WOW. I've never seen you in such a passionate rage before. It's cool to see some live emotion. I respect your opinion on comics a lot, and I was curious about your opinion on the movie.

Me? I liked it pretty well. Granted, I only read the graphic novel a year ago. I fell in love with Adrian and Bubastis and I was glad to see his genetically altered cat in the film.

I really hate that you didn't like the film. I...just really enjoyed it. I feel that something was missing, but I can't even begin to understand where you're coming from because I know the novel means a lot to you.

And I liked 300 as well. I hate the 300 graphic novel, but I thought the movie was just fun. And the slow down/speed up stuff. I find it really neat in compared to most movies now a days. To me, it's like he's trying to translate the panel of a particular scene onto the big screen.

One thing though:
You didn't like the part where Nite Owl saw Manhattan killing Rorschach? I always thought it was strange that Nite Owl had to know that Manhattan did something to his friend, yet he still thinks it's OK to go and make love to Laurie.

It's like, DUDE! You had to know something bad was going to happen to your friend! He said he wasn't going to keep his mouth shut!

Heh, but that's just one thing that confused me about the graphic novel. I thought that was a nice little touch that Snyder did, but that's just me.

Yeah 300 movie was fun. I was like Whoa But i gotta admit Zack Snyder plays around with the speed in movies.

I think the speed changing thing looks awesome, especially in the famous "This is Sparta!" scene in 300.

I think you're being a little harsh on Watchmen's ending. Yea it wasn't even close and it was also stupid to leave in Barabus when there wasn't going to be a squid but they could have done much worse and had a way happier ending or something stupid like that.

You're forgetting that the only real important thing about the ending. That of course was that they have Rorschach's journal. I mean yes it was upbeat but the audience knows that it is going to break down. Because Ozymandias wasn't able to stop the information from getting out about what really happened.

Also they could have done much worse. Go watch X-men and then come back and tell me that watchmen wasn't good. I respect your opinions but I think you went into the movie expecting to much. Especially if you look at the track record for comics being turned into movies.

Plus they did so much right with the story that it's still worth watching. The slow-motion is a bit annoying. Even I'll admit that but everyone should just be happy that the movie isn't PG-13 and that they kept in much more than people had expected.

Also Rorschach is awesome!

I just want to point out to people:

This was made RIGHT AFTER I SAW THE MOVIE, so of course my feelings are a bit different after I've sat down after awhile. Am I still mad at the changes they made? Yeah, but I agree, this was one of the best adaptations of a comic I've ever seen.

man, but you still think we should rent it?
that movie was just too much fun, im not saying it was a master piece, i think it suffers as a movie for its compromise with the graphic novel. the dark knight was for example free to be a new interpretation of everything.

but i think those were the shortest two hours and a half. the tiger doesnt make any sense, who cares? they just didnt explained that. The mask of roscharch, that makes any sense? how does it works? i know it reacts to heat, but why its always symmetrical? they didnt explained it in the movie, but who cares? it looks awsome.

the movie really tried to satisfy the fanboys, but you guys are too much, they give you the best adaptation they can and you just want more and more. The movie will never give you the same personal feeling the graphic novel gave you, no just because its a movie, its also because its a another personal interpretation. You already got the graphic novel, nobody is going to take that away from you, stop taking it so personal.

I loved Watchmen (the comic), and I've read it many times. But, I do feel that the comic was flawed in many ways and wasn't Moore's best work. As for the ending of the movie, I liked it. The whole squid thing was a bit much for me (even though I've been reading comics for 20 years. Yeah. After 20 years, it's a giant squid that gets to me as being "too much".)

Wow, i would have to disagree, i`m more a movie fan than a comic fan and i really enjoy this one (Watchmen)
I haven't read the book, i bet it's awesome and the movie made me want the book, as the 300 movie did to it's.

Obviously its hard to translate from anything to movies, it's been fail after fail, but o think this movie (No taking the novel in consideration) was pretty good. I laugh my ass off at the !ALELUYA" part .. like WTF! and all cool characters has Rorschach's voice, he was by far the best character in the movie...

I respect your point of view, i don t like when movie maker take to many freedoms on adaptations (Hating Dragon Ball Evolution Already) but still for NON-Knowers of the Novel i was pretty satisfy, next thing i will do is getting the book...

Just saw it 25 mins. ago... and want to watch it again, i'll buy the DVD and if there is a Rorschach action figure i will probably buy it... again i respect every one's point of view so i respect your's

(By the way a friend just didn' t like it, not because of your point of view just said it was an stupid movie... obviously with that in mind i said that HE was stupid and SHUT UP... he didn't like the characters, the story anything... and i was " WTF!" )

First of all, even the squid plot had holes. Duplicating the squid attack would be just as difficult -- if not more so -- than duplicating the "Jonergy" bombs. The peace that Veidt forced upon the world was never going to last. "Nothing ever ends," remember?

Additionally, I find it very hard to believe that for all of Dr. Manhattan's powers, he'd have to come back to Earth to conceivably do the damage he's charged with. Why couldn't he have done that from Mars?

Secondly, the ambiguity was absolutely there. We saw what world peace looked like in this universe, we saw the counter-arguments, we saw that even Veidt had some doubts about what he did and we saw the possibility (though not the certainty) that Rorschach's Journal was going to be published. What more ambiguity do you need?

Thirdly, so the Nite Owl II beatdown against Ozymandias wasn't in the book. So what? In the GN, we had Dr. Manhattan talking some doubt into Ozy, and in the movie, we have Nite Owl beating some doubt into him. It's the same end result. On top of that, we get a nice illustration of how old-fashioned superheroics are passe, which is a key point of Watchmen. Nite Owl can beat the tar out of Ozymandias, but it won't change the world and they both know it.

Finally, I just can't understand why that one-word change on the cowboy line has you so upset. Did you really expect a Watchmen movie to go by without just a drop of political commentary?

Linkara, you're awesome unscripted! Most V-bloggers are boring after 20 seconds but you're as amusing to listen to as when you are scripted. n_n

The Ending. UUURRRGG.. It makes the entire movie a waste of time.. But, this Wonderwoman movie sounds pretty good. I'm definitly going to check it out when I get the chance. ~^.^

Rant unscripted about any other comic movies that have come out if you ever get around to it. There is a ton of rage for a lot of their flaws but no one has distilled it down into videos yet.

This is going to be a long one....

Think you're fanboying-out a bit too much on Watchmen. It's a Zack Synder movie, did you honestly expect anything more? In an adaptation, you have to accept that there will be a lot of changes. Yeah, their take on the ambiguity of the original was a bit awkward and too cheery, but again, there is never a way we were ever going to get Watchmen as excellent as it is on the page on the film.

Couple comments on your review, most of which I agreed and found as gleefully entertaining as the rest of your videos (big man ^_^):

- Wasn't Bubastis a lynx, not a tiger?

- I think you saw far too much emotion in Billy Crudup's Dr. Manhattan. While I agree there was a hint of emotion that may or may not be in the original concept of the character, but it worked. It came off, to me, as a level of emotion put on for appearance. Kind of like Stanley Jankis in Memento. 'You think you are supposed to feel this way, so you fake it.' This kinda thing seems exactly like something Manhattan would do, posturing for the sake of those close around him.

- Sex scene was indeed too damn long between Nite Owl and Spectre

- I can't agree with you more on the slow motion, it killed the mood and never really added anything.

- Nixon was a fuc*ing cartoon of a performance, found it odd you didn't mention that.

- I too loved Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach, especially once he had his inkblot mask off.

- My biggest hatred of the film (wondered how you thought about it) was the overuse and misuse of licensed music. There has never been an abuse so severe of Leonard Cohen and featured artists in general than in this film.

Overall, I of course loved your thoughts. Just thought you let the fanboy part of the mind a bit too loose of the leash, my brother in geek-dom.

There is no reason to hate watchmen. It is as good,if not better than the book. The cat can still be there, because in that world I'm sure there is genetic engineering in that world. Scientits can make neon green rabbits in the real world, the purple cat in their world is not a stretch. The cat doesn't need to be a set up for the squid.

The book's ending wasn't ambiguous. Moore clearly stated that Veidt was wrong by paralelling Veidt's story with with that of the Black Freighter, and John telling him nothing ever ends . Yes, we know this is gonna end up bad for Veidt, but not because Rorshach's journal was published in that Right wing rag(that noone would take seriously anyway) but because nothing lasts forever.

After 9/11, the intial lovefest Americans had with each other (except for Arab Americans)was short lived, and so it would be in the utopia at the end of watchmen.

Well, Linkara, love your videos, you're a funny guy, but just don't agree with your Watchmen assessment. I thought it really did the graphic novel justice overall. Yes the actress playing Silk Spectre II (Malin Ackerman...of Harold and Kumar fame) wasn't the most emotive and the presence of Bubastis (while cool) doesn't make much sense because it's never explained these are really minor concerns, overall I thought it was a very good and at times great movie. I think most fans of the graphic novel will feel the same way in spite of the changed ending (which I thought worked okay) and a few other altered/added scenes. Of course I also really liked 300 so make of that what you will.

Actually, I think Noah's (aka The Spoony One) views on the movie are basically in line with my views (see his recent Vlog for what I'm talking about). So, my advice, go see Watchmen it's well worth the ticket price (matinee OR evening)!

Cause you know, NO ONE ever believes tabloids and spreads around what they say. Does make it a mystery why they're so successful though...

I've never heard anyone say ambiguous so much. I liked it man. I really thought Rorschach and Nite Owl connected as friends and partners in this movie even more so than in the comic. I know it was supposed to be ambiguous but regardless of the change it ended pretty much how it did in the novel. It was interesting hearing your input on this and hopefully you'll do this for more comic book movies.

But... AMBIGUOUS!

I liked the Watchmen movie, I think it does a few things better then the book.(Though of course the book is better) I like the fact that Night Owl went to check up on his friend instead of having sex with Silk Spectre. That makes a lot more sense. I am not a fan of the Squid idea, so I think the new ending is an improvement. I love the opening title sequence, it gives background information that could never fit into the film. I also like the Ozzy vs Comedian fight scene at the beginning, I think it was a good addition. Overall I think it is a decent film, looking forward to the director's cut.

I did NOT read the comic... and I didn't like the movie.

less said the better.

Glad to hear that you liked the Wonder Woman movie. I liked it too (haven't seen Watchmen yet, so I'll reserve judgment).

On the subject of the Wonder Woman movie, what did you think of the previous three DC Animated movies: "Superman Doomsday", "Justice League: The New Frontier" (another comic to movie adaptation) and "Batman: Gotham Knight"?

I went into the movie never having read the book. I'm still not sure what I think about it. I can accept the outcome, the ending because I've read a lot of stories that end on a similar note. The one thing that really bothered me was the over-the-top gore that came out of nowhere in a few of the fight scenes. I mean, jeezus! A guy gets his arms sawed off! I'm used to over-done action moves and what-not from comic book movies, but the sudden random intensity really bothered me. It just seemed superfluous.
Also, wtf is wrong with The Comedian? He's like if The Joker was considered a "good guy." His whole death is joke to me. (No pun intended.) He's so unlikable. While he does show remorse near the end, that doesn't excuse his lifetime of batshit crazy wrong/right-doings. *sigh*
So ultimately, I'm not sure what to think. Ah well. It was still... interesting.

Like they said - he had a cynical view of humanity and he decided to become a twisted parody of it, hence the dark character, black leather, but with a smilie face button on it.

He's supposed to be completely unlikeable... though him assassinating JFK was only IMPLIED in the comic; never actually seen.

Did anyone think they handled the Comedian being Laurie's dad really bad in the movie?? It has been awhile since I read the comic, but I remember it being handled way better in it. OK, so Laurie is talking to Dr. Manhattan on Mars. In the movie Laurie and also Dr. M flat out say that the Comedian is her father. If I remember the comic right, they both heavily hint that he is her father.

Oh what also really bothered me was a bunch of little details they changed. Like how Rorschach kills the child killer. In the comic, he gives him a saw or something and says it will take 15 minutes to cut through the handcuff and the house will explode in 10 minutes. In the movie he just cuts his face in half with a meat cleaver.

I agree that the ending isn't as good as it was in the comic but the movie ending still accomplished the same thing. The whole planet unites against some force. It still works. Everything else in the ending sucks but hey, that's what happens when you adapt a 12 issues comic book for mainstream audiences.

A few quick things to wrap this up: The guy who played Nixon really, really sucked and there were way too many scenes with him in them. However Jackie Earle Haley, who played Rorschach, was amazing. He was the perfect Rorschach. Actually I thought most of the cast was really good. Except Silk Spectre, both of them, really sucked.

Oh and I am a little confused about the death of the Comedian. In the comic, the Comedian has to be killed because he discovered the island where Adrian was making the squid. During the movie I guess I just zoned out during it or something but I have no idea why the Comedian needs to be killed.

In the movie, Ozymandias says the Comedian was under orders from Nixon to follow all of them so they wouldn't make trouble because of something that was going on, and he followed him to Antarctica and figured out what was going on.

About the Comedian being Laurie's dad, I thought that was one of the most laugh out loud moments in the whole movie.

They're on mars and he does the flashback thing and it pretty much just blatantly shows you and describes it to you during the flashback, and Laurie just falls to the ground in such horrific realisation of this new knowledge, then Dr. Manhatten like a friggin' IDIOT says something along the lines of "The Comedian is your father." What the hell?

Personally I didn't hate the ending with Dr. Manhattan instead of the squid.
I mean, the state of the world in the Watchmen universe is largely defined by the existence and usage of Dr. Manhattan by the U.S. By turning him into an enemy of humanity, and particularly an enemy of America, it undoes the damage his existence has caused, thereby in some sense restoring the status quo, emphasizing the lesson that the solution to war is not better weapons, even if your weapon happens to be a demigod.
(the other bonus to the current ending is that people who read the comic afterwards will still be like "wtf! " when they get to the squid)

I also feel that the squid would only have worked if they took the time to set it up properly, and that would have meant less time for character backstories.

The only major problem I had with the film was that it seemed like Veidt's character was too blatantly evil throughout, like they may as well have given him a curly mustache and a cat in some of those early scenes, but maybe it's not obvious for those who haven't read the book.

Way too much smurf Penis in this film. Otherwise, it was quite enjoyable. When it cut to the backstory of how Dr. Manhattan came to be, when he reassembled himself in front of Jenny, naked... Was I the only one who thought since there was absolutely no resemblence between his looks before and after the accident, the only thing she could've been thinking while recognizing him is "Wait...I KNOW THAT PENIS!"?
On a Lighter note, I completely agree with Rorschach's actor. that guy was awesome, completely made the character.

Please go off on V for Vendetta one day Linkara. I am begging you. I want someone to justify the graphic novel. When the McTeague and the Wachowskis created one of the greatest political statements ever put to film.

You are also being a bit of a pap about the ending. The squid always killed the comic for me. Viedt is the world's smartest man, but he decides to go with aliens. Really? I think Alan Moore liked one too many freakin Republic serials, and had his villain pull a cheesy move with a FAKE SQUID!

Aliens uniting the world is one thing. The world uniting under fear of a vengeful GOD is another. People unite out of fear of A GOD! A GOD! Excuse me for liking this more than a stupid squid.

All and all: ambiguous.

If they wanted to make a political statement, why the crap didn't they just make their own damn story instead of trying to pass it off as an actual adaptation?

They adapted it to fit the times. It's still the framework of the story. That's all an adaptation has to be, and it did it's job successfully. If you want to throw down on it. Again: make a video about it. You are good at this, sir. Start branching out and ripping apart more shit you do not like! I may not always agree with you, but you at least will have me laughing my ass off.

Although; I would have loved for the prime-minister love computer to be in the V for Vendetta film. Oh dreams differed, but it's an adaptation. They are seldom if ever the freakin Sin City movie. You can also keep your ambiguity. I'd rather have what it is, and not what it used to be.

And NO... WE WILL NOT GET OVER IT. HE BROKE... THE WORLD! Just come on.

Nooo, they adapted it to criticize the Bush administration. V for Vendetta is not supposed to be about a critique of a single administration. Was it inspired by Thatcher-era politics? Yes, but that was because Moore was growing increasingly concerned about what he saw as the rise of fascism in is country. It's a British novel about British politics that just happens to be widely popular in the United States.

The war that decimated the world in the book was NOT some manufactured threat, it was a natural development that came about as the rest of the world fell completely apart. V is not some great freedom fighter and superhero who has come to liberate the poor people who sacrificed liberty for security - his address to the people outright yells at them that people like Hitler and Stalin are THEIR fault because they're the ones who put them into power to begin with and he gives them two years to shape up or he won't give two craps who he kills. The people do not come rallying to the cry of V and wear masks at the end - they don't give two craps who's in charge and by the end, the reader is left to decide how things play out, just like the ending of Watchmen in the book.

It was not about outright condemning people and right-wing politics, it posed a question of extremes - fascism or anarchy?

Would I prefer a happy ending? Sure, but it's not my freaking story and I don't pretend it is to tell my own stupid version of events that glorifies who is essentially a terrorist.

I'll admit I've never read Watchmen, but a lot of the complaints I've heard about it seem to be either overly nitpicky about or focused on the ending.

("Cowboy" versus "Cowboy Actor", seriously? That alteration is enough to blow a gasket over? SERIOUSLY?)

One of the things I've learned is that things like novel or comic book-to-movie adaptations is that, oftentimes, everything has to be dumbed down for the audience or altered for "modern times".

What's a hot topic? Energy crisis! Hence, Ozy and Dr. Manhattan working on a renewable resource instead of having already made it.

The manufactured alien threat seems way too far fetched, all things considered, especially without a lot of other elements, like, say, scout ships? Attempts at communication? Perhaps "bizarre sightings"? It would have taken a lot more effort to pull together something like alien invaders realistically enough to fool people, and it ultimately would have been easier to slap together something to do with a figure like Marvel's Kingpin (which I'm glad they ALSO didn't do).

Dr. Manhattan's voice wasn't entirely unemotional, I'll agree, but I think it would have made Manhattan come off as too detached from everything if he had an emotionless voice and I feel would have made him a lot less relateable.

I have to agree with Mave, that Nite Owl suspecting what was going to happen to Rorscach, yet not even trying to stop it would have been even more out of place.

Not to mention, I felt Ozymandias NOT getting beaten up, or at least punched a few times, would have been the biggest insult to the legacy and morals they were trying to uphold, and it would have severely undermined the fact that Nite Owl and Rorscach were partners.

Otherwise, I'll agree with pretty much everything you've said.

You should definitely tear into V for Vendetta.
I personally enjoyed the movie and I haven't read the comic, but I'm sure that you ranting about it would be highly entertaining as always.

It's always good to hear your view of things, Linkara. I've read many different opinions, and I thought I'd give my own.

I went into the Watchmen film knowing full-well that a perfect 1:1 adaptation of the book would have been impossible, and on its own terms it’s a solid movie and I hope it gets more people interested in the book.

However, there were some things that bugged me quite a lot. They more than likely stem from trying to make the film more palatable to a cinema audience, but instead just came across as dumbing-down.

For example, why do the characters have superhuman qualities to them? Rorschach moves like a ninja, the Comedian punches through a wall, and Laurie kicks a man so hard he lands upside-down in a bin. It was repeatedly stressed in the comic that these people were only human, but that’s gone. By the time Adrian catches a bullet, it’s not surprising or impressive at all. Also, I felt Laurie’s personality seemed to have been transplanted with Generic Female Role B (strong woman). She was definitely the weak link in the cast.

My biggest complaint though is that several key scenes no longer leave things open to interpretation. For example, the rape scene. In the comic, it was more than implied that Sally in some ways brought it on herself; she announced “loudly enough” that she was getting changed, she scratches Blake, and Hooded Justice berates her, saying “for God’s sake, cover yourself up”. Instead we’re not allowed to interpret the scene as anything other than Blake = evil and Sally = Generic Female Role D (innocent victim).

Also, the scene with the child murderer comes to mind. In the film he’s aggresive, carries a gun and acts like a detestable pile of shit once he’s handcuffed, and you don’t mind seeing him get hacked open. In the book he’s a nervous, pathetically frightened man who you almost feel sorry for as Rorschach burns him alive. It’s a case of taking out any sort of conflicting opinion about the character and replacing it with more OTT violence and gore (a common problem I found in this film).

Honestly, it felt like the film was forcing opinions down my throat; it was almost like it didn’t want me to decide how much I hated the Comedian, or to decide whether Adrian’s a stuck-up prick or a sad, troubled man. In fact, I’m surprised they didn’t kill off Adrian at the end, as Hollywood formula usually dictates that no villain gets away without some form of punishment (though Dan does beat the crap out of him, in a scene that felt incredibly tacked-on).

I also agree that the altered ending didn’t work as well. They clearly tried to make it work and build it up throughout the film, but the end result just didn’t work as well. I suspect it was altered to try and make the story more topical, but thinking back on it and with other factors from the book still left in there taken into account (Bubastis, for example), it causes a number of plot holes to open. Also the idea that they'd rally against Dr. Manhattan struck me as implausible, since they know he's all-powerful and indestructible (and I too found it jarring that they went with a "new energy source" subplot when one was already invented in the comic).

As for the use of My Chemical Romance in the soundtrack… don’t even get me started.

That said, I did find plenty to like. Rorschach and Nite Owl were perfectly cast, they did manage to get a lot from the book in there (including some lovely little background details) and the action was good (though the over-use of slo-mo was really tiresome). I thought it was probably the closest we were ever likely to get to a faithful adaptation, but I’d recommend the book over the film any day.

Maybe it would be for the best if Alan Moore comics were just left alone from now on. While Watchmen's the best attempt by far, it's still flawed. V for Vendetta was rubbish, and you don't even want to get me started on League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Hey Linkara!

Well i heard what you had to say about the ending and i have to say that i disagree. I haven't seen the movie yet, but thanks to the intewebz i know about the altered ending and i guess i'm going to be one of the minority that says that i think the new one is better...
To be honest, i didn't like the original ending to begin with! Sure, the concept of doing something bad for the greater good ("kill one to save/warn a thousand" chinese proverb) was fine but i never really liked the whole alien squid angle! To me the squid doesn't make sense! From what i understood, there was only going to be this ONE squid! I mean sure it might have united the world but what would happen when they saw that this invasion they were united to defend against wouldn't happen? Since there was no alien army other than the squid to pop up and remind them what they were uniting against, the whole thing was going to fall apart and cause an even bigger fallout between the super powers! Unless of course Ozymandias had that angle covered as well, although from what i recall from the novel (it's beem a couple of years since i last read it) this thing is never made clear!
Dr Manhatan is a REAL threat! Both the US and the USSR know exactly what he is capable of! The fact that he moved to Mars makes his threat even worse! He is at a place where no one can get to AND he can appear and cause havoc anytime he wants! Plus his turn to the dark side would make one of the super powers, the US, to swollow their "pride" and adopt a more negotiating attitude with the Russians, since it was them that harbored this terible threat to mankind all this time! Anyway, maybe that's just me but i do think that the Dr Manhatan ending actually makes more sense! As i said before it's been a while since i read the comic and i intend to read it again after i see the movie, which opens here in Greece this Thursday, so please feel free (you or any other reader) to correct any factual mistakes that i've made!
On another note, i think that V for Vendetta is one of the best comic to movie adaptations ever! I think that what people fail to see is that the W brothers did EXACTLY what Moore did with the original comic, they criticized a "regime" or an administration they were not content with! They updated a very late 80s early 90s story for the 00s and in my opinion they did a very good job!

One question though... Why dont you ever swear in your videos? I mean Im not one of those morons who thinks swearing is funny by itself but when you dont swear it feels like you're very restrained.

Oh and they are sometimes referred to as the watchmen check page 18 where it says "who watches the watchmen?"

No, no, no - I don't mean the phrase hidden throughout the book. I mean they actually refer to themselves as "The Watchmen." That's their superhero group name. In the graphic novel, it was Crimebusters.

The Wachowski brothers didn't criticize a regime, they demonized it. The fascists in Moore's book weren't shown as greedy, evil people but as people believing that the group trumps the individual. It also dropped the idea of Anarchy in favor of enlightened liberals being killed by evil Neocons. Moore had the ideas come frist; people throw Thatcher around but I don't see how privatizing and ending unions (which had mass outcry from those groups) is mirrored in V for Vendetta. I assume by Anarchy he meant the socialism idea of it but it is vague enough to read it a different way. The movie is completely void of ideas.

And on Watchmen how is the world supposed to unite against Manhattan, he is shown as unstoppable and everyone knows it.

The Thatcher thing comes from interviews concerning why he made the book and the introduction to the book. While it was based around right-wing policies, Moore said he was seeing an increasing trend towards fascism, so since he was an anarchist himself he created two opposing forces - V, wanting to completely eliminate the government (he admits he's an anarchist in his discussion with Lady Justice, a scene that didn't go into the movie) and the government wanting to maintain control over the people.

I get that but Anarchy has a million different forms and groups that say they represent true Anarchy. I've heard it said that V represents individualism Anarchy but while Thatcher mainly talked about reversing socialism, I have my doubts in what form Moore meant. But Moore was smart enough to set it far enough away from any real regime that the basic ideas are what matter, which I didn't see in the movie.

I liked the Watchmen movie a lot more that I thought I would. I understand a lot of the changes better now. The ending makes more sense if you pick out Ozy's line about the world seeing the attacks as Manhattan's judgment for coming close to war; so they are encouraged to behave to avoid another hit. But the very end plays like Rorschach's journal is definitely read; while the comic makes it seem ironically random which I think I like better.

I can see people that haven't read the comic missing a lot of details, Ozymandias was never really fleshed out and his costume was evil looking enough that he was suspect from the start. People that didn't read the comic and saw the movie thought he was hiding something and were confused why the people had superpowers (thought Ozymandias somehow had super speed).

I have to give Zack credit for pulling off outrageous worlds perfectly and with fantastic casting in 300 and now Watchmen. His choice for music and directing dialog needs work but I always love great world design so I was able to overlook a lot in Watchmen.

I saw the movie 2 days ago, the only reason i went to see it was because i had only just finished the graphic novel.

I read the graphic novel simply because there was so much hype and debate over both the movie and the graphic novel and because Linkara was going to review it calling it one of the best comics ever.

All i have to say is, Linkara you just went in there expecting too much for a movie adaptation, especially if you compare how well done watchmen actually is compared to X-men and the like.

all i can say about this is, i just go to any movie whithout expectations, especially the hyped and controversial releases, so its never really bad however it turns out.

On the overall thats the reason i think this is one of the best movie adaptations yet, its also for this reason i liked the Dark Knight a lott, but i bet people would argue on that the same as they do with Watchmen.

Cheers,

The DVD director's cut edition will have more detail (190 minutes long) and they'll put the original ending on the dvd. So I'll just wait for that.

Neat review btw.

No offense meant, but I am 100% convinced that you are wrong.

That may be. I've just heard it from other people so there is a possibility that this is just a myth, but I'll keep beliving it cus it would be awsome. But for your sake, I'll do some research on it.

I did hear about a director's cut, but I highly doubt that they'll actually go ahead and just put the squid in the movie. If they could, they would have done it for the theatrical release.

To Human Shield

Demonize does mean critisize and i don't recall the Norsefire movement from the movie being greedy bastards or anything like that. Powerhungry maybe, but that's what happens in any fascist regime, everyone wants to become the man in charge. Every fascist regime (even Hitler's) assumes power with the greater good in mind. For the movie's Norsefire, what they saw as social degenaration needed to be drastically adressed to "save" Britain, therefore they also had the greater good in mind. It's not even implied in the movie that they did it just because they were evil or to make money. Furthermore, you say that in the comic they weren't evil, well the only one i recall NOT being evil was the scientist from Lark Hill, everyone else was a powerhungry backstabbing bastard. Don't you recall the assasination plot against the leader orchestrated by high ranking party memebers from the comic? They are all shown Evil and corrupt, even the priest and head of the church is shown as a pedophile!
I don't know exactly what was happening in England during the Thatcher administartion, since i was still learning how to read at the time and the only politics i cared about, were the powerplays in Cobra's leadership. I do know though, that in the preface of the collected version of the V for Vendetta comic (one of them anyway) Moore states how he dislikes the situation in his country and how he even considers moving to another country if things don't change! It seems that Bush supporters and Moore fanboys were the ones who bashed V the hardest since everyone else seems to think it was at the very least decent.
On the other hand i really don't see your point in what you say about Dr Manhatan. Is the squid or an extra dimensional enemy a more managable opponent/threat? The thing killed half the population of New York city just by showing up AND it was dead already or died soon after! How is that a smaller more manageable threat than a guy with God like powers who at least used to be human and whose powers can be supressed. Veidt does that in the comic using tachyons if i recall correctly, that's what led Manhatan to his Arctic base ("Doctor Manhattan notices his abilities are limited by tachyons emanating from the Antarctic, and the pair teleport there" from wikipedia's plot recap of the novel)...
It's not that i want to defend the movie or anything, i still think that the novel was awesome, but as i stated before i didn't like the squid ending! I liked the concept, the end, but not the means by which it was achieved.