Probably. It was the only graphic novel on Time's 100 Best Books of the Century list, because it's as in depth as a novel.

If you cut out the the references to the original ending (which you would since that would make the movie far too long), then the new and the old have the same effect.

Although I'm hoping that the talk about the new ending is a cover for the real ending that will surprise everyone.

 

I hope your right because the ending I've heard makes no sense

 

However, when a film compnay obtains rights to such things, they seem to not have enough faith in the source material themselves, so rather than staying true to the original, they always seem to deviate. There are very, very few comic and game-to-film adaptations that are worth watching, and none of them have ever stayed true to the source.

 

Funny, actually. These film companies think it's in the films' best interests to change or alter the original material, yet how do they know it wouldn;t be a success if they left it alone? It's never been tried before, and their way (which involves changing entire storylines and characters most of the time) certainly isn't working, either.

 

I want to see a film adaptation of this type really succeed, but that will only happen if the film companies learn to have respect for the original story and do it justice. I mean, the fans of these comics and games are the ones who are going to see the film garaunteed, so why in God's green f**k would they want to alienate those sure-fire ticket-buyers by ruining their movie? Makes no sense . . .

He said that he thought the squid wouldn't work in movie form because it's a bit silly and it's hard to convey the proper atmosphere from the book into the movie, so he was doing something else. I think it was a nuke or something but you'd have to google it.

What is he going to do afterward? 

-If he doesn't take the blame then it doesn't work outright. 

-If he does take the blame then what, he says he's going to go keep watch of the world from the moon and if we don't play nice he'll do it again?  If he takes the blame and leaves then all that does is even the playing field between the US and USSR.

oh and, eveyone knows this doesn't make sense as Doc's behavior, any of it, any of the above

 

either way, the goal of unity won't be achieved

 

They already released that, called it "The Spirit"

Was this film a complete distaster?

 

really?  If you do anything, read the book and don't see the film, you won't miss the fight scenes.

 

here is the review i posted in the  http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=48620 - list/discuss/rate - your recently watched movies  thread:

manofmystery wrote: Warning:  Some Spoilers   Watchmen - the unfilmable story is just that and even if you enjoy this movie you must agree because, this isn't Watchmen.  Sure the characters are all there and a lot of the dialog is unchanged but what's been rewritten, what's been changed to fit the self imposed movie time restrictions, makes this another hollywood adaptation failure.  Two things sink this movie: 1) For some ungodly reason they thought this story could be told in a little less than 3 hrs.  The result of this is an incredibly cramped story with many of the characters stories cut short, or cut all together (newstand characters not welcome untill SPOILER: they are seen in the NY explosion with no explaination as to why they are important). The ending is what suffers most from this lack of proper length as it seems like it was changed because they didnt want to dedicate the time to explaining the more complicated one from Moore's novel.  2) Ozymandias:  In order to get his ending to make some sense this character was warped and rearranged and his background story was completely missing.  Some other things that didn't help: - Rorschach's voice: you do sort of get used to it as the movie progresses but when you first hear him you expect "I am Batman" to be right around the bend.  Remember when you finally saw the face that went along with James Earl Jones' powerful, imposing Darth Vader voice? - Do you really need to slow down every fight scene Zach?  And adding a blood splatter to every possible scene gets to be a bit much. - This one bothers me a lot because it is so unnecessary (might have something to do with the Snyder film making flaw in the previous point): Rorschach's reason for becoming what he has is unacceptably altered for seemingly no other reason than to add another brutal scene and epic blood splatter.  SPOILER:  One of the greastest parts of Watchmen (the novel) is Rorschach giving the little girl's killer his options then setting his house ablaze: brilliant writing like "Shouldn’t bother trying to saw through handcuffs. Never make it in time" replaced by a meat clever to the head.  Yeah, Zach, great job, that little extra blood was much better than a fire (HEAVY SARCASM: a fire? who wants that? more blood is what we need, 300 gallons already is not enough) coupled with great Rorschach dialog.  Man, this completely useless change pisses me off. - SPOILER: Hollis Mason is seen once then never mentioned again.  That ridiculous "NOOOOO" scene from Dan you saw in the commercials was for Rorschach and not Hollis, which would have made much more sense.  If you have to add a ridiculous hackneyed "NOOOO" scene at least put in the proper moment. There are some things to enjoy: - The Comedian: his character is handled properly throughout and the lines and other bits added for the movie land effectively - The opening montage: loved this, the series of clips are priceless - Vietnam - Thought they did a fine job with Dr. Manhattan (at least till the end debacle) and Night Owl (at least till the end debacle) - Laurie was really f'n hot - Everything looked right visually (except maybe Nixon's nose)   Terry Gilliam signed on to make this film in the 80s but lacked the funding.  In 1996, when the rights to the story changed hands, Gilliam was asked if he was still interested in the project to which he responded, "I think it's going to be impossible to make as a film, unless you make it three and a half hours long, which most people aren't going to want" My point in adding this bit of backstory is that I agree with Gilliam that it would have to be a long film and disagree with that being something people wouldn't want.  Had this been handled like say, the Lord of the Rings, this could have been a monster two or three part series of films that told the entire story the correct way.  You would think with the success of the Rings films such a concept would have been at least considered.  Come to think of it, an HBO mini series may have been the better option because then it could be made long enough to tell the entire story (without needing to release pieces like Black Freighter separately) and then divided into sections.  Anyway you slice it, Watchmen can't be told in 2 hrs and 40 min and it hasn't been here.

 

Please don't judge the graphic novel by clips of the movie.  They are two very different animals.  The graphic novel is a deep and flawlessly written and visualized deconstruction of the superhero while the film emphasises action, trying to jam in the substance as it goes.  I don't read comics myself but I felt compelled to read Watchmen and I'm glad I did because it turned out to be one of the best books I've ever read.  All I can say to you is: just read it, don't see the movie, just read the book and see what you think.  Can't tell you how you'll like it, that's up to you.

 

Nobody seemed to mind the Lord of the Rings films

Plus keep in mind that the people who make the trailers are not the ones who make the movie! Trailers are made by small production companies hired by the big company executives. What they look for is to make something as appealing as possible, and Watchmen (although very appealing) isn´t appealing in a mainstream way, so the trailer must focus on those more "pop-corn" related subjects such as big special effects, catch frases and fight scenes. The original idea can really change from the actual movie to the trailer. I remember watching the "Zodiac" trailer and thinking this must be one of the most boring dectective-catch the bad guy before it´s too late movies ever, until I saw it was made by David Fincher... and Zodiac kicks f**king ass!!! Another example is "The break-up", and although the movie is terribly bad (and no trailer can make it seem like a good movie), the trailer did promise the new "comedy of the year" with two very "funny" actors... and the movie is not funny at all, and not because it´s a flawed comedy, or at least not only and primarly, but because the movie is a light drama... but the trailer did not let you know that... trailers must be taken carefully.

 

And I´m reading Watchmen... it´s even better than what I imagined it would be, and at the same time it´s not something incredibly innovative... it´s just extremly well written and thought! Kudos Alan Moore!

Oh no he didn´t!

 

 

 

 

Loved it.  Best film released in at least the last decade and beyond (when did Silence of the Lambs come out ).  I don't like the implication of that question but being fair, before i react, I'll give you a chance to call it.  Go ahead, call it.

No Country For Old Men was a great film. I was surprised to learn that so many people missed the point and were really angry about the ending.

Real life is not a movie, and sometimes things are not resolved because the bad guy can flip heads too. Although Cormac is stridently atheist in The Road, the movie's stance on God is unclear, so perhaps there is resolution in the next life. You could interpret it has another nail in the senseless nihilism the Coens Brothers have been building for years, and I know some people who have, but http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2007/11/point-blank-no-country-for-old-men.html - I think you'd be wrong.

Why is not having a soundtrack a pretension of intellectualism?

 

Unstoppable killer? He gets shot and hit by a car.  Daniel Plainview on the other hand killed two men and didn't get so much as a scratch.  There Will Be Blood was a great film but it was a 1 character film.  The entire movie centered around the brutality of one man as opposed to the fairly balanced story of three very different men No Country presented.  If it wasn't for the amazing performance of Daniel Day Lewis (and no, I don't believe any other actor could have made this role work) it wouldn't have had much going for it, outside the good use of landscapes (which both had).  I'm still a huge fan of There Will Be Blood too but if Daniel Day Lewis hadn't been cast I don't know how it would have held up.  Best scene is the Baptism, by the way.

The lack of music in No Country built tension extremely well and I have no real problem with it.  Who has music play them in and out of situations in their everyday lives anyway? 

No Country did a better job of sucking me into the story than any other movie I've seen.  Other than the fact that I absolutely love the Anton Chigurh character that is the best way to explain why I enjoy the film so much.  And I'll defend that ending to my dying day!

 

 

 

hope you don't mind major change

 

The you are mssing out on arguably the greatest graphic novel ever Friede,give it a chance.