Klaus wrote:
"The weakness of the original material"? :o
😆 Thought that'd get a rise out of you.
Klaus wrote:
In my opinion that was exactly what was wrong with it - Watchmen is an utterly brilliant work of illustrated litterature but the film bypassed most of its finer points. I didn't like the casting, I didn't like the CGI, I didn't like how they cut away huge story archs and I absolutely hated how a graphic novel that depicts the psychological state of a bunch of sexual deviants in a world that all of a sudden creates a real superhero somehow ended up as another X-Men movie.
Watchmen the graphic novel is ok, but persistently overrated as a consequence of the comic book world's anxious eagerness for critical acceptance. It's basically a workbench for Moore to carve up and glue together his eclectic ideas about superheroes, godhead, will to power, etc., and doesn't stack up that well as a story, in my opinion.
As for the "another X-Men movie" criticism, I'm in qualified agreement.
My main issue was that Dreiberg et al. in the source material are far more fragile and incompetent, whereas in the screenplay those limitations are elided and they become rather conventional superheroes, right up to the Snyder-scope overcooking of the action scenes (which in turn diminishes the vital contrast with Veidt's genuinely superhuman traits). I had other problems with it that I wrote down at the time, but can't turn them up 😉
