Superhero Filmmakers: Where's Our Watchmen?

Kinda surprised there's no "Books of Magick" in the works given cash-in potential when placed alongside Harry Potter movies.

how long until someone finally presents gaiman with an offer for sandman that he can stomach? More or less than five years to be in theaters?

I'll take the over. Does Gaiman have full rights to the character, or is there some sort of careful dance that has to be done with Time Warner?

Gaiman has zero rights whatsoever, and the film has been in development for 18 years.

gaiman doesn't own the character, but given his regular (and fairly successful) involvement in film; it seems like it would be a massive no-brainer to bring him on the movie rather than risk fan backlash.
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2008/12/gaiman-daydream/

I guess one the problems with Sandman is the same as with Swamp Thing: it's not just one story you can adapt to a single film, and planning a multi-movie series where the first movie is just the first part of the story is probably considered quite risky, even with a best-selling title like Sandman. Also, compared to the Miller and Moore adaptations we've had so far, Sandman contains little action or adventure/thrills. Mostly it's just characters talking with each other or contemplating things, and even if the said characters are angels and demons and gods, I can see that it might not be considered to draw in huge crowds. You can make a V or Watchmen adaptation with action in it, but a Sandman movie with action scenes in it would be so clearly against what the comic is about that it wouldn't make sense to adapt it in the first case. It's the same reason we're not likely to see a Promethea movie in the near future.

I mean, if you look at what's the "main" story in Sandman, you can summarize it like this: a distant, god-like creature slowly grows weary of his existence and his limitations, and commits an intricate form of suicide, after which he is replaced by a more human version of himself. Not exactly a recipe for a blockbuster movie, and because of the special effects it requires, I assume a Sandman movie would cost quite a bit, therefore requiring it to draw in the crowds.

it seems like it would be a massive no-brainer to bring him on the movie rather than risk fan backlash.

he's been on it briefly and he's been off it lots and he doesn't want to have anything to do with it.

he DOES want to be on the Death movie, and hasn't been able to get that made yet, in ten years of trying.

Yeah, I remember hearing him speak in a local comic convention, where he said he's going to direct the Death: The High Cost of Living movie himself, and that was like in 1998 or 1999.

I think a D:THCoL movie would make much more sense than a Sandman movie, because it's a compact story that fits into one movie, and it doesn't require too many special effects, hence you don't need to sell it to a mass audience.

sic, again: from dec. 08 http://www.wired.com/underwire/2008/12/gaiman-daydream

You'll note he very clearly doesn't say he wants to have anything to do with it, there.

"hence you don't need to sell it to a mass audience."

TREASON! HIGH TREASON! Guards, SEIZE HIM!

Wings of Desire to thread!

wtf that Watchmen Saturday Morning cartoon parody was by XTC frontman Andy Partridge's son

it's truly a cazy topsy turvy world we live in that the child of a prominent individual can themselves grow up to do something notable in a completely different field

Sorry if some of these points have been made before -- I haven't read this entire thread. But I will after I post this.

It was well done, and also a bit meh. The ending was a letdown, and not because I'm some dogmatic fanboy. And not because the Dr. Manahttan frame-up plot doesn't make sense -- it arguably makes more sense than the squid. But that's just logic. The squid works precisely because it's so fucking fucked up, so entirely out there. Which was Veidt's idea all along. There's a line in the movie about how peace will continue "as long as people think Dr. Manhattan is watching." I imagine so. But Viedt's idea was that peace will continue because the entire planet will be having nightmares about his giant gooey pink-and-green asshole-faced alien for decades. That's just twisted enough to work.

Veidt: totally, completely miscast. This dude is like Rohrshach's imagining of Veidt.

Both Rohrshach and The Comedian were both very well-cast and well-played. When I first heard the voiceover from R., I was like, "Oh no. It's the Christian Bale Batman voice." But he pulled it off. He screamed exceptionally well. Best Rohrshach line, which is only recounted by the doctor in the comic: "You all don't understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me." You go, you completely insane bastard, you.

Meanwhile The Comedian was exactly as disturbing as he was meant to be, and then a little extra. The scene where he beats the shit out of Sally and nearly rapes her was way more intense than I remember from reading the comic. Being stopped by a guy with a hood and a noose around his neck could have been changed, though -- it breaks the nauseating intensity of the scene and points out the silliness of all their costume wearing a little too abruptly. It's a tone problem. And considering that, The Comedian's line about "Is that what gets you hot?" doesn't really land.

Come to think of it, many of the scenes that didn't entirely work didn't work for that same reason. The movie succeeded at recreating most of the characters, but it failed at recreating the world they inhabited. If you're going to change the squid -- and I'm not arguing that it's wrong to do so -- go ahead and change a bunch of other stuff, too. Have an better ear for the dialogue, the overall intention rather than the details, and put the movie you're making ahead of the comic you're adapting. I know poor Zack was in a tough spot on this project, but man up and make a movie, motherfucker.

Ok, and then there's the sex scene. Gah. For the love of Pete, Zack. I mean, really.

opening credits: best I've ever seen.

I mean Andy Warhol painting pop art of Night Owl feels exactly right to me. Why does so much of the rest of the movie only feel correct, but not right?

Meh, forget it, it's a months-old discussion. And unsurprisingly, most everything I said HAS been said on this thread already.

I need to watch the super DVD version with all the various elements integrated.

Flawed or not, I think it might be the best superhero movie out there simply for the R rating. Every other comic movie ever has pulled it's punches for ratings unless you count Conan as a comic movie...

I'd say there are a dozen superhero movies better than Watchmen. The Incredibles, Spider-Man 2, both Nolan Batmans at the very least.

xp Why wouldn't you?

I see upthread that the "too violent" talking point took hold early. I could have done without the arm sawing. (Prisoners are allowed to have circular saws now? I'm behind on the news.) Also there were a couple too many cleaver strokes to the child killer's skull. But often I thought the violence worked, and highlighted just how nasty a world this comic inhabits. Loved Manhattan's "explode 'em into goo" method of killing.

(Although like so much about Manhattan, it doesn't strictly make sense, esp considering he could just as easily vaporize a body. Maybe it's part of his lingering humanity -- he still likes to have sex, he still doesn't understand why people do what they do. It's only human to want to explode people into goo, right?

)

kenan that is the best explanation of why the squid ending WORKS that I've ever seen.

The squid ending made me mad, mad, mad so I'm very pleased to see such a lucid repping for it.

I'd say there are a dozen superhero movies better than Watchmen.

At least that many. Superman II, Blade, and Hellboy, to add to your list just off the cuff.

i hated the opening credits...the song choice, the stupid montage w/ the terrible fake Nixon, all that shit really kind of got the movie off on a bad foot imo.

No wai. Best part of the movie.

Only bad thing about it was that it made me believe that Snyder knew what he was doing. Turns out, only halfway.

The squid ending made me mad, mad, mad so I'm very pleased to see such a lucid repping for it.

Cool. :)

It's a little bit like the ending of "Magnolia." I watched that with my mom, and she was pissed as hell that she sat through three hours of movie only to have frogs fall from the sky.

i hated the opening credits...the song choice, the stupid montage w/ the terrible fake Nixon, all that shit really kind of got the movie off on a bad foot imo.

― some dude, Saturday, January 2, 2010 9:49 PM (13 minutes ago)

i agree w/this btw

when I saw the Truman Show with my dad the projection-guy knocked the projector over in his sleep, causing the movie to seemingly end about two-thirds of the way into the film, right after an ambiguous scene where Christoff storms out of the control room.

I thought I had seen my first art movie because the movie ended on such a confusing, pointless note. I've liked shaggy dog stories ever since.

It occurred to me seeing the fake Nixon and a few other fake-real people near the beginning of the movie that they COULD have made them look less fake, but chose not to. I liked the choice. It was deliberately unreal, or hyper-real, or whatever. The makeup there nearly falls into the uncanny valley.

But like I and everyone else has said, it's an inconsistent movie.

The music cue that really bugged me was "The Sound of Silence" for the Comedian's funeral. I understand him using iconic music for such an iconic comic book, but that one in particular didn't work for me. I've yet to sort out exactly why.

Maybe it works better than I thought, though -- Iconic comic book, with the movie version borrowing an iconic song from another iconic movie, which is a very dark and messed-up comedy, for the funeral of the Comedian.

Maybe I just like the song by itself too much.

Weren't some of the songs listed in the comic?

I think "All Along the Watchtower" was, right?

"Watchtower" was, yeah. I wasn't crazy about that, either. He synced the line about "Two riders were approaching" with a shot of the two guys approaching. In the comic, it's a short quote at the end of an issue, so it's nowhere near as much like, "Yeah, ok we get the literal words of the song, yo."

"The Sound of Silence" is played for no irony at all in the movie. The Comedian would not approve.

yeah, there are a few "i c what u did there" moments in the movie with music and symbolism ("Everybody Wants to the Rule the World" is playing when Veidt enters the room, because somebody in the test audience didn't pick up that when movies introduce Aryan-looking leaders talking about utopia via social engineering they're supposed to think of power-mad tyrants).

Call me ungracious in my opinion of Zack Snyder, but that didn't feel like something the test audiences made necessary.

i haven't even watched this shit yet

The fact that you didn't run to see it in theaters means that you care about as much as is appropriate.

Viedt's idea was that peace will continue because the entire planet will be having nightmares about his giant gooey pink-and-green asshole-faced alien for decades.

An idea of Viedt's that I think is easily lost in all the weird of the giant squid: a large part of his plan was not only inventing a horrifying thing, but one from ELSEWHERE. It wasn't just the worst thing ever seen, it was at the same time proof of extraterrestrial life. We're not alone, but the other shit out there, you don't want to see. So we gotta stick together in this deal.

Which is part of why shifting the blame to Manhattan works -- the Other is already among us. In a way, it's a bit darker.

i read the comic last year and thought it was pretty damn good, but def ultramegalols @ anyone who says that it's one of the 20th century's greatest pieces of literature tbh

xpost

It prob wasn't a test audience thing, I just remember there being a lot of obv. symbolism that was being bludgeoned over audience heads

Manhattan exploding Rohrshach and leaving a Rohrshach-like mark in the snow was completely, COMPLETELY unnecessary. It's not even symbolic of anything. I groaned audibly.

Sems to me like Snyder wasn't really smart enough to make this movie well, and anyone who might have been turned it down because they at least knew enough to know that it couldn't be done. Snyder stepped up and said, "You want a lot of shots that look just like the frames of the original comic book? I can do that!" He's an idiot, but he's an idiot savant.

I think that's all true. in a cinematic world, where better directors feared to tread...

I'm thinking again about the question of the violence. It is indeed a bit much sometimes. But worse than that, he doesn't seem to have the *sensibility* for violence. He seems to think it's about shock or gore. The fact that a lot of the violence in this movie actually occurs in the comic is a thin excuse -- it occurs, but drawn, and far more alluded to and insinuated than graphically depicted.

I think it was Ebert who pointed out that while people talk about "Pulp Fiction" as a very violent movie, if you watch closely, the violence isn't onscreen. It FEELS violent because of the tension, the build, the knowing what will inevitably happen, so that by the time it does, it hardly matters whether there's graphic depiction or not. You're already there. "Watchmen" shows in close-ups a man's arms being sawed off. I don't care that it's gross so much that it's dumb.