Since it's the most widely spread topic on lj right now

[lodessa]

[Poll #1367127]



Feel free to talk about what in particular you liked or didn't like about either version in the comments.

Comments

[zoeiona.livejournal.com]

I thought it was excellent; I felt the violence, though gory, wasn't out of place at all; I hadn't read the comic at the time (though I have read it since so I ticked your first option up top) and I still found it easy to follow. I wonder if all the people who couldn't follow the storyline didn't, you know, read books from time to time. Either that or I've looked far too hard at fiction on the meta level - it was just so clear and straightforward.

On retrospect, a thing the comic did really well that the film didn't was emphasising the human cost of the attack at the end. In the comic we knew at least a few of the people who died, and there were bodies and there was blood and it felt serious, as opposed to the bloodless, consequence-less grey destruction in the film. There was no real reason to get emotionally involved with the casualties, unlike in the comic, and I think that that would have made the ending have a much bigger impact.

[lodessa.livejournal.com]

I did the reverse and read the comic in preparation for the movie.

I feel like the violence and gore was used to a purpose that was true to the whole point of the story, so it wasn't gratuitous, especially as it was meant to disturb not thrill.

Yeah, I think people who came in expecting a "superhero movie" were confused, but anyone should have been able to follow it. And speaking of meta... how much did you love all the primary source materials scattered in amongst the panels? Moore really knows how to get my academic excitement going.

Yeah, I understand why they shifted the attack to something more related to the Watchmen (and it not just being about OMG NEW YORK) but the vastness and way it was filmed really dehumanized the experience in such a way as to numb the viewer to it.