Watchmen

No. Despite trying to adapt the comic scene for scene it did the worst thing an adaptation can do which is fail to capture the spirit of the original.
Also, for so much of the story being dependent on him and the handful of scenes he's in I can't overlook Ozy being such a complete fucking miscast.

It's not that bad but I still feel a "How do you do, fellow Watchmen fans?" vibe from it. Ending probably makes more sense but it felt like the overall changes it made feel like it was afraid of being like the source material.

If you look at how talks about Watchmen and his other films it's pretty obvious he did.

this

I don't what compelled the producers to push a Watchmen film when Moore himself proclaimed that it is unadaptable for film.
Other than that, the film itself is the best to what you can get out of it and Snyder most likely did the best he could.
Basically what this user posted

It's a bad adaptation, but one of the best capeshit movies.

It would have been twice as good if they had gotten Tom Cruise for Ozymandias like originally planned

As far as stuff Snyder added, the opening montage was great, and I think the change to Rorschach's first kill makes sense for film. The high powered kung fu stuff was awful though, like Rorschach getting up from jumping out the window, and fighting cops in an action scene. The point of him being subdued immediately was to show how human he was, but Snyder doesn't really care about humans, I think.

Your friends are fucking low-attention-span retards though. I understood the message of the book quite fine without having read it at the time. Sure, the book can't be captured because it's too complicated to put everything in a movie but Snyder did a perfectly fine job. Your friends expecting an Avenger-like movie only shows how low people's expectations toward movies have become and them not liking Watchmen for the stupidest of reasons only further signals how devoid of taste your friends are

>In spite of all I've heard, if the movie is weak, it is categorically NOT because of its faithfulness to the original. I found myself continually wondering if the adapters had completely understood the original. For example they retain the line "(Blake) saw the true face of the twentieth century and he chose to become a reflection, a parody, of it. No one else saw the joke" but they do not, as does the book, combine those words with the image of the Vietnamese woman bottling his face. They do show that in its proper place in Manhattan's memory, and the result is a gash in Blake's cheek. But the whole point of the act of violence was that it transformed the permanent expression on his face into a cruel sneer. Blake does not have this in the movie. Small things like this say a great deal symbolically. Blake has changed from the arrogant jocular chancer of his youth in the gaudy yellow clown suit, to the vicious cynic of a politically more complicated time. A similar amount of thought went into Rorschach's mask in the book: "Viscous fluids between two layers latex heat and pressure sensitive. Customer young girl, never collected order, said dress looked ugly. Wrong. Not ugly at all. Black and white, moving, changing shape. But not mixing. No gray." Then it turned out the woman who ordered the special dress was real life Kitty Genovese. I'll admit this is perhaps much too complicated for a film, but the business about 'black and white, no grey' says a huge amount in a very small space, and they didn't really get into Rorschach's world view in other ways. It would have made the mask a potent symbol and carried more weight than adding in the completely new action of him putting a cleaver in the child murderer's head four or five times, which is no more or less meaningful than all the other acts of violence.

>Then there is Rorschach's diary. In the book the diary has the first and last words. Perhaps a crucial scene has been eliminated, to be reinstated in the director's cut, in which we see him actually writing in the diary, or perhaps I just closed my eye and missed it. Otherwise his words exist only as a voice-over, so that when an actual book-diary turns up at the end, I was a little surprised. I had presumed from its absence that it was going to be one of things they were cutting out.

>Then there's all the violent stuff that has been added in, as I referred to above. In the movie version of the fight with Laurie and Dan in the alley with five thugs, we now see ten thugs and they are all brutally dealt with. One has his arm snapped in two by Dan, another gets stabbed in the throat by Laurie. I must say I was shocked. In other places, Dan is horrified at the violent acts of Rorschach breaking a thug's fingers to get info and The Comedian's violent dispersion of protesters; it makes no sense. And why do the thugs attack one at a time, apart from the cinematic need for each act of violence to be clearly outlined? In the book the point of the scene was to create an oddly humorous sexual frisson, as they lean back against the wall and the first thing she thinks of is to light a cigarette. You'd need to be a nut job to be up for humour after seeing the guy with the knife in his throat. More added violence in the attempt on Veidt's life. Not only his assistant as in the book, but now three politicos also, as Veitd ducks behind them in what looks like a cowardly maoneuvre. In the movies, meaning will always be secondary to spectacle, and the favourite spectacle of our miserable age is the spectacle of hurt.

>is this one really that bad

I re-watched it a while ago.

I got one hour in and I had to turn it off.

It sucked. People praising it for being accurate ignore the fact that the tone is so radically different, and ruined by Snyder’s obsession with blood, wire-fu, and obnoxious sex scenes. He focuses on the wrong parts of the comic, which causes the movie to suffer.

I’m so fucking glad someone else caught how the backflips and super fighting completely diminished the point of the comic, and even the impact of Ozy beating the shit out of Rorschach and his overall heightened prowess.

You know, using every single panel of the comic as storyboard is a lazy, shitty way to make the movie "accurate".

I disliked the film but look forward to seeing the HBO show.

I suppose in a world as vast as ours, someone like you would have to exist.

>but it never really seemed that way. It was literally just because that's what execs wanted comic costumes to look like.
Snyder was very open about the movie deconstructing cape and action MOVIES and not comics, he didnt needed to sell that idea to the executives, they were too busy trying to force him to set the movie in the 2000's and get rid of the political stuff

Its decent.
Too much slowmo as always with Snyder. But it does a decent job trying to recreate the novel.

He gets a few things right (Manhattan's backstory, opening montage, night owl 1, night owl 2 for the most part) improves on some other stuff (Sally jupiters look, the rape scene), screws things up (rorschach is way too "cool" and likeable) miscast some (laurie, ozy) and overused bad makeup and wigs (comedian)

It really needed to be a miniseries and probably would have been had it been created in the Netflix streaming era but oh well