Watchmen - Film! [spoilers]

ztoical

Figured might as well start the giant Watchmen the film thread. I'm not going to post any spoilers right now as I'm wrecked and have to drive back to dublin in about 7 hours but if it's cool with the Mods can we agree to not bother with the spoiler tags in this thread if I write

THERE ARE SPOILERS FOR THE FILM IN HERE

in this first post?

I saw the film at the movies.ie screening tonight, shall do a big rant later but basicly it's not awful but its not really great either, its pretty average, except for the score thats just down right awful. More rants at the weekend when I've had time to catch up on sleep.

bombidol

I personally enjoyed it a lot. The way I look at it is, if there was going to be a Watchmen movie made I'm glad that was it. Its enjoyable and its not that offensive, well worth a watch if you can bear the running time. MIGHT be a DVD watch though if they get around to editing in the animated short to the main feature.

Maccattack

I was disappointed with it. as you said its not awful but its not great.

saying that im not sure how it could have been made better. Perhaps if it was made as a TV series whereby it was in 12 parts. that would have made it a slow burner instead of a drag, which i felt it was a bit.

I'll say this though. Normally i bring my daughter (aged 12) to see these superhero type movies. Im glad i didnt with this one, with a giant blue langer nearly poking your eye out every five minutes! I would have had a heart attack if she was there.

Damn!!

I enjoyed it, it was a good retelling of the comic but has a few flaws, i don't think the veidt story was explained properly, he just came off as a nutter.

Rorschach was, and still is my favourite character, he never compromises.. even to the end..

Maccattack

yeah Rorschach is good. well played.

For anyone who hasnt read the book(s) the whole movie may seem very patchy and cumbersome. it would come of like they tried to pack heaps of story lines in but only half did them. know what i mean? its only that i had read it that i got what was going on. even then (and perhaps because of that) i was left feeling a bit flat.

Still i did enjoy it, but it could have been better.


The fight scenes are cool.

ztoical

Pádraig Ó Méalóid, who is about the biggest Alan Moore fan as your going to find in this country, has posted his thoughts after seeing the film last night. Very interesting read but be warned major spoilers if you haven't read the graphic novel.

The Mad Hatter

It was fairly heavily slated in The Ticket. 'A second string cast with a third string director'. Sounds about right.

stanlee

As a movie I enjoyed it. It looked great.
There is a lot left out but you cant make a 4 hour movie and expect it to make money. The dvd will be the real test of how faithful this is.

JayeL

I don't know where The Ticket was coming from with their review. I read the book for the first time around a month ago, saw the film last night and I thought it pretty much rocked.

I think that those who first read the book a while back, loved this (let's face it) obscure story (ok, it's famous in the comic world but not Superman-famous) and now find that their beloved book has now become part of mainstream pop culture.

The only way to preserve that "specialness" of the book is to hate the film from the word go.

In all honesty, I don't know how a fan of the book could hate the film. At times, it's pretty much a shot-for-shot remake. There's a few changes, all done to help the story and even improve it (a fantastic title sequence and a more realistic, squid-less, ending are just two). Plus there were so many cool 80's touches, like Ozymandias speaking to captains of industry with "Everybody Wants To Rule The World" playing in the background.

Patrick Wilson was perfectly-cast as a handsome would-be leading man who's let himself go. Jackie Earle Healy was amazing as Rorschach, a tight, sharp and very capable force of something between evil and not-so-evil. Malin Akerman was suprisingly-good, considering the last thing I saw her in (The Heartbreak Kid). The only possible mis-casting was Ozymandias, Matthew Goode was fine but the character had more physical presence in the book. Goode looked like a weakling, someone who certainly couldn't do himself justice in a fight with anyone, never mind Nite Owl.

I kept thinking during the film "thank God it was only made now" because I keep envisioning how bad it could've been. 10 years before, it would've been a sanitized PG version with an A-list cast, a totally re-written story (no doubt "the Watchmen" would save the day) and sequel potential.

With this version, there's no sequel potential *crosses fingers*

InvisibleBadger

It was pretty dissapointing, very enjoyable in places but very wtf in others. The actors pretty were good, Rorshach was brilliant but Ozzymandias just didn't look the part.
My biggest problem was the use of violence. The film glorifies violence with fight scenes that were all changed to to be ultra cool and more violent. But then the most horrific scene of all, that shows the true horror of the ending was tamed down too much.
Anyways, it was cool to see the Watchmen world on the big screen, but as a movie it was very long and boring in places.

ztoical

JayeL wrote: »

The only way to preserve that "specialness" of the book is to hate the film from the word go.

I don't agree that fans of the book would hate the film just to preserve the specialness of the book, I think cartoonists Evan Dorkin summed it up best on his blog saying "the book remains the book, they can't "ruin" my copy or my reading experience" As someone who is a fan of the comic I can say I didn't enjoy Watchman [please note I said didn't enjoy, not hate] my main reasons had nothing to do with wither it was a good or bad take on the comic but because it was a boring film. I thought as a film it was average to below average - there's nothing interesting about the camera work, the soundtrack is awful and the acting average and there are far too many giant taking head moments. Yes they managed to adapted the comic but not in a very creative way to be honest. Alot of people are judging the film purely on wither it got the feel of the comic and not judging it as a film which is what it is and so thats what it should be judged as. Like 300 before it, its just boring.

niall mc cann

JayeL wrote: »

The only way to preserve that "specialness" of the book is to hate the film from the word go.

Wow... I don't think you're being fair to people like me who were left pretty unmoved by the film.

Jackie Earle Hayley was quite good in places, but hampered, I felt, by the lack of space he had to work in... any real changes that his character experienced, any development Rorschach went through in the film was forced into pat moments that for me felt quite manufactured and forced. So whereas in the comic you had this slow burn build-up in the relationship between himself and the psychiatrist, leading to a gut-punch moment of transformation for both of them, in the film you have one meeting where Rorschach hurriedly relates one exploitative penny-dreadful horror story after which both go about their businesses.

Also, if I were Hayley, I'd be quite po'd that my potentially brilliant death scene, which I played magnificently, is capped by an extremely melodramatic "NOOOOOO!" from Nite Owl, which seemed quite camp and over-egged for this audience member at least.

The other performances uniformly left me cold. There's a lot of back slapping for the actor who played the comedian in comicbook circles, but I have to admit i found it quite flat. I just wasn't that impressed.

There is a problem I have with my own reading that is somewhat related to your criticism I suppose, in that I've read the comic (many times), so it's difficult if not impossible for me to appreciate the film without reference to the source material.

Hence, it's difficult for me to judge how well Veidt worked as a villain; all I can say is that he's clearly not the intensely charismatic, attractive figure of the comic... in the film he's clearly scheming something from the start. It's difficult for me to believe that his plan in the film has the same impact for the reader as in the comic. As far as his plan goes... it's also difficult for me to believe that what amounted to a catastrophic and devestating failure in the American defense infrastructure would be as condusive to healing wounds as a true third party attack on all.

I wasn't impressed by the film, but that had nothing to do with trying to preserve anything about the comic... the comic's not going anywhere, and if anyone with any inclination to disect it wants to, well... a film adaptation (bad or good) won't prevent them.

JayeL

JayeL wrote: »

With this version, there's no sequel potential *crosses fingers*

The cast are all signed on for sequels but Snyder has said that he will not direct a sequel.

Greyjoy

InvisibleBadger wrote: »

My biggest problem was the use of violence. The film glorifies violence with fight scenes that were all changed to to be ultra cool and more violent.

+1. I thought the slo-mo style of the fight scenes completely missed the point of the original comic. "What would a world with superheroes in it really be like?" The fights should have been brutal and fast without any slo-mo or fancy footwork. Synder is an excellent visual director but he doesn't have the storytelling chops to properly convey the themes of the comic.

There were minor niggles for me such as Rorschach's mask changing onscreen and the Nixon makeup (which for some reason kept reminding me of Nicholson as the Joker). Overall a pretty good effort but not great. Reluctantly I think that the story itself would have been better suited to a mini-series rather than a feature film.

Mr. K

Greyjoy wrote: »

Reluctantly I think that the story itself would have been better suited to a mini-series rather than a feature film.

I agree. I enjoyed the film, but they cut so much out. I can't imagine many people who hadn't read it enjoyed it too much. I noticed a few people leaving the cinema during the film!

shenanigans1982

Mr. K wrote: »

I agree. I enjoyed the film, but they cut so much out. I can't imagine many people who hadn't read it enjoyed it too much. I noticed a few people leaving the cinema during the film!

I have not read the book or has my OH and we both enjoyed the movie. Although being a fan of comics (not really Moore's work) I think helped. The whole concept is a bit much for the regular cinema goer to take in and get their head around.

I will probably give the book a read now and then get the extended dvd when it comes out to get a proper comparrison. Also noticed people leaving early but only one or two....which aint bad compared to The Spirit which had a good few leave.

niall mc cann

shenanigans1982 wrote: »

I have not read the book or has my OH and we both enjoyed the movie. Although being a fan of comics (not really Moore's work) I think helped. The whole concept is a bit much for the regular cinema goer to take in and get their head around.

I will probably give the book a read now and then get the extended dvd when it comes out to get a proper comparrison. Also noticed people leaving early but only one or two....which aint bad compared to The Spirit which had a good few leave.

hell, i left the spirit early!

i don't recall ever doing that before, but man alive! it was actually making me angry. life's too short.

The Mad Hatter

Deleted User wrote: »

The cast are all signed on for sequels

This just keeps getting worse and worse.

Fysh

Feh. Just returned from seeing it in the IMAX, which I think was a good idea. Overall it wasn't any way great, but it could've been worse.

The good: Visually, it was very impressive at times. Some of the scenes on Mars, for example, were great, and Dr. Manhattan's recounting of the accident with the intrinsic field experiment worked quite nicely.

Also, the Comedian was excellently cast. Rorschach was pretty well cast as well, though I wasn't too keen on how his mask was animated.

The bad: Almost everything else, unfortunately.

The violence was exceptionally over the top, to the point of suggesting that the production team haven't understood the characters involved. (For instance, the whole thing with Night Owl and Silk Spectre killing a bunch of knot-tops in the alley fight seemed entirely contrary to their supposed dislike of Rorschach and his brutal ways).

The borderline-porn scene was just amusingly bad, as well as unnecessary. Not a huge problem, but it was at least an extra minute into a film that was already too long.

The excess usage of slow motion. This film would've been both better and shorter without so much slow-motion. The fights without slow motion were more visceral and interesting than those with it, but were also less numerous.

I got a strong feeling that the scriptwriters either hadn't entirely understood some of the themes at play in the book, or decided to junk them due to time constraints, which meant that the film felt very disjointed at times. For example, near the start when Dreiberg leaves Hollis Mason's house, we see the sign outside reading "Obsolete models a specialty" - just like in the comic. But a main plot point for the rest of the film is the search for renewable energy, which would mean that Dr Manhattan hasn't yet provided cheap, clean electricity to the US; which in turn would mean that Hollis Mason would just be a normal mechanic rather than someone who was now specialising in a niche market for "obsolete" models. By itself this is no big deal, but when combined with other things like the exchange at the end between Manhattan and Veidt (where Manhattan is supposed to remind Veidt that "nothing ever ends") and the gratuitous use of excess violence by all the masked characters, it makes me wonder whether the people who made the film understood what ideas Moore was exploring in the book.

The soundtrack didn't know what it wanted to be; one minute it was trying to evoke a particular period, the next it seemed to be trying to comment (either ironically or playing it straight) on the events on-screen.

All of that said, I didn't hate it. It could have been way worse (for instance, it could've been based on this screenplay) but on the other hand, it's not a film I feel any particular desire to rewatch. Too much of what I liked in the book had to be cut down to be turned into a film. It might be the case that the extended-length fanboy edition of the film corrects this, but I doubt it.

Jack B. Badd

Fysh wrote: »

it makes me wonder whether the people who made the film understood what ideas Moore was exploring in the book.

Definitely agree with this. In particular I felt that the social issues surrounding "legitimised vigilantism" and the associated loss of accountability/abdication of responsibility were themes that went right over the film-makers' heads. This felt like a (traditional) superhero film. Watchmen, imo, isn't a superhero story.

sgsavvy

the film was waful in my opinion. period.

InvisibleBadger

The current Creative Screenwriting Magazine podcast has an interview with the screenwriters. The interviewer doesn't ask them any tough questions but it is interesting to hear their reasons for why they changed certain scenes.

niall mc cann

Fysh wrote: »

I got a strong feeling that the scriptwriters either hadn't entirely understood some of the themes at play in the book, or decided to junk them due to time constraints, which meant that the film felt very disjointed at times. For example, near the start when Dreiberg leaves Hollis Mason's house, we see the sign outside reading "Obsolete models a specialty" - just like in the comic. But a main plot point for the rest of the film is the search for renewable energy, which would mean that Dr Manhattan hasn't yet provided cheap, clean electricity to the US; which in turn would mean that Hollis Mason would just be a normal mechanic rather than someone who was now specialising in a niche market for "obsolete" models. By itself this is no big deal, but when combined with other things like the exchange at the end between Manhattan and Veidt (where Manhattan is supposed to remind Veidt that "nothing ever ends") and the gratuitous use of excess violence by all the masked characters, it makes me wonder whether the people who made the film understood what ideas Moore was exploring in the book.

Yeah, I got that feeling all through the film.

In their defense, I just don't know how you could cover all the thematic ground of the comic in a single film. I've been of the opinion that the comic's pretty much unfilmable, and Snyder's effort hasn't really shaken me in that belief.

Fysh

niall mc cann wrote: »

Yeah, I got that feeling all through the film.

In their defense, I just don't know how you could cover all the thematic ground of the comic in a single film. I've been of the opinion that the comic's pretty much unfilmable, and Snyder's effort hasn't really shaken me in that belief.

Oh, I agree entirely - there's no way that all the thematic strings in the book could be satisfactorily transferred to a film. That being said though, the V For Vendetta film did a much better job of the same task - while I was disappointed that the anarchy vs fascism thematic elements were discarded, I understood that they were removed to allow the film to focus on the theme of how a fascist government takes and retains power, and the various dangers involved in this.

Watchmen the movie didn't seem to have a theme, really, other than "this is what a pale imitation of Watchmen the comic would look like".

Jack B. Badd

David Edelstein, New York Magazine wrote:

They’ve made the most reverent adaptation of a graphic novel ever. But this kind of reverence kills what it seeks to preserve. The movie is embalmed.

This pretty much sums it up for me. Snyder would (probably) have made a hell of a lot better film if he made the film his own instead of just attempting (and failing) to lift the entire story from the book. Some people would still be bitching about it, sure, but at least it would have stood or fallen on it's own merits.

ztoical

niall mc cann wrote: »

In their defense, I just don't know how you could cover all the thematic ground of the comic in a single film. I've been of the opinion that the comic's pretty much unfilmable, and Snyder's effort hasn't really shaken me in that belief.

I think they could have got the essence of the comic and made a good film if you'd a better director and screenwriter. Look at a book like L.A. Confidential, a book many thought would never be made into a film as its a super dense book spanning over several years with hundreds of plot lines that all come together beautifully at the end. The film manages to trim the whole plot down to fit into a 2 hour film plus they managed to alter the ending but still within keeping with the book.

The Mad Hatter

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

This pretty much sums it up for me. Snyder would (probably) have made a hell of a lot better film if he made the film his own instead of just attempting (and failing) to lift the entire story from the book. Some people would still be bitching about it, sure, but at least it would have stood or fallen on it's own merits.

Snyder would never have dreamed of deviating from the book. He was devoted to it. You're right that a removal from the original material would have served the spirit of the book much better, though.

I still say Terry Gilliam was the best choice for director, and he said it couldn't be done.

niall mc cann

Fysh wrote: »

Oh, I agree entirely - there's no way that all the thematic strings in the book could be satisfactorily transferred to a film. That being said though, the V For Vendetta film did a much better job of the same task - while I was disappointed that the anarchy vs fascism thematic elements were discarded, I understood that they were removed to allow the film to focus on the theme of how a fascist government takes and retains power, and the various dangers involved in this.

I can absolutely understand why the Wachowskis made the changes the made to that story, but then it doesn't hurt that personally, I found those elements of the book to be quite preachy and boring at heart. I was never as big a fan of V as I was of Watchmen. It was a fun, thought provoking book that sufferred from occasional, boring diversions into adolescent undergraduate lectures from the main character, and i was quite happy that the filmmakers decided to trim that fat and let the story do it's job.

Watchmen, on the other hand, always seemed perfectly guaged to me. I really have a hard time thinking of any work of comics, film or literature more perfectly structured. Snyder's attention to surface detail works fine for something like 300, which was more about style than anything else, even in comic form. Watchmen required something more considered.

niall mc cann

ztoical wrote: »

I think they could have got the essence of the comic and made a good film if you'd a better director and screenwriter. Look at a book like L.A. Confidential, a book many thought would never be made into a film as its a super dense book spanning over several years with hundreds of plot lines that all come together beautifully at the end. The film manages to trim the whole plot down to fit into a 2 hour film plus they managed to alter the ending but still within keeping with the book.

Hey, I've been wrong before.

The idea of a Lord of the Rings film was laughable to me, until i actually sat down and saw it done, and found it worked superbly.

If there's someone out there who can do Watchmen right, I'll be front row centre for their attempt. Hasn't happened yet, though, imo.

ztoical

niall mc cann wrote: »

Hasn't happened yet, though, imo.

wasn't saying it had happened, just don't like people saying its the source material at fault when I think it was poor directing and a at best average script.

AngryBadger

Enjoyed the movie, but I enjoyed it because Moore crafted an amazing tale. Snyder is a crap director who changed things that shouldn't have been changed, and didn't change things that needed to be altered to fit the silver screen. Case in point; Rorschach dialogue goes to **** once he gets out of jail. I know that was how he spoke in the original comic, but back then reading the comic it fit, whereas in the movie it seemed like he was getting a little confused and turning into a poor mans Yoda. SImilarly with some of the Comedians lines.

Also wtf was ging on with the ending? Silk Spectre having a heart-to-heart with mammy? BS, and completely mising the point o the whole film because instead of waliking away thinking "Wow 15 million people killed to create world peave..>" you walk away feeling great because the audience got the popcorn BS ending with mammy and daughter hugging and the daughter hooking up with the handsome out-of-retirement superhero.

Anyway, I'd watch it again, and will certainly pick up the DVD, but the quality of Snyders films to date is based entirely on the original content he's taking as reference for the movie, the guy has no actual vision for bringing anything to the screen.

Dreddybajs

AngryBadger wrote: »

Also wtf was ging on with the ending? Silk Spectre having a heart-to-heart with mammy? BS, and completely mising the point o the whole film because instead of waliking away thinking "Wow 15 million people killed to create world peave..>" you walk away feeling great because the audience got the popcorn BS ending with mammy and daughter hugging and the daughter hooking up with the handsome out-of-retirement superhero.

This happens in the comic too, except they've changed identities.

This scene is completely worthless in the movie, though, due to the acting worse than in Tommy Wiseau's "The Room".

AngryBadger

Dreddybajs wrote: »

This happens in the comic too, except they've changed identities.

This scene is completely worthless in the movie, though, due to the acting worse than in Tommy Wiseau's "The Room".

Weird, I don't remember that scene, although admittedly it has been 6 years since I read the graphic novel so I'll acquiesce to your superior knowledge on this point

vinchick

I like the movie alot better the second time I watched it. It defo grows on one!

Fysh

AngryBadger wrote: »

Weird, I don't remember that scene, although admittedly it has been 6 years since I read the graphic novel so I'll acquiesce to your superior knowledge on this point

The scene happens but the tone is totally different; in the comic it's Dan and Laurie visiting Sally under their new identities before going on a honeymoon, I think. There's no suggestion of a continuing superhero career and they're very much on the move, and I think there was a bit of a "last visit before she passes away" feel to the whole thing.

Whereas in the film it was basically something that would fit as the ending to a Spider-Man movie.

I'm surprised so many people seem to be watching it twice or considering buying the DVD. It looked pretty, but the more I think about it the more it seems like a film of Watchmen made by a group of people who missed the point of the original book.

ztoical

Fysh wrote: »

The scene happens but the tone is totally different; in the comic it's Dan and Laurie visiting Sally under their new identities before going on a honeymoon, I think. There's no suggestion of a continuing superhero career and they're very much on the move, and I think there was a bit of a "last visit before she passes away" feel to the whole thing.

Whereas in the film it was basically something that would fit as the ending to a Spider-Man movie.

I'm surprised so many people seem to be watching it twice or considering buying the DVD. It looked pretty, but the more I think about it the more it seems like a film of Watchmen made by a group of people who missed the point of the original book.

yeah that scene has a totally different feel in the comic. I don't think I could sit through the film again in the cineam, I might consider checking out the dvd if they do edit the tale of the black freighter in but I don't see how adding anything in could improve the film, it needs to seriously edited and re-cut.

Saruwatari

I enjoyed it a lot. There were a good few bits I didn't like (e.g. the super-strength everyone seemed to have, some music choices, the dragged out sex scenes, the ending etc.) but I think Snyder did a fair enough job. There were some scenes not present in the comic I liked, such as the longer Big Figure confrontation, Rorschach going to the office to retrieve his clothes) If you really wanted to make a great film of Watchmen, it'd have to be at least four hours long.
I'd like to go see it a second time in cinema, but I can't really afford to thanks to upcoming college interviews and oral exams.
I look forward to the DVD release though, I doubt the extra scenes will affect my overall opinion, but I really wanted to see more of Hollis Mason and the two Bernies.

Also, Dr. Manhattan's chatshow interview and following departure was absolutely jawdropping. I could even feel my heart beating like mad!

BopNiblets

I briefly read the graphic novel for the 3rd time right before seeing it, I read the main plot line and skipped most of the text-only sections and Black Freighter stuff, and I wasn't disappointed at all!

A few odd changes were expected, like the reactions of Dan and Laurie were a bit off and the actor who played Veidt wouldn't have been my choice.

ztoical

BopNiblets wrote: »

I read the main plot line and skipped most of the text-only sections and Black Freighter stuff, and I wasn't disappointed at all!

I the impression the people who made the film read the comic the same way. For me its the background characters that really make watchmen stand out and cutting them out due to time or simply leaving them out cus they didn't "get them" takes away any real soul the film could have had.

AngryBadger

ztoical wrote: »

I the impression the people who made the film read the comic the same way. For me its the background characters that really make watchmen stand out and cutting them out due to time or simply leaving them out cus they didn't "get them" takes away any real soul the film could have had.

Excellent point, like the death of the original Night owl! I was waiting the entire film to see that scene!

Motley Crue

that sex scene was fantastic too!

trustno1

I went to see the film over the weekend, have to say after having read the book a good few times I thought the film was good and as true an adaptation as could be expected (someone else said that it was a good job it wasn't made a few years ago, but I disagree, I think it would have been more relevant back then and with the right director could have been a better film).. The opening title sequence was brilliant and Jeffrey Dean Morgan was excellent as the Comedian as was Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach, the one person letting the whole team down was Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre II, awful performance and that sex scene was hilarious.. the whole cinema was in knots laughing for all the wrong reasons when they started to get in on to 'Hallelujah'... just terrible..

The person I went to see it with had not read the book and they just thought it was okay, I think its one of those films that you would enjoy more if you had read the book first, and I thought the length of the film was grand and was surprised at how quickly they arrived at the antartic!.. A few people in the cinema did walk out which I was surprised at..

And as for Mr Manhattan's penis.. I hardly noticed it, I think anyone who did was purposefully looking for it.. someone was telling me that in the american version he keeps his underpants on for the whole film, does anyone know if that's true?

If it does come out on DVD in a 4 hour directors edition I would definitely invest in a copy.. but I do think that Dave Gibbons is over milking his golden cow now with all the books that he is bringing out.. enough is enough already!!

ztoical

trustno1 wrote: »

someone was telling me that in the american version he keeps his underpants on for the whole film, does anyone know if that's true?

No thats not true, the print being shown in Irish cinemas is the same as what is being shown everywhere.

hkcharlie

I never read the book, but picked up in LA airport once and fought with myself about buying it (I didn't). I only remembered this after I watched the film.
I'd never really heard of it or the cult behind it.
I knew nothing of the stroy or the film when I walked in.

With about 10 or 15 mins left I thought to myself, "this is quite long" not interested to look at my watch, but acknowledging a fact. I was expecting a 90 min movie, because it's a comic book story right? Wrong! This is an epic film (over 2hr 30min)! Really strong charaters, it's not all about the action and fight sequences (although they do exist and they're great), but this is truely a really well made, scripted, filmed, acted, piece of cinematic history.

Loved it, it's going down in my fav's and I'm going to buy that book.

Gizzle

Hmmm, I don't know, I read the entire graphic novel, on the back of which I've bought V for Vendetta and From Hell, and then saw the film, and although they included 95% of the stuff from he source material, there was something distinctly lacking, I felt. I wasn't unimpressed, I stll found the film quite good, just not what I expected.