in this thread I'm going to be talking about the Watchmen comic and movie, comparing both.

WATCHMEN (GRAPHIC NOVEL):

the comic is a masterpiece, perfectly deconstructing superheroes and discussing morality in the most interesting way I've ever seen.

it utilizes the medium so well with Dave Gibbons beautiful art, perfectly accompanying Alan Moores brilliant writing.

there isn't a single thing in this book i can point at and say "that's the weak link" because theres nothing like that in this book.

every character is incredibly well writtin, to the point that even the side characters have more depth than many main characters in some things.

this book is just amazing and gets it's point across incredibly well.

one of the best graphic novels I've ever read. 10/10.

WATCHMEN: THEATRICAL VERSION:

i think there are 2 ways to approach this film.
1. as an adaptation
2. as a film

but as this thread is comparing book to movie, I'm only gonna be talking about what i think of it as an adaptation. I'll briefly mention what i think of it as a film

1. AS AN ADAPTATION:

as an adaptation the film is moderately faithful, but it serves a different purpose than the comic.

while the comic was meant to satirize the comic book medium around the 80s, the film is satirizing comic book movies around the early 2000s.

this change in purpose affects the story very drastically, as Snyder goes for very intricate fight scenes that make the heroes look like they're at the top of their game. putting the violence and gore in our face to show the damage those fight scenes in CBMs would cause.

this change could be viewed as cool or bad, personally I'm mixed on it. i think it's intresting, but it screws with what the characters were supposed to be in the comic.

in the book they're supposed to just be losers playing out childish fantasies.

that's why the action in the book is never really stylized, or glorified. it's extremely grounded and action scenes last like 2 pages at the most usually.

so while i think this change is interesting, regarding it as an adaptation it loses an important aspect of the book imo.

my biggest problem with it as an adaptation is its treatment of Rorschach, this film kind of glorifies him, turning him into the character the audience can agree with.

this defeats the purpose of the comic. giving a clear good guy in this story screws up the moral ambiguity.

they cut most of the stuff that clearly shows how much of a creep Rorschach is, besides a couple lines that are just vague enough that most probably wouldn't even catch on to the meaning.

it shouldn't have gave someone the audience can latch onto as "he's the right one"

i also don't care for the changed ending.
i don't see any good reason to change it. it was honestly probably just cause the studio was like "audiences won't like a giant psychic squid" or some shit.

however things i do like about it as an adaptation...

this movie nails casting for the most part, especially Jackie Earle Hayley who was absolute perfection as Rorschach.

another thing i love is how alot of scenes look and feel like they're ripped straight out of the comic, with Snyders usual visual style working very well for this story (besides action scenes which i covered why i don't like).

as an adaptation I'd say the film is 6/10, it tries to do something new with this story which i can respect, and it is interesting at times, but more often than not it misses the point of the book.

2. AS A FILM:

as a film i think it's pretty solid.
don't have alot of issues with it.
but the actor who plays Laurie is trash.
also as it is still a condensed version of the book, it can feel like there's alot of plot lines at once.

8/10 as a film.