Beaten by a 70's kids sf remake starring Dwayne "formerly The Rock" Johnston.

Because of the mess they left behind (from the demolished house), the production company was barred permanently from ever filming in that part of Australia again.

Hee. The scene I saw them shooting was where they're in a horse-drawn carriage.

My Watchmen thoughts:

Overall, I was pretty satisfied. It wasn't wonderful, but it brought a lot of the things I liked about the book to the screen.

I think I figured out what didn't work, though (or, actually, Improbable Girl said it, and I agree). Snyder (and others, I'm sure) thought that Watchmen is a satire, almost a parody of superhero comics. What it actually is, though, is commentary on them. It's rarely meant to be funny, but that's what was sometimes achieved in the film. I think that if Snyder was a better director the movie would have been funnier - not better.

The obvious example is the Dan/Laurie sex scene in Archie which, if viewed as intentionally comedic, is actually pretty great. I laughed a lot and I'm pretty sure that I was MEANT to. It's so ridiculous that it becomes good parody. There were other moments, too, that I thought were aiming for more Incredibles and less Watchmen-the-comic, like using The Ride of the Valkyries with Dr. Manhattan attacking the Viet Cong.

Viewed in that light, the movie kind of almost works. Unfortunately, Snyder failed to correctly balance the parody with the darkness, which is extreme.

Oh, and somebody earlier mentioned the annoying fact that all of the characters had crazy-awesome ninja skills. That totally sucked. I had zero interest in any of the action scenes, but even if I had, they would've been bad. I thought we were done with Matrix-like slow-mo ridiculousness?

Overall, it wasn't as good as i might have hoped, but was better than I was afraid of.

In talking and sussing Watchmen with Joe this weekend, I think I finally put my finger on what bothered me about it.

It wasn't accessible. I am not a comic book fan, I don't read them (Save for Impulse long back when he was still around and even tha was spotty), it's not a medium that I enjoy, regardless of the storyline. But I LOVE LOVE LOVE comic book movies. I thought the fir X-Men was the most amazing movie I had ever seen. Of course, after that came Spiderman, Batman Begins, Dark Knight, etc. And I loved them all. And I loved them all because they were accessible to me, even not being a fan of the comics. The stories and origins and plots were written and presented in such a way that even though I was ignorant of the source material, I didn't feel that way. Watchmen left me feeling not only STILL ignorant of the source material, but irritated I had wasted all of this time. Joe commented that the reason the others were able to be a bit more accessible is that there are literally decades of storylines and characters to explore with the serial comics, whereas with Watchmen, there's just what there is and there ain't no more. And I can see that to a certain extent, but V for Vendetta remains one of my most favorite comic book movies, and it only had what it had. And it was Alan Moore, so it can be done. But I cared about V, I cared about Evie. In Watchmen, Rorshach and The Comedian were the only two I cared about. And, well, we all know how that turned out.

I get now what Jessica meant when she said Watchmen would be hard to follow for those who haven't the comics.

I definitely cared about Rorschach lots more in the movie, but for all of my JDM love, I liked the Comedian in the graphic novel more (eventually), perhaps because we saw more of Sally Jupiter's affection for him than we do in the movie.

I see that there's a Watchmen cartoon on one of my pay-per-view channels? Anyone seen it?

Watchmen Babies in V for Vacation!

Is it the Tales of the Black Freighter short?

Black Freighter Babies in Vacation From Hell!

Watchmen... I agree with all the comments about the ninja skills, because that was one of the things about the graphic novel (which I read a couple of months ago) that was interesting to me. The idea that these are all relatively normal (though seriously screwed up) people who parade about in costumes and beat up whoever strikes them as bad people. And the movie totally destroyed that notion, leaving... what?

One thing the movie did have in common with the graphic novel: both left me less than cheery at the end. I don't think I need to watch or read either again.

And by the way, David Hayter: Frell you.

(wow, that was a happy post)

Six hour drive back home allowed me to mull some more on Watchmen and the awesome idea of a "So You Think You Can Do It Better?" movie editing kit (I'd so totally buy that!).

Finishing the graphic novel I was impressed and affected but wasn't infatuated with the story and really found it hard to connect to any of the characters. But I was blown away by the structure and the rhythm. Watching the movie a first time I found that the movie had forsaken what I loved most about the graphic novel, watching a second time I realized that it that it *had* developed a style and structure of it's own (for better as well as worse). I

I wondered then, would the story hold up if told completely chronologically? And by hold up, I mean: would it still be compelling? Was I merely awed by flash and style?

What was the mass appeal of the original story? The political commentary? The glimpse into another world so similar to our own? The commentary on the genre of costumed heroes? What character or characters were the entry-point into the story, either through identification or fascination?

Or was it the brilliant pseudo-cinematic mastery of picture and prose?

I can only answer that it was the latter for myself, but what about the fans who became so decades ago?

I'm very curious about the answer to these, although maybe I should pose it in another thread?