Who Watched and Read the Watchmen?

April 2, 2009 11:16 PM

Follow-up questions to the thread, "Should I read Watchmen before seeing the movie?" (no spoilers)

I'm currently reading the book, and have finished chapter 9. I'm absolutely loving it and wished I'd read it a long time ago. But since the discussion in Acton's previous thread happened before the movie came out, what are your thoughts now, for those who have done both, without giving any spoilers to either?

I know the ending is different, and I'm curious if there's any possible reason I should actually watch the movie before finishing the book.

Does the new ending work? Is it change for change's sake? Or is it "different but equal"? Are there any changes to the movie in general that are just too jarring, or will they be defensible to someone who knows why some details of the book would have to be omitted (I know the Pirate comic has been)? I've discussed the book with a couple guys who saw the movie but never read it, and I'm surprised by how much seems to be omitted from the movie.

And while I'm reading the book, are there any details I should pay special attention to that will make the (original) ending more rewarding? (As much as I'd like to ask "Whodunit?" I can't quite bring myself to do so.)

Think of it as you telling your past self what you should've done differently as you finished reading the book for the first time.

posted by TheSecretDecoderRing to media & arts (38 comments total)

I saw the movie opening weekend & am halfway through the book right now. The movie is pretty good, but book is way better- the movie has some great sequences, especially in the first 10 minutes, but overall was too short to cover all the story points properly and some of the ones they dropped are a bit of a shame. I think seeing the movie first is better, because as a standalone movie, I'd say it's a solid 7/10, and then you get the pleasure of all the other details & storylines in the book, which is a total 10. Being entertained by a 7 movie is a good start, then your face gets blown off by the 10 book. That's way better, in my opinion, than being wowed by a 10 book then mildly let down by a 7 movie.
posted by pseudostrabismus at 11:21 PM on April 2

I say go see it. I read the book before seeing it, and while things are missing, I think the ending is...well, frankly, I think the ending is a touch better. Others may disagree.

I think the movie would've been better off as a miniseries--it's too long, and more detail could've been kept in if it had been done in a different format, but I still enjoyed it, and doubt it will detract from your enjoyment of the book. I do think that reading the book first makes it more enjoyable. Especially the text bits.
YMMV.
posted by stray at 11:31 PM on April 2 [2 favorites has favorites]

Yeah, the book is so detailed that a lot of stuff had to be left out of the movie. If you watch the movie first, then you don't long for the certain things that ought to be in there (and that apparently will be in the Director's Cut) -- but on the other hand, I think that the movie might be confusing to people who HAVEN'T read the book because it really skims through some of the stories and relationships.

I personally was fine with the new ending, and, dare I say it, actually thought it kind of made more logical sense in a way -- although I thought that the way events transpired in the movie made much less of an emotional impact than they did in the book.

Given all that... I'd read the book first, because then you're bringing your understanding of the events and characters with you, and it does help fill in the blanks.
posted by OolooKitty at 11:34 PM on April 2

Though I've read discussions online that disagree with me, I think the movie's ending was less convincing. I'm not sure I can articulate why without spoilers, though. I doubt you'd miss this even if you didn't have me to tell you, but make sure you pay attention to the supplemental material at the end of each chapter to get the most out of the original ending.

I think I would have enjoyed the movie more if I hadn't (frantically during the opening weekend of the movie) read the book first. I then would have been much more impressed when I read the book.
posted by Caduceus at 11:37 PM on April 2

I think that the movie might be confusing to people who HAVEN'T read the book because it really skims through some of the stories and relationships.

Oh, I hadn't thought of that. It very well might have been confusing without knowledge of the book.
posted by Caduceus at 11:39 PM on April 2

Eh, the movie ending is better. The ending in the book is a bit silly, really.

The thing the movies suffers from the most is bad acting from a couple of people playing key characters. For me, the best part of the book was "Fearful Symmetry"; Rorschach is acted very well, and the key events in this chapter are communicated convincingly.

There were significant additions to the films in the form of images of gory, gratuitous violence. I did not enjoy these.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:01 AM on April 3 [2 favorites has favorites]

The movie felt like it was made for people who have read the book, so I think you're taking the right route by reading it first.

I actually liked the new ending as well, but the movie as a whole was lacking a bit. It was the great source material that made it interesting. It looked amazing, but the screenplay was sloppy.
posted by Relic at 12:03 AM on April 3

The movie's ending was tighter and better than the book's ending; the book has an irritatingly arbitrary twist, whereas in the movie, that same twist is made to fit with other pieces of the story.
posted by darth_tedious at 12:11 AM on April 3 [1 favorite has favorites]

I am one who doesn't find the book's ending silly or too weird. The emotional impact of the ending is blunted. It feels rushed and the conclusion (same in both) isn't as logically reasonable.

Also, the level of violence in the film has been ramped up from the book, but the ending is relatively bloodless. It's kind of a nonsensical decision.

There's also an expression of doubt at the end in the book that is missing, and dulls that particular scene.

Personally, I found the film pretty uneven. YMMV.
posted by cmgonzalez at 12:23 AM on April 3

I actually liked the book's ending better. It's silly because... well, I can't say why because that'll give away too much, but yeah, I didn't really like the movie's ending. It might make more logical sense, but as a big fan of the book, it kinda turned me off.

And man, a couple of actors just didn't fit their characters well, and the violence... way too unnecessarily gory in some parts. The sex scenes get too much focus (gee, I wonder why...). Although the one ih Archie cracked up everyone in the theater, including me.
posted by curagea at 12:24 AM on April 3

The emotional impact of the ending is blunted *in the film, that is.
posted by cmgonzalez at 12:26 AM on April 3

Oh, I hadn't thought of that. It very well might have been confusing without knowledge of the book.

I'll agree with this. I never read the book and I found the movie very confusing. Mostly the characters' motivations made little sense, and I didn't understand why I should care about any of them. Rorshach was the only character I really liked.

And some of the acting was terrible.

People do seem to like the book, and reading it seems to make them like the movie better, so by all means finish the book first.
posted by mmoncur at 12:45 AM on April 3

If you think of what the Watchmen's personal/political/identity struggles are, concerning their roles as superheroes, then the differing endings makes a HUGE difference in terms of the resolution of those struggles. Not only is the movie ending less surprising, it's also less controversial thematically -- but its still coherent and fits well absolutely.
posted by suedehead at 1:00 AM on April 3

I really liked Watchmen the graphic novel, and I thought the ending was... not its strong point. The ending in the movie, I thought, was actually an improvement.
posted by Nattie at 1:57 AM on April 3 [2 favorites has favorites]

I'd read the book first - I don't think you'd otherwise appreciate some of the extreme lengths they went through in the adaptation. There's some really extraordinary bits there that I don't think someone walking in without having the book would enjoy.

Familiarity with the original also I think helps a fair amount in tying together/following the various things going on in the film (w/o which I agree would just be confusing or a bit of a jumble).

Reading the book probably also helps with the cringeworthy parts (there are a few) since you can sort of imagine how it *did* work in the book.

I wasn't bothered by the "change" in the ending as much as its general execution - the actual plot change arguably remains true to the spirit, and is at least as internally consistent as the original (and you can see how it streamlines the plot).

Relic: having followed the development and read many of the drafts, I'd have to say that the structure established by the Hayter screenplays read really well, and that I by and large liked the changes Snyder made from the last Tsai draft I read (especially in bringing it back to the 80s and making it a true period piece - the armageddon stuff just wouldn't have rung true w/o that, so Snyder gets mad props on that).

The issues I had w/ the movie was a little with dodgy acting, but mostly with weird directorial choices, and the complete bungling (just plain bad.) of the climax - by far the weakest scene in the movie.

That being said, overall, I enjoyed it, and I *do* think I enjoyed it a lot more than friends I know who've seen it but haven't read the book.
posted by lhl at 2:01 AM on April 3

To answer the question: You're already reading it, might as well finish the book first. Then see the movie.

The ending...*shrug* Snyder did a good job with that, but I agree with suedehead. Totally different contexts with which to view it and sets forth totally different resolutions. I also thought some really simple character background was left out that 30 seconds of extra film would've covered.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:04 AM on April 3

Yeah, finish the book, see the movie, read the book again, watch the motion comic. The motion comic is surprisingly good once you get past the single actor doing all the voices.

I think there's a director's cut of the movie coming out in the future, so you could even see it twice. Here's hoping they do more with my favorite chapter, Watchmaker.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 3:21 AM on April 3

Stop now and go see the movie. That's about how much of the book I had gotten through when I went to see it on opening weekend, and it was perfect. I knew the characters, had a feel for the story, but I (unlike a few folks I went with) was far less tied to the details of the book, and wound up enjoying the movie more than they did. I've since finished the book and loved it. I agree wholeheartedly with pseudostrabismus' comment, too.
posted by amelioration at 4:45 AM on April 3

I went to see this movie with friends who had not read the book. All of them were lost on the story. Some of them still liked it, but agreed that it was confusing.
posted by azarbayejani at 5:21 AM on April 3

I hated the ending but not for the reasons that are usually cited. I thought that it exemplified how Snyder adapted the look of everything but missed out on a lot of the substance of the book; I also agree with the above comment that the emotional resonance of the ending is blunted (to put it mildly). Go see it, though. I found it nearly unbearable but many of the people I went with enjoyed it (including some who had read the book and others who hadn't).
posted by synecdoche at 5:42 AM on April 3

I think that the movie might be confusing to people who HAVEN'T read the book because it really skims through some of the stories and relationships.

Oh, I hadn't thought of that. It very well might have been confusing without knowledge of the book.

Um, yeah. I enjoyed the movie as a whiz bang fight em up kind of thing, but I spent the whole first half whispering to my husband things like, "Who is that guy? Why are there two of that guy? Are there two of her? Is that an owl? When is the lesbian coming back?" I needed more origin stories.
posted by sugarfish at 6:01 AM on April 3 [1 favorite has favorites]

I'm with mmoncur. I, too, saw it without having read the comic, though I wasn't so confused because I was with my brother who could explain things. I was left thinking it was overlong and would have worked better as a much tighter movie focusing on Rorshach, the only character I had much interest in. Or as a longer trilogy/mini-series actually fleshing out the world and charactersh and making me care about what happened.

From most of what I've read fans of the comic seem to like the movie but the movie generally seemed to have failed to connect with a larger audience, which is reflected in it's relatively poor performance. So I'd say read it first.
posted by 6550 at 6:04 AM on April 3

+1 for finish the book first
posted by billtron at 6:06 AM on April 3

The movie doesn't realize that it is a commentary on superheroes in comics (at least, as they were in 1986-1987). It is laughable. The one good performance (I agree that Jackie Earle Haley was great as Rorschach) is wasted on a pointless exercise in superficial adherence to the comic. The pacing is awful, it is too long.

I actually think the ending, as far as the significant changes to the major events that happen, is really a non-issue (other than some of the absurd emotionalism they tossed in because they didn't trust their audience, I guess). It doesn't change the point so much. The problem with the movie is that the director and screenwriters and actors apparently didn't understand the major themes of the comic, and scenes that you read in the comic that were meant to be awkward, funny and showing the absurdity of acting like a super hero are presented in the film as being heroic, sexy and with gravitas. The insipid music cues certainly have a lot to do with this.

The comic is pretty good, not necessary the great masterpiece everyone talks about, but certainly a clever and worthwhile and important bit of art. The movie is like "Watchmen--Stupid Edition, Lite, now with Extra Gore^TM" (wtf was that about?). If I could tell my former self anything as I had finished the comic, it would have been to not go and see the stupid film they will make from this.

And just to clarify: I'm not such a Alan Moore fanboy that I thought this was going to be crap before I went. I didn't expect it to "live up to" the book, but if it was different and fun and didn't take itself too seriously (or if it had really "got it") I would have enjoyed it just fine. They could have changed whatever they wanted: I wish they had changed it more! I don't care that much, I'm not a purist. But it was a bad film. We don't need any more stupid ultra-violent super-hero action movies that take themselves too seriously, and the fact that the filmmakers just missed the basic themes of the book it was adapted from makes it that much worse.

So, to sum up, don't bother with the movie unless you are a masochist.
posted by dubitable at 6:12 AM on April 3 [2 favorites has favorites]

The sex scenes get too much focus (gee, I wonder why...). Although the one ih Archie cracked up everyone in the theater, including me.

Worst. Musical choice. EVAR.

Otherwise, I think you've read about as much of the book as my wife did before seeing the film, and it served her well enough to appreciate some of the things that had to be left unsaid. If you're really itching to see the movie, I say go for it.
posted by owtytrof at 6:15 AM on April 3

Dubitable is right in that the movie is more concerned with the plot than the themes, but there are a couple of things to remember: Moore wrote the book in 1986, when superhero comics were a moribund genre and nothing interesting had happened with them in a decade or two. No one coulod have foreseen the sudden revival of the genre and the big screen success comic book movies would start having, beginning with Batman three years later. It is as if that great deconstructionist Western, Unforgiven, had totally revived westerns and now two or three out of the top ten box office draws every year was set on the high lonesome plains.

As well, the movie is of course slicker with the action than the book was. It comes across as gratuitous, but when a director asks for 150 million dollars of a studio's money to make a superhero movie, the studio might well ask for some superheroics. I agree that it detracts from the film, but not fatally so, and all told, we are lucky we got something as close to the book as we did.

Regarding the ending: the last issue of the original series was widely regarded for the last couple of decades as a kind of stumble. The change in how the Plot was carried out is not a bad thing. As well, audiences in 2009 have experienced a different world than readers in 1987 had. Without spoilers, the climax of the book is thematically similar to a real-world event and the book's pat denouement looks pretty naive in retrospect.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:59 AM on April 3

Finish the book.

I read the book a few years back, and gave myself a brief refresher before seeing the movie. I've got friends who saw the movie without reading the book and enjoyed it, but my opinion is that the most favorable view to take of the movie is that it is a reinterpretation of the book, for fans of the book. Sort of like a rock cover of a jazz song.

The different ending allows them to tighten up the story by deleting a plot thread. Considering how many balls that movie is juggling, I think it was a reasonable decision. And I do feel that the movie does a good job of illuminating some of the themes from the book—the movie works on a visceral/emotional level that I feel is missing from the book, which strikes me as clever but academic.
posted by adamrice at 7:17 AM on April 3

I read the book several years ago, and decided not to reread before seeing the movie. I saw the movie, enjoyed it thoroughly, and went back and reread the comic. I was pretty satisfied. I'd recommend reading it after seeing it.
posted by solipsophistocracy at 8:19 AM on April 3

Finish the book first.

Granted, I read the book six years ago now, so I more recalled the spirit of it than the details. But I was struck by how just plain off the ending felt--suddenly, we were in the middle of a normal superhero movie, instead of a movie commenting on superhero movies.

Overall, I liked the movie, but I was struck by the drab ending, the silly violence, and the equally silly sex scenes. But I expected the latter two going in, since it was Zack Synder and all.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:47 AM on April 3

I couldn't find my old copy of the book, so I went out and bought a new copy and re-read it about 2 weeks before seeing the movie. Finish the book before the movie. My wife, who didn't read the book completely hated the movie. To be fair, she probably wouldn't like the book that much either.
posted by jrishel at 9:17 AM on April 3

It's an odd thing to do, but I'll second stopping now, seeing the movie, and then returning to the book. That's a nifty opportunity you have, and I bet you return to the book with page-searing desire later. I'd be interested in reading your thoughts at that point, too.

Myself, I didn't mind the new ending at all, and I was prepared to hate what sounded like an arbitrary change. Yes it was all a bit rushed and Hollywoodified, but it was no less credible than the book's ending, I don't think. At worst, it's different-but-equal to me.

Of course they had to cut a great deal from the book, like any book. Read The Godfather sometime. But overall, I was shocked by how much of the book they actually squeezed into that film, even in subtle ways (background shots, cute in-joke props).

I have a very, very hard time thinking of any way that Hayter and Snyder could have done a better job with that film. It's an almost a perfect page-to-screen translation, in that even with changes and cuts, it remains as true/accurate in spirit and content as, say, Peter Jackson's LOTR films.
posted by rokusan at 10:28 AM on April 3

...instead of a movie commenting on superhero movies.

Oh, yes. THAT is what is mainly "missing" from the film, but very deliberately so. The entire post-superhero culture deconstruction/commentary on the comic book industry theme of Watchman (book), from the pirate stories through a few speeches and ironic references, has been excised from the film. There's a bit left as a sort of hat-tip to fans, but as a major theme it's gone, and probably for the best, filmwise.

I think this was necessary -- a commentary on the state/nature of comic book superhero book publishing is far too ambitious and wouldn't speak to the majority of the film's audience -- and I think Hayter/Snyder did a fine job removing it deftly.
posted by rokusan at 10:32 AM on April 3

It is as if that great deconstructionist Western, Unforgiven, had totally revived westerns and now two or three out of the top ten box office draws every year was set on the high lonesome plains.

Damn. I'd take that reality.
posted by rokusan at 10:33 AM on April 3

I say finish the book -- the ending is somewhat different, but a lot of what happens turns out the same in both, and I think the movie would kind of spoil the book for you.

Having read the book a couple of months before the movie came out, I enjoyed most of it, but I thought some of the choices they made (not so much with the narrative events, but more how they conveyed them) made it not just less emotionally resonant, but also less morally resonant, if that makes sense.

There are a lot of things about the book I don't think were filmable though.
posted by SoftRain at 11:55 AM on April 3

I thought some of the choices they made (not so much with the narrative events, but more how they conveyed them) made it not just less emotionally resonant, but also less morally resonant, if that makes sense.

I feel the same way. It's hard to describe exactly without spoilers. The graphic, almost fetishized, violence was one. I feel like they bungled a few aspects in this regard.
posted by cmgonzalez at 1:05 PM on April 3

To quote a friend, "Saying the book is better than the movie is like saying cross-country skiing is better than lasagna."

Having said that, Zack Snyder is one kind of artist and Alan Moore is another kind of artist. They both tell the same story in different ways. Moore (and Dave Gibbons) has told you 7/10ths of the story already. Don't walk out on him before he's done. That's rude.

Let Moore finish telling you the story first, because they tell it better and darker and richer, and the surprises of the plot will add to your enjoyment of the story. After they're finished, go and have Snyder tell you the story his way. Then you can make up your mind who told it better.

As for me, I think Moore is smarter, crazier and a better storyteller than Snyder. And far, far more mature.
posted by Bobby Bittman at 8:48 PM on April 3 [1 favorite has favorites]

I just saw the film, and to be honest, it made me feel dirty for enjoying the fanboy bits. There was such slavish attention to details, and I found myself getting caught up in them, thinking, wow, they've got that. At least at first. Then I started to notice how dead the film was, how poor the acting was (night owl and rorshach were good. Dr. M's voice was... not deep enough) and how rote it all felt. As for the gore, it's in the book. There are close-up panels of elbows going the wrong way. The director definitely comes from the "spell it out" school, rather than the "let the audience connect the dots" school.

I thought the opening worked well for a quick recap, but at the same time, the use of songs to set the scene/inform the audience was heavy handed hackery.

To some extent, I can go along with the badassery of the characters. I mean, several of the other characters died (Dollar Bill, for instance), and in some way, to be wading into crowds of gang members wearing silly clothes, it takes some measure of skill to not end up dead. In the book, there's the bit about Hollis Mason training to get himself in shape enough to pull it off. I thought it fit.

The total difference between Dan Drieberg and the Night Owl was well done, I thought.

Book, then movie.
posted by Ghidorah at 1:44 AM on April 4

Thanks for the helpful comments, all. Anyway, I'd planned on reading chapters 10 and 11, and then deciding whether to watch the movie or to just read the final 12th chapter next, but once I started I was compelled to just finish the thing.

The lengthy "James Bond villain"-esque expositions are kind of a head-scratcher for a story like this, but I was more satisfied with the ending than not. I'll probably watch the movie in a week or two, and I'm fully prepared to take the movie with a full shaker of salt. But feel free to add comments, both to compare the two formats, and perhaps for people who have yet to experience either one.

Even before reading the book, I wondered why they didn't break it up into two or three films. My only guess is that they didn't want to run the risk of the first installment bombing and leaving the rest of the story unfinished. But hey, it worked for Kill Bill.

The motion comic was briefly mentioned in this thread, and the previous one. I forgot to mention that I saw the first two chapters on pay-per-view before reading the book. It was a great way to start (the single male narrator was fine.. It's just like an audiobook). Right now, I'd prefer to rent the DVD before seeing the movie, to go over the story again without re-reading the whole book. Alas, it's not on Netflix. And $20 on Amazon, with no extras, makes it a tough sell. Hrm...

I'll probably check out the Black Freighter/Under the Hood DVD (which is on Netflix) after the movie. Oh yes, there's also the "Annotated Watchmen" web site. Time to check that out, I suppose...

(Some of you may enjoy the faux "Saturday Morning Watchmen" opening)
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 3:42 AM on April 4