I finished watching it. That was actually a pretty great movie, why the hate from critics?
I finished watching it. That was actually a pretty great movie, why the hate from critics?
I finished watching it. That was actually a pretty great movie, why the hate from critics?
it's for teenagers.
That’s what Alan Moore said about the comic
Differences from the comics
Muted colors
Ozymandias CLEARLY being a psycho when in the book he was the most well-adjusted and pleasant character, which made his sudden "I need to kill millions" turn much more impactful
I like the movie too as a separate thing but I can see why Alan had such an issue with it.
Oh so that's why. I've never read the Watchmen comics.
I did find it very edgy at times but I was able to put it aside.
Was that Laurie? Yeah she was kinda terrible. Her and Dan's scenes were really boring to watch through.
read the watchmen comics right now if you like the movie. Not the new ones, the ones from the 80s
Ozy's casting was a definite miss, but people always say that Snyder missed the point of the comic, which I really don't feel like he did, they say he glorified the violence when it's very deliberatelygorey and brutal compared to the preceding Batman films. The only way it could've been more faithful is by making it a 4 hour miniseries, for a 2 and a half hour movie I think Snyder was more faithful than any other director would've been.
What most people ignore is that Zack Snyder and David Hayter tried to deconstruct superhero comic book movies the same way the original comic tried to deconstruct superhero comic books.
The reason why the violence was so over the top in the movie is because usually in other superhero movies the violence tends to be sanitized to make it more entertaining. Meanwhile in the original comic the violence is subdued, because usually superhero comic books tend to be all about the action with pages and pages dedicate to fight scenes.
The movie even tried to dumb down certain things to make the characters look worse like Rorschach terrorizing the prison psychiatrist whereas in the comic that doesn't happen. That was Snyder much telling the audience Rorschach is not a cool guy.
Rorschach is bad because he wears a mask looking for villains
Snyder isn't deep enough to put critique of superhero movies in his superhero movies. Just like Star Wars prequels (I can easily see an overlap in fandom), you guys find complex meaning in vapid, eye candy fluff flicks.
I based that on interviews Zack Snyder himself gave. So...
Thank you
People saying he was well cast...
He was shit looked his a teenager pretending
This guy was meant ti be charismatic, peak of male. Looked like a gay in the movie
The directors cut allows the film to breath a bit much better than cinema cut
Still only a mural to the comic. Isn't very good as itself
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say anything other than he was miscast
Most critics liked the movie.
>Ozymandias CLEARLY being a psycho
Really? It didn't feel like it.
>t. Ozymandias
Alan Moore actually praised David Hayter's script before they ever shot the thing. He just didn't want anything to do with Hollywood after a bunch of failed adaptations of it that went nowhere.
>Alan had such an issue with it.
Alan have a problem with every adaptation, he said that he will not watch any of them. He even refuses royalties and dont want his name appearing in the credits
>Ozymandias CLEARLY being a psycho
100% it's a problem with Matthew Goode, the makeup they used for him, and the lighting
If they cast someone a little more doughy, a little more kindly-looking, a little older, everything would have worked out.
But no, they went full aryan master race 30-year old...
The show gets it right.
Malin Ackerman was an awful actress, very pretty but no talent.
She's actually quite well suited to comedy, which many argue is harder to pull off effectively than dramatic acting. Yeah, maybe she wasn't the right choice. But honestly, when has Zach Snyder ever actually coaxed a meaningful performance out of ANY of his actors? Mark my words now: There will never, ever be an actor to receive any kind of award nomination based on their performance in a Snyder movie. We all know that. It's like Michael Bay. Aronofsky? He almost always delivers a top notch performance; he will get his actors nominated even when he himself is not.
So really anyone could have played her part and what would the difference have been? His movies are never sold on the ability of the acting performances, so let's not bring acting and actors into the discussion of his stuff. I thought Watchmen was pretty cool and I couldn't have asked for more probably.
Almost all of the acting is bad.
>erasing the traces of the plot entirely would be nigh impossible
You could say the same thing about the detonations, which was a bigger scheme in the movie so there'd probably be a lot of evidence.
>Eventually someone would figure it out
That's part of the original dilemma.
Making Dr. Manhattan the culprit only invites a demand for reparations from other nations that got blown up. There would be no peace.
It's also meant to be a B-movie-tier plot as an absurdity factor.
>That's part of the original dilemma.
this, it's not a clearly resolved issue and the plan wasn't perfect, you are supposed to have doubts
>woman cast for part that can't act for shit
Many such cases.
The movie is good. People have been mad about the TV show. Blacks picked a fight outside the courthouse and got utterly BTFO by whites in a Gangs of New York style brawl. That’s how every account on both sides talked about the Tulsa race riots for a century.
>why the hate from critics?
I can not remember a single time in my entire life that the opinion of a critic has mattered
Because Zack Snyder.
This, they hated him for 300 and no matter what he did it would never be good enough.
Ridiculous. Critics don't think that way at all. I remember Ebert would negatively review something of Adam Sandler's and always mention that there was promise there. Sandler met him once and said "I really hope someday I make a movie that you like." And then Punch Drunk Love came out and Ebert was so happy to give it a good review, like "I knew you had it in ya, kid".
They usually root for directors and actors to succeed, not decide early on, based on ONE movie that 'this guy is shit, i hate him, and i'm never gonna give him a fair shake'.
I love reading film criticism and I've never encountered a vindictive critic who has a permanent stance on anyone. They love movies, they don't want them to suck. I don't know why you think it be like it do, but it don't.
Do i need to post tweets of all the critics that proudly said they'd give a bad review to Zack Snyder just based on his name?
Even just ONE example of something like that would be amazing, yes. I don't think they exist and I challenge you to produce one.
Don't forget, you promised they'd be critics. I can't wait to see which one publicly announced such unhinged bias to all his readers.
You can post them as you find them. Start with the first one any time, anon.
Too ahead of its time. I remember first watching it and expecting marvel
>Too ahead of its time.
this. it was totally different than what probably most people were expecting to watch.
Check the director's name.
did you catch that Molech was in The Society of Jesus?
Look at what the Jesuits were blamed for in their 500 year history
>Look at what the Jesuits were blamed for in their 500 year history
Lucifer, and his agents of darkness, infiltrate and corrupt ALL of mankind. It's what he does. It's what he will always do.
people claim it's not as deep as the comic.
Critics are moronic. Movie's an 11/10
Was there 'hate' from critics? I read actual critics and I don't remember any. Whatever negative contemporary tweets or blogs or whatever that you read in the last couple years don't really count as reviews. It had kind of a tepid response, but nothing approaching 'hate'.
I don't know if you're trying to make a conflict where there wasn't one before or you're just exaggerating. Or maybe you're conflating the opinions of faceless, insignificant fanboys with actual critics' reviews; you know, with the star rating system or maybe a letter grade. Usually an essay of 500 to 1,000 words published within the days leading up to the release of a film in newspapers, on tv shows, in magazines, and myriad corners of the internet. 2009 right?
The only people who would have possibly 'hated' Watchmen are hardcore nerds of Comic Book Guy proportions, and none of them are respected critics.
tl;dr
No actual critics ever hated Watchmen. Go read the reviews.
I didn't think snyder got trashed until the 2nd half of his career
Even then, critics don't opine in terms of 'hate'. And each movie is a clean slate to win over the reviewer. Snyder could at any time deliver a great movie and it would be reviewed as a great movie. He's not making the kinds of movies that critics usually fawn over in the first place. People here seem to think it's something personal. If anyone loves Snyder's movies then he's a success and has done his job. The guy's job is to sell tickets and if he can do that it doesn't matter what critics think. Bad directors have been laughing all the way to the bank forever. And that means they aren't really bad directors, just good directors that happen to make audience-pleasing garbage. Then you have your Spielbergs, the rare guys who can deliver blockbuster hits and usually get good reviews too. Success comes in many colors. Good reviews have a lot of cache in the art community, but lowest common denominator slop makes the cash.
The most fascinating dudes are the art guys at the top like Paul Thomas Anderson and the Coens and Lars Von Trier, Aronofsky, Refn, Lynch, Wes Anderson. Those guys are SET. They always get to make their movie and no one ever seems to care if the budget is lost because it ends up being considered some Criterion Collection auteur masterpiece just because that guy made it. One guy who deserves that kind of power but doesn't have it is Terry Gilliam. He seems to always have to struggle to get budgets and stuff.
In a weird way maybe Snyder will end up somehow in that club because of streaming. People don't so much buy tickets to individual movies, so if his fanbase is strong enough to appreciate him then it's in Netflix' best interest to keep going.
He's destroyed if he stays with netflix
elaborate on how and why please.
Rebel moon 1 was half watchable. Rebel moon 2 I couldn't watch. It's like there's an agreement between netflix and the audience, we know its a bad film but who cares you'll watch it. Finchers The killer was pretty good but snyder needs to go back to the start of his career or films similar. I didn't mean to start this conversation
So his safety net is keeping him from taking risks that may benefit his filmmaking and he needs to roll the dice against theater success to challenge himself? or something along those lines?
i liked it except for the ending, which i think they changed for budget reasons honestly.
Changing the giant squid into a nuke removes the other-worldy threat they needed to unite humanity. Yeah nukes are an existential threat but they needed something like weird giant squid because people would just think another country blew up Manhattan and make the cold war go hot.
Disagreed. I always thought the ending was vastly better. The squid thing falls apart in a generation or so, and erasing the traces of the plot entirely would be nigh impossible. Eventually someone would figure it out, especially when more squids don’t show. It would be a bizarre mystery that all of the greatest minds on earth would be trying to unravel.
Blaming Dr.Manhattan makes the threat real, understood, and omnipresent. He’d only need to wave his hand to remind the world of their common enemy every 50 years or so.
In the TV show there are periodic squidfalls of much smaller squid that randomly occur around the world.
the tv show was complete shit so stop mentioning it
Lots of masterpieces were also critically panned. They are usually just ahead of their time.
> why the hate from critics?
The crisis mostly loved it. And it’s much better than pretty great, it is a 10.5/10 kino
Too israeli. The entire vibe of this movie is how israelites perceive the everyday world.
meds
It's always just a matter of time before some schizo derails the thread with this sort of unrelated nonsense. It's really lazy as usual.
That's gonna be crazy to watch watchmen again but through israeli eyes
>proudly said they'd give a bad review to Zack Snyder just based on his name
You found one person that sort of fits that I guess. I stand corrected. If that's an actual critic with a readership they should all be ashamed of themselves. That's unprofessional and frankly very immature.
She's not anyone a respectable publisher would ever endorse, but I'm not going to move the goalposts on you. That may very well represent a low in what's becoming the state of criticism in this day and age; some catty b***h tweeting off insults rather than seeing a movie and writing an essay about her experience to inform the readers whether it's something they'd like or not.
Just another reminder that I don't understand the world anymore and feel I've lived too long. Never become 40, you'll start to hate the world and what it's become just like your dad before you and his dad before him.
There are no actual critics anymore. These people, which are more like bloggers than anything resembling a critic, are nowadays working for all the major trades. They also all know each other. It's an incestuous click.
You're deluding yourself if you think someone like Herbert still exists. What you have is a no life dumb motherfricker writing for Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Vanity Fair, and so on doing absolute nothing of value. Most of the time they're nothing but shills for agents.
I am appalled by some of what I saw. That b***h posting an image of some unrelated shit to say: "See? This is a bad person here and I'm gonna use my power to immediately denigrate the new movie without watching it because I'll punish this person in any way I can whether it's related or fair or not"
I'm not going to immediately assume that this is actually common behavior exhibited by those we'd consider respected "Top Critics", but I see that some of them are verified and have followers in the thousands. If this trend is growing then it's concerning. I don't use social media or get my news and opinions in blurb-sized tweets though, so we all have the power to vote with what we choose to engage with.
That's why this is shocking to me; I've been sticking to my periodicals and seasoned veterans like a stubborn old man.
I'm not comfortable reading people like those twitter assbags. They're just doing SJW shit, not astute film criticism.
And, yes there are still actually critics and I still read them. You're right that these tweeters are perhaps more prevalent to young people and reaching a large tech-savvy audience, but for the discerning reader it simply doesn't compare. The reviews I read in newspapers and magazines are straightforward, formal, and classic. They occasionally mention semi-woke shit about how it's nice this is getting eyes on it or that these minority people are getting some foothold in the industry, but they're asides that don't factor into the grading of the movie.
Yes, there are still reviewers. They are all old, though.
The new breed are these fricks that get in high positions because they've a lot of followers and thus get to work on several big trades. Sometimes everywhere at once. It is common to see the same person writing for Variety and Vanity Fair, for example.
That without speaking about Youtubers, that are slowly but surely taking the spot.
Or worse, scoopers that somehow end up considered as "critics" just because they're known to leak shit.
>but I'm not going to move the goalposts on you
dang, I think this might be the first time I've ever seen someone actually say this on the internet, rather than the... billions of times I've just seen goalposts moved
We'd all get along better here if we conceded when we're proved wrong. Every once in a while at least.
Do i stop now or should i continue? There are also known critics sending him death threats or calling him a psychopath, a fascist, and everything else you can imagine.
This shit started the moment 300 was made.
>Lindsay Ellis
isn't she some dumb youtuber that got shilled hard a few years ago? I wonder what kind of connections she has
Anyways I hate how slimy these people are when attacking others
>"hey everyone, anon is a rapist and a murderer and I have the proof!"
>"no you don't and no he isn't"
>"geez it was just a joke, I don't even care about the guy anyway"
Because it was bad.
The ending is moronic, dr Manhattan is a US military asset and him going rogue would make the world blame the US for it. The vegana squid alien is otherworldly and thus gives a valid reason for the US and USSR to unite
Exactly. No need to attack usa further
But Manhattan wasn't going to announce to the world that he was leaving. He'd have remained an ever-looming threat over the world forever, regardless of being with America at one point. By the end he had turned his back on humanity as a whole. I thought it worked FAR better for the movie than the squid thing. You guys are thinking too much into it if you claim it's a plot hole or something. Even though I enjoyed the comic first and years before the movie, I still recognize that the squid solution is a very comic booky type of thing that doesn't really translate well to movie audiences. There's a lot about comics that you never see in the movies. Snyder was as more faithful to the source material that anyone should have expected him to be. I think the movie would've suffered from complication and weirdness if he'd gone with that ending. The comic is so good and special I wished they'd never even adapted it.
Manhattan was a US asset and used to actively intimidate the Soviets. Him going rogue would be akin to a soviet nuclear programme fricking up and wastelanding half of Europe, the Soviets would be blamed for their reckless incompetence.
The squid alien is separate from world politics as far as the public know, and therefore gives good reason for those politics to be set aside to defend against the perceived threat. The Soviets and the rest of the world would blame the US for not taking measures to keep Manhattan in line (as difficult/impossible as that would be) and they would be blamed for involving him in the Cold War to begin with. Not saying the Cold War would go hot, but the US would lose a lot of standing on the world stage
Manhattan attacked American cities as far as the soviets know. It was a declaration of war to the entirety of the human race from an entity that might as well be a god. It makes sense that humans would stop their petty fights over a threat to all.
Yes, that’s what going rogue means anon.
Exactly, so he's no longer an American asset and being a major threat to civilization all governments would at least be forced to cooperate against it. It would have worked at least for a while.
He was a US asset that the US failed to control, thus the fault would be put on the US
It doesn't matter now because he started attacking all peoples. It would keep the peace between countries for a while.
This is a weird sticking point for you. It wouldn't be that way. They wouldn't go after an equally-demolished nation because the enemy once hailed from there. And what would that mean anyway? Right back to full scale brinksmanship? If the story shows that things were repaired in both the movie and the comic, then you're going out on a limb to suggest that this peace isn't going to hold and eventually devolve back like nothing happened to bring everyone together, and that's a pointless stretch, a big what-if. And after all the destruction it would be ridiculous to forego rebuilding for attacking another demolished nation. This is just such a stupid, autistic sticking point that you're not going to be convinced out of anyway, but those are my two cents. I don't see why you can't just enjoy both on their own merits. It's the best comic of the medium and a darn good movie adaptation. Really nothing to fight over.
That said, your argument is weaker.
It's the one and only good superhero movie. And the ending is better than the comics
I like it, the casting is all over the place though, they’re either perfect or completely wrong for the role
Ignoring some stylistic choices from Snyder, this is as close as we'll ever get in terms of adaptation in movie form. The squid being cut is a pity but they would have had to add a lot of extra scenes to explain it, and it's already 3 hours long.
>actually a pretty great movie
Agree. Not a capeshit fan but watched this and was impressed with the character and story arcs.
I can never remember this movie. I've watched it three times, and all I remember is being incredibly bored the entire time.
MORE BLOOD! MORE BLOOD! MORE BLOOD!