Alan Moore didn't want a movie, so it's probably going to suck.

I could be wrong thought.

>>3323680

Well he signed off on this movie didn't he?

If you want to enjoy the movie, don't read it. You will nitpick about everything that the movie did wrong. Just ignore the book and watch the movie.

I'm going to call you a faggot for not having read it beforehand, though, just out of principle.

>>3323693
nope, sure did'nt

Alan Moore thinks his work is 'too good' to be done in cinema. I'm excited to find out.

I think the real question is will the movie ruin the comic if you try to read it after watching the movie?

In Watchmen's case I think it really works better as a comic. Also the ending is simply impossible in Hollywood. I'd read it first.

Ever read V for Vendetta?

I did and then saw the movie, they left out the most important thing the book had, the anarchy V fought for.

I didn't even know what the fuck was hugo weaving doing in the movie.

You assholes are gonna' take my beloved comic and fucking destroy it. I can wait until every asshole that wants to be a Sith Lord suddenly loves this brand new character called 'Dr. Manhattan.'

The only thing I can say is that at least Zack Snyder is doing this instead of some other faggot like the guy who's doing Wolverine Origins.

Deadpool is now a Baraka-wannabe fag.

uyjhg
>>3323773
>>3323773
>You assholes are gonna' take my beloved comic and fucking destroy it. I can wait until every asshole that wants to be the Joker suddenly loves this brand new character called 'Rorschach.'

Fixed, but also true.

OP, you faggot (out of principle, of course), don't read it. Ignorance is bliss in this case. Just make sure to read it after you finish watching the movie.

>>3323657

If you're the type of person who can rewatch god movies? Then read it first. That way you get to see if they cut any of the three brutal points.

I'm hoping they don't cut out two particularly dark/fucked up moments, and keep one minor detail in that happens to be more pivotal and better than "do it for me."

Seriously though, I'd recommend reading the comic first, you can pretty much ignore the freaky pirate segments. I read them and felt cheated they have little to no relevance.

>>3323749

That's why they're changing the ending.

Read it first OP, definitely read it first simply because it's such a great book.

>>3323886

Do you know this for a fact, or are you saying this with the assertion I had that "There's no way in hell they'd do such a morally grey ending"

I still think they're going to cock it up with trying to make the ending more obviously black/white morals wise.

READ THE BOOK AND DONT SEE THE MOVIE.
>>3323693
No he didn't. Vertigo did.
Wankers.

>>3323850
i'm thinking they're going to cut out all the rape. . .thoughts?

>>3323971
There is no longer a giant squid. This is a fact.

hmmm i dont think the story Rorschach told in jail therapy is going to get away w/o some serious cuts. sad but necessary

however, if they cut out the part with the midget heads are gunna roll

>>3324035
But...b-but that can't be!

>>3324084

it was even said in MAD magazine its true, sorry mac

>>3324014
Nope. You know, before discussing what may or may not be in the movie, everyone needs to go review http://io9.com/tag/watchmen/

Listen guys I have faith that this movie keeps most of what watchmen is about. If it keeps the dark tone and all of the minor details that make it what it is then Im happy.
>>3324014
I think they are actualy keeping in the rape and all the gore and nudity. From what I hear. Also it is an R over there and 18 here. No superhero movie has ever been an 18. Shit the dark knight was made a 12 to get money. The bbfc must have made this an 18 for one hell of a reason

>>3324293

because it's NOT batman. if it were it would be pg-13.

The giant squid is gone.

The new ending is that Ozymandias convinces Dr. Manhattan to basically go rogue and attack both the united States and the USSR, so they join forces against him instead of the fake alien squid.

Oh, yeah, spoiler alert, lol.

>>3324349

no it isnt.

Ozy bombs the cities using manhattan's energy signature, hence framing him. manhattan has no part in it.

At the end manhatten leaves earth for good, same as the nobel

>>3324387

LOL WUT? srsly?

But how does he get the bombs there undetected? A modified version of the squid delivery system?

Also, why would that end the Cold War since A) Dr. Manhattan leaves, and B) even if he came back he'd be invincible?

>>3324349

Watchmen was never meant to be anything but a graphic novel. Some comics can make the transition, but Watchmen isn't one of them. This sort of cheapens them.

>>3324425

Well the point is it unites the various nations under fear of manhattan.

They know manhattans gonn' rape them if they try shit.

Also we don't know if they know he leaves.

>>3324444

watchmen can never be cheapened. they're just too awesome regardless of the medium. i just wish someone would rule 34 them already.

on RT the only non fanboy site/magazine reviews so far are from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter and they did not like it. If the other "real" reviewers follow this pattern, I will not be going to see it.

>>3323657
I say you should go ahead and read it. Even if it might make you dislike the movie, better to love the book than love something based on it and never know how great the book is.

from what I understand, the only thing that isn't in the movie is the Black Freighter, because that's designed as a comic book within the comic book, and couldn't work on film. That considered, it then makes no sense to have in the plot that one comic book artist, and thus, the giant squid thing has no place. The ending still sounds pointless and tragic, and seems to remain essentially the same. From what I understand, this is the only plot difference. the IGN review says that even a lot of the angles in the drawings have been preserved in terms of cinematography.

>>3324489
thelondonpaper, FHM, The Times, Empire,Daily Mirror, Total Film

All good reviews on RT.

Yeah, so, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

>>3324489
I agree. I read the critics from the newspapers, not from magazines or websites which depend on movie ads. All i do is check the score form these critics, if its good, then i go see the movie not knowing the plot as I prefer that. If its bad, I read the reviews out of curiosity, but no way would I go to a movie that got bad reviews from the proper critics. Maybe watch it on tv a few years later, but I've never seen one which made me regret not seeing it at the theater.

>>3324556
other than the Times, which gives a decidedly noncommittal view, none of those are trustworthy. They have to hype up movies as they specifically depend on them for sales, exclusives etc. And tabloid newspapers? wtf?

Face it, as we see more real reviews come in we will see it is a bad movie. You'll go to it and pretend you liked it, then in a few years admit it was shit.

it was tl;dr and boring, just watch the movie (Or even better, skip the movie altogether)

Paying attention to reviews saved me from the Matrix sequels, Spiderman 3, Xmen 3, Superman Returns and many more. Fanboys loudly defended them at the time, but everone agrees they are bad films now.

>>3324607

And why aren't they trustworthy?

>>3324757
>They have to hype up movies as they specifically depend on them for sales, exclusives etc

sdgfsdgdfhfgjyhh

>>3324654

Reloaded was awesome, the rest are shit and I saw them. They weren't that so bad you were "saved" from anything, you faggot.

>>3324815
I only go to the best films at the theater. I save ok ones for dvd rental and the others I might watch if they happen to be on TV when I'm flipping around (thought I try to avoid just watching tv passively like that and only watch stuff I planned. That way I get more time for reading, which is my preferred mode of entertainment. Of course this is when I am not fapping or looking for fap material). But I watched the start of Matrix 2 on tv and switched channels after about 10 minutes, it was obviously really dire.

Obviously read it first -- the book is a very complex work that doesn't lend itself well to a movie adaptation. So the movie will be mediocre at best, and will ruin the amazement you'll get from reading the book for the first time.

OP, I'm going to see the movie, then read the comic. Then once it comes to DVD I'm going to watch it again. You'll get to enjoy the movie more as well as be able to pick up on the awesome things during the second viewing

>>3325132
reviews mean nothing to you? Whats your reason for going?

The rule is:

YOU ALWAYS WATCH BEFORE YOU READ if you can help it. Sometimes you have read before there is a movie announcement.

It's hard to nail an adaptation, and even if they do then it's just a plus. Be on the safe side and watch first. It will also give you voices and a visual of certain events before you read.

>>3325325

Well, Watchmen has pictures.

always read it beforehand, jeez.

otherwise, when you go back to read it after seeing the movie, you'll get bored when going over all the shit youve already seen which fucks up the whole experience

god i cant believe i just called reading a comic an experience

brb an hero

>>3325360

What's so bad about calling it an experience? Everything is an experience.

read first.
all the reviews so far say it will absolutely suck for those who haven't read it.

>>3325343
Really timmy? It does. Why don't you go pick out another toy from that treasure chest over there. You are so sharp!

It is a general rule. In this case you do have visual aid in the graphic novel. You often don't. Still you get to see CG effects, choreography, soundtrack and voices.