WATCHMEN (Movie): Is It Deep or Dumb?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 тра 2020
- Zack Snyder's "Watchmen" - Is it a brilliantly-faithful adaptation, a foolhardy perversion, or something in between? Get the MSCHF app here: mschf.com/wisecrack
Thanks to MSCHF for sponsoring this video!
Zack Snyder's adaptation of "Watchmen" is a contentious topic amongst the Wisecrack team. Is it a brilliant extension of Alan Moore's seminal text, or a dumbed-down, Hollywood fever dream? We'll break it down for you in this Wisecrack Edition on Watchmen: Deep or Dumb?
Subscribe to Wisecrack! ► wscrk.com/SbscrbWC
Join WisecrackPLUS for EXCLUSIVE content! ► wscrk.com/YtWcPls
Watchmen (2009): Filming the Unfilmable ► • Watchmen (2009) - Film...
Alan Moore: The Author Who Tried to End the World ► wscrk.com/3aG6Nbf
The Philosophy of WATCHMEN (HBO) ► wscrk.com/2x0ncZy
=== Watch More Episodes! ===
THE LIGHTHOUSE: Is It Deep or Dumb? ► wscrk.com/3bHdQQy
RICK AND MORTY Season 4: Does Nature Define Us? ► wscrk.com/3dSG1hg
How FAKE SCIENCE Can Fool You ► wscrk.com/2YY241N
The Truth About UNBIASED NEWS ► wscrk.com/2L3w18x
ETERNAL SUNSHINE: Is It Deep or Dumb? ► wscrk.com/2VNnHQ6
STAR WARS: The Rise of Skywalker: What Went Wrong? ► wscrk.com/2Y7Tahy
Store ........... wisecrack.store/
Twitter ......... / wisecrack
Facebook .... / wisecrackedu
Written by: Tommy Cook
Hosted and Directed by: Jared Bauer
Motion Graphics by: Riley A.
Wisecrack Edition Title Design by: Amanda Murphy
Editing by: Andrew Nishimura
Produced by: Evan Yee
© 2020 Wisecrack / Omnia Media, Inc.
What do you think? Is Zack Snyder's 'Watchmen' deep or dumb? And don't forget to download the MSCHF app here: mschf.com/wisecrack
Thanks to MSCHF for sponsoring this video!
It's Deep according to me...
Can you please do a video on "The Expanse Series" an Amazon prime series and the futuristic world it depicts
Kinda dumb actually, especially in light of the HBO series that I felt skillfully took Alan Moore's work and built on it with eye towards America's politics today. I think Snyder just doesn't know how to be subtle or how to build characters that have nuance or depth. Should be pointed out that most of Snyder's feature films are based on a previous I.P. I don't think he understands how to present unique characters because all of his characters in feature films already exist prior...except for 300...but man was that a DUMB DUMB DUMB film.
Wisecrack Hi Guys!
I hope this message finds you well. I’m a huge fan of your channel and have been watching your videos for about a year now. I am a Journalism student in the UK and I’m currently working on my dissertation. It’s about how social media has impacted on and change film criticism. As a UA-camr, I thought you might be able to offer a unique perspective on the topic, with your reviews being on a different platform to traditional reviews in newspapers and especially as your videos tend to take the form of a video essay. I was wondering if you might be able to help me out with a short interview about the topic, perhaps some time this week if possible either over the phone, Skype or zoom.
Thank you in advance for any help you can provide!
Best wishes, Jack
Respectfully, if a movie should be judged by how closely it resemble the book, then why make it at all?
Do a deep or dumb on Parasyte
"You can't fight in here, this is the War Room" from Dr. Strangelove cracks me up everytime!
One of the greatest lines ever uttered or written.
It has the same energy as "This is not a beach this is a bathtub!"
haha:))
@@Arda-rw3ic 🤣😂 so true!
Never stop using Nic cage like a censorbar.
Mmm iconic
Watchmen is one of those films that changes with my age. First saw it at 15 and liked the violence and slow mo, then at 21 and got all the pop culture references now at almost 26 figuring out the subtext and metatext. For me it’s only got better with age. I can’t wait to see how it changes in the years to come.
I like to watch movies every 5 to 10 years
For me Watchmen brings to the fore important questions that apply even to our world devoid of superheroes but also to the 'realities' of a world where superheroes exist. The Boys on Amazon Prime explores the latter fairly well. The relevant question is: why, if men and women with supernatural abilities existed, would we think that they'd devote their energies to saving lives, and if they did this, why would we assume they wouldn't make giant cost-benefit decisions based on their own judgements, totally disregarding individual human freedom and sanctity? This leads to the most obvious question of the film:
Do the ends justify the means?
Is nuking New York and framing Dr. Manhattan the right thing to do if it will stave off nuclear annihilation of the species? But notice that these superheroes just take annihilation as a given, when in reality, the Cold War never produced a single nuke strike. People who make these kinds of terrible decisions, or more appropriately, decisions of terrible consequences, always make assumptions which may or may not be true. The real question, I suppose, is what gives them the right? Our lives are not theirs to dispose of in their strategies of world peace. The actions of the 'superheroes' in Watchmen are close analogies to the actions of the heads of state in our real world.
I'm with Rorschach, when it comes to your principles, "never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon."
@@nateaggie You also have to step out of the world and analyze the Watchmen as a document which exists in a particular time frame. When it was published, the USSR remained strong and the Cold War was long from over. So, in the midst of all of that, this psychotic vision of killing off 100 million on the contingency that it would save billions was considered profound and daring by many. Such people don't deserve an audience when discussing real-world problems.
It’s one of my fav comic book movies along with sin city, dreed and kick ass
Read the comic then! It's much better in term of story and context.
I watched Watchmen in the movie theater when it came out with my husband and my brother. We left the theater going "that was so dumb. what the hell did we just watch?" but as I thought about the movie over the following months, I really started to appreciate it more and more. By the time it was released on DVD I couldn't wait to watch it again, and think harder on a lot of the themes of the movie. It is still to this day one of my favorite films.
IIRC, the theatrical is a lot shorter than DVD which was supposed to be the extended version, right?
I didn't read Watchmen until after the movie and instead of it causing me to hate the movie, it gave me an even greater appreciation of the thing.
Timothy Dalbeck Same
Agree!
Same. I thought watchmen was something original and then I found it was a graphic novel and loved every bit of it. The comic is a subversion of comic books while the movie parodies it's own medium.
For me the movie introduced me into the Watchmen universe and i will forever appreciate it for that.
Movies rnt supposed to be comic accurate lol.
Is the discussion "deep vs. dumb" or "true to the original vs. unfaithful adaptation"? I had a hard time telling if you guys made that distinction at any point. You can take source material and deliver a completely different, still deep message. Deviating from the original point doesn't turn something dumb by default, the metric shouldn't be how closely it follows the comic in my opinion, but what messages it brings as its own experience.
Raymond Anderson good point, but it‘s atleast fair to criticize the movie for misunderstanding the source material. I feel like they succeeded in distinguishing things that are different but change and adapt the meaning from things that are different and result in a net “loss“ of meaning so to speak, possibly because Snyder may not have noticed/cared about the meaning behind them when reading the source material (which seems to be mostly aspects of characterization).
@@mekullag9787 misunderstanding the source material or intentionally changing it? I've read the comics after the movie and I can see why being faithful to it would result in a terrible movie. The overall plot for instance, the comic is a caricature of comic book plot but would translate awfully in a movie with useless sidetracks. My take away from the movie before reading the comic didn't change tho, it was about how flawed the idea of super heroes and saving the world is. Each work on its area perform similarly in "feeling" to me, albeit the comic makes a better job at making rorschach a truly terrible human being.
@@gu4xinim Yeah, it most definitely would have been terrible to just straight up adapt the comic (aside from it having to be more like a miniseries, because of its length). I love the movie, I only read the comic years after and liked it, but it felt too slow at times. I think I still don´t quite get the pirates. But after watching this video I too feel like the movie is worse off for changing the pathetic ex-heroes to simply badasses back from an early retirement.
I agree with the choice to make Rorschach likeable though, because these movies where you hate every character and everything is just all bad all of the time may have artistic merit, but they sure suck as viewing experiences... Also makes his death more tragic/meaningful if he can be seen as the "moral conscience" of the movie
Well, I think that is their point, that everyone tends to think of the original comic as deep, so when you strip away that original depth, you need to prove that you've replaced it with something else.
You bring up so a great point, and that’s such a fair critique of this video ... though you have to remember that there are so many fanboys of the original comic strip and if Alan Moore that nothing you say will change there minds about how much they’ll argue against the movie... also, the film was in preproduction hell for many years, Terry Gilliam was even in line to direct it, so add that to the mixture and you’re sure to get ppl criticizing it even harsher.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is a war room!! " My God, did Kubrick knew his satire
Thank you SO MUCH for adding closed captions. As a hearing impaired person it really means everything to me when creators or viewers take the time to add them
hey Bob, I was wondering... is your dad's name bob too? or is that really your last name? ornis that your last name plus your dad's name is Bob too? making you Bob, bob's son, Bobson?
Don't keep us waiting, We must know the answer
CCs also help a lot for those whose first language is not English (like me) - sometimes you just can't figure out the words they're saying and/or never heard those words
@@caspertms8543 Now we're asking the REAL questions
True story: The screenplay was written by David Hayter. He’s the voice of Solid Snake in Metal Gear Solid.
Whaaaaat
Rorschach? You’re that ninja.
DUNNN DUNNN DUUUUNNNNNNN!!!!!!
Kept us waiting with that comment huh?
@@1993spectre you're pretty good
_"My father was a watchmaker. He abandoned it when Einstein discovered time is relative. I would only agree that symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as photograph of oxygen to a drowning man."_
*~ Dr. Manhattan (Watchmen)*
K. I'd argue that watches are relevant as is the symbolic picture of oxygen. Time may be relative but that doesn't matter to us, just as Water is part Oxygen. Day and nighttime still happen and affect us, a watch can help us navigate and use them. As for the picture of oxygen, it can serve as a reminder that even if there's enough oxygen surrounding us, we can't utilize it and change our circumatances to survive.
But idk, is this quote deep or dumb?!
I love Dr. Manhattan detached approach of pessimism.
Daniel Dosenbier You only proved Dr. Manhattan’s point. The only thing a photograph of oxygen can provide to the drowning man is proof that he is doomed. Dr. Manhattan doesn’t argue that a clock has no function, only that its function isn’t nourishing to an intellectual mind - because it can only offer superficial understanding of the real thing.
@@UltimateKyuubiFox Not that he is doomed, but why he is. And through understanding maybe a way to change his fate.
to put in context, Dr Manhattan is talking about the symbolism of the doomsday clock, not watches in general
The Ultimate Cut of Watchmen gives us the full experience of what the film was meant to be especially the Tales of the Black Freighter and the deleted scenes that explain a lot more about the plot and characters than the standard theatrical cut.
What I like about the Watchmen movie is that it depicts the cons and PROS of a vigilante life. While the novel focuses almost entirely on the cons, the movie makes sure to include a little bit of the superheroes actually helping innocent people, acknowledging that it is a major aspect of the life (at least intention-wise), deconstruction of comic tropes or not. Realistically there would be both bad and good aspects of a vigilante life, but ultimately it's more hard than fulfilling, and the bad would most likely outweigh the good. A change from the novel to be sure, but a welcome one in my opinion. Also, Hollis Mason's death scene is cut from the theatrical version. So I don't know how fair it is to count that.
Couldn’t have said it better. This movie is the best
Why Hollis death was cut from the theatrical cut of the film?
That just sounds like obfuscating the point honestly. Why bother glorifying the characters, when the point of the story is that they're pathetic trainwrecks clinging to a past that will never come back? It doesn't make sense, and neither do many creative decisions in the movie.
@@handlesarestupid154 Because it comes off as hamfisted and ironically cartoonish at times. Why would you care about these characters or this world if everything is terrible? The movie is much more well rounded because everyone, even the Comedian has positive moments.
Who watches the watchmen?
So that makes us the Watchman?
We're the Watchpeople
The Watch Watchmen Men.
@@ShovelChef Not just The Watch Watchmen Men but The Watch Watchwomen Men, and The Watch Watchchildern men too.
The film was kinda gritty so shouldn't we ask who washes the Watchmen?
Who watches the watchmen is a paradox because someone needs to watch the watchmen
"Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the Comedian is the only thing that makes sense."
boooooo
Right?! You cant ignore the clear absurdist philosophy here. Deep. And I am no Snyder fanboy
if everything's a joke and you're the comedian doesn't that make you god? The comedian writes the jokes
@@Karl_Marksman _(weed emoji)_ 🚬😌 word.
@@billbutton8468 😂
Opinions will always differ, but, to me, this movie is a master piece. How Zack managed to portray perfectly music and slow motion iconic scenes. This movie is dope for a depressed person, it really hits on the nostalgia and reach catharsis with the violence, showing how truly fucked up the humanity really is.
@Dr. Mercury It is a comic Dr dumbass.
@@0Camus0 nice job ignoring the entire point he made there bud
you saying dark and gritty movies are only for depressing people WTF?
Sadly, the movie is just NOT IT. It glorifies characters that should not and the concepts are so lightly showed. Is infantile compared to the original source, all of the action just seems immature because of how it is portrayed and the satire is vastly lost because of all of this. I empathize with Rorschach and Ozymandias in the original source even with how twisted they are... and some people might not empathize and that's the point. Snyder didn't have to dilute the whole movie like that. Still, it is a good movie but the whole point is that is not as good as the original source... this movie is good, DEEP and DUMB equally, depending in how you look at it.
I feel like the message Alan Moore was sending was way more important than the message that the movie sent
As a college kid me and my friends watched this movie mostly because of the spectacle. It was an awesome, violent comic book movie, and I couldn’t get enough. Watching it now, many of the Snyderisms of the film have retroactively made the film feel overly stylized and a little bit self indulgent. I do wonder what version we would’ve gotten if Snyder had stuck more closely to the original, but I think that movie would’ve been much too grim for average audiences. It’s a grim film as is, but it’s at least fun to look at.
It would have been a complete mess had Snyder tried to make it more comic accurate.
Moore is an anarchist. Watchmen is based on the Chalton comic characters of Steve Ditko, who was a Randian Objectivist. Moore made Watchman a scathing satire of its source. It's deliberately insulting to Ditko's worldview.
Snyder also subscribes to Ayn Rand's garbage philosophy. There is no way Snyder would have made a coherent story if he was forced stick to themes and ideas that are opposed to his own core beliefs.
I dont think that this is the best possible Watchmen movie, the TV series is a far better adaptation. But it is the best possible Snyder's Watchmen.
Lol Self Indulgent.
Will H I didn’t realize Ditko was an Objectivist, but... yeah, that makes sense. I think the TV series is pretty good, not flawless, but you can see very clearly where creative perspective on philosophy differs between the two works.
Its a beautiful film.
@@willh2690 Snyder does not subscribe to Ayn Rands philosophy that's just a myth,
Her philosophy was used by Chris Terrio for the script in MoS and BvS to be a counter balance to the standard superhero narrative and tropes
Nether MoS nor BvS are glorifying Ayn Rands philosophies ether, the movies are simply using it as one of two moral conflict Clark kent needs to contfront. One given to him by Jor-El the other by Jonathan Kent
Nitpick alert: if I recall correctly, Nixon having his 3rd term was in a flashback sequence, where one of the 1985 characters mentioned having voted for Nixon “all 5 times”, which makes a bit more sense mathematically.
The Nixon having his 3rd term happened at the end of the intro credits, so it’s not really certain when it took place. I assumed the “voting for him 5 times” was a reference to other offices he held and his 3 terms as president. either way though, it’s somewhat messy
@@mikekasabion The heroes aged more than 12 years while Nixon was president
There are the times Hollis could have voted for Nixon but he lost- such as in 1960 when he lost to Kennedy
I love the novel to death, having said that its my favorite movie ever made. So rewatchable
One thing I'll say about the depiction of violence in this film is that I think the stark contrast to how it's shown in the comics is intentional not just for style but to comment and critique pop culture (and I'm including news media under that umbrella). When you hear of someone getting stabbed, a fight happen, or someone getting raped you get graphic descriptions of the even, while a massive tragedy where a large number of people get hurt or killed the only thing you get is statistics and some shots of collapsed buildings. The reality of the situation is getting warped through how it's getting presented, through pop culture. The comic aims to portray how unstable and dangerous super heroes are, the film aims to show how super hero comics and pop culture are dangerous to our perception of reality and I think that it succeeds with flying colours
If you think Zach Snyder fight scenes are anything to base real world violence off of you are the one who's influenced by pop culture, they are way too glorified and epic to be basing your worldview off of. Alan Moore depicts violence as a tragedy, Snyder depicts violence as a way to show off how cool Rorschach, Nite Owl and other heroes are.
@@alexv3539 The biggest annoyance for me(apart from the whole film)was the one panel of Nite Owl knocking a prisoner aside during the prison break being made into a ten minute slow motion fight scene.
Snyder glorifies violence and Moore said Snyder didn't understand that Rorschach was NOT written as someone to admire.
there are always two arguments about Snyders Watchmen Ether it's
"too close to the comic" and therefor not original enough
ot it's
"Nothing like the comic at all" and therefor he is missing the point.
The irony is that while he does re-create the comic almost frame by frame (or panel by panel),
the "too close to the comic" ignores Snyders own interpertations of the story,
while the "Nothing like the comic" camp seems to Only focus on the changes he made.
I think the "problem" with the movie is that Snyder tried to both have his cake and eat it, as he is so much of a fan for the
comic that he tried the best he could to honor it visually, but he is also clever enough to know that movies and comics are two
totally different mediums.
Similar to how the V for Vandetta movie changes the whole point of the V for vandetta comic, but still is a good movie on its own,
Watchmen the comic (in the words of Alan Moore) is a story that can ONLY be told in the medium of comics, that's why it's unfilmable, because it's impossible to translate it. You need the 9 pannel grid system, and the page by page narrative tool for the comic story to work. That is impossible to do in a movie
Watchmen the Movie takes the broad elements, but instead of being a movie commenting or trying to mimic a comic,
The movies is a super hero pop-culture movie making strong satire on comicbook movies as a genre in pop culture.
By using familiar images from pop culture movies, the Watchmen Movie is a strong commentary (visually) on popculture superhero movies , EXACTLY the way the comic is a commentary on comicbooks.
This way the adaption is aware of its own medium and isn't trying to copy the comic, but ephesises that it is its own thing. In the scenes where the "heroes" in the movie do the action scenes and the superhero landing, with the over the top slow motion isn't to add epic imagry for the sake of making it look cool. The point of making it too over the top so it becomes silly, a parody on the superheo fantasy tropes in movies in the first place.
If you want to judge Watchmen the movie as deep or dumb, u need to seperate it from the comic and view it as a stand alone piece, it's more of an homage to the comic. It's independet from the comic, but it is however instead highly attached to the overal movie popculture genre of superhero movies.
Evenn before the whole Cinematic Universe happened, Snyder made a meta commentary on these movies, which is to me mindblowingly well done. As if he knew how silly and dumb the genre in cinema history was and would become
Brilliant
I often see this issue with Wisecrack's analysis of films based on or adapting the works of another medium. Even when it came to their analysis of the DCEU, a lot of the complaints were about the characterization of Batman, Superman and Lex without thinking of the situation that these characters are in both in the public eye and within the structure of their universe.
I agree in part, but the slow motion and silly editing is something I see in a lot of Zack Snyder's movies. What makes this any different?
I feel smarter reading this comment
I always felt that Watchmen was a thematic sequel to 300, as 300 is about films being pure escapism and stories, in general, inspiring us through heroic leads and brave deaths. Whereas Watchmen is about the corruption of those heroes and our inspiring heroes being degraded and deconstructed. I liked how Sucker Punch was then a resolution to this matter, as it tells us that we don't need to look up to stories in fiction but realizes that we ourselves are the story.
After the comic was released and hailed as a masterpiece, a lot of comic creators failed to see what actually made it successful (the use of structure, satire, new storytelling techniques and a narrative that worked on multiple levels). They just looked at the graphic violence, sex, antiheroes and 'adult' themes and thought "Hey, let's do more of that, it's what sells". It resulted in what we know as the Dark Age of Comics. Zack Snyder's a great visual stylist but I feel he had the same outlook as the Dark Age writers. Didn't help that he used a work of deconstruction as the thematic basis for his Superman and Batman films.
A big problem Snyder does have is that he attempts to write movies like they're comics. He uses a story structure and slower plot in a similar manner to how a comic would go. What Snyder doesn't realize is that a movie isn't a comic. It's not a 6 months series that can be changed if the audience isn't liking it. The formatting, story structure, and characters absolutely must be written differently.
Ravi Shankar, there’s a famous video of a young Todd McFarlane and evening younger Rob Liefeld coming up with the antagonist, Overkill, while Stan Lee tries to guide them.
Through Lee’s questions he subtlety mocks them and shreds the character by asking very _basic_ story questions while reality-testing the costume. It’s hilarious. The same video could have been Lee grilling Zack Snyder because the problem is the same. “Because it’s awesome!” Is not a model for good storytelling.
I just personally find Zack Snyders storytelling a little mindless, and you can particularly see this in how he screws up the characters of watchmen, particularly Rorschach who he
turns from a
Randian nutjob into basically just Batman, or the even more cringe inducing version of Batman in BvS
Yeah no. Snyder is a worse hack than Martin. I can tolerate Martin, Snyder on the other hand shouldn't be involved with films at all because everything he touches, turns into shit. The only redeeming qualities of watchmen was that Malin Akerman is hot, Malin Ackerman is hot, and holy fucking shit Malin Ackerman is hot. Other than that, the movie is bvs before bvs with even more bs.
I think this is possibly the only Zack film I've ever enjoyed, and I just put it down to him having far less to do with the content/writing it.
The "Hey, let's do more of that" style, reminds me of Deadpool, which I passionately fucking hated so fucking much
I loved the movie. Just rewatched it after 10 years and it’s even better now.
Snyder: a director/writer who pushes the medium to a point where you don't know wether to agree with him or don't and you won't know until time passes by years.
Disney/mcu: a paradox ready to be creative as long as you don't jump over the fence.
Both have pros and cons. I'm more of a snyder fan than a MCU fan, love the MCU and hope snyder is picked to make an MCU movie.
Nolan's The Dark Knight kind of ruins their analogy : despite PG-13 violence, it's a very dark and even barely "superhero" movie, thanks to Heath Ledger's performance (and Harvey Dent / Rachel Dawes storylines ).
I love how the video boils down to:
If you like Alan Moore's Watchmen, this film is dumb
If you like Zack Snyder's Watchmen, this film is deep
You choose
(Not intending this as mean-spirited or disrespectful to the creators, just a funny conclusion to land on when an opinion piece video ends with "Your opinion will be based on which version of this story you prefer". Personally, much prefer Alan Moore's version. Snyder's great with visuals but his adaptations of other people's work often feels like he skimmed the pages, picked out the bits that looked the coolest and then made it into two hours of super explody edgelord fun times)
TaintedWingedPrince that’s why imo his only good films are Dawn of the Dead (a not too sophisticated film that he just remade) and 300 (a comic that was already almost entirely action). I haven’t read 300 tho, but I can almost guarantee it’s not as heavy as Watchmen
I have never read Alan Moore's comic Watchman, but I have seen the movie. I recognize this gives me a bias for one and I understand that people that have read the comic dislike the movie and I get why after informing myself with this video and the podcast Wizard and the Bruiser that went over Alan Moore and his various works. I also found a lot of the time if you are unaware of the source material of a movie you are more likely to enjoy the movie. Prime example I liked the Resident Evil movies and I have never played the games. My knowledge of Resident Evil comes from memes and I've recently watched let's plays of the games, but I still enjoyed the movies. Granted I haven't rewatched them in some time now that I'm more informed so maybe that will have changed. My point is that adaptations even bad ones get people interested in the source material so in a sense even if you don't like Zach Snyder's movie you can at least respect the fact it brought people who had never seen the comic into perhaps wanting to get more into the actual comic.
@@andrewh978 Honestly, and I'm not ashamed to say it but the 300 film was better than the book. But yeah it wasn't heavy on symbolism and themes as much as Watchman was; pretty thin actually. And Synder added things that made 300 even better for me as a movie viewer and comic book enthusiast. The Watchman HBO show though shows what you can do to take a source material and respect it as you add to it.
Mans gotta turn a profit. I doubt he had complete freedom and making it too close to the source almost negates any reason to remake it (like the psycho remake)
Personally glad for bad ass fight scenes, especially when batman made jump cuts popular. I miss good choreography in my action movies :/
LuckAmazing I haven’t heard anything special about the 300 comic so I don’t doubt it, but yeah, Lyndelof’s Watchmen is freaking fantastic. That show definitely understands what Moore’s Watchmen is about
The choice to change Rorschach into the moral compass in the film legitimizes his use of violence, Therefore, undermining any attempt at subversion
It didn't help that Snyder is a not-so-secret Ayn Rand fanboy
undermining subversion, that's deep
and who cares?
To be honest, considering he’s the only one in the end to not go along with the willing sacrifice of millions (like lambs to the slaughter), Moore undermines his own message that Rorschach is supposed to be looked down upon. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that he’s supposed to be hated, but I think it’s easy in this one regard to miss Moore’s intention.
@@patrickblanchette4337 And really he's the way he is because he understands and sees more than anybody the corruption and awfulness in the world. Hated is too simplistic, at least within the movie we're supposed to empathize with him.
Excellent video. Just discovered your channel today and what an absolute joy it is! Full of incredible content.
One of my favourite movies of all time. Also it was the second superhero movie I ever saw (after Dark Knight), before I even know something like comics exist. It changed how I saw movies, not as dumb spectacle, but as something serious. Besides that it is pretty well made and certainly the best possible movie someone like Snyder could ever create.
Every Wisecrack video: "Snyder Bad, Marvel Good. Shame about Disney, Here's a philosopher? "
Me: "Interesting"
Snyder is a great director, but an awful writer.
Thank you hentai man, very cool
Fuck off dude.
@@Szadek23 He actually didn't write Watchmen, Man of Steel or Batman Vs Superman. I believe too much of the blame is placed on one person. Like Zack Snyder by himself made every movie he's been apart of.
@@thelaughingstormbornagain1297 But he's the director and he's in charge of everything. Plus, there are a lot, and I mean A LOT of elements shared by those movies. They are very clearly Snyder's movies, and they suffer from his flaws
How many people did it take to edit this video? Like seriously, it's REALLY good!
I love how multiple UA-cam personalities have pointed out that Rorschach reads a far right newspaper that supported racist and bigot ideas but people are still upset about the 7th cavalry in the watchmen TV series
Cause the 7K twisted his words and he will not stand for that kind of injustice.
But I do understand how it can be twisted and used by racists. Same as any cult/religion that existed.
@@MrChopstsicks The 7th of Calvary didn't twist his words he believed in a lot of the things they believed in seriously reread watchmen Rorschach is not a nice guy by no means I get it he went through some shit as a kid but he actually has a lot of bigoted views himself. The whole thing with the 7th cavalry is yeah Rorschach told them the truth but sometimes the truth and the wrong hands can create something terrible especially when it's in the hands of terrible and depraved people hence the 7th Calvary and it's a real shame that dumbasses who only watched the movie and not read the book still think the TV show doesn't successfully build on the comic or should I say the property
kingMadnus they did twist his words. His words are directed towards all scum and criminals in his view, punishment for everyone no matter the race or religion. Good and Evil, black and white, no grey compromise views.
While the 7th made it into race.
That’s why the Rorschach mantle can be passed towards anyone. Such as Rorschach II, Reggie Long, son of Dr. Malcolm Long.
If Rorschach still lived, he would kill every single one of the 7th. I guarantee it.
@@MrChopstsicks highly doubt it, he obviously had far right views if he was reading shit like the frontiersman and felt that they were the best option to print his story.
@@lagunacinematics I wish he would've made copies and sent it to all other newspaper companies. I wouldn't go to the journalist that made up lies about Dr. Manhattan. But relevant to today's media, everything is partisan and biased.
As for his far right views in America, he would be called a liberal in my country. Today.
I think we can agree that the casting and performances were gold
Funny, I almost wrote my degree paper about exactly this thoughtprocess but then covered the use of violence just in the comic. For years i kinda thought that Snyder basically just threw those briliant pages of the comic on the screen and whatever got stuck to it must be at least decent, but then again, he might have a point: the comic deconstructed super hero comics and his movie deconstructed super hero movies, mostly through their violence and heroism.
Also the different ending gives more meaning to the Dr. Manhattan = God-angle and i think that makes much more sense than the squid even though the squid was supposed to be over the top
I think it sorta ruins the meaning of Dr. Manhattan being God. He basically got tricked. God doesn't get tricked or misled - in our modern world really he's an impersonal and unseen actor. I think the point is that as Dr. Manhattan lost his humanity the further he would go into that attitude.
Zack Snyder is at this best when turning artistic sculptures into action figures.
Lol!! Superb pimp slap compliment! Haha!!
This is the best way to describe what Snyder did 😂
The man is one hell of a comic writer, but he can't do a movie at all.
Yeah no he isn't worthy of being behind films anywhere at all.
Peter von Feldt LOl I think there’s some middle ground between those two
Man. Helluva breakdown. I personally like Zak Snyder's work, and lean towards the "deep" side. All being said, I think it's just a fantastic movie. One of my favorites.
Just watched the movie again, and I'm gonna say its Deep. I've not a big comic book person, and the original comic is mostly lost on me outside from what I've learned through videos like this, BUT what i can say with certainty, for this movie and the HBO series, the feeling that this evokes of an almost real timeline, with mostly believably flawed characters, and the spiraling of reality in general, based on the feeling alone - this is deep.
The movie is very deep:
1. If viewed without having read or known there is a graphic novel behind, nobody would question it.
2. Most of the critiques do not come from how the movie unfolds the plot, characters and setting, but from comparing it with the source material and finding differences.
3. Condensing such large graphic novel in a 2 hour film cannot have the same depth, besides understanding cinema and comics are two communication methods that cannot be translated 1:1.
You're establishing that the film should be judged independently from the comic which is fair. In that spirit, what is deep about the film?
@@hasunkhan how the superheroes are not the bright image we have from other media. How what we call "heroes" could be authentic villains, using here superheroes, but in real life could be other people such as soldiers, police, businessmen...
@@joseirimia maybe I'm reading into the concept of loose concept of "deep" too much but I don't think retreading old ideas is deep. Superheroes not being the bright image we have from other media is explored through Daredevil or V for Vendetta. Heroes as authentic villains was covered in Batman Begins or Spider-man 3. The final example you bring up about superheroes being soldiers, police, and businessman is literally the concept of an alternate ego which is central to the superhero genre.
@@hasunkhan you are confounding being original with beimg deep. And again is a translation into a new media with a personal and diffential from the source material.
I read the comic before watching the movie, still think the movie is a masterpiece
The Comics Code Authority wasn’t a government agency. It was a group of comic publishers that self-censored, like the MPA and its movie ratings system. Also, the Golden Age sold the most comic books at newsstands, by far. The Silver Age was not the most popular.
It didn't help that the constraints on the types of stories hindered authors too much.
Self-censored because they were afraid the government would step in.
I think zack snyders has done a great job, and i think everyone needs to think about, this was made for people that haven't read the comic, i also think that you could enjoy the movie much more if you see the movie as a alternative version of the comic more than a direct adaptation of the comic.
Yes. Kinda how The Shining or Blade Runner differ from their source material
People need to understand that ALL adaptations are, in fact, a alternative version of the source
very thorough, great job guys
Something that jumps out at me now all of a sudden, even though I had all pieces before is the Rorschach issue.
The comic has Rorschach as a tragic-yet-largely-sympathetic Byronic hero with serious issues with a side of sociopathy kept in check by an arbitrary moral code, who keeps talking about making no compromises but is not as immune to hypocrisy as he likes to pretend. The movie version is a jerk with a heart of gold at worst, to the point that parts of the fandom who only saw the movie ended up thinking that the TV series had betrayed the source material by making the Rorschach copy-cats unsympathetic (I'm not sure whether the series betrays the source material in other ways, not having watched it, but this point came up all the way back when the first trailer dropped). An interesting point to note is that, as mentioned in the video, Rorschach was originally written as a satire of an Ayn Rand-based hero of Steve Ditko's creation.
A similar case is seen with Snyder's Batman, who seems to be based largely on the Dark Knight Returns version of the character. Frank Miller's Batman is, similarly to Rorschach, a morally ambiguous and tragic hero written, and Miller cites Ayn Rand as an influence in the Dark Knight Returns. Snyder's Batman also departs from the source material's version in coming off as a jerk with a heart of gold.
At the root of it, Snyder seems to have trouble portraying morally conflicted heroes despite his evident desire to build movies around them. His difficulty in portraying shades of gray results in heroes that look like moral paragons with moody personalities whenever he tries. The Man of Steel has him doing the same with Superman, but here, instead of coming off as brighter than intended, Supes' moment of moral challenge and his response are over in a flash, and while we intellectually understand he's conflicted about having killed Zod since he breaks down in tears, we aren't given a chance to really empathize with the conflict since it goes straight from "Give up!" to "Never." to neck-snap.
God Of Urging exactly. Snyder basically turns the characters of Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns into the exact things those comics were parodying and critiquing
Which is strange, because his comics are almost the opposite.
I found it so strange that people had a problem with how the Rorschach copy cats were portrayed in the show. Rorschach is a great character who is sympathetic to a degree but hes also a huge piece of shit. His followers made complete sense
@kevin willems him as a person is definitely not sympathetic, but I can imagine some people might have some sympathy or even empathy to the things he went through
@kevin willems Definitely agree with this, thats the same argument i use to people who think hes meant to be portrayed as a hero
Yessss finally, i've waited for this video for so longg
My issues with Snyder’s Watchmen were:
1. The fighting, which you commented on. In the graphic novel the crime fighters weren’t superhuman (except Dr. Manhattan) so the fighting was gritty and realistic. The “heroes” being so good at fighting in the movie defeats the purpose and point of the graphic novel.
2. The movie telegraphs Ozymandias being the villain, it’s obvious from the beginning, whereas in the graphic novel it’s a complete surprise.
3. Lauri Jupiter was miscast and the actress was awful.
Other than that it was pretty good, I didn’t even mind them taking out the giant squid.
And I personally still think that giant squid should be left. It was more logical solution to accomplish world peace then giant explosion and blaming for this Dr Manhattan.
Nieznajomy43 I agree, should have left it. Did think the changed version lent an interesting dynamic story arch for Dr. Manhattan, but had been really looking forward to seeing the giant octosquid on the big screen. I bet the filmed version was most definitely cheaper 😂
I think you have to look at the changes partially though the lenses of Snyder's Objectivist beliefs, which lead him to agree with the Objectivist hero, Rorschach, far more than Moore every wanted you to. Also realize that Snyder said he never liked comics until he read Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns. He has no personal nostalgia for the more idealistic Silver Age, he's an edgy guy making a edgy deconstruction of a genre.
For the record, his best film remains the opening 10 minutes of Dawn of the Dead.
This.
Snyder's adherence to what is widely viewed as an embarrassment to the field of philosophy outside a few egotistical, pampered edgelords taints his entire work on super hero comics.
Because he cannot understand altruism and selfless acts in the interests of societal betterment, his heroes end up as violent egomaniacs who accidentally do good as they pursue their power fantasies.
Which is coincidentally Moore's intent. But Snyder fails to make that the clear vice of Moore's perspective.
For Snyder, Rorschach is a moral hero of clear convictions.
For Moore, he's a violent sociopath engrossed in his own delusions of righteousness. Snyder just seems to have missed that Rorschach is wrong and pathetic in his hatred.
And this is even worse in MoS, where his Superman just misses his key motivation of feeling thankful to Earth and instead is lectured by his parents on the virtue of selfishness.
He straight-up gets a "With Great Power Comes Great Self-Interest" talk. So it's no great puzzle why he feels so supremely joyless and why he is posed as sacrificing himself when helping people instead of joyfully using his immense power to help those in need.
And it makes sense if one cannot understand the logic of "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", I guess.
He is not an objectivist.
@@MrHodoAstartes yeah no. What you wrote couldn't be more wrong.
@@MrHodoAstartes You are completely right!
are they so mutually exclusive?
as the taco meme says: "Why not both?"
I really dont think the movie is pro nostalgia when it also shows dr.manhatten obliterating vietnamese soldiers in the war, or sally jupiter being raped by the comedian and then being happy nostalgic about it decades later. The movie doesnt turn pro nostalgic just because superheroes maybe really are that strong, it means that you have to view the events critically even IF superheroes are "super". Its like you have to view politics critically even if they present a populist spectacle at the forefront. I just saw all of this as the movie not holding my hand throughout everything....Also this is more a "Whats the difference" than a "deep or dumb" Video tbh
Yeah I feel like the biggest complaint with the movie is it differs from the book. It can't be looked at on its own like other book adaptations. People hate it because it isn't the comic.
I really enjoy your tendency to make an argument even against yourself. You do a really good job of falling avoiding falling into the "fallacy fallacy": the fallacy of arguing a point better despite potentially being wrong or lacking the majority of the merits.
I first read and watched Watchmen as a teenager in highschool. I was just getting into comics. Watching this vid as an adult made me realize what point that Alan Moore was trying to make and how he'd facepalm if he saw my 16 year old self dress up as Rorschach for Dress as Your Rolemodel Day in highschool. I glossed over how misanthrope this man is and just celebrated how he'd act on his anger against people I deemed "evil". I think Snyder's version making him the audience surrogate, as you pointed out, made me see him that way. I'm pretty down to re-read and watch his with my s/o since we both got into comics around the same time. Thanks for the vid, Jared.
For the whole quarantine, I've been enjoying my lunch with Jared
"It can only be Jared"
Snyder is a big Ayn Rand fan, I'm sure the turning of any negative commentary about objectivist philosophy and related subjects onto their heads within the movie was entirely intentional.
Snyder made the least sense for adapting this.
@@ilikeme1234 Lol true why adapt a movie that's philosophy runs counter to your own. But to be fair he did an even worst job of adapting the dark knight returns and that should have been his cup of tea since that's all about objectivism...thought that could have been studio level failure or the fact that he couldn't make superman seem like a government stodge.
@@Alexander-the-Mediocre Because he is a Randian hero? EDIT: I mean, it is objectivist because Batman is a Randian hero, right?
@@laurocoman yup in the dark knight returns comic batman is a randian hero and superman is his oposite and they fight over the clash of ideals.
@@Alexander-the-Mediocre got it, thanks.
It's deep because I never knew the comic before the film and yet, the idea's and story really stuck with me.
The fact that it's been over 10 years and we're still talking about Snyder's Watchmen. Means it's deep 🥴
Same with dragon ball evolution, iron man 3 or BvS
While I've always loved the movie,it's very clear that Zack didnt really "get" the story and tries to make the superheroes look cool and edgy badasses which is the exact opposite of what Moore wanted.
The movie is what you get when a story written by an anarchist/communist gets adapted into film by an objectivist/Randian.
Making Rorsache the cool nihilist hero instead of a ultra-conservative bigot lunatic who smelt like a hobo has caused a LOT of people to worship Rorsache in the way you never could for comicbook Rorsache who is mostly a scumbag(atleast scummier than the others)
Making the heroes have actual super strength like being able to punch through walls or break bones also misses the point of the comicbooks.
I understand the changes and why Zack wants to make it more "cinematic" but it falls short in many small and big ways
Watchmen is a comic that deconstructs comics. You can't make that a film that deconstructs comics. The film deconstructs superhero films.
Aside from that, the fact that Snyder has a different political outlook than Moore doesn't make his work dumb. Ultimately it might be best to view the film as an omage to the comic, inspired by the comic, or maybe even a critique of the comic.
@@deckie_ But the issue is that Snyder DOESN'T deconstruct superhero films. Sure, he has the same level of spectacle, but he should still have had the character's be more human than heroic. I think that Moore's depiction of the characters worked back then to deconstruct comics and still works now to deconstruct movies. There was no reason for Snyder to change that.
I think the visual glorification of the heroes works for the film, as it contrast to their defaults. Comedian is the perfect example of that, as he's shown to be a badass, yet an awful person. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well.
@@deckie_ I don't think that Sudev was saying that it's altogether dumb (although I thought it was but I never read the comic so I only have my subjective frame of reference). I think he's just stating a few of the significant differences that make it lack in kind and quality from the source material (itself a subjective valuation). I'd subjectively consider turning a scumbag into a shining knight is significant but I'm talking out of my ass since I don't know the comic Rorsache. His statements have piqued my interest though.
Pretty sure Snyder just looked at Rorschach and said "This guys is basically Batman. We're gonna depict him has Watchmen's Batman."
Hello Darkness my old friend
the sound track choices were top notch
I enjoyed the Watchmen graphic novel and haven’t watched the movie yet, always heard mixed reviews. This was such a helpful breakdown of the differences and the themes. Hopefully I can check it out to form my own thoughts. Thanks WiseCrack!
I few months before Watchmen began Mark Gruenwald's Squadron Supreme ended it's 12 issue run for Marvel which had similar themes and tones and it's storyline was echoed many years to come in such tales as The Dark Knight Returns, Civil War, and of course The Watchmen.
One second videos was enough to describe the movie. Masterpiece!
I first saw the movie without any kind of prior knowledge of the graphic novel, or -for that- without any kind of previous exposure to the darker, moral ambiguous themes about superhero genre. It was quite literally the first time I was exposed to those kind of themes and questions regardind the superhero genre alltogheter.
From that perspective, I'd say it is a fairly deep movie: it served the purpose of raising questions, at the very least, wich later prompted me to go and search for the graphic novel and for different takes in the genre.
So, if it is deep or dumb, I'd say it depends on the context and the background of the viewer. If you are, or were, like me, it was deep enough to open your eyes, give you some food for thoughts and make you understand than you CAN read/watch anything regarding superheroes from a deeper point of view.
If you insted had prior knowledge, have a critical mindset well established and are able to see through the messages proposed, well... I'd say it's fair to consider it pretty dumb.
I would agree, but I don't think its fair to credit the movie being deep in the case that someone hasn't experienced the darker themes that watchmen brings to the table, as all the deep aspects are lifted from the graphic novel, and all the dumb aspects are created for the movie.
considering how deep this channel has dived and discussed this film. the fact that it keeps coming back up here. This is a media style intended to create doubt, discussion, debate. It seems to have been a wild success getting people to talk about its themes. perhaps that we continue to debate it is a testament to it's ambiguous nature. maybe there isnt a good answer. IMO it wasnt meant to mirror the comics. it was meant to adapt them as a foil to modern storytelling in cinema, the same way the comics were a foil to its counterparts of the time
One small but very telling point is the meaning of the title in both versions. In the comic it references Juvanal's Satires to comment on the nature of power in a world with "superheroes". In the movie it's literally the name of their superhero group.
It really depends on how much stock you put on Moore. Moore never truly grasped why Rorshach was one of the more popular characters in the story. Chalking it up to "Fascism is Sexy". Where Rorshach is a character that acts out of principle. Refusing to compromise even when facing a being that could be considered a god, and is by many in the setting of the story. An act that is truly heroic. Even if Rorshach was flawed. Actually going against Moore's intended point. We still refer to Veidt as the villain.
Watchmen was also a critique of Objectivism. Mainly because Moore disagreed with Rand on the aspect of Reality. Where Rand argued that reality was objective, and not up for debate. Moore would argue otherwise. And intending Rorshach to represent that way of thinking as a refute. Actually ended up reinforcing the idea. Most interpretations of the work still maintain that Veidt was wrong in his actions. Even if they think the end result was worth it.
A great film and great adaptation. One of my fave comic book movies for sure.
I am watching this on March 30th, 2021. Seeing their sponsor makes the beginning of the video hilarious to me.
I actually thought making Dr. Manhattan the scapegoat was a smarter decision than the random monster in the comic
Not really IMO. Because it is an American weapon going rogue. If american nukes started hitting random cities, the world would band together against the US. You had that weapon and a calamity happened on your watch.
@@tokyworld I understand the purpose of the monster. I just thought it gave Manhattan more incentive to leave Earth since taking the blame would prove that he actually does care about humans after all.
@@tokyworldyes but everyone saw the talk show, they saw Jon was mentally unstable for all the blame he received. Also the betray against the U.S and the attack to other major cities made him look like an even greater menace
@@thescapegoatmechanism8704but he did care about humans in the end, it happened on Mars with Silk Spectre
I'd love to see a Philosophy of Lemony Snicket!
Specifically the Unauthorized Autobiography.
Honestly, the movie made me appreciate the comic more and gave me a new perspective on "hero". Had me realize how unreal the regular heros with black and white morality. Morality is made up yes, but in life morality is a smear of gray, only a satire like watchman (comic and movie) can shine the light on that. Both are deep.
i remember after watching this movie asking myself if heroes was real, is it that kind of superhero i wanna get then realize, like it or not this is the kind of hero i might get because they are humain first!
Love that Twin Peaks quilt on the wall!
Regardless of whether Snyder's WATCHMEN is Deep or Dumb, I think this is one of the best breakdowns of any movie yet. I think you guys absolutely nailed this and it was an absolute joy to weigh up the different aspects of this film against the intent of Moore's work. Bravo Wisecrack, thank you so much for making this pandemic more bearable.
This movie is one of my all time favorites
The moment when youtube video essays reffers youtube video essays. Here's a cheers to Baudrillard!! haha
I think Snyder made a legitimate and well-intentioned attempt at updating and working with the source material while adding his own flair. His failing comes from the fact that he's Zack Snyder, not Allen Moore.
What I love about this movie is how despite Alan Moore trying to mock Steve Ditko's objectivist philosophy through Rorschach he only allowed his ideas to gain more followers. Goes to show that Ditko's transcendental ideology extends past an Author's criticism. After the way Stan Lee ruined his life and stole his work, it feels almost like an enlightened redemption.
Snyder's watchmen is an excellent film adaptation! It IS Deep! Deep Deep! Every scene is so well thought out and it's beautifully shot, written and edited, despite the differences from the original graphic novel that hardcore fans may or may not have approved. Just compare it to any other disappointing film that was adapted from a book and it's an amazing piece of work really. I can't fathom how complicated it must've been make this and it holds up so well. It's an underrated movie IMO. What really blows my mind is how Snyder's follow up films haven't nearly come close to his 1st 3 films. Sucker Punch, man of steel, Justice league... How does that happen?!
Snyder cut Justice League 💪
Every ultimate cut after this comes a bit closer
I was a big Watchmen apologist when the movie came out. I think the fact it existed at all was worth celebrating. But as I get older, I believe that the film leans more towards Dumb. It tries to subvert the genre, but doesn’t really come out the other side; it gets stuck underneath the weight of its own tropes. The action is supposed to make you think about the damage these people cause, but it’s still played up for heroics. Rorschach is a dangerous individual with a “king-size death wish” (Moore’s words), but here he’s only one fighting for the truth. Hell, Rorschach right before his capture hits the ground and starts kung-fu fighting the police before he’s overwhelmed! Snyder wants to turn the tropes of his genre around on the audience, but he gets enamored with how cool they are and can’t help himself.
Yes. Watchmen is the wrong film to make the characters badass. Do that with literally anything else but don’t make the bad guys seem good
I've read the comic and seen the movie dozens of times and this video still had fresh insights!
Love that Twin Peaks blanket! The Owls are not what they seem.
please bring back thug notes and cover the name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss.
I think the visual glorification of the heroes works for the film, as it contrast to their defects. Comedian is the perfect example of that, as he's shown to be a badass, yet an awful person. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well.
Also, I prefer the ending with the explosions blame on Manhattan to the giant squid.
I disagree, I think the visual glorification is bad for the story of Watchmen. It looks cool sure, but the point of the story is not that the heroes are badass but they do bad things, the point is that they are not badass and they also do bad things. Watchmen is about how the idea of a badass vigilante doesn't exist, and even if they save people or beat up criminals they are still sad losers. Rorschach is not cool, he's a self obsessed hypocrite who thinks everyone else are disgusting and horrible people because he feels that he can't fit into society. That's not badass at all.
@@alexv3539 You lost me at "the point of the story". That doesnt matter. Alan Moore still whines that fans are willing to look past Rorschachs flaws because in the end he was the only person who cared about justice. To say otherwise is to be willing to deny reality if it comes from an inconvenient source
Funny that Snyder followed this up with Sucker Punch, one of the most underrated movies that everyone thinks (or at least thought) was dumb but is, in fact, incredibly smart.
i know nothing about the actual comics but i loved this movie. it ranks up top being one of my favorite movies of all time ( my list of favs is lengthy but still) . Also one of my favorite movie lines of all time . rorschach - none of you seem to understand I'm not locked in here with you you're locked in here with me!!!! i love that line
Only Zack Snyder could take material that is intrinsically deep and make it seem dumb by leaning too heavily on his ‘style over substance’ style.
it's not: 'style over substance'
It's: 'using style to make fun of substance'
I never understood why people don't understand it, all his movies are making fun (and criticize) over diffrent topics
Consumerism: Dawn of the Dead
Masuclinity: 300
Femninity: Sucker Punch
Super hero movies: Watchmen
Super Hero genre: MoS & BvS
His use of slow mo, over the top angles and overly dramatic dialouge is about making fun of these things and asking the audience to not take them too seriously. (instead question and criticzise the sillyness of the topic)
However the metacommentary is that despite it being a parody, you will still think it looks awzome and be entertained, and the joke IS that you are being entertained by the movies that are making fun of the saturations of these topics
MarkFilipAnthony I feel like you may be giving him too much credit lol. At no point during BM v SM was I even slightly entertained. It was a complete abomination at every level of analysis. Same goes for man of steel 🤢
@@megamob5834 not really, there are substancial evidence through commentaries and interviews that that's the point of these movies, also people have diffrent ways to watch movies. I got a lot of value both etertainment wise, visual commentary and story wise from most of his movies.
But it's ok if that's not ur cup of tea
MarkFilipAnthony that’s fair enough man, I guess I’m a little harsh towards a lot of his stuff as the source material is pretty near and dear to me. What you see as satirical ‘style as substance’ I often see as a fundamental misrepresentation and disservice to great characters. I’m speaking of course about his DC stuff, some of his other flicks I do kind of enjoy for a lot of the reasons you described, I just can not forgive him for B v S and M o S lol
@@megamob5834 That's vrey sad to hear, since MoS and BvS "opened my eyes" to see diffrent view on these characters I also allready love.
I've never seen then struggle as much as they do in his movies, specially with fundamental things like:
which lives matter? what does it mean to be a hero? Why am I a hero? Does violence really solve anything? etc etc
some very good questions that seldom are added into superhero movies is such depth
I thank you for your honesty though :)
Feel like most things with Snyder, he reaches but doesn’t quite grasp.
I mostly agree but I don't feel like that devalues good work (depending on your definition of good). Todd Philips being a great example of making a film with a point that he missed.
Oddly enough I think Watchmen is Snyder's best film. I wouldn't say it's a good adaptation but I think it was passable for the time and place allotted by it's release.
@@emmanuelgarza7149 can you explain more about Todd Philips "missing points"?
@@slimretro2659 Have you not heard him talking about the movie? He's said that it doesn't say anything.
I can't remember his exact phrasing as it was a while ago but it was really weird.
@@emmanuelgarza7149 Todd Philips said that about what movie?
@@slimretro2659 The Joker, his own movie
Spot on, Jared 👍 I enjoyed both versions for what they are.
I feel like the more video's I see that dunk on this movie, the more I love it.
WTF Wisecrack. I've literally just finished reading the comic. Like two hours ago. Stop spying on me!
PS: Great vid btw
I feel like i have seen this before 🤔
I think they did the comic?
They did the tv show
I think they did a deep dive on the TV series not too long ago. Maybe that’s what you’re thinking of?
They did "the philosophy of"
Agreed.
Feels like Manhattan is responsible for this time loop...
Hell Yeah! I'm Loving the shoutout to one of my favorite video essayists!
I love the idea of Snyder adapting the "comentary on hero comics" into "commentary on hero movies" and it seemed the perfect time to do that.
But it could only have worked as an indie movie.
As a blockbuster it was beholden to too many of the same vices it set out to examine, so it seemed dumb.
What Watchman has taught me:
Never glorify superheroes. They're just as flawed and human as I. We're all human.
similar principle behind norse and greek myths
But also: haha super punchy kicky slow-mo go whoosh
It taught me that both villains and heroes justify their actions with their understanding of the greater good
R/I'm12andthisisdeep
@@crumpit7228 what do you mean?
Honestly, this is a low bar, but I think Watchmen is Snyder's best movie, by a long shot. I do think he misses some of the points of the source material (the heroes are presented as *waaaaaaay tooo* badass, for instance, but the tone is solid, and you all captured the ...skewering?... of pop culture well.
I blame most of the failings on the fact that Rorschach is based on Mr. A (or the Question) who encapsulates Ditko's Randian Objectivism, which we *know* Snyder is a fan of. So, since Moore is a legitimately good writer, he gives Rorshach (honestly, after maybe Nixon and the Comedian, the closest the comic has to a "villain") some really complex motivation and, let's admit, freaking great lines...well, it was pretty easy for Snyder to present him as the "Uncompromising hero" of the film without ringing clearly false.
I mean, jeez, I *hate* everything Rorschach *is* and I still think the "I'm not locked up in here with you, you're all locked up in here with **me**!" line as, just frankly legitimately awesome.
Something that I don’t think Wisecrack gave enough credit were the music choices. Almost all the popular songs from the movie were featured in the graphic novel. Ride of the Valkyries, Unforgettable, The Times They Are A Changin, etc were all directly referenced in the novel or by Alan/Dave as inspiration. I personally thought it was an effective adaption of that material.
After having read the graphic novel, watched the TV series, and watching key moments from the film, I can say the TV series is by far a better adaptation of the source material.
Another candidate for a 'is it a deep or a dumb adaptation' would be Alex Garland's adaptation of the first book in Jeff VanderMeer's Southern Reach Trilogy, Annihilation , considering how it is an impressive and artistic film in many ways, but veers wildly from the source material in terms of theme, characters (which are way more fleshed out in the second and third books but that contained many fascinating elements that were ignored), plot, lack of environmental messages at the centre of the books, lack of the mind-blowingly original creatures and concepts that were at the centre of the books, and ignoring the fact the source material was one long story and not three separate stories.
Also, could you guys do a video about the philosophy of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials/The Book of Dust series and its ongoing TV adaptation? Or could you do a video about the philosophy of and ensuing difficulty in adapting Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast novels in anticipation of the upcoming TV series from Neil Gaiman?
Is Watchmen the Movie Deep or Dumb:
"I leave it entirely in your hands...."
I can only ever view it as an adaptation, and as an adaptation I think it's awful.
(Spoilers for Watchmen and Got follow)
The fact Snyder tried to make all of the characters (except funnily enough, Veidt) more likeable points to exactly why a movie adaptation was never a good idea. Movies almost by default revel in and elevate their main characters, worshipping them as special, even if they're so clearly not supposed to be. Leaving out the all but outright nazi ideology Rorschach spouts or just how evil the Comedian was is fundamentally a break from what the comic intended, and a step towards the very tropes and ideas Moore so obviously held in disdain.
In what I think is its biggest crime the film outright cuts or reduces the significance of a set of side-characters that populate New York, who all serve as a representation of the actual cost of Veidt's actions and perhaps an embodiment of Veidt's claim that he made himself feel every death / picture every face. The film would have been better for cutting one of the main cast rather than these characters, because without them or the time spent with them the final scenes have nothing near the impact they should have. Got S8 made the same mistake (on a much larger scale) where so many died in (spoilers) the sack of Kings Landing, but we didn't know any of them, so it doesn't have any real impact, unlike for example the red wedding where named, important characters died. The comic spent time with the citezens of New York, and not in the fight scenes or set-pieces because they were important, they represented what each character was either trying to save or turning their back on, and their deaths acted as the point on which the whole narrative turned.
By leaving so much of the regular people's lives out of the film Snyder reinforced the notion that the vigilantes really were the superheroes they thought they were, instead of the very ordinary, and very broken, people they actually were.
Ultimately I think Watchmen sought to point out how horrifying the prospect of a single person or select group of people choosing the fate of millions really is, and how wrong it is for anyone to think they can or would be able to do so. Who watches the Watchmen? The film doesn't really make this statement at all, it has most of the same scenes and ideas but they add up to something completely different. If judged on its own merit perhaps it has something to say, but I can only ever see it as a butchering of a story I love, a glorification of some truly despicable characters and a film that just can't touch what made the original so special.
Also they screwed up Ozymandias' and Nite Owl II's costumes, and I'll always be annoyed about that.
"The film doesn't really make this statement at all"
Very weird statment since when I watched this movie back when I was just 14 year kid, I left the theater with this idea in my mind - it is very sick in the head for one man to make a choice for human race in order who should live and who should die.
So, I don't really think you've been fair.
@@HUFgirl I definitely haven't been - on its own merits it's probably fine, but I read the comic first, and instead of the points and perspectives the two share I can only see perversions of the story I loved.
I remember how disgusting and unsettling Rorschach was and how normal, or even 'cool' the film made him out to be, how the Comedian couldn't possibly be seen as anything but a rapist and murderer and certainly not someone you liked and how charming and how much less evil the film made him out to be. I remember Silk Spectre II being a conflicted and complex character that the film flattened down into a 2D photocopy of her original character and the same happening for Nite Owl II. I remember, despite how unimpressive even the decent character were, the warmth and humanity with which they were rendered and how the film totally missed the mark. I remember the horror of the final chapter and the empty feeling of the film in the same points.
It's a well made action film with some of the ideas that were present in the comic, but I can only ever see it as a poor adaptation of a story I love. It is probably unfair to hate it as much as I do, but that's why.
A movie can only cover so much in 2 1/2 hours.
I'm eagerly waiting to hear your take on Amazon's show Hunters, Wisecrack!
Up until now, I've been on team "dumb". I love Alan Moore's comic and how it made me feel. I kinda like Snyder's movie, 'cause Snyder stayed close to the comic in some ways, even if I always felt like something was misinterpreted -- or lost in translation. Jared makes a pretty compelling argument that Snyder actually approached the material from a different angle... and that makes me interested in seeing the movie again. Giving it a look through Jared's proposed lens. I've actually never seen the Director's Cut -- only the theatrical and ultimate. Maybe that, for me, unseen cut along with this suggested viewpoint will make it all click into place. Here's hoping.
It's me jon osterman
Do a video on comparison b/w Watchman and The Boys
Hi Guys!
I hope this message finds you well. I’m a huge fan of your channel and have been watching your videos for about a year now. I am a Journalism student in the UK and I’m currently working on my dissertation. It’s about how social media has impacted on and change film criticism. As a UA-camr, I thought you might be able to offer a unique perspective on the topic, with your reviews being on a different platform to traditional reviews in newspapers and especially as your videos tend to take the form of a video essay. I was wondering if you might be able to help me out with a short interview about the topic, perhaps some time this week if possible either over the phone, Skype or zoom.
Thank you in advance for any help you can provide!
Best wishes, Jack
So excited to see this!!!!
Mmmm... I lean towards dumb. Zack Snyder is mostly about surfaces, and he's generally good at constructing arresting visuals, but not much more. Plus, the makeup in the film is terrible: you can easily tell who's wearing a wig, a bad prostetic, etc.