Current Events > There are issues with the Watchmen movie, but Jackie Earle Haley was amazing.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzeu-7eRNhI" data-time="

Flawless.
---

yea he was the best part of the movie. I wish he got a solo film

yo
---

Both he and Nite Owl 2 were spot-on. Pity they were negated by the misfire casting of Ozymandias and Silk Spectre II.
---

what is overacting for 400, Alex
---

lilORANG posted...

what is overacting for 400, Alex

how can one man be so wrong
---

He's great in the new Tick series too

DrizztLink posted...

lilORANG posted...

what is overacting for 400, Alex

how can one man be so wrong

---

Who's a good actor to play Ozy
---

The whole thing is amazing, especially the director's cut.
---

It is the only comic movie that's quality. From Zack Snyder, no less.

Dan and Rorschach are the best.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nu7LtizQg4" data-time="
---

Kelystic posted...

Who's a good actor to play Ozy

That's hard to say. Like Hollis Mason says in the book, some faces just go out of style - I can't off the top of my head think of any current actor who has that 50's-60's matinee idol look necessary to pull of a book-faithful Ozymandias. But Matthew Goode was a like a deliberate 180 for the character, and him not having the physical build is the lesser of the issues. In the books, Ozzy is presented as genuinely thoughtful, fair-minded, and burdened by the world, and when he turns out to be the 'villain,' you get the vibe that Superman himself has gone to the dark side; in the movie, he oozes such smarminess from the outset that I can't imagine anyone was surprised at the reveal.
---

masterpug53 posted...

Kelystic posted...

Who's a good actor to play Ozy

That's hard to say. Like Hollis Mason says in the book, some faces just go out of style - I can't off the top of my head think of any current actor who has that 50's-60's matinee idol look necessary to pull of a book-faithful Ozymandias. But Matthew Goode was a like a deliberate 180 for the character, and him not having the physical build is the lesser of the issue. In the books, Ozzy carries himself and genuinely thoughtful, caring, and burdened by the world, and when he turns out to be the 'villain,' you get the vibe that Superman himself has gone to the dark side; in the movie, he oozes such smarminess from the outset that I can't imagine anyone was surprised at the reveal.

He has a pretty arrogant plan. I'd say that "caring" is less of a good emotion than "smarmy" to lead us to that.

masterpug53 posted...

I can't off the top of my head think of any current actor who has that 50's-60's matinee idol look necessary to pull of a book-faithful Ozymandias.

Sam from Supernatural, maybe.
---

wah_wah_wah posted...

masterpug53 posted...

Kelystic posted...

Who's a good actor to play Ozy

That's hard to say. Like Hollis Mason says in the book, some faces just go out of style - I can't off the top of my head think of any current actor who has that 50's-60's matinee idol look necessary to pull of a book-faithful Ozymandias. But Matthew Goode was a like a deliberate 180 for the character, and him not having the physical build is the lesser of the issue. In the books, Ozzy carries himself and genuinely thoughtful, caring, and burdened by the world, and when he turns out to be the 'villain,' you get the vibe that Superman himself has gone to the dark side; in the movie, he oozes such smarminess from the outset that I can't imagine anyone was surprised at the reveal.

He has a pretty arrogant plan. I'd say that "caring" is less of a good emotion than "smarmy" to lead us to that.

I knew that was a poor choice of words and would get picked apart as soon as I posted it, which is why I edited it.
---

I usually don't like any of the criticisms that those who have read the comic put forward, which generally amount to "it's different" rather than any serious narrative flaws. I had it explained to me what the ending which was changed was supposed to be, and it sounds far dumber than what they did in the movie.

wah_wah_wah posted...

I had it explained to me what the ending which was changed was supposed to be, and it sounds far dumber than what they did in the movie.

Honestly, it is.

Same as Fight Club, and even Chuck agrees there.
---

DrizztLink posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

I had it explained to me what the ending which was changed was supposed to be, and it sounds far dumber than what they did in the movie.

Honestly, it is.

On the surface it is, but the solution the movie puts forth is more flawed. The alien was a singular, undefinable event in NYC that basically just caused half the population to seizure to death, which would allow immediate eyewitness access (as well as visual proof of the source of the event) shortly thereafter. On the other hand, if cities all across America suddenly start blowing up right at the height of nuclear tension, the President and his cabinet aren't going to sit around and 'wait for the energy signature,' or however the movie writes it off - nukes are going to fly in a heartbeat, which is exactly the outcome Ozzy's plan is designed to prevent. Just because the movie's revision is simpler doesn't make it more logical or effective.

On a personal level, it only put the nail in the coffin for me as far as the movie was concerned. After roughly a third of the way through the movie, I realized that the artistry that made the novel so good wasn't going to translate well to the big screen, and that the movie wasn't really bringing anything to life as far as imagination goes, since the novel was already a visual medium. So the only thing really keeping me going through the whole flick was wondering how cool the alien was going to turn out in movie form.
---

masterpug53 posted...

Just because the movie's revision is simpler doesn't make it more logical or effective.

It really does though.
---

masterpug53 posted...

On the surface it is, but the solution the movie puts forth is more flawed. The alien was a singular, undefinable event in NYC that basically just caused half the population to seizure to death, which would allow immediate eyewitness access (as well as visual proof of the source of the event) shortly thereafter. On the other hand, if cities all across America suddenly start blowing up right at the height of nuclear tension, the President and his cabinet aren't going to sit around and 'wait for the energy signature,' or however the movie writes it off - nukes are going to fly in a heartbeat, which is exactly the outcome Ozzy's plan is designed to prevent. Just because the movie's revision is simpler doesn't make it more logical or effective.

The problem with the aliens plot is the "and then what"... so the aliens unite the human race. For how long, exactly? It is also convoluted to maintain and risks discovery. Whereas blaming it all on Manhattan both brings him further into the story, and also makes complete sense since he is basically a God and can never be defeated. There is no complicated ruse to keep fabricating aliens that needs to be maintained in order to keep the world united.

masterpug53 posted...

On the other hand, if cities all across America suddenly start blowing up right at the height of nuclear tension, the President and his cabinet aren't going to sit around and 'wait for the energy signature,' or however the movie writes it off - nukes are going to fly in a heartbeat, which is exactly the outcome Ozzy's plan is designed to prevent. Just because the movie's revision is simpler doesn't make it more logical or effective.

But don't they see it as Manhattan from the getgo?

Pretty sure I remember that.
---

DrizztLink posted...

masterpug53 posted...

On the other hand, if cities all across America suddenly start blowing up right at the height of nuclear tension, the President and his cabinet aren't going to sit around and 'wait for the energy signature,' or however the movie writes it off - nukes are going to fly in a heartbeat, which is exactly the outcome Ozzy's plan is designed to prevent. Just because the movie's revision is simpler doesn't make it more logical or effective.

But don't they see it as Manhattan from the getgo?

Pretty sure I remember that.

Even then this point doesn't make sense. I dont think it is entirely stupid to think that the American government would wait to see who attacked before they attacked back. Why would they immediately attack Russia and then risk further retaliation from Russia with all of its thousands of nuclear weapons, if Russia wasnt involved at all?

DrizztLink posted...

masterpug53 posted...

On the other hand, if cities all across America suddenly start blowing up right at the height of nuclear tension, the President and his cabinet aren't going to sit around and 'wait for the energy signature,' or however the movie writes it off - nukes are going to fly in a heartbeat, which is exactly the outcome Ozzy's plan is designed to prevent. Just because the movie's revision is simpler doesn't make it more logical or effective.

But don't they see it as Manhattan from the getgo?

Pretty sure I remember that.

They say that, yes, but it's not a logical conclusion to jump to: 'Holy shit, cities around the world are blowing up right at the height of global nuclear tension! I guess we'd better check real quick and make sure Dr. Manhattan isn't the one behind it for no reason whatsoever before we retaliate.'
---

masterpug53 posted...

DrizztLink posted...

masterpug53 posted...

On the other hand, if cities all across America suddenly start blowing up right at the height of nuclear tension, the President and his cabinet aren't going to sit around and 'wait for the energy signature,' or however the movie writes it off - nukes are going to fly in a heartbeat, which is exactly the outcome Ozzy's plan is designed to prevent. Just because the movie's revision is simpler doesn't make it more logical or effective.

But don't they see it as Manhattan from the getgo?

Pretty sure I remember that.

They say that, yes, but it's not a logical conclusion to jump to: 'Holy shit, cities around the world are blowing up right at the height of global nuclear tension! I guess we'd better check real quick and make sure Dr. Manhattan isn't the one behind it for no reason whatsoever before we retaliate.'

Lol what. Did you even watch the movie
---

masterpug53 posted...

DrizztLink posted...

masterpug53 posted...

On the other hand, if cities all across America suddenly start blowing up right at the height of nuclear tension, the President and his cabinet aren't going to sit around and 'wait for the energy signature,' or however the movie writes it off - nukes are going to fly in a heartbeat, which is exactly the outcome Ozzy's plan is designed to prevent. Just because the movie's revision is simpler doesn't make it more logical or effective.

But don't they see it as Manhattan from the getgo?

Pretty sure I remember that.

They say that, yes, but it's not a logical conclusion to jump to: 'Holy shit, cities around the world are blowing up right at the height of global nuclear tension! I guess we'd better check real quick and make sure Dr. Manhattan isn't the one behind it for no reason whatsoever before we retaliate.'

I mean, he basically blew up Vietnam to win the Vietnam War, and there was a massive amount of distrust and suspicion of him established beforehand. I would say that checking to see if it was Manhattan was logical.

wah_wah_wah posted...

DrizztLink posted...

masterpug53 posted...

On the other hand, if cities all across America suddenly start blowing up right at the height of nuclear tension, the President and his cabinet aren't going to sit around and 'wait for the energy signature,' or however the movie writes it off - nukes are going to fly in a heartbeat, which is exactly the outcome Ozzy's plan is designed to prevent. Just because the movie's revision is simpler doesn't make it more logical or effective.

But don't they see it as Manhattan from the getgo?

Pretty sure I remember that.

Even then this point doesn't make sense. I dont think it is entirely stupid to think that the American government would wait to see who attacked before they attacked back. Why would they immediately attack Russia and then risk further retaliation from Russia with all of its thousands of nuclear weapons, if Russia wasnt involved at all?

I can't remember the particulars, but there's a real-life horror story involving a former president's cabinet (Ford or Carter era, I think) being seconds away from calling in a nuclear retaliation based on what turned out to be a training video, which was thankfully noticed by a general who walked into the room at the last second. This is historically not a scenario where the powers that be can afford to wait around for all the facts to come in.
---

masterpug53 posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

DrizztLink posted...

masterpug53 posted...

On the other hand, if cities all across America suddenly start blowing up right at the height of nuclear tension, the President and his cabinet aren't going to sit around and 'wait for the energy signature,' or however the movie writes it off - nukes are going to fly in a heartbeat, which is exactly the outcome Ozzy's plan is designed to prevent. Just because the movie's revision is simpler doesn't make it more logical or effective.

But don't they see it as Manhattan from the getgo?

Pretty sure I remember that.

Even then this point doesn't make sense. I dont think it is entirely stupid to think that the American government would wait to see who attacked before they attacked back. Why would they immediately attack Russia and then risk further retaliation from Russia with all of its thousands of nuclear weapons, if Russia wasnt involved at all?

I can't remember the particulars, but there's a real-life horror story involving a former president's cabinet (Ford or Carter era, I think) being seconds away from calling in a nuclear retaliation based on what turned out to be a training video, which was thankfully noticed by a general who walked into the room at the last second. This is historically not a scenario where the powers that be can afford to wait around for all the facts to come in.

Except the fact that we don't live in a nuclear hellscape proves that they did wait.

wah_wah_wah posted...

masterpug53 posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

DrizztLink posted...

masterpug53 posted...

On the other hand, if cities all across America suddenly start blowing up right at the height of nuclear tension, the President and his cabinet aren't going to sit around and 'wait for the energy signature,' or however the movie writes it off - nukes are going to fly in a heartbeat, which is exactly the outcome Ozzy's plan is designed to prevent. Just because the movie's revision is simpler doesn't make it more logical or effective.

But don't they see it as Manhattan from the getgo?

Pretty sure I remember that.

Even then this point doesn't make sense. I dont think it is entirely stupid to think that the American government would wait to see who attacked before they attacked back. Why would they immediately attack Russia and then risk further retaliation from Russia with all of its thousands of nuclear weapons, if Russia wasnt involved at all?

I can't remember the particulars, but there's a real-life horror story involving a former president's cabinet (Ford or Carter era, I think) being seconds away from calling in a nuclear retaliation based on what turned out to be a training video, which was thankfully noticed by a general who walked into the room at the last second. This is historically not a scenario where the powers that be can afford to wait around for all the facts to come in.

Except the fact that we don't live in a nuclear hellscape proves that they did wait.

You missed the point of the anecdote.
---

wah_wah_wah posted...

Except the fact that we don't live in a nuclear hellscape proves that they did wait.

I'm not entirely sure how you were able to spin that from 'a general walking in at the last second and recognizing the mistake is the only thing that prevented a nuclear strike.'

To be honest, I'm kinda baffled by the upsurge in defense of the Watchmen movie by the normally hyper-critical internet in recent years. Must be an aftereffect of the DCEU, kind of like how Star Wars Episode 3 is treated; 'it's not the worst, so it's therefore the best.'
---

masterpug53 posted...

I can't remember the particulars, but there's a real-life horror story involving a former president's cabinet (Ford or Carter era, I think) being seconds away from calling in a nuclear retaliation based on what turned out to be a training video, which was thankfully noticed by a general who walked into the room at the last second. This is historically not a scenario where the powers that be can afford to wait around for all the facts to come in.

It wasn't a training video, just bad information.

The real horror story is about the time we lost the football for a few months.

https://sofrep.com/97401/presidents-and-nukes-bill-clinton-once-lost-the-nuclear-football-for-months/

whoops.
---

masterpug53 posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Except the fact that we don't live in a nuclear hellscape proves that they did wait.

I'm not entirely sure how you were able to spin that from 'a general walking in at the last second and recognizing the mistake is the only thing that prevented a nuclear strike.'

Who's to even say what "at the last second" means exactly? I mean his argument is saying that they'd just immediately start firing without waiting at all. There isn't even a second.

Tyranthraxus posted...

masterpug53 posted...

I can't remember the particulars, but there's a real-life horror story involving a former president's cabinet (Ford or Carter era, I think) being seconds away from calling in a nuclear retaliation based on what turned out to be a training video, which was thankfully noticed by a general who walked into the room at the last second. This is historically not a scenario where the powers that be can afford to wait around for all the facts to come in.

It wasn't a training video, just bad information.

It also wasn't a general, just a Lieutenant Colonel.

It was also a russian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
---

masterpug53 posted...

To be honest, I'm kinda baffled by the upsurge in defense of the Watchmen movie by the normally hyper-critical internet in recent years. Must be an aftereffect of the DCEU, kind of like how Star Wars Episode 3 is treated; 'it's not the worst, so it's therefore the best.'

I absolutely do not give a single shit about that it is DC intellectual property. It might as well not be. Watchmen also wasn't critically maligned at the time either, so I'm not sure why you're seeing an "upsurge"... Roger Ebert gave it four stars and said it was one of the best of the year. He was parodied in the Animaniacs, so he is an authority on such things.

wah_wah_wah posted...

Watchmen also wasn't critically maligned at the time either,

nah. it totally was.

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/watchmen 56 metascore
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/ 64 tomato meters

now sure these aren't Love Guru levels of bad, but they're not good, and predictably the audience liked it better than critics.
---

A mixed reception is maligned now.
---

Good movie, and the ending makes sense. I love the comic and there's certain things that don't translate, like many have pointed out, but the movie at least gets the overall tone and feel down pretty well.
---

Watchmen is by far the best comic book movie out there.

The casting was great for me, minus Ozy not being a big physical presence.

Osterman was cast wonderfully.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Watchmen also wasn't critically maligned at the time either,

nah. it totally was.

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/watchmen 56 metascore
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/ 64 tomato meters

now sure these aren't Love Guru levels of bad, but they're not good, and predictably the audience liked it better than critics.

That doesn't show critically maligned. That shows mixed to average. I wouldn't say the opinions have changed much on that either. It's basically designed for a cult following where you either love it or hate it. I think a lot of cinema snobs don't like it because of Snyder's involvement, but I'd say this is his one good film. (But I also find his Dawn of the Dead remake to be enjoyable, sue me.)

I don't know why they never did a standalone movie for his character.
---

idk, I didn't have any real issues with Watchmen. Many of the deviations from the comic felt like an improvement. And a lot of the problems -- like the Doc Manhattan scenes dragging -- was kind of a thing in the comic as well.
---

Broken_Zeus posted...

And a lot of the problems -- like the Doc Manhattan scenes dragging -- was kind of a thing in the comic as well.

You mean the best part, especially in the book
---

Specifically when he first gets to Mars.
---

masterpug53 posted...

Both he and Nite Owl 2 were spot-on. Pity they were negated by the misfire casting of Ozymandias and Silk Spectre II.

The Comedian was also spot on.

Felt bad seeing parents bring their kids in.
---

EnragedSlith posted...

The Comedian was also spot on.

Sad that he had such a small role in the movie.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

EnragedSlith posted...

The Comedian was also spot on.

Sad that he had such a small role in the movie.

He had a pretty small, albeit pivotal role in the novel as well. The issue translating The Watchmen to film is that its emotional core is devoted to three intentionally boring characters. If you wanted Rorshach or The Comedian played straight, you could read some Question or Peacemaker.
---

EnragedSlith posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

EnragedSlith posted...

The Comedian was also spot on.

Sad that he had such a small role in the movie.

He had a pretty small, albeit pivotal role in the novel as well. The issue translating The Watchmen to film is that its emotional core is devoted to three intentionally boring characters. If you wanted Rorshach or The Comedian played straight, you could read some Question or Peacemaker.

Question only looks like Rorschach. They aren't anything alike otherwise.

There's other watchmen comics besides Alan Moore's novel though that expands on the characters. They are kind of hit or miss, though.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Watchmen also wasn't critically maligned at the time either,

nah. it totally was.

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/watchmen 56 metascore
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/ 64 tomato meters

now sure these aren't Love Guru levels of bad, but they're not good, and predictably the audience liked it better than critics.

The critic reviews are based on the theatrical cut.
---

EnragedSlith posted...

masterpug53 posted...

Both he and Nite Owl 2 were spot-on. Pity they were negated by the misfire casting of Ozymandias and Silk Spectre II.

The Comedian was also spot on.

Felt bad seeing parents bring their kids in.

Oh man, he was flawless.
---