thoughts on viewing the Watchmen credits

[calimac]

(See here.)

1. Bob Dylan's grating voice over scenes from the 1940s. That's ... different.

2. I read the book, but I still have trouble identifying or remembering the characters, or figuring out what's going on in all the scenes.

3. I know this is done all the time, but I still find it disconcerting when one actor's name appears over a credits shot focusing on an entirely different actor.

4. Wow, Dr. Manhattan is really blue, glow-in-the-light blue. Not just bluish. (Why, doctor, I didn't know you were bluish.)

5. The filmmakers actually restaged the JFK assassination? That's kind of sick.

6. Aren't they going to show Dr. Manhattan winning the Vietnam War?

7. End of credits: see Brazil. Or, just see Brazil.

8. The credits are supposedly the best thing in the movie. It may have made all of TNH's commenters want to rush out and see it. Me, I'm happy to stick to my earlier decision and stay home.

Comments

[barondave.livejournal.com]

I read the comics (most of them) at the time and not since. I didn't have much trouble figuring out the characters, though I did have to wait until after the opening credits. Which I liked a lot. I also liked how the picture of the 40s heros was actually an important plot element. And they did show Dr. M winning the Vietnam War, glorping Vietcong (or at least peasants) as he strides through the rice fields.

The whole movie was kind of sick, so the JFK reenactment just fed into it.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

And they did show Dr. M winning the Vietnam War,

Not in the credits. I watched it again to make sure I hadn't missed it. It's a major event and point of the period the credits cover, but it's not there.

a few mild spoilers, so beware

[barondave.livejournal.com]

How could you possibly see the credits and not the rest of the movie? If so, why? I haven't read tnh's review, but I thought the opening credits were great.

You asked, "Aren't they going to show Dr. Manhattan winning the Vietnam War?" and the answer is yes, but later. You know history is a bit screwed up from repealing presidential term limits and Nixon's being elected for a third time. Only later in the movie do you find out he's been elected five times. There's only so much an opening montage can do. As it is, some purists (including Moore) are saying that the movie fails because it's not as dense as the comics.

Re: a few mild spoilers, so beware

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I saw the credits because the credits sequence is online. That's what the link in my post was for, to TNH linking to an online copy to go "ooh" and "aww" over it. Many commenters, as I thought I said in the post, said that their reaction was to want to see the whole movie. My reaction was different.

But the Vietnam War is over, in both our history and Watchmen's, before the main events of the story (death of the Comedian) starts. There may be "only so much an opening montage can do," but it does more than anyone had thought one can do. There's room for a long shot of the protesters putting flowers in the guns and then - shock! - the soldiers shooting them. That's not from the book, and it adds little or nothing to the history of the superheroes, while a replacement shot of the war would have.

Re: a few mild spoilers, so beware

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Forgive the long delay, but I've been mulling it over for a longer review in my Bartcop-E column. Anyway:

I think it was the right decision not to include the Vietnam War sequence in the opening. The opening credits set up the current situation (comic book time), placing you in a world essentially the same as ours except that it has costumed heros in it. It's a world you might like, on the surface.

Later, in the movie, we find out how the world is different because of the addition of costumed heros. To me, the main point made was that the same costumed "hero" who actually shot JFK also helped end the Vietnam War... and their interference led to the brink of nuclear annihilation. It's a world you don't like, when you go deeper into the story.

I wish I had all 12 issues of the comics. I would reread them. As it is, I might sell the comics and buy the graphic novel. Or rent the movie when it comes out. Bets that the comics are an extra on the DVD?

Re: a few mild spoilers, so beware

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Yet the trailer shows Nixon winning a third term, and the soldiers firing on the Vietnam War protesters who put flowers in the guns - both very different from what happened in our world, and neither clearly or obviously (at least from what information the trailer gives) the result of adding the costumed heroes. It also shows the role of said heroes in the JFK assassination and the Moon landing, changing the meaning and significances of those events. With the exception of the Moon landing, none of these changes increase the likability of this world.

Also, the general thrust of the trailer is to show the history and importance and publicity of the superheroes. It would be pretty hard to do this and at the same time imply (even falsely, setting up for a surprise later) that the superheroes made no real difference to the world, and indeed the trailer doesn't seem to be sending such a message.

[ron-drummond.livejournal.com]

Well, I just got home from seeing the movie and I really liked it, liked it even more than I expected to. I want to see it again. It is definitely better than the prevailing wailing of the mainstream critics would suggest. I notice that Scott Edelman really liked it, and so did Samuel R. Delany; not that that necessarily means anything, but it did suggest to me beforehand that something interesting was happening. I can say that, though of course the film echoes any number of elements from elsewhere in the culture, as a whole it is a film unlike any I've ever seen, and that's no small accomplishment in today's world.

I notice that there is a six-hour cartoon version of the graphic novel; has anyone seen that? Do you recommend it?

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

Find these comments rather strange - do you see many movies? the JFK assassination has been re enacted in movies (and comics) so often it's practically a cliche. (Very good version indeed in DC#'s revuival of Shade the Changing Man c early 90s?) Also not only is DrM shown winning the Vietnam war but we even get the nice Moore line about how some Vietcong "personally want to surrender" to DrM. Sounds like you didn't like the comic itself? The film is as good an adaptation as we could hope for IMHO (see my own review).

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Also not only is DrM shown winning the Vietnam war but we even get the nice Moore line about how some Vietcong "personally want to surrender" to DrM.

Not in the credits. I don't know what happens in the rest of the movie; I said I hadn't seen the movie. This is about the credits. The credits are a rundown of the period from the superheroes' advent until just before the main story begins. Various events which the superheroes affect are among them. But Dr. M. winning the Vietnam War is not among them. This omission seemed worthy of a casual note from me, at least.

I've seen a number of movies in which the JFK assassination plays a part. Not one of them before now, not even Oliver Stone's JFK, included a clear restaging of the assassination itself, with Jackie crawling out onto the trunk and all. This one did.