i haven't seen the show" i said tithe haven't or you were too dumb to understand the themes. But dont worry. I know you havent watched it or read the comic. You're a sheep whining about "sjws" cause you were told to and nothing more. The show understands the original book amazingly well. And that's why it purposely doesn't just only touch on the same things. It has its own voice while also understanding the original. I havent gotten to doomsday clock because i wanted to read the original again but i thought i heard people saying doomsday clock wasnt good. Idc. "Sequels bringing in new ideas and themes are always welcomed" except if it has to do with racism. Themes against racism are baddddddd and evillll. But trust me im not racist. Shawshank redemption about fidget spinners? Wtf is wrong with your brain? This is a serious book and a serious show both about serious topics. Both about RELEVANT topics to todays society. Not fucking fidget spinners. Whats wrong with your head?? Honestly. Your point is that modern relevant topics are out of place in a sequel to something that was about relevant serious topics? BOTH stories including serious depictions of vigilantes and interesting themes about masks. But you wouldnt know this because you obviously didnt watch. Or are being told that you need to be biased against it so you watched it with a bias. My mind is uncultured because you probably deleted your comment and dont like being called out on it? Lmao it doesnt even matter. Youre a dumbass sheep whp doesnt understand this modern culture depiction of watchmen so you get mad and call anyone uncultured who actually understood it. Grow up.
Max Marriner, I really like this video. Have you seen the Watchmen tv series. The first episode is a bit bumpy, but beyond that, it does a powerful and beautiful job of, instead of entertaining and titillating us, using the idea that anyone who tries to put themselves philosophically above another person to analyze deep flaws in our modern society in a way that reflects our world in the way the original Watchmen comic did without changing any of the events of the original comic and actually delivering powerful messages about the deep flaws of our modern conception of the hero in general, especially in the light of racism and right-wing politics that are at a tipping point in our political climate. The show even uses some very avant-garde techniques in is absolutely stunning sixth episode and through the series in general to make the actual form of the presentation more like a graphic novel in a way that complements and gives depth to the themes being analyzed rather than being portentous. Every theme that is explored in the original is painstakingly examined in a detailed analysis of everything about the world that created it, not a single character is made of cardboard, even the themes about religion and science that existed in the original are painted in a whole new light because it makes the story meaningful for today without changing it. There's even this simultaneously hilarious and creepy sub-plot that mirrors the Tales of the Black Freighter in a such surreal way it tests everything you think you know about Watchmen...………..Then, of course, there's Lube Man.
6 years later, we've hit 100,000 views! Thanks, everyone 😁 Since I'm here, I might as well give a little epilogue: I always wanted to make a follow-up essay on the Watchmen TV show after it finished airing, but 2020 happened and I stopped making videos for a while (I now make videos about Phoenix Wright). So to close this lid, I'll say this much: Watchmen HBO is my favorite TV show. It absolutely understands the material it's adapting in so many ways the film never did. Most importantly, it's _not_ an adaptation of the graphic novel, but instead a _sequel_ to it. Watchmen HBO is faithful to the book in that, just as the book did in 1986, the show responds to the world in which it was created - late-2010s America, in this case. So many people complain about the show's social politics, and for what it's worth, those people are stupid. They're the type of person who will find a video titled "WATCHMEN Doesn't Get 'Watchmen'" and use it as a means to leave some idiotic comment about a TV show, even if the video was made long before that TV show even came out. Watchmen HBO is a masterpiece and one of the best pieces of superhero media made during the golden age of superhero stuff we're slowly exiting. But please, feel free to whine about wokeness or w/e in the comments of this video - engagement is always good 👍 Thanks again for 100K!
I remember that in the graphic novel Night Owl and Silk Spectre were crying after failing to save New York but in the movie they remain perfectly calm as if they’ve trained for a situation like this. Also Ozymandias doesn’t show a humble side and instead is just super sure that his plan will work.
It’s not just their fighting ability but their emotional well being. Silk Specter and Night Owl are just normal people, they never really thought they would fight a criminal who was committing genocide, or fail. And Ozymandias is not fully sure that his plan would work.
I think this film is the perfect example of Zack Snyder's mentality and beliefs. Zack glorifies violence. And he glorifies those who aren't meant to be aspirational characters.
Dr. Manhattan - comic (emotionless sociopath with a complete disconnect from humanity) movie (god-like mysiah with all these cool abilities)
Rorschach - comic (deranged, violent psychopath) movie (badass, brooding vigilante)
Ozymandius - comic (the extremist antagonist who kills millions of people, but at least feels those he killed) movie (brilliant savior who feels no remorse for all those people he killed)
You miss the most obvious example, the Spartans. Their entire society was absolutely psychotic yet Snyder uncritically glorified them, even the eugenics.
@@snapgab Isn't that kinda the point of 300 (the comic)? It's the story told through the perspective of the Spartans themselves, which is why they are portrayed as heroes whereas the persians are all monsters. It's purposely kind of over the top ridiculous
@@snapgabnaw that was all Frank Miller
A lot of the violent scenes in the novel were supposed to be seen as horrific. A great example is the scene of the Comedian and Manhattan massacring Viet-Cong soldiers. When the Comedian incinerates a wounded soldier, gleefully smiling, you’re suppose to see the Comedian as a monster, as someone who has no empathy for those he kills, someone who knows what he’s doing is wrong but doesn’t care.
In the movie, the scene is portrayed as being EpIc BrO, with the Ride of the Valkyries being played in the background.
This exactly this the movie glorifies the brutal and unlikable characters like the comedian and Rorschach especially Rorschach being portrayed as a much more complex character that people can find relatable instead of the deplorable hypocritical monster he is who should not in any way be seen as good
Really?? I felt like that scene came across with the blackest of humour . It acts as if it isbthis big triumphant moment , and that's the point .Especially considering that straight after we see the vietnamese citizens marching in the street celebrating their American opressors 😂 The movie taps into a certain absurdity . When I was a teenager I took the film seriously but now I realise its a pure parody . If viewing the movie on a purely surface level your just not getting the most out of it .
if you think the comedian burning those soldiers is epic it says something about you
@@saulmartin8335 I’m sorry man but I think that’s giving Zacky boy too much credit
I need to re read, I’ve always seen super hero’s as hero’s so I thought well, they are in super hero suits, they are the main characters. They are the good guys. Time to re look at life
Even after seeing the Ultimate Cut, something about Snyder's Watchmen just felt hollow and I couldn't put my finger on it. I just reread the comic for the first time in probably 15-20 years, and now I totally see why I had that reaction. Snyder himself is an Objectivist and as you brilliantly point out, the Watchmen comic was a total takedown of Objectivism.
Percival Constantine it’s actually funny when people refer to the ultimate cut as a good adaptation.
@@Shibee94 it's even more funny when they do not.
Especially when 1/2 of Watchmen comics stand by it, and other 1/2 approved script.
Dave Gibbons likes this film and Ebert gave the regular cut 4/4 starts.
So an Objectivist adapting a comic that criticizes Objectivism. *What could go wrong?*
Yeah the biggest problem w the watchmen movie is that Snyder was sucking the shit outta Rorschach. Like Rorschach was the baddest coolest dude on the planet.
Thank you. Too many people idolize Rorschach as the underdog protagonist of the story and completely miss the point that his black and white mentality doesn’t work in a morally gray world
Rorschach is well written character but wasn't supposed to be idolised and the movie basically completely stray's of the theme of Watchmen comic books, still will be waiting for a good Watchmen show as a movie is physically impossible to make
Rorschach has flaws like every other character in the book. The difference is he is the only one who actually wants to stand up to corruption. Today it seems like people are lauding Veidt as the hero. As if "for the greater good" isn't the most horrifying concept in all of human history.
Except anyone with even a semblance of rational thought recognizes that genocide is never a means to an end. It's what the Nazis did, it's what the Soviets did, and it's what the Turks did. It is common sense to stand against authoritarians that wish to commit genocide to achieve their goals, regardless of how "empathetic" or "magnificent" their goals are. If you need to kill an entire group of people to prove you are right, then you are most definitely not right.
@A92348Q3ATEP Y92385NP239S He doesn’t stand up for “corruption” he just wants to be a hero. His actual revelation of “truth” would’ve killed humanity in an all out war. “Keeping the peace” in this context means buying time. Would you rather kill all of humanity for the truth or try to find a better way by keeping everyone alive at least for a couple of decades? Rorschark doesn’t care about “justice”, he just wants to be right. He didn’t think of the consequences because he’s too fucked in the head to realise this.
@@patrickzantomasterhypothetical- if you had access to the Epstein list but exposing the list causes the destruction of the world and keeping it hidden doesn’t, would you expose the list?
Because me personally I would expose the list regardless and I think that’s why people can relate to Rorschach
100% agree with you, dude. While I think the movie stands on it's own okay, as an adaptation of the book I feel like it's just style over substance.
I tried to watch last night, but damn, why does it seem so much like gore porn?
@@fruncedx6225 well if it walks like a duck
Which is Zack Snyder in a nutshell
Thanos Becomes Darkseid still doesn’t make it any better. Whether he made Batman first or not, whether WB rushed it or not it was destined for failure.
Style over substance is the most overused and lazy argument when it comes to a Snyder film.
They have no super powers ......but he does stop a bullet with his bare hands
Omg right?!! My least favourite and the laziest if all critiques of the movie. If Adrian has the reflexes of a God (and apparently bulletproof skin) due to "his intellect" and that makes sense, why would it not make sense that after 50 years of being a superhero AND in a life or death situation Blake was able to punch through some drywall and break a bit of brick?
@@jonocossey1 The comic has SOME instances of superpowers, like the psychic, Manhattan and even Ozy himself doesn't feel like just a human. In the movie, everyone is superpowered, and a scene where the comedian is supposed to be pathetic is instead demonstration of this change.
Here is a quote that pretty much sums up how Snyder sees Watchmen:
“I had a buddy who tried getting me into normal comic books, but I was all like, ”No one is having sex or killing each other. This isn’t really doing it for me.” I was a little broken, that way. So when Watchmen came along, I was, ”This is more my scene.”
@kafu Kemeh what’s the full context lol?
this is all the context needed to show exactly how he missed the point of the book.
@kafu Kemeh that makes no sense
@kafu Kemeh nah
@kafu Kemeh nah
What is comes down to is that Watchmen was a critique of Ditko's worldview, then the film was adapted by a man who shares Ditko's worldview (granted, Syder's objectivism is quite a bit toned down compared to Ditko's).
On top of that, Snyder doesn't really care about stories as much as he cares about images (which is very good at making).
@E Eh, I would disagree. That's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. He actually has great directing talent and abilities. He even has *gasp* subtlety.
He's not just great with the camera. In sequences and in moments, he's strung together some brilliantly edited moments. He also really understands how to use sound better than most. His talents are more than just cinematography.
He hasn't been able to put all the pieces together though and make a great through and through coherent whole consistently, but HE HAS DONE IT at least a few times. He always misses something. Directing is harder than anybody thinks it is.
@E Oh and to heavily imply that Cinematographers are not artists is extremely gross and insulting.
@E Yeah, fair enough. But Snyder does have artistic talent. Just not one that you're a fan of, lol.
I think he does have a great artistic talent, it awesome seeing his scenes. Hes a visionary director after all. But in the end of the day, his movies is style over substance. He was *never* good at developing characters, I never really cared about them in most of his movies. The action scenes looked awesome unlike anything of MCU movies, but without the weight of seeing characters you love trying their best, the scenes just becomes bland.
@Bobo Boy not that he didnt do his best, it's just i dont care about his particular version of the character. It was away to early to do death of Supes, and his Supes didnt fully develop yet. I just felt litte to no shympathy.
This is entirely right. The film, while having its moments, fundamentally misinterprets core tenants of the original story or distorts them to the point where the original themes are rendered moot. The film wants to have its cake and eat it too, portraying the Watchmen all as above average people which renders Ozymandias’ superhuman feat of catching a bullet moot at the end. Furthermore, Ozy gloats about how the NY massacre is a punishment for getting so close to the Cold War in the film instead of making him a severely misguided hero with good intentions, even axing the pivotal conversation with Manhattan at the end about nothing really ending. The song choices are frequently too on the nose (the best exceptions are Phillip Glass which fit the Manhattan birth perfectly and the opening title credit with Bob Dylan) and seem at odds with the story the film is trying to tell, doing little but making the film feel more badass with AATW during the Antarctica trip. Making Manhattan the central culprit for the massacre also makes sense at first, but who’s to say the USSR wouldn’t immediately retaliate or get pissed America wouldn’t keep its own weapon/God under control? There’s no scene devoid of sound or dialogue where the clock hits midnight and it shows the remnants of the massacre. Instead it’s played like every other slow-mo action piece with cool effects.
I feel like Zack Snyder knows he diluted certain aspects of the source material for Watchmen and it does really play out like an advertisement for the original; however, the adaptation is almost completely divorced from the source material’s themes, using them only as costumes for simpler points.
TL;DR - it’s an alright adaptation and was a bit underrated on release, but it doesn’t capture the scope and nuance of the plot and ends up falling victim to some of the clichés the original satirizes.
I.. READ..YOUR... COMMENT!
Well said.
Go in Antarctica in plain coat, be there on open space for at least 10 minutes (you may not step on snow,but be in open area). Or get local gang angry at you (you may call One woman to help you) and try to beat all of them without receiving any serious injury, you cannot use any weapon unless you grab something from them. Call 911, say you killed man and try to survive SWAT raid in tight stairwell with nothing but spray, lighter, airsoft pistol with one charge and pepper. Try to climb skyscraper (around 20-40 floors) with rope on your own, in elevator shoes. Get yourself in one of nastiest prisons as prisoner, provoke people around and try to survive.
Accomplish at least ANY of these with video evidence and I will believe you that Crimebusters like Nite Owl and/or Rorschach are just "ordinary people", unlike Watchmen Nite Owl and/or Rorschach .
You still have yet to explain the scope and nuance of the plot that it missed. You're therefore probably talking out of your asshole.
@ egg fucking ZACKly
Yeah I don’t really like the movie. I don’t think it’s bad it’s just obvious that Zack Snyder doesn’t understand the source material.
Yoo Hoo then he wouldn’t have made it an action movie. Your not supposed to really like the characters.
@@genericusername566 well, considering Moore's comments about Rorschach fans he himself didn't succeeded with it neither in comics.
And film is as much action as comics was.
Yoo Hoo the movie has way more action. Characters like Night Owl who hates fighting in the comics and Silk Specter are basically super powered in the movie.
@@genericusername566 no it doesn't
yeah, and they very average in comics, with being able to beat up gang, with nothing more than fists, without taking any serious damage.
@ He didn't fail he just didn't leave it written on Rocharch's forehead "you shouldn't idolize me", it's not Alan Moore's fault if superhero comic readers are stupid, in fact if you really think Rocharch was badly written you should stay away of high literature and mainly of books like Lolita
This puts it into words very well. I remember walking out of the cinema and thinking how wrong the tone of the movie had felt. The constant slow motion during fight scenes, the sleek violence and extended fistfight at the beginning. The movie was trying to have its cake and eat it too - being a deconstruction of comic book movies while pretending really hard to be one. Imo they picked entirely the wrong director for this.
Yoo Hoo the comics literally portray their characters as lame (the exact opposite of comic book characters at the time) while the movie portrays their characters as fucking badass (like most comic book movies at the time). Take the BS elsewhere.
Yoo Hoo it’s a movie that becomes the very thing it’s trying to “satirize”
@@madnizz1511 "comics literally portray their characters as lame"
Is it lame to be able to build flying ship?
Is it lame to being able to catch bullet?
Is it lame to being able to successfully survive attack by a street gang in alley with no damage after abandoning any training for years?
Is it lame to survive Swat?
Is it lame to being able to climb highest skyscrapers by the rope in a coat and shoes with lifts?
Is it lame to be able to survive getting shanked in jail, or beating opponent without even fighting him?
Is it lame to be able to survive a few minutes of Antarctic in just fall coat, scarf, full mask and hat?
If so, can *You* do at least *One* of those "lame" activities?
Yoo Hoo The main characters are definitely smart and slightly more skilled than the average person, but at the end of the day, are still people. They just aren’t meant to be borderline superhuman badasses, like they are in the film.
They should've done the movie right now, in the 2020's.
The movie would subvert from other mainstream comic book movies like the original graphic novel did from classic comics.
No it wouldn't. Deconstructed super heros was already the defacto norm in Superhero movies prior to Watchmen and really the comic industry as a whole. It was a return to bright colored costumes etc...that the Marvel movies brought which was actually subversive, to say not every Superhero movie has to be a bleak reimagined distorted mirror image of our own.
After watching the ultimate cut I went looking for someone that could put all my thoughts and frustrations into video. Thank you for that. This is an incredibly well put together video essay.
I know you're wrong, but I can't prove it yet...
Nah, this is great! 👍🏻
NerdSync If you can't "disprove" an opinion you're not trying hard enough.
(the original comment was an inside joke between myself and Max. a reference to an interaction we had with someone else. just a little jokey-joke.)
A miscpnseption is thinking an oppinion can change with fact.Espicially if oppinion is supported by fact.So if fact support a false oppinion that is wronged by fact than can we trust 'facts'.(Dont lnow where im going with this)
Scott over here sounding like every Snyderling desperately trying to defend this movie
Honestly one of the biggest signs you can tell this movie doesn’t get its source material comes in the form of how little we see of Rorschach’s own biases and prejudices effect how he perceives the world. We don’t get those racist filled monologues about people who cheat on welfare in his eyes, his shameful condemnation of a single mother he presumes doesn’t know who the father of her kids are, we don’t see the full lengths of bigoted caricatures that are shown in the frontiersman in their racist political cartoons and misses the point of Rorschach and why him interacting with the two characters involved in the black freighter subplot is important as well. Rorschach like his name implies only projects what he wants to see in the world around him like a Rorschach test but fails to see how the two characters involved in the black freighter plotline, the young black kid and the store owner who sells and iirc reads the frontiersmen himself betrays what Rorschach wants to see as moral decay due to urban life when these two perspectives are shown to openly discuss and evaluate a piece of art without the biases and prejudices Rorschach would like to ascribe to people in general and yet he fails to notice this connective opportunity that an urban setting can provide despite being one of the store owner’s constant customers and witness to this back and forth.
In the first issue of the comic Rorschach's entire moral philosophy is exposed as bullshit when he dismisses Sally Jupiter's rape.
Zak Snyder has an almost superhuman ability to miss the point of the works he's adapting. The funny thing is that when he's working on Frank Miller material it actually *works* to a greater or lesser extent.
probably because Frank Miller's a fascist
@@nalday2534 he started taking his meds again so less now
Snyder’s film glorifies the violence where as the graphic novel turns those stones over exposing it
Bobo Boy then why did Snyder give non-super heroes borderline super-powers/strength. The whole point was that they are just regular people in masks. Except for DM of course. This took me out of the film a bit.
It seems as if Snyder was trying to be gritty with the violence in Watchmen, but the excessive blood just came across as over-the-top. It reminds me of the deliberately exaggerated violence in Turbo Kid, which the director described as "Looney Toons for adults."
@@Panyc333 they are not regular people.
Unless you want to try to survive even 10 minutes in Antarctica in nothing more but coat. Or beat up gang with nothing more than your own fists. Or climb skyscraper by the rope. Or survive SWAT raid without getting killed. Or survive shank attempt at prison.
Go away, try any of those. And post here a link from Goggle Disk of your video proof.
Prove that heroes from comics as "regular people".
Yoo Hoo by regular people I mean non super human. The heroes are certainly exceptional but not super human. Veidt catching the bullet was about as close as that got.
I guess I should have been more specific to save you the trouble.
All these little edits and transitions, items pushing on and off screen? My dude, this is incredible!
the point of the opening fight with comedian in the comic is a guy who thought he was king shit, dies a weak old man in a whimper. with the film, he goes out fighting, which doesn't really encapsulate the point of that scene
Yeahhh, maybe I think Snyder loved badass superheroes and anti-heroes too much to make a film that was meant go be a cynical parody on them.
Snyder would do a great job of writing anything related to Frank Miller, and would have probably done a good job with any noir film. But this was a project that he could not be less suited for its message
@@arcanewarrior863 his work was significantly better when adapting 300 and half adapting tdkr
Very interesting. Snyder also frames his versions of DC superheroes as heroic while their text and actions seem less than heroic.
Zack Snyder is also a Randian, which obviously put a filter on everything he took away from the original texts.
Love this video. You are spot-on in your criticism. And Lindelof also absolutely gets what Moore was doing and saying and has carried that forward in his own show, while abandoning slavish and hollow imitation of that work.
Anyway, here's an interesting interpretation for you: we know that Moore intended his work as a commentary and criticism of Ditko's Objectivist views in his own work, but I got to thinking about the characters and while I agree that Rorschach is not Batman, what if he is meant to be a split of Batman? What if Ozymandias and Dr Manhattan represent two aspects of superman (the nietzsche Superman and Man as God) and Rorschach and Nite Owl as two aspects of batman (violent prowling vigilante and the rich inventor with all the trappings). Read this way, beyond the primary message of how ineffectual and monstrous that heroes would be in the real world, I think Moore may have wanted to hone his criticism in on the two most popular characters. So we have the engaged Man-as-Superman who decides to kill millions to save billions while the aloof Man-As-God ultimately agrees on rational grounds. That's a central criticism of the superhero: their power removes them from human context and enables terrible actions. Our Batman characters are powerless to stop them, because this is beyond the scope that their moral absolutism encompasses. This is a central criticism of vigilantes: their violence cannot solve the large problems.
I think that's a pretty good read. The Charlton characters were just the springboard. As the project developed, I feel like it became a lot more than just criticizing Objectivism and also included criticizing the genre as a whole. And through that lens, your observations about the Batman/Superman parallels make perfect sense.
You’re right on the money with the difference between Rorschach and Nite Owl II. No wonder they’re friends, they’re both Batman! XD
Also I find it kinda hard not to read some commentary into the fact that Nite Owl II (Dan) didn’t use any of his amazing nite owl tech to help the world. If I had that stuff, you bet I’d try to make a company and sell it. Or sell it to a company so they’d make it. Either or
Naw they are just plays off of the Charleston characters who themselves were derivative
@@TheEvolver311 possibly! But Moore doesn’t seem to lean to simple or straightforward efforts so i suspect there’s much more there given the amount of work he put into it. Not saying that my speculation is what he had in mind.
RIP Steve Ditko.
Ya know A lot of people have there issues with this movie, but they’re usually vapid points that end with “and they didn’t do the squid.” But this didn’t even say you didn’t like it. You weren’t harsh about what’s actually different, just honest. I’ve always liked the movie as a companion piece to the book, but I never really thought about how Snyder’s directing style clashes with the material. Again excellent video.
Unpopular opinion: I think the TV show captures the comics' essence way better than the movie did. I mean, it truly manages to feel like it's within the same universe as the comics, besides all the "this show is woke garbage" criticism (which I think it's pointless. The comics had an intense political message, so the TV show has it as well)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU STUPID FUCK
"The comics had an intense political message, so the TV show has it as well" yeah, cause it was a very political atmosphere, a possible and literal doomsday looming in due to the cold war... the TV show does NOT have an equivalent at all, and is already garbage without such a plot device. i still cant get over the fact that most the story took place in fuckin NY, but now we have this new plot wayyyyyy over there past Kansas... all of the plot, and all the fanfare... like how did Rorscharch's legacy of vigilantism IN NEW YORK, lead to white supremacy neo nazi movement halfway across burgerland? thats like Batman existing and the people of Gotham he somehow failed to inspire but yknow, Arizona of all places is inspired by Gotham and starts a vigilante group of their own with Batman's likeness... how the fuck is the script so bad??? oh yeah, cause its woke... woke garbage.... yknow... a VALID criticism, because of stupid one liners like "I SMELL BLEACH", or the fact that Neonazi white supremacists from the cold war are inspired by a homeless ginger in a mask and not someone more important or like them such as the killer of MLK jr...
again with the woke bullshit, the Rorschach mask is only used at all because they thought it was cool iconography, there's no fuckin way this bullshit makes sense in universe...
@@elgatochurro In watchmen (comic) Rorschach's favourite newspaper is a pretty much white supremacist sexist paper. He also mails his jornal to the same post so yeah you can see how it went all the way to tulsa. Hope i helped with your doubts
@@rafamullermusic "white supremacist sexist paper"
You act like those words got ANY meaning nowadays where literally everything is sexist, white supremacist, neo nazi, etc
@@rafamullermusic Besides, in the tv show we see the Rorschach journal was published in book form.
@@elgatochurro
Next time I wanna read some autism, I'll be back. 😂😂
You missed a major point:
The Director, Zack Snyder, adheres to Objectivism; the same philosophy the original book preached against.
Thanks for watching! There was actually an entire section dedicated to Zack Snyder’s direction (he was behind the Comedian’s little wall punching), but I cut it for feasibility, as well as not framing the film’s problem as entirely on ONE person, the director though he may be. I also didn’t know Zack Snyder was an Objectivist - I just assumed as much, but it wasn’t enough concrete evidence to warrant a mention.
Wrong. It is not objective. smh
@@ChristianProtossDragoon You don't know what Objectivism is, do you?
False.
@@MaxMarriner because it's a flat out lie
While it can be considered as a pseudo-sequel to the graphic novel, the HBO show somehow manages to capture the tone of Moore and Gibbon's text far better than Zack Snyder's 'faithful interpretation', not to mention reveals the movie's gradually apparent cracks and the director's misunderstandings of the context behind both the overall plot and characters.
I said it before and I'll say it again: Zack Snyder has zero reading comprehension.
"I don't actually read the books, I just like to watch the parts where they punch stuff"
He's the same director who based Batman versus Superman on The Dark Knight Returns, but totally didn't understand the relationship between the two characters. After all, he had Batman trying to murder Superman while in TDKR, Batman and Superman had friendly rivalry.
Robert Carnevali I wouldn’t say they had a friendly rivalry in TDKR. I’d say it was nihilistic on Bruce’s end and puppetry on Clark’s end.
@@edkruse9541 Superman was definitely not treated kindly by Frank Miller, but make no mistakes that they weren't friends. Their relationship was strained at that point, but weren't they playing golf together or something? They were two close friends who developed serious differences that strained them, but that was it. It was NOT the hatred and disdain in BvS.
@@bobcarn huh, Bruce hates Superman in TDKR. you're the one with no reading comprehension lmao
I dont think they have superpowers.
I think they are just great at what they do. the same way batman can seem superhuman after all these years because of his years of training and discipline.
Which is exactly what Moore didn't wanted them to be. Even their costumes are really cool while in the comic they look like bad cosplayers.
Snyder took a deconstruction of the superhero genre and turned it into another superhero story.
lacrarte zorok not really, and i guess i used the wrong word not great, but experienced.
Because all of them, just like in the comic are still far from any sense of the word hero
lacrarte zorok also just like with other movies that are taken from books, be they Novel or Comic
Its not ment to be a 1 to 1 translation.
Personally i found there were thing i liked more in snyders take, while at the same time there were things i liked more in moores take.
Darryl Jack But the point is, like the video says, that it failed to translate the escencial part of the story, that these characters aren't really superheroes, but very screwend up people who become vigilantes as a expresion of their faults and traumas. In the comic is sugested that, apart from Dr. Manhattan, they're inconsecuential to the world(Veid only becomes relevant when he retires and becomes a bussinesman) But that beautifull intro give us the idea that they shaped their world.
@@lacrartezorok4975 You are clueless. Snyder's movie deconstructs superhero tropes just like Moore did, except he exaggerates them stylistically. If you think the slo-mo face punches, close-ups of latex costumes, over the top poses, and ridiculous stunts are serious, then you simply misunderstand the art of cinema. You should watch the movie and think: "This whole superhero thing is pretty absurd. Why do I like watching this stuff?" The film confronts the superhero movie fan and shows them their underside. That's why his film has grown as time progresses, because superhero movies have become ever more repetitive and cliche. Snyder pulled the greatest practical joke in human history.
I actually think this movie actually did a great job in advertising the comics because when I when I watched this movie as a kid, I thought everyone was a badass and this movie was cool and complex when it wasn't. It was a deep dive into the mere surface of the story, but I think that's what makes your first read of the watchmen a great experience afterwards tho. Because you truly learn the meaning behind the story and you see a complete different perspective. Its kinda nice that you can watch the movie, then read the book, because the deeper meaning of watchmen hits even further because it completely changes your perspectives and tells you that you're wrong.
It's easy to understand why they did the film the way they did it. And as a person who didn't read the comic book i liked it. But watching this TV series on HBO, and listening to many Podcasts I've come to understand why it upset so many people. The film missed the point of the novel entirely. But the show is a proper representation of the source material. It's utterly magnificent.
"If my movie is an advertisement for the book, great." =/= "I intend for this movie to be as true to the source material as possible."
I don't agree with your characterization of Snyder's intent (at least not based on the quote you used). Those just aren't the same. And in some ways he was right because I'm one of the folks that went and got the books because of the movie. (Same with V for Vendetta, but I digress...)
Also, I don't think you can really say he gave them superpowers. Folks who are trained in and regularly engage in hand to hand combat are able to do things that others just can't. Punching a wall might stop most folks in their tracks, but not somebody who punches people for a living. Dry wall ain't that tough. Sure, they gave the fight scenes a lil sexy, but it's a movie. You can't get away with bad fight scenes, no matter how true to the source material you are.
And honestly, I remember thinking after watching the movie that these "heroes" were sorta miserable people. Some were more adept at dealing with that misery, but none of them really had a superhero ending. Ozy "won" in that his plan worked, but I don't believe he was happy or "fulfilled" in any way. These folks seemed cursed.
I get where you're coming from though. But a lot of the differences, I chalk up to "print vs movie". Movie audiences are different and must be treated as such. Books are consumed at the pace of the reader. They can turn back to reread pages, put it down for a while and come back, take it with them to the toilet. For moviegoers, you have to set the pace for them and you've got to keep that attention.
All that said, nice video.
Bravo. Totally agree with everything you've pointed out.
What I think it’s missing is a lot more Ozymandias scenes. I always thought in the opening credits we should have seen Ozymandias in the fields of Africa or something handing out medicines so we understand he gives to charity. Because they don’t really focus on his humanitarian side it’s not a shock when he’s bad.
I was a big Watchmen fan and an even bigger fan of Alan Moore's body of work in general when I watched the movie and got excited about the fact that it was supposed to be a panel by panel adaptation. The Zack Snyder-style action scenes that glorify violence stood out to me as just not belonging in the movie. For example, in the comic book, Rorschach tries to escape the police and hurts his ankle when he jumps out of the building, but in the movie, he lands with style and continues fighting the police to rock music like a movie action hero.
I think that the problem with the film is that all of that changes seems to be made to attract casual viewers, what I mean is, the flashy effects, the costumes, and the super strength seems to be add to attract the viewers of hero movies like batman or spiderman.
Maybe they where scare if they didn't fulfill some expectations of the general public, after all, it was WB who where paying the movie
8:47
Not ALL of its characters. Snyder clearly thinks Ozy is objectively in the wrong, and that Rorschach was a goodie good boy who didn’t do anything wrong.
A quality magenta chicken mask when in reality Kovacks had some real flaws
@@vincentmedina2127 Right, of course. They all do.
I always thought that Ozy idea wasn't wrong, but the way he did it was
@@ZrodyApo Well Ozy clearly has something wrong with him, they all do that's the point, but if I have to choose between the saving lie and the damning truth I think you would be an idiot to choose the latter. Rorschach might not have been a hypocrite but what he stood for was awful.
@@aqualitymagentachickenmask3298 like someone else said on another topic about the subjet, we experience most of the story through Rorschach's eyes so it kind of makes us sympathetic with him even tho he's an awful human being.
And there's something that i've been thinking about the characters of Watchmen is that nearly everyone of the team loses his humanity is some way and differently but we're only told about how Dr Manhattan is the one who's lost his humanity. Except maybe for Nite Owl, I feel that he stays the most human between all of them but i may be wrong about that :D
Thank you for this. This is the best critique of the film I’ve heard. You criticized it in a non-toxic way and that’s refreshing.
The graphic novel makes me actually put it down and think about what it just told me. The film I can sit back and enjoy with popcorn and not think twice about it. Both can be enjoyable.
He completely misrepresented Objectivism, called Rorschach a bigot, completely misunderstood Zack Snyder's film, and also called Lindsay Ellis the "best film essayist on youtube".
I would say this is far from the best critique of the film.
Watchmen 2019. Hold my fuckin' beer. As a DC Adaptation it's almost up there with "Doom Patrol". I bet my left nut that if Alan Moore was to watch it, even he would concede that it seems to have got everything right so far. Grumpy old git.
Scott from Nerdsync wasnt kidding, this video is great! 😆
subscribed!
This is legitimately a great video essay and it pains me that you don't have more subscriptions. I'm eager to see what else you have to say in the future.
Thank you for the kind words!
Of course Zack Snyder would misunderstand the source material. Everything, literally everything he touches turns to crap.
true
Ikr. Zack Snyder is overrated as f.
“Watchmen, is a lot like sonic the hedgehog” I really wish that you didn’t elaborate on that
6:00 Catches a bullet because of his enhanced ability.
" None of these jerk-offs have enhanced abilities."
in a comic it's easy to say: they have all human strength, but catching a bullet, and lifting a full grown man with only two hands and throwing him out a thick glass.
However in movie logic that doesn't make any sense. If one person can do these things, it makes sense that the others also have the same or at least similar strength.
Even in the comics it is commented on how strong the comedian is. And nightowl, silkspectre and rorshack don't have super human strength, they are simply good at martial arts
Ehh he actually says its cause of enhanced reflexes for Ozy specifically.
In the comic, the whole bullet catching thing was a feat he hadn't achieved yet and Ozy wasn't sure if he could despite all the training and intelligence he accumulated in his time as a mask.
When he catches the bullet it's done near the book's climax and is a sort of "cherry on top" for his whole masterplan.
Ozy's big character moment/theme is that intelligence and indomitable will can topple God.
Ikr.
When reading the comic they often do inpossible things
@@MarkFilipAnthony in the graphic novel, Ozy caught a bullet with his bare hands. While in the film it was his gauntlets. That's a lot more realistic.
@@melontusk7358 I am not the one who claims that people that can beat up bunch of armed thugs after 10 years of retirement and no training, people that can climb super tall buildings by rope, or survive Antarctica frost in plain fall coat and scarf are just "very good at martial arts"
Comics Crimebusters are far from average.
Not even mentioning that Dan built aircraft on his own. Or Rorschach survived SWAT raid alive, or won battle with prisoner without single punch.
Here's a problem I have when comparing the comic series with the movie. I watched the movie before I ever read the comics. The themes jumped out at me. The same themes in the movie to me are pretty much the same in the comic. To me what really brought certain themes was the emotion that the actors brought in the scenes. Them being super heros I would hope they could beat people up pretty easily. Like they did seem better then the average person and thats a reason why they were super heros. But, it greatly showed that they were also just people. Same flaws, failures, emotions, and everything. They just had resources (money, intellect, wit) and could kick ass. It's an adaptation of a vision of the comic novel. I don't think it was a bad one. Just different because it was a movie and a style.
Exactly!
But see your comment just proves the video's point. You're not even meant to consider the 'heroes' as kick ass. In the book the characters are despicable, pathetic, misguided or a some combination of these; their 'ass kicking' should not even be something you take away about the characters.
If this was just an action movie completely unrelated to Watchmen then it would be great, as Snyder's action direction is great. But the fact that the Watchman movie puts so much emphasis on action shows that Snyder fundamentally doesn't understand the point made by Watchmen.
Great video, very well put together. Found you through the Cosmonaut Variety video 👌
An excellent essay! You had vocalised what was missing between the book and the film as many have said here. I hope Snyder sees this as a more mature film maker. The other adaptation that failed between the book and film was Ghost in the Shell.
A. At no point is the group ever referred to as “the watchmen”. This is one of the biggest misconceptions about this work.
B. The comic was specifically designed to showcase what the comics medium could do which makes adapting it to another medium completely redundant. If you’re adapting it into a film then shouldn’t it be to showcase what the medium of film can do?
C. Why couldn’t Damon Lindelof just make a historical drama about the Tulsa Race Massacre? Why did he have to hijack a property like Watchmen?
I thought the movie was pretty good and that made me want to read the graphic novel, and I thought it was great.
I think the movie does in fact follow the source material in spirit. Rorschach certainly has his dark side, but the movie emphasized more his sympathetic side and he is really a tragic figure.
Dave Gibbons likes the movie and that’s good enough for me. It’s certainly a better adaptation than Extraordinary Gentlemen and V for Vendetta.
After you've made valid points while comparing Watchmen the comic vs the film, when are we going to see and hear your comments regarding the HBO TV series?
totally forgot there was a Watchmen motion comic thanks for reminding me of it !
I wish I could forget it. I couldn't get past the first episode.
Interesting premise but I really think you miss a lot of the nuance of the film's satirical subtext.
Zac Snyder doesn't do subtext . If you see subtext it's like seeing the Virgin Mary burned in your toast.
I disagree that a movie showing the main characters as looking cool inherently means its endorsing them. Starship Troopers looks cool as shit but its still a satire.
Like, ok the book/movie is about how the superhero fantasy is flawed, but it also ought to be able to capture the idea that flying around in a spaceship taking out thugs kinda looks fun as hell. Its up to the viewer to make the moral judgement on what they're seeing.
I read an interview with snyder once where he mentioned that in the scene where dan and Laurie are beating up the muggers it was important that you see breaking bones and blood and such in the slow mo, so that the viewer was kinda like "this is kinda cool but also kinda horrible?" I dont think he made a good adaptation but I dont think he was totally ignorant of that aspect of the novel either.
We need more "People that claim the Watchmen movie do not get Watchmen do not get the Watchmen movie"
This might just be the best critique I've seen of Watchmen.
I like the movie because it gives some aids when I go back and read the book. Like being able to put a voice to Rorschachs speech bubbles. Or a sound effect to Jon’s teleporting. But in some areas it fails to capture the right emotions of the novel.
I don't think punching through a thin wooden wall is super human strength
Ever since I watched the visual novel god Watchmen, I’ve grown to resent the movie more and more. I’ve been saying exactly what you said for a while now
I genuinely don’t know how you can read Watchmen and think that the events or characters that are in the story are cool. Watchmen couldn’t be any less glamorous
You simply misunderstand. Snyder actually understands the source material as well as anyone, he just chose to represent the ideas in a more cinematic fashion. The reason it appears the crimefighters have "superpowers" is because the over the top stunts are really mocking superhero movies. The slow-to-fast action cuts, slo-mo face punches, absurd spins and posing are all very intentional. Just as the graphic novel showed the underside of comic books as a medium, Snyder's film shows the ridiculousness of comic book MOVIES. It's extremely self aware, and while he didn't match the precision of Moore's comic, it captures the spirit and the entire thesis of the source material quite better than other filmmakers would.
The over-the-top stunts don't evoke any particular superhero film, or even superhero movies in general. The heavy use of slow-motion and slow-to-fast cuts don't visually resemble what you would see in The Dark Knight or a Marvel Film, they're pretty particular to Snyder's directorial style. And this was also before he had been closely involved with other superhero properties.
You can't say the stunts "mock superhero movies" if they don't even resemble superhero movies of the time.
Zennistrad2 you still don’t understand. They’re not mocking any particular superhero movies. The images are meant to make you uncomfortable about what you like to see in superhero flicks. The violence, sex scenes, and “end of the world” plot are all subverted to show the absurdity of those tropes.
@@Iknowthelaw13 true. This TH-camr is an ignorant.
@@Iknowthelaw13 And you seem to assume too much about what Zack Snyder was intending with those scenes, if you look at his previous film 300 it has the exact same type of over the top scenes with the goal of making you feel '''this is cool'' about the Spartans so he applied this directly to Watchmen too because he found the characters in those comics cool too. The comic also had those scenes to subvert tropes yet never wasted so much of its frames on those scenes, yet the movie does.
It was a poor choice by Snyder.
This is the most interesting critique of the film and why is the source material is so good
Hey, if his goal was to be an advertisement for the comic, it worked on me at least! This movie got me into comics. I definitely like the comic more.
Okay, I agree with your point except for Hollis Masons death, its portrayed in the same way in the comic and probably the best scene in the movie
Not really? Like, in the comic Hollis' death was a tragic beatdown of a powerless and helpless old man. In the movie it's framed as a heroic badass last stand kind of thing. Hollis in the comics didn't get a single punch in, while in the movie he gets some pretty good offensive hits in. They're pretty clearly going for different things.
When I first saw this movie with a friend, we hated it so much that we almost walked out. A couple of years later, I stumbled upon the graphic novel. I heard about all the praise it had and despite my opinion of the movie, I still read it, thinking it will get me to maybe learn to open up to the movie or at least tolerate it. HELLLLL NO! The book was so good it made me despise the movie even more. How can a movie be so faithful to a comic and yet stray so far from it? It's so odd to me!!
All this movie did for me was to further prove that the comic is impossible to adapt properly, like most of Alan Moore's work.
Zack Snyder either:
A. Probably liked watchmen, but didn’t think that a poetic masterpiece would make bank
B. Liked Watchmen, but for the wrong reasons
C. Just doesn’t like comics, considering his future works.
Boni Chodes it’s definitely B
Something just struck me regarding your interpretation that Watchmen was supposed to be parodying Ayn Rand -
I had just been coincidentally re-reading both Watchmen and Atlas Shrugged and noticed - the Watchmen plot point, where all the best artists, architects, bio-engineers, writers, etc. - where they're all vanishing one by one and going to Ozymandias' Island (to build his squid alien) - was that supposed to be a straight-up play on the plot of Atlas Shrugged, or am I just over-interpreting? In Atlas, genius physicist John Galt topples the U.S. economy, and by extension society, by convincing all the country's best and brightest minds to leave without trace and come to his hidden valley deep in the Rockies. If so (again, since Moore and Gibbons never actually stated that as a theme of the comic, so maybe we're all just over-reading) but if so, does that make Ozymandias basically (and maybe literally) a bizarro-world parody of John Galt? 🤔
i disagree with the part about Rorschach being the most morally objectionable character, because at the end he is 100% morally correct. he is the only one that is not complicit in genocide to push a lie to try and achieve some utopian society. i think the guy who thinks killing millions of people with the end goal of world peace through fear is unquestionably a more reprehensible character. even if Ozymandias's plan did result world peace, it would only be temporary. immediately after there may be peace, but you are always just a few generations away from things getting bad again. just look at real life history, like 9/11, less than 20 years ago. right after everyone was all unified, but now people couldn't be more divided. any utopian society is ridiculous and unrealistic. also the characters who are complicit in going along with that plan are not much better either.
You're assuming that everybody is a deontologist and not a utilitarian
The point is that the choice Rorschach makes at the end has nothing to do with morals but with the fact that Ozy's action has shattered Rorschach's simplistic view of the world.
Through out the series Rorschach, (just like Ditko's Mr A) sees everything around him as good and evil, black and white. He see everything through his mask, or face as he calls. The fact that his mask is made of white cloth and black spots, always moving but with the colors never merging together in shades of gray is exactly how Rorschach views the world: "There is good and there is evil. And evil must be punished even in the face of Armageddon". He only deals in absolutes.
Through the issues he was ready to face ultimate, unquestinable evil. But when Ozy's does a bad thing to "save the world" it shatters his world view, he cannot understand it, he rebels and in the end he just gives up. Not because morals, he just doesn't get it. He even takes his mask to take the final blow from Manhattan, and dies as Kovacs instead of Rorschach.
Rorschach is a comic book hero in a realistic world of Watchmen, but comic book morals will not always work in the real world.
Here's a little piece of trivia that most people dont know... and that even Alan Moore still doesn't acknowledge... the later Eddie Blake-older version of Comedian was loosely based or inspired by an old french movie called "Mr Freedom".
:0
I remember reading that some scenes in the comic were lifted from other works. The scene with Rorschach handcuffing a guy to a pipe in a burning building, and saying, "the pipe will take too long" as he throws him a hack saw, was from a movie.
"Head writer Damon Lindelof."
That doesn't sound promising at all. If there's one thing people should know about Lindelof, it's that he's the head writer on Lost and Prometheus, and a co-writer of Star Trek Into Darkness and Tomorrowland. And I don't need someone as pretentious a writer as him working on a deconstructive project like a Watchmen TV series.
CaptainRaccoonWhitly doesn’t sound promising to me too
CaptainRaccoonWhitly yeah I'm still worried about the Watchmen show. People say he is a good writer because of Left Over, but one work does not make him a good writer. Left Over wasn't all that great and it was pretentious.
I don't love Lindeloff's writing. I honestly don't know enough to know enough about it.
But WATCHMEN is the most pretentious graphic novel out there - and I love it for that reason lol
So it's funny that you call a writer pretentious. Ironic even.
@@lupewalkerx Are you just associating anything vaguely intellectual with "pretentious"?
HA! The joys/and sorrows of watching videos 5 years later.. To have such hope...
No superpowers? Well, yes and no... take into consideration that Adrian was a brilliant geneticist (of german - possibly nazi origin, who might have also genetically altered himself) ...who was able to dodge and stop bullets with his bare hand.
The Comedian who (at the time of his death) is an old man in the body of a 20 yr old power lifter... they were ordinary in the sense when compared to other super heroes the same way batman and captain america are "oridinary humans" but comparable to real world people (which the comic alludes to) they were people who have the physical speed of olympic runners, the physical stregth of "strongmen" with the reflexes of circus acrobats and the minds of physicists... all rolled into one.
Basically ...go try and dodge a bullet -see what happens lol.
I do agree with you about the movie ... it was shit... the HBO series is closer to the feel of the comic then the movie -which seems like more of a frank miller take on the watchmen... if he had written it instead of alan moore.
@Bobo Boy it can't possibly be as bad as the bad acting from from the movie ... seriously bro, Malin Akerman (whos a comedic actress) was so miss- cast as SSII, Billy Crudup was like a MrSpock on quaaludes, the only actor that did a great job was Jackie Earle Hayle as Rorschach...
@@gazmendsubrahimi8360 I thought Jack played a great Rorschach... highlight of the film for me.
Hey, I'm thinking about doing video essays myself so what program did you create this video?
ohboyherewego.jpg
edit: i'lll be damned.
Holy crap. I just realized this video was posted 8 days before Steve died.
I don't really have a beef with the "superpowers". The characters are amped up only slightly. It would have been better if they weren't, but that's not why the movie wasn't as good as it could have been. I felt the main problem with the film was that it stuck too close to the book. Graphic arts and cinema are two different mediums. What works in one does not necessarily work in another. A graphic novel is read at a different pace than a movie is presented, and its images are presented and viewed differently. Panels are seen alongside other panels, and the content composition of the panels is designed so that entire pages and spreads are seen together. Cinema is much more serial though. You can't see the composition of a scene alongside another scene. Larger panels or full-page scenes get a boost on paper, but not on a movie screen where everything is the same size. Snyder duplicated a lot of the graphic novel onto film, and it's not as effective there. It makes you feel like you're seeing the graphic novel, but it feels off because it's not.
This is spot on. I rewatched it recently after also re-reading the book and was just in awe of how Snyder could miss the point so completely. My opinion of the movie tanked and it makes me appreciate the book even more.
Did you watch the show? I love it 🤌🏼
@@TheRealHaloLover I really liked the show for the most part. Overall it felt closer in spirit to the comic’s world building and didn’t miss the point so much.
I hope you make a new video analyzing the series once it is done it's pretty good so far
I’m definitely thinking about it!
@@MaxMarriner hell yes. This is the 1st video I've seen from you. I look forward to more
The show strayed from the spirit of watchmen and is unfortunately even more mainstream than the movie
Zack Snyder doesn't get what's he's adapting? That's a surprise!
Just watched this, and it summarized vague thoughts I’ve had about the film for years in a cogent manner... great job, honestly.
I’ll now point people to this video to explain my problems with the movie
Watchmen is a film that needed a director like Martin Scorsese to transfer the themes to the big screen correctly - it needed to be made kinda cheap and dirty with the budget saved for mainly the ending etc. IMHO
This is really good. Also good: how Snyder's objectivist viewpoint willfully blinds him to critiques of objectivism.
Good film. I understand the take however I did not come away thinking the movie characters had super powers, rather that they were extra dangerous due to their drive and training. This is what Snyder is effectively showing. There is no doubt in the film that Dr. Manhattan is the one with superpowers. I have read the comic and felt that Snyder made an amazing job conveying its themes without making it look contrived or silly.
I thought that music choices are spectacular and the opening scene is a masterpiece.
I disagree but you made your case well, I can tell you put alot of time, thought, and effort into it, great video
Rorschach is relatable because he stands for individualism and principle. Ozymandias basically gives Rorschach an ultimatum - either join his collectivist utopia, or die. He chooses death. Your oversimplification of Objectivism, which is also completely wrong, is also the exact same idea which Moore had when criticizing Ditko and his characters. That's why Moore was so pissed about lots of readers siding with Rorschach. He went out of his way to mock and make a fool of Objectivism and Ditko, yet despite all of that, people still sided with his obvious lampoon character. This is also another reason a lot of people don't like Snyder's interpretation, it's more sympathetic to Rorschach. And there is nothing in the original comic that paints or portrays Rorschach as being a bigot. Stop injecting your own politics into the characters.
"THEY GAVE THE WATCHMEN SUPERPOWERS" - I mean....Ignoring the fact that Dr Manhattan has superpowers, no, Comedian does not have superpowers. Him punching through drywall is not a superpower. In fact anyone of relatively high strength could do that. It does not take super strength to punch through a wall, unless that wall is concrete.
Watchmen is not a "reaction" to 50 years of comic books, it is a reaction to the trend in 70's superhero comics to make superhero's "gritty" and "realistic". If you knew anything about comics, you would know this. Go back all the way to 1971, and you get "Snowbirds Don't Fly", where Green Arrow comes face to face with the reality of his side kick being addicted to heroin. Moore didn't like how superheroes were being inserted into the "real world" (ignorant of comics of the 30's and 40's, to say the least), and wanted them to be exclusively made for kids, which they never were, superhero comics always had a broad appeal. Watchmen was his critique on the "maturing" of comic books. It is not a critique on superheroes as a whole. That is objectively wrong.
Also, calling Lindsay Ellis the best film essayist on youtube; LOL!
There's several explicit moments that reveal Rorshach's bigotry via direct statements about homosexuals, and implied beliefs of a far right wing tabloid he reads, and which ideology he echoes throughout, such as his long spiels about degenerates, intellectuals, and liberals. Read harder. You are projecting your preferred reading onto the text, rather than seeing what is right there on the page, presumably because of cognitive dissonance and it being counter to your own deeply held beliefs. Ideology goggles are the antithesis of critical thinking and logic.
Dude can you read???
I dont really agree with your take. I watched the movie in theaters without knowing anything about the comic whatsoever and i never misunderstood the characters as being super-powered. Obviously they were inflated to make the visuals more interesting, but i immediately recognized it as a style choice rather than taking it to literally mean that, everyone or these specific characters have super strength. Your point about the opening scene with the comedian punching through walls being unrealistic? Ive punched through walls on accident bro...its not hard to do. A secret agent specialized in combat, fighting for his life punching through paper thin apartment walls doesnt seem particularly out of the ordinary to me. I was honestly much more confused about the rorsharch mask constantly changing. Like does everyone else in the world see that? Is that just how he imagines himself? Is this commonplace technology in this universe? Is it just some kind of visual metaphor for the audeince? Anyways, while i understand the point youre trying to make, i believe you chose a bad example. To me, the fact that they have a 120 lbs girl in high heels and latex or silk beating the shit out of hardened criminals and masked men grappling up a 50 story building already brings it into the world of campy make believe and improbability. Not some dude putting a hole through his apartment wall. The original world of watchmen wasnt one that was so grounded in reality that it couldnt be exaggerated for the sake of entertainment to reach a wider audience.
10:50 Completely agree. Haven't seen the whole movie, but what from what I've seen what you said seems to hit the nail right on the head.
I agree with you what you said about the Synder's Watchmen, but the move still has a lot of problems. Some of the acting is really bad like Silk Spectre II actress. Some of the song choices are weird like when Manthan and Silk Spectre leave mars they have a rock song, and doesn't feel right with the mood of the film. The subtlety is thrown out of the window like Dr. Manthan wear clothes in the comic but became more clothesless. It shows that he is losing his humanity, but Synder ignores that part. Some add stuff in the film is unnecessary like the two cops shooting at Rorschach was pointless. The makeups are pretty bad like Silk Spectre's Mother wig was is so obviously a wig. There are some continuity issues like Silk Spectre fighting is obvious that she doesn't have heels, but when she isn't fighting she has heels. The films drugs on to much like the prison fight were too long. Death of the First Owlman doesn't matter because he wasn't fleshed out too much. Bubastis came out of nowhere and wasn't established in the film. It would confuse the audience what is the cat come from.
Alot of people don't remember when this movie came out
The hype for this movie was insane despite the trailer having trouble capturing the concept( I remember people calling it discount batman bc of niteowl)
So many kids in my middle school had this comic on their desk despite the content
And superhero movie were more traditional at this time their was no logan or dradpool
So seeing blood for the first time was shocking.
Having a complicated plot with flashbacks was the first
The Dark Knight started the more dark and realistic superhero movies but this movie carried it further to rated R comic movies like the boys, Logan etc
It would be so cool if you would also review the 2019 Watchmen Tv series
No..... please no.
“Its shit.” There saved ya 20 minutes
@@hentaiweeb69 no, it's incredible
@@patrikmacek121 incredibly shit
@@hentaiweeb69 if I asked why you hate it, would any of your answers involve the word woke?
I'd love to hear what the person who wrote this video thought of the HBO series. Are you there, Max?
The new HBO series captures much better the novel than the movie.
Agreed
No Superpowers, More Vigilantes and Politics. So, HBO's Watchmen is more like the comics than the Snyder's movie, huh?
Great video Max. Saw your comment on Cosmonaut Variety Hour. Sorry you were caught up in the crossfire.
Thank you so much!
@@MaxMarriner On the bright side, that comment funnily enough made watch this video. Great stuff!
Holy shit how does this not even have 600 views? This was right up there with the "big" essayists on this website. Amazing stuff, man.
Subbed as _F U C K_
RIP Ditko we'll always love the work.
It should've stayed in development hell. The studio didn't seem to get the book, in many cases it even portrayed the opposite of what was mentioned in the story.
I'm afraid you've mistaken the forest for the trees man :))
This was a good video, you ought to come back
Watchmen 2019 is one of the best tv series I’ve seen. It’s one of the vest successors of the comic.
@@melontusk7358 jesus you people are just brain dead parrots. Nobody cares about you whining about people acknowledging racism and making media about it. It's a good ass show. I bet you didnt even watch it and are just repeating stuff.
@@billbutton8468 I bet you didn't even read the book. Was there anything about white supremacists in there? No, it was about more complex themes like consequentialism, free will, the human nature, all on the brink of nuclear extinction. Not some petty woman hating on dumb racists. Symply addressing racism does NOT make it good. If that was the case, films like "White men can't jump", "White chick" and Netflix's Bright would all rank higher than The Dark Knight and The Lord of the RIngs, a film trilogy where everyone is white. Wake up, sheep.
@@melontusk7358 did you delete your original comment? And I'm literally reading it right now btw because i really like it. I'm literally EXACTLY at the point where the news said that Kovacs' landlady described him as "NAZI PERVERT" so idk why tf youre pretending there's nothing in the whole book that mentions such things. Also the show wasnt meant to retread the same exact themes, bud. Race wasn't a theme at all really in the book and that being different in a sequel is a GOOD THING. Why tf would you want it the same? It's a different story from a different era.
"Not some pretty woman hating on dumb racists" ohhhhh so you didn't watch the show or were too busy whining about race having a part of the story to catch the actual themes involved such as generational trauma or how you cant heal under a mask?
"Simply addressing racism does not make it good" where tf did this come from? Nobody said that. You're so random. Addressing racism doesn't make it bad either. But that's probably why you deleted your comment so you could deny that you were implying that.
What makes me a sheep? For enjoying a show that i was told i wasnt supposed to like because it was "woke SJW garbage" ??? I'm sorry that youre a sheep and fell for that shit but that doesnt mean you need to project that on to me for having my own mind and liking what i like. Quit making shit up in your head so you have an excuse to call anyone who disagrees with you a sheep (which is how BRAINDEAD SHEEP argue). And Quit blindly calling shows you've never seen before trash because you were told that's how you're supposed to feel whenever racism is addressed.
I'm sorry that i liked the show. I'm sorry if that upsets you for some reason. But that doesnt mean you should imagine some weird reality where i only liked it because it mentioned race or something. Grow the fuck up and accept people have different tastes than you idiots who cry whenever media tackles the issues of race because some youtubers said thats bad and you believed it without thinking.
@@billbutton8468 Nope. If you haven't read the comics, you don't get to judge. There's no room for you to have an opinion when you haven't even finished the source material that came out more than 30 years ago. "Nazi" is a pejorative, it does not mean Rorschach is racist in the context of the chapter. Ozymandias also called The Comedian a Nazi, that's because of all of his imperialism, war crimes, and violent nature. How do you know I haven't seen the show, or are you just making that up, delusional idiot? I started watching it when it first came out, thinking it would have anything worth seeing. The truest sequel to Watchmen is Doomsday Clock, which comprehends the original masterfully. Sequels bringing in new ideas and themes are always welcome, but in this case the message is unrelated to the comics. Imagine someone making a sequel to Shawshank Redemption but now instead of being about freedom, it's about fidget spinners, because such things are "contemporary" and "a modern take". They're irrelevant to the original themes. If this sounds out of place, that's the point I'm making. And nope, I didn't even bother to delete my comment, as you imagined that scenario with your uncultured mind, any comment posted in the notification section on my crappy browser won't be updated and therefore automatically deleted.
@@melontusk7358 exactly. People like you haven't read the watchmen and haven't etched the show can't judge either of then. You're just sheep repeating other people's bs. There's no room for your opinion.
Yes. Nazi is a pejorative used against Rorshach in the book. If you would have read the book you would know this. Just cause you don't like the idea of him being racist doesn't mean that him bring called a nazi doesn't imply he's racist. Sorry.
"How do you know i haven't seen the show" i said tithe haven't or you were too dumb to understand the themes. But dont worry. I know you havent watched it or read the comic. You're a sheep whining about "sjws" cause you were told to and nothing more.
The show understands the original book amazingly well. And that's why it purposely doesn't just only touch on the same things. It has its own voice while also understanding the original. I havent gotten to doomsday clock because i wanted to read the original again but i thought i heard people saying doomsday clock wasnt good. Idc.
"Sequels bringing in new ideas and themes are always welcomed" except if it has to do with racism. Themes against racism are baddddddd and evillll. But trust me im not racist.
Shawshank redemption about fidget spinners? Wtf is wrong with your brain? This is a serious book and a serious show both about serious topics. Both about RELEVANT topics to todays society. Not fucking fidget spinners. Whats wrong with your head?? Honestly. Your point is that modern relevant topics are out of place in a sequel to something that was about relevant serious topics? BOTH stories including serious depictions of vigilantes and interesting themes about masks. But you wouldnt know this because you obviously didnt watch. Or are being told that you need to be biased against it so you watched it with a bias.
My mind is uncultured because you probably deleted your comment and dont like being called out on it? Lmao it doesnt even matter. Youre a dumbass sheep whp doesnt understand this modern culture depiction of watchmen so you get mad and call anyone uncultured who actually understood it. Grow up.
Max Marriner, I really like this video. Have you seen the Watchmen tv series. The first episode is a bit bumpy, but beyond that, it does a powerful and beautiful job of, instead of entertaining and titillating us, using the idea that anyone who tries to put themselves philosophically above another person to analyze deep flaws in our modern society in a way that reflects our world in the way the original Watchmen comic did without changing any of the events of the original comic and actually delivering powerful messages about the deep flaws of our modern conception of the hero in general, especially in the light of racism and right-wing politics that are at a tipping point in our political climate. The show even uses some very avant-garde techniques in is absolutely stunning sixth episode and through the series in general to make the actual form of the presentation more like a graphic novel in a way that complements and gives depth to the themes being analyzed rather than being portentous. Every theme that is explored in the original is painstakingly examined in a detailed analysis of everything about the world that created it, not a single character is made of cardboard, even the themes about religion and science that existed in the original are painted in a whole new light because it makes the story meaningful for today without changing it. There's even this simultaneously hilarious and creepy sub-plot that mirrors the Tales of the Black Freighter in a such surreal way it tests everything you think you know about Watchmen...………..Then, of course, there's Lube Man.