I likes the trailer, it looks a heck of a lot less boring than the Watchmen synopsis i read. I want to read it now but think I'll get bored of it, my attention span being what it is right now. How long is it and how long would it take to read? I'm a third of the way through Ayashi no Ceres at the moment and don't know if i can handle something similary long on the side.
Wait, is this the whole thing in one book? Seems a bit short.
Anybody read Watchmen?
31 posts
• Page 2 of 2
Re: Anybody read Watchmen?
Blossom wrote:I likes the trailer, it looks a heck of a lot less boring than the Watchmen synopsis i read. I want to read it now but think I'll get bored of it, my attention span being what it is right now. How long is it and how long would it take to read? I'm a third of the way through Ayashi no Ceres at the moment and don't know if i can handle something similary long on the side.
Wait, is this the whole thing in one book? Seems a bit short.
424 pages just about covers it. Gotta dig Perfect Symmetry.
-
Peter - Not an endangered species
- Posts: 5212
- Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 11:36 am
- Website: http://www.cereswunderkind.net
- Location: Oakingham
Re: Anybody read Watchmen?
Ok then, £10 isn't a bad deal. *orders*
edit: Well it came today, but with massive creases on the cover. I'm going to send it back, but I'll try and read it all first. This is proving more difficult than imagined though as I'm used to reading right to left.
edit: Well it came today, but with massive creases on the cover. I'm going to send it back, but I'll try and read it all first. This is proving more difficult than imagined though as I'm used to reading right to left.
-
Blossom - Brigade Leader
- Posts: 2830
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:47 pm
- Location: Mercia
Re: Anybody read Watchmen?
Well I'm double-posting but it seems appropriate. I finished reading it today, and I have to has I thought it was massively over-hyped. Sure it was good, but if this really is the best comic ever then it doesn't say much for the rest of what's out there. I was expecting to be blown away by it from what I've read. Probably had more impact at the time, but it's a bit dated now.
Also now I've read it I think the movie looks like it's going to be a bit crap. Like why the hell is noone the age their meant to be. And I think the ~*pineapples*~ costumes they wear in the comic are pretty important, how on earth would these average people make really awesome ones like they wear in the movie? And it would give it a better tone and a more unique look. It seems they're more concerned with pulling in an audience than sticking to the story, even though I think a faithful adaptation of this comic would have no problems drawing in an audience. *sighs*
Also now I've read it I think the movie looks like it's going to be a bit crap. Like why the hell is noone the age their meant to be. And I think the ~*pineapples*~ costumes they wear in the comic are pretty important, how on earth would these average people make really awesome ones like they wear in the movie? And it would give it a better tone and a more unique look. It seems they're more concerned with pulling in an audience than sticking to the story, even though I think a faithful adaptation of this comic would have no problems drawing in an audience. *sighs*
-
Blossom - Brigade Leader
- Posts: 2830
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:47 pm
- Location: Mercia
Re: Anybody read Watchmen?
Having seen the trailer again, I'm not so sure about how negative I should be about the film. I'm certainly wary, considering the director they've chosen and the way the ending has been treated in previous script drafts, but the dedication with which it seems to be made makes me hopeful.
The costumes are different from the comic (let's stop calling it a graphic novel, Watchmen is a comic, it's a comic about comics, a comic with ambition, but definitely a comic, and graphic novel is such an apologist term), but with a reason. The costumes and looks of the characters in the original were inspired by what had gone before in comics. Their look wasn't just an insight into their characters as superheroes, it was also a commentary on the looks of comicbook superheroes.
What Snyder has done is quite clever in that the costumes in the film seem to be inspired by the look of comicbook hero film adaptations. The Niteowl's costume bears the influence of the design of Batman Begins (it's once practical and intimidating), Ozymandias' costume is much more theatrical and imposing in the same way as Batman's suit was in the nineties.
All in all, Snyder so far has made some good choices and I'm glad he chose to go with the original setting. The whole update, and making it relevant for today that Paul Greengrass wanted to do seems like a lack of imagination on his part. Watchmen isn't particularly about the political conflict in question. But if they kept the end as I read in one draft, then I'd be really dissapointed. So while it may look good, and while it's being made with an admirable level of attention and an interesting cast (Billy Crudup in a role that originally would have gone to Arnold Schwarzenegger) the succes of the film is definitely going to depend on the way that the story is going to be handled.
As for the original comic Blossom, I'd never go so far as calling it the best ever graphic novel, but it was revolutionary. Many of the elements that were new are now familiar in pop culture (like the conspiracy theories or a darker and mature handling of comicbook characters), and yes it is a bit dated in its cold war setting, but in the end it's not about that.
The costumes are different from the comic (let's stop calling it a graphic novel, Watchmen is a comic, it's a comic about comics, a comic with ambition, but definitely a comic, and graphic novel is such an apologist term), but with a reason. The costumes and looks of the characters in the original were inspired by what had gone before in comics. Their look wasn't just an insight into their characters as superheroes, it was also a commentary on the looks of comicbook superheroes.
What Snyder has done is quite clever in that the costumes in the film seem to be inspired by the look of comicbook hero film adaptations. The Niteowl's costume bears the influence of the design of Batman Begins (it's once practical and intimidating), Ozymandias' costume is much more theatrical and imposing in the same way as Batman's suit was in the nineties.
All in all, Snyder so far has made some good choices and I'm glad he chose to go with the original setting. The whole update, and making it relevant for today that Paul Greengrass wanted to do seems like a lack of imagination on his part. Watchmen isn't particularly about the political conflict in question. But if they kept the end as I read in one draft, then I'd be really dissapointed. So while it may look good, and while it's being made with an admirable level of attention and an interesting cast (Billy Crudup in a role that originally would have gone to Arnold Schwarzenegger) the succes of the film is definitely going to depend on the way that the story is going to be handled.
As for the original comic Blossom, I'd never go so far as calling it the best ever graphic novel, but it was revolutionary. Many of the elements that were new are now familiar in pop culture (like the conspiracy theories or a darker and mature handling of comicbook characters), and yes it is a bit dated in its cold war setting, but in the end it's not about that.
Squirrel butts don't glow
-
green ink - Gallivespian Spy
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:36 pm
- Website: http://www.nietveelsoeps.blogspot.com
- Location: Somewhere between bogs, wild moors and oaktrees
Re: Anybody read Watchmen?
Blossom wrote:Well I'm double-posting but it seems appropriate. I finished reading it today, and I have to has I thought it was massively over-hyped. Sure it was good, but if this really is the best comic ever then it doesn't say much for the rest of what's out there. I was expecting to be blown away by it from what I've read. Probably had more impact at the time, but it's a bit dated now.
Also now I've read it I think the movie looks like it's going to be a bit crap. Like why the hell is noone the age their meant to be. And I think the ~*pineapples*~ costumes they wear in the comic are pretty important, how on earth would these average people make really awesome ones like they wear in the movie? And it would give it a better tone and a more unique look. It seems they're more concerned with pulling in an audience than sticking to the story, even though I think a faithful adaptation of this comic would have no problems drawing in an audience. *sighs*
I recommend reading Transmetropolitan, stat. It (Watchmen) actually was the best comic I've read and I'd read a fair few before it so I honestly can't comprehend how you could be underwhelmed. It's a great story with great character development with some absolutely wonderful artwork.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Batman-Dark-Knight-Returns/dp/1852867981/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217028208&sr=8-2
Buy this.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transmetropolitan-Vol-01-Back-Street/dp/1401220843/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217028500&sr=1-1
and this.
-
Darragh - Entirely Adequate
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:41 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Anybody read Watchmen?
green ink wrote: yes it is a bit dated in its cold war setting, but in the end it's not about that.
It's not the setting that's dated, it's the ideas. While in the 1980s I'm sure it was very original, to me reading it now it's not. I thought The Incredibles was original for having people ban superheros, so to me this just seemed a bit obvious. It's like when I read the early discworld novels and don't find any of it funny because it's just so obvious now.
And I have to disagree about the costume change being clever. I think they need the crap costumes to help them look ridiculous. They are supposed to be home made after all. It's like I've always been annoyed with the spider-man movies for his amazing costume. He's supposed to be struggling for money, and he certainly couldn't have made it himself, just yet they just gloss over how he got it.
Darragh wrote:I recommend reading Transmetropolitan, stat. It (Watchmen) actually was the best comic I've read and I'd read a fair few before it so I honestly can't comprehend how you could be underwhelmed. It's a great story with great character development with some absolutely wonderful artwork.
I think that might be the problem. I've never read any comic books before, and Watchmen seemed to be turning the genre upside down. So, obviously that's lost on me as someone who's never read any comics.
And i think the hype doesn't help. Everyone made out like there was some massive twist at the end. If there was one I didn't get it...It just all seemed a bit straight forward to me.
-
Blossom - Brigade Leader
- Posts: 2830
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:47 pm
- Location: Mercia
Re: Anybody read Watchmen?
Ive long been familiar with Watchmen, but Ive only recently read it. Its wonderful and brilliant and stunningly original and amongst the best fiction Ive ever read.
Until suddenly it isnt, its just morally reprehensible nonsense that honestly sickened me. Now people will say, my disapointment comes only from the fact that we weren't given a clear cut ending, or a morally "comfortable" one. I will look down and whisper...~*iguana*~ off fanboys.
I just finished reading it last night, and was left furious by the last few pages. Ive been discussing it for about an hour now with a friend, I'm gonna quote some of my thoughts. Warning though, I've got my rage on, and its spoilered for size:
Moore deals with all manner of philosophical notions in interesting and insightful ways, but in the end his message is indisputably (and because of the staggering success of Veidt's actions, it is indisputable) that murdering millions is worthwhile if it stops the potential end of humanity. Which is fine, except the potential end of humanity was engineered by the murderer in the first place. Seriously, in the doomsday obsessed world of the Cold War this may have seemed reasonable, but in the real world where the Cold War ended without requiring the sacrifice of millions to the altar of "Peace" it just, as I keep saying, seems like morally repugnant ~*bullpineapples*~.
Until suddenly it isnt, its just morally reprehensible nonsense that honestly sickened me. Now people will say, my disapointment comes only from the fact that we weren't given a clear cut ending, or a morally "comfortable" one. I will look down and whisper...~*iguana*~ off fanboys.
I just finished reading it last night, and was left furious by the last few pages. Ive been discussing it for about an hour now with a friend, I'm gonna quote some of my thoughts. Warning though, I've got my rage on, and its spoilered for size:
Spoiler:
Moore deals with all manner of philosophical notions in interesting and insightful ways, but in the end his message is indisputably (and because of the staggering success of Veidt's actions, it is indisputable) that murdering millions is worthwhile if it stops the potential end of humanity. Which is fine, except the potential end of humanity was engineered by the murderer in the first place. Seriously, in the doomsday obsessed world of the Cold War this may have seemed reasonable, but in the real world where the Cold War ended without requiring the sacrifice of millions to the altar of "Peace" it just, as I keep saying, seems like morally repugnant ~*bullpineapples*~.
-
Qu Klaani - Idi Admin
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 1:07 pm
Re: Anybody read Watchmen?
Yeah...it's good though isn't it? 
Doesn't Rorschach kind of represent your view on this?
The ending of the epilogue, while ambiguous, hints at a not so clear cut ending. I agree though the whole alien thing was rediculous.
Doesn't Rorschach kind of represent your view on this?
The ending of the epilogue, while ambiguous, hints at a not so clear cut ending. I agree though the whole alien thing was rediculous.
-
Darragh - Entirely Adequate
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:41 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Anybody read Watchmen?
Oh, its brilliant in many ways...and in time Ill come to appreciate it more no doubt, but that ending.
As for Rorshach, no, but I thought it was telling that the only people shown to be unhappy with our new enforced utopia are the two most obviously twattish right wing bastards. Rorschach, obviously, and the editor of the Weekly Standard. That was part of what made me pissed at Moore, he set them up as obvious dickheads, and then had them as the critics of the plan.
Although I will say that at the end there it was Rorschach who I was rooting for, which made me laugh. He's presented throughout as basically the worst kind of vigilante, but when Nite-Owl and the missus just gave in and shagged to assuage their cowardice, it's him I found myself associating with. I don't care if Veidt can logically defend his insane plan, or if somehow it magically ended up working, the man deserves justice. Really I wanted Rorschach to kill him, but it would have felt oddly contrary to my earlier protestations, it would have been too cheap and moralistic. Certainly though, it was him of them all, the biggest ~*dugong*~, who was left with some dignity.
Im still excited for the film, it'll be a visual treat if nothing else, and I appreciate what Moore was trying to do. I just think, based purely on this work, that he's a bit of a hack, and has (or had) some despicable views.
As for Rorshach, no, but I thought it was telling that the only people shown to be unhappy with our new enforced utopia are the two most obviously twattish right wing bastards. Rorschach, obviously, and the editor of the Weekly Standard. That was part of what made me pissed at Moore, he set them up as obvious dickheads, and then had them as the critics of the plan.
Although I will say that at the end there it was Rorschach who I was rooting for, which made me laugh. He's presented throughout as basically the worst kind of vigilante, but when Nite-Owl and the missus just gave in and shagged to assuage their cowardice, it's him I found myself associating with. I don't care if Veidt can logically defend his insane plan, or if somehow it magically ended up working, the man deserves justice. Really I wanted Rorschach to kill him, but it would have felt oddly contrary to my earlier protestations, it would have been too cheap and moralistic. Certainly though, it was him of them all, the biggest ~*dugong*~, who was left with some dignity.
Im still excited for the film, it'll be a visual treat if nothing else, and I appreciate what Moore was trying to do. I just think, based purely on this work, that he's a bit of a hack, and has (or had) some despicable views.
-
Qu Klaani - Idi Admin
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 1:07 pm
Re: Anybody read Watchmen?
I'm half-way through the comic now, and I've already seen the movie. So far I've gathered that the movie is a very faithful representation of the comic in almost every way except perhaps the breadth of the message being construed... and the ending... so I guess I can jump right in to this one.
The movie seems mostly a criticism towards the idea of the morally idealist/morally correct super-man and the hero concept in general.
The comic has this same message, but it has another dimension to it so far. You get a sense of the irresponsibility of humanity, in a way it seems to imply our own futility to save ourselves in the face of human greed and ambition.
Qu Klaani, I have to disagree with you on this point:
The way Moore writes the book you don't feel inclined to believe heroes are the self-proclaimed guardians that they think they are, they're morally twisted and ultimately flawed. NOBODY could possibly feel comfortable with Watchmen's ending, I'm positive anybody with a half a critical mind will have felt somewhat taken-aback when Veidt states that he has saved the world when he has in fact just committed the greatest act of genocide ever witnessed... So basically save the world from Nuclear Holocaust through genocide? Does that make sense?
Pause a second though, if Moore just spent the entire length of the story degrading heroes, making them feel crazy and in some cases even pitiful, why would we accepts Veidt's final outrageous crime as morally-correct?
The way I see it, by making one of his own (morally twisted, ultimately human and thus flawed) heroes into the villain Moore's actually saying the opposite. He basically just made a mass murderer into a savior and asked you: what's wrong with this picture?
So what is wrong with that picture?
Moore's story appears in 1986, which is to say after Gorbachev came to power and began the reform that ultimately led to Soviet disarmament and later, dismemberment. Yet in the Watchmen universe the cold war show no signs of letting up by 1986 (where is Gorbachev?).
It is written long after the Vietnam war had ended, but what's happened in Vietnam? what of the human's rights movements during the 60s-70s? The consequences the war should have had in the US?
Heroes happened.
Specifically, Dr. Manhattan happened.
Through his mere existence Manhattan gave the US absolute military supremacy and thus voided the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the Cold War.
Manhattan almost single-handedly won the Second Indochina War, while heroes cleaned up the streets of any protesters that might dare to say something about it.
The heroes can't foresee a peaceful resolution to the cold war without the loss of millions of lives, and yet this is what was already happening in the real world. Everybody was holding their breaths sure, but you could see a light at the end of the tunnel by the end of 1985.
At one point The Comedian says that he's afraid if America hadn't won the war in Vietnam the US would've gone crazy as a country. And yet it didn't, instead the atrocities and injustices committed there where a wake up call for people back home and thus paved the way for human rights reform in the US. Hell it wasn't all rainbows and unicorns but it was a hell of a lot better than the bleak picture Moore shows us in his reality.
So I guess my point is that Moore isn't saying that killing a million people is justifiable if it brings a peace of sorts, rather than that I think he's criticizing the Hero Ideal. What happens when one person or a handful of people stumble upon a disproportionate amount of power and then appoint themselves guardians of humanity? Who watches the watchmen?
What can a few ordinary men dressed up latex do? Just about squat really.. maybe put a couple of criminals in jail... but there's still much larger social and economic problems that almost guarantee that new criminals will take the place.. problems a guy with a rubber mask and a goofy costume can't solve. Hell the ones that don't go crazy from the stress of having to deal with the scum of humanity day in and day out (or die in the process) are probably sociopaths to begin with (Rorschach and The Comedian) or probably just get off on the adrenaline more than being motivated by some kind of moral imperative (Dan and Laurie).
And what of the supermen? could a super-man save the world? Moore doesn't seem to think so... he has a point too... On who's side would he be? How would he affect our lives? Would we be better off if simply left to resolve our own problems? Would a being so far removed from human life and suffering even be capable of understanding our problems? Could we stand to live in constant fear and apprehension simply because this man exists?
So I guess.. summarizing what I'm trying to say: Moore isn't justifying Veidts actions, he's condemning them. He's saying that even the smartest man alive isn't fit to self-appoint himself savior of the world because ultimately he's still human and his solution will be near sighted, flawed and may even be catastrophic. We don't need self-proclaimed heroes and they wouldn't do any good even if we had them, the world's better off without them.
[EDIT]: err.. wow.. that was a whole lot longer than I meant it to be xD.
The movie seems mostly a criticism towards the idea of the morally idealist/morally correct super-man and the hero concept in general.
The comic has this same message, but it has another dimension to it so far. You get a sense of the irresponsibility of humanity, in a way it seems to imply our own futility to save ourselves in the face of human greed and ambition.
Qu Klaani, I have to disagree with you on this point:
Qu Klaani wrote:in the end his message is indisputably (and because of the staggering success of Veidt's actions, it is indisputable) that murdering millions is worthwhile if it stops the potential end of humanity.
The way Moore writes the book you don't feel inclined to believe heroes are the self-proclaimed guardians that they think they are, they're morally twisted and ultimately flawed. NOBODY could possibly feel comfortable with Watchmen's ending, I'm positive anybody with a half a critical mind will have felt somewhat taken-aback when Veidt states that he has saved the world when he has in fact just committed the greatest act of genocide ever witnessed... So basically save the world from Nuclear Holocaust through genocide? Does that make sense?
Pause a second though, if Moore just spent the entire length of the story degrading heroes, making them feel crazy and in some cases even pitiful, why would we accepts Veidt's final outrageous crime as morally-correct?
The way I see it, by making one of his own (morally twisted, ultimately human and thus flawed) heroes into the villain Moore's actually saying the opposite. He basically just made a mass murderer into a savior and asked you: what's wrong with this picture?
So what is wrong with that picture?
Qu Klaani wrote:in the doomsday obsessed world of the Cold War this may have seemed reasonable, but in the real world where the Cold War ended without requiring the sacrifice of millions to the altar of "Peace" it just, as I keep saying, seems like morally repugnant
Moore's story appears in 1986, which is to say after Gorbachev came to power and began the reform that ultimately led to Soviet disarmament and later, dismemberment. Yet in the Watchmen universe the cold war show no signs of letting up by 1986 (where is Gorbachev?).
It is written long after the Vietnam war had ended, but what's happened in Vietnam? what of the human's rights movements during the 60s-70s? The consequences the war should have had in the US?
Heroes happened.
Specifically, Dr. Manhattan happened.
Through his mere existence Manhattan gave the US absolute military supremacy and thus voided the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the Cold War.
Manhattan almost single-handedly won the Second Indochina War, while heroes cleaned up the streets of any protesters that might dare to say something about it.
The heroes can't foresee a peaceful resolution to the cold war without the loss of millions of lives, and yet this is what was already happening in the real world. Everybody was holding their breaths sure, but you could see a light at the end of the tunnel by the end of 1985.
At one point The Comedian says that he's afraid if America hadn't won the war in Vietnam the US would've gone crazy as a country. And yet it didn't, instead the atrocities and injustices committed there where a wake up call for people back home and thus paved the way for human rights reform in the US. Hell it wasn't all rainbows and unicorns but it was a hell of a lot better than the bleak picture Moore shows us in his reality.
So I guess my point is that Moore isn't saying that killing a million people is justifiable if it brings a peace of sorts, rather than that I think he's criticizing the Hero Ideal. What happens when one person or a handful of people stumble upon a disproportionate amount of power and then appoint themselves guardians of humanity? Who watches the watchmen?
What can a few ordinary men dressed up latex do? Just about squat really.. maybe put a couple of criminals in jail... but there's still much larger social and economic problems that almost guarantee that new criminals will take the place.. problems a guy with a rubber mask and a goofy costume can't solve. Hell the ones that don't go crazy from the stress of having to deal with the scum of humanity day in and day out (or die in the process) are probably sociopaths to begin with (Rorschach and The Comedian) or probably just get off on the adrenaline more than being motivated by some kind of moral imperative (Dan and Laurie).
And what of the supermen? could a super-man save the world? Moore doesn't seem to think so... he has a point too... On who's side would he be? How would he affect our lives? Would we be better off if simply left to resolve our own problems? Would a being so far removed from human life and suffering even be capable of understanding our problems? Could we stand to live in constant fear and apprehension simply because this man exists?
So I guess.. summarizing what I'm trying to say: Moore isn't justifying Veidts actions, he's condemning them. He's saying that even the smartest man alive isn't fit to self-appoint himself savior of the world because ultimately he's still human and his solution will be near sighted, flawed and may even be catastrophic. We don't need self-proclaimed heroes and they wouldn't do any good even if we had them, the world's better off without them.
[EDIT]: err.. wow.. that was a whole lot longer than I meant it to be xD.
- VMLM3
- Zalif
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:38 pm
- Location: Lima, Peru
31 posts
• Page 2 of 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Content © 2001-2011 BridgeToTheStars.Net.
Images from The Golden Compass movie are © New Line Cinema.
Images from The Golden Compass movie are © New Line Cinema.