They changed the ending. I guess they thought a scene of New York City being destroyed might not play that well post 9/11.
It’s being sold as an action/adventure flick because Hollywood sees “comic book” and that’s what they think.
I have hopes that the movie will convey some of the essence, but that truly depends upon the director knowing the material and being able to get his way against the producers.
Awesome 
I am a New Yorker and lived through 9/11. By some strange irony, I read the Watchmen in the last week of September, 2001. I honestly had no idea what I was in for.
I just picked it up to re-read last night. I am glad I did.
This is not my only strange reading timing story. I finally read A Confederacy of Dunces and was completely entranced. I was in the beginning stages of planning a trip to New Orleans. About a week before Hurricane Katrina.
It’s not essential, but I would say it’s a VERY good idea to read the book, then see the movie. First of all, because the comic book is well worth reading (and I say this as someone who has literally never read any other comic book or ‘graphic novel’ and probably never will). It is deep, thoughtful, smart, surprising, complex, multi-layered and very absorbing. The way that certain themes (both visual and narrative) are twisted throughout the story is ingenious and satisfying. Secondly, because no matter how well the movie tells the story, it’s easier to absorb the basic plot from the book than it can ever be from the silver screen (this is true of any story, because with print you can progress at your own pace, flip back and forth to refresh your memory now and again, and so on). Thirdly, because then you have the fun of (a) appreciating the way in which the source material has been adapted, and (b) appreciate the movie on a different level as a creative work in its own right.
I’ve never been into comic books/graphic novels at all, but a bunch of my friends are; they absolutely worship The Watchmen. After the first trailer for the movie hit, I was intrigued enough to give the book a shot.
(Aside: I couldn’t find it at the first Border’s I went into, so I asked the girl working there if they had it in stock. I looked over her shoulder as she typed Watchman into the computer. I didn’t want to correct her while she was doing her job so I said, "Oh, I guess I always thought it was called Watchmen. She got huffy and said, “No. His name is ‘Watchman’ and he’s a superhero.”)
Anyway, I began reading it…and quickly became bored silly with the whole thing. I just don’t get it. Too many characters and back-stories to keep track of; everything is dour and moody; very dated. I still don’t understand the plot or just what the main bad guy was hoping to accomplish. I mean, I get it but I was totally underwhelmed by the whole thing.
I know it’s hailed as a classic of the genre and I’m guessing it really is…but I think I’m just not a fan of that genre. And I also think it’s an example of how you had to “be there” in the mid-80s to really appreciate it.
I’ve heard enough people talk about what a work of genius Watchmen is that I would LOVE to have someone sit down and really explain it to me. I’m so clearly in the minority that I’m sure it’s just me that’s not getting it.
For what it’s worth, I really enjoyed the X-Men movies, Batman Begins and absolutely loved The Dark Knight.
For those on the fence still, the “characters and back-stories” lend the Watchmen a superb interleaved structure. This tells the story both through exposition and by contrasts with other simultaneous storylines.
While the time and place do play roles, it is not at all dated. In ways important to the plot, very little has substantively changed between then and now.
I have to wonder, for someone who claims he could not keep track of the characters and who says that he could not understand the plot, it is hard to take your claim that you “get it” without a grain of salt.
Check out this current thread for some talk about why some people really don’t like it and others really love it. It’s kind of gone off on a tangent at this point regarding some plot chioces that were made, but the first few pages of the thread talk about why so many people love the comic.
But it might not be that you are missing anything as much as you just don’t dig that kind of story, or it might just be different enough that your expectations threw you off. I know I had a couple of false starts when I first sat down to read it because it was so very different from what I expected.
Personally I looove interwoven, character-based, almost soap opera-esque storylines, so this all sounds awesome to me.
What I meant was that I spent a lot of time flipping pages back and forth just to keep track of who was who and when was when. It just seemed to me to be a lot of work for what turned out to be little payoff. Unless I missed something huge in the narrative, I just don’t think the book measured up to the all the hype. Like I said, I think you sort of “had to be there” to appreciate Watchmen. Maybe reading it all at once isn’t really the way to go; I think I may have appreciated it a bit more when it first came out, in serialized form. I tried to read the whole thing in one big chunk and, frankly, my interest seriously began to fade.
I know exactly what you mean. I actually wrote a cheat-sheet to keep track of the characters from the start. Real Name- Hero Name- Status- Minuteman/Crimebuster.
Didn’t offer a whole lot of payoff since a lot of them were one or two time mentions.
Fair enough. For me, the more I put into it, the more I got out of it. For me, experiencing the structure of the story and the fragility of its morality were well worth the price of admission. For whatever reason, I am also passionately interested in stories of how “rational” people survive in an insane world. The character of Rorschach speaks to me as much now as he did years ago, when I was a miserable early twentysomething.
For what it’s worth, I wasn’t actually there. I have read very few comics in my entire life, and I only read Watchmen for the first time in 2001 in its full form. I am a New Yorker born and bred, but I never experienced the city in the mid 80s that is represented in the Watchmen.
Trust me, I’m not trying to argue that it’s a bad book; I know it isn’t. It may be a tad over-hyped (in my opinion) but you don’t get raves like Watchmen did by being mediocre. I just think that for those who read it when it was first being published on a monthly basis, it must’ve been quite an experience. I’m just trying to honestly explain why I was underwhelmed when I read it. That’s why I admitted upfront that I was never seriously into comics, although I did enjoy X-Men and Spiderman back in the day.
I look at it like this: I’m a huge Beatles fan. But I have friends who just shrug their shoulders and consider them “just another 60s band” like all the rest. I wasn’t around in the 60s to experience Beatlemania first-hand, but I can understand (to a point) where my friends are coming from: it’s hard to look back over the decades and really understand just what made the Fab Four so innovative and groundbreaking at the time. I’m sure this is similar to my experience with Watchmen. To paraphrase George Costanza, “It’s not them, it’s me!”
I hear what you are saying. There is nothing wrong with you for not liking it. I am just emphasizing that I was neither there nor do I really know anything about comics, but I still think it is deeply impactful. I am enjoying it very much on my second read, years later. I get that you recognize that it is has a lot to offer, but that you just aren’t buying. I am just trying to articulate why it speaks to me.
I can definitely look back and see why the Beatles were so groundbreaking, even if it would rarely occur to me to listen to them myself. I can appreciate their music, but it does not really speak to me. That is just a matter of taste.
Allen Moore epitomizes post-modern millenialist ennui. Either you go for that or you don’t. Like many things of its period it’s a hipster’s in joke, a satire on comic books and the gestalt of the time.
My problem with it is I don’t like that mid-eighties hand-colored style. the colors are just not vibrant enough for me. They got much more vibrant very shortly after that came out. It suits the story, but I think I’ll enjoy the movie more as it is much more colorful.
I have to admit that I didn’t read all of the mezzanine stuff and I skipped half of the pirate comic the first time through. You really have to be willing to dwell on/savor a walk through the past to read all of the mezzanine.
How many pages long was that essay by the first Owl? Yes, it deepens the context. No, it doesn’t forward the plot. Not really. I understand why it’s all there, I enjoy having it there, but I forgive myself for skimming.
Geez–I feel old
That would be Superboy and the Legion of Super-Heroes #251 or so circa 1979.
He made Omega by using the Miracle Machine to create a creature made out of the hate of everyone in the universe.
They solved the problem by having Matter-Eater Lad eat the Miracle Machine (which got better, without explanation–but then, it’s a MIRACLE machine after all, so that’s ok) which evaporated Omega. However eating the Miracle Machine made Matter-Eater Lad go mad and he had to be locked in a padded cell next to the also nuts Braniac 5. (They both got better fairly quickly)
For what it’s worth, about 10 years later there was a for why Brainy suddenly went nuts–Glorith, a disciple (at the time) of the Time Trapper had had a scheme of hers uncovered by Braniac 5 and she let him see all of time at once which drove him mad!!!
Um…so, back on topic, if you were ok with all the Legion stuff, yeah, you’ll have no trouble at all with Watchmen.
To me, it was helpful to know who the characters were originally based on, but even that’s not necessary.
Actually, the “Under The Hood” stuff, I loved.
The one I’ve never made it through (and I’ve tried) is the bird article by the second Night Owl.
Anyone able to give me a brief synopsis of it?
Oh my GOD I remember that cover so vividly! Yes! And wasn’t it Superboy’s cousin, Mon-El, who, even though he has nearly the strength of Supes, was knocked for a loop by Omega? And then there was this other character whose name escapes me, who had a mirror-like visor that obscured his face and seemed to be a fairly ‘dark’ hero (for those days), who also tried to take on Omega by himself and failed pretty badly?
Sorry to make you feel old. Actually I felt old when I posted that. I guess it’s all perspective!
That makes me feel better. I should probably have stuck with it to see the arc through, but I lost my faith. Actually it’s just one of many times when favorite characters have Gone Bad. I would soon get used to that.
A retcon, presumably? I just went to wikipedia to check up on ol’ Brainy and I see he went nuts a couple more times. I had no idea he was so angsty. I guess they all are these days, huh? Back when I was reading, the heroes were much simpler. I can’t say I agree with this Brainiac 5.1 crap. I mean, version numbers for people? Really? Though I gather the ‘new’ Brainiac isn’t ‘human’ anyway, it’s some type of nanorobot or some such thing? Oy.
Someday soon I’ll start another thread asking about the rationale for all these retcons and rebootings and crises and whatnot. And people say soaps are convoluted!
Heh. Cool.
Mon-El–Superboy thought he was Superboy’s brother (hence the last name “El”) but really Lar Gand from Daxam who just happened to stop on Krypton hours before Krypton blew up. Jor El gave him a star-map to Earth and that note started the confusion. He was actually stronger than Superboy (being older and in better shape) but allergic to lead so was beamed into the Phantom Zone for 1000 years until Brainy figured out a cure.
The “visor-dude” was Wildfire–turned into “anti-energy” (don’t ask me) by a reactor accident gone wrong, he only had form/shape in that suit. He wasn’t really dark, but he did have an attitude–think Green Arrow.
No worries. 
The short version is that DC was in a tug-of-war. Legion wanted to use Superboy and after the initial Crisis on Infinite Earths, Byrne didn’t want there to have ever been a Superboy–this has led to two major reboots of the Legion and about a dozen minor reboots (one actually happening an issue after the last when an editorial battle that one side thought was won got overruled)
They’re frantically trying to fix the Legion right now. You might want to run to your local comic shop and pick up this Superman and the Legion collection and pick up the three issues that are out right now of Final Crisis: Legion of Three Worlds (there’ll be 5 issue total) where the best mainstream writer in comics (Geoff Jones) and fan fav George Perez are repairing 2 decades worth of damage to the franchise* by saying that the last time we saw the Legion was about 5 years after you (Choie) stopped reading"–after that, we were seeing various parallel world versions…and they’re telling a damned good story too. If you have nostalgia, this is the perfect time to indulge yourself. Plus the “real” Brainiac 5 (the one you and I remember) is back and a major, MAJOR player–he also has some things (not entirely flattering) to say about one of the alternate Brainiac 5s.
*The argument is that regardless of how good the reboots are, and there were some excellent stories told during the reboot and threeboot, each subsequent version has to retell all the old stories again and again and it just makes for a weaker Legion.