Superhero Filmmakers: Where's Our Watchmen?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
"V For Vendetta" was fairly successful. Superman Returns is going to be legendary, unless it's a Waterworld, but I doubt it. Superheroes are everywhere.

WHERE THE HECK ARE OUR WATCHMEN?

Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Monday, 26 June 2006 01:27 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I actually enjoyed Waterworld. Low standards are nothing to sneeze at.

Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Monday, 26 June 2006 01:40 (eleven years ago) Permalink

it was actually impressive to look at on the big screen. any impact it might have had, however, vanishes when watching it on tv.

latebloomer aka rap's yoko ono (latebloomer), Monday, 26 June 2006 01:46 (eleven years ago) Permalink

When I invoked the memory of Waterworld, I was invoking the
memory of the a hugely hyped release, followed by the film's total
failure to make a profit. As for the movie itself, it was fun,
but it wasn't good. The writing was worthy of a SCIFI original
movie, not a worldwide release.

Furthermore, I seem to have woken up (at some point) in an
alternate universe where otherwise intelligent afficionados of
theater believe that Kevin Costner can act AT ALL. Although
to me his acting skills are worse than those of a drunk,
mongoloid 19-year-old playing charades. And we're here all week,
folks. Enjoy your night.


Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Monday, 26 June 2006 01:59 (eleven years ago) Permalink

They decided not to put it out because, well, who watches the Watchmen?

Abbott (Abbott), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:37 (eleven years ago) Permalink

p.s. officah, are you from les bois?

Abbott (Abbott), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:37 (eleven years ago) Permalink

did anyone read the link above? they ARE putting one (a watchmen movie) out:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/film/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002727033

latebloomer aka rap's yoko ono (latebloomer), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:45 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I just wanted to make that joke. But OTOH I heard they were making a Watchmen back in 2003. It has reached MBV status for yrs truly. I'll believe it when I see it.

Abbott (Abbott), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:48 (eleven years ago) Permalink

It'll be like a new Don Quixote.

Abbott (Abbott), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:50 (eleven years ago) Permalink

The Watchmen movie has been announced and pulled back so many times that I'm not going to believe it's really being made until someone is actually shooting it.

Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:53 (eleven years ago) Permalink

EXACTLY. Exactly. exactly.

Abbott (Abbott), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:55 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Exactly what I said!

Abbott (Abbott), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:55 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Yeah, that was an x-post.

Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:56 (eleven years ago) Permalink

X-post-actly!

Abbott (Abbott), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:56 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Anyway, I see few serious problems with the possible film adaptations:

1) In order to narrow it down to 2,5 hours, the filmmakers will probably have to stick to the main detective plot which is, to be frank, rather ridiculous, and not really the thing that made the comic interesting.

2) How will they deal with the Cold War aspect of the plot? Will they still make the movie to be in an alternate timeline in the mid-eighties, or will they update it to include the war on terrorism or something? (While this approach actually worked with V for Vendetta, it's hard to imagine it working with Watchmen.)

Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 26 June 2006 03:06 (eleven years ago) Permalink

who needs a watchmen movie

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 26 June 2006 05:01 (eleven years ago) Permalink

really, what's the point

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 26 June 2006 05:01 (eleven years ago) Permalink

because what's the last movie you can think of that had a naked blue-skinned man walking around the face of mars?

kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 26 June 2006 05:15 (eleven years ago) Permalink

they wasnt on mars, tho

kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 26 June 2006 05:17 (eleven years ago) Permalink

so you basically just admitted you've seen the blue man group live dvd?

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 26 June 2006 05:25 (eleven years ago) Permalink

does it count as watching when you just fast-forward to the good parts, then eject the disc when you're finished and put it back in its hiding place on the shelf?

kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 26 June 2006 05:29 (eleven years ago) Permalink

best superhero movie= "Unbreakable"

Ste (Fuzzy), Monday, 26 June 2006 08:20 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Anyway, I see few serious problems with the possible film adaptations:

1) In order to narrow it down to 2,5 hours, the filmmakers will probably have to stick to the main detective plot which is, to be frank, rather ridiculous, and not really the thing that made the comic interesting.

2) How will they deal with the Cold War aspect of the plot? Will they still make the movie to be in an alternate timeline in the mid-eighties, or will they update it to include the war on terrorism or something? (While this approach actually worked with V for Vendetta, it's hard to imagine it working with Watchmen.)

-- Tuomas (lixnix...), June 26th, 2006.

there was a recent screenplay by David Hayter that supposedly dealt with all these problems really well (how, i don't know). but even Moore, who quite undestandaby doesn't want a Watchmen movie made but can't legally affect anything, said it was the best possible treatment of the material.

this screenplay is (from what i hear) supposedly the basis for the direction the current screenwriters are using. the producers had this set up at Paramount as recently as last year (with the guy who directed the Bourne Supremcy and that 9/11 movie) but when the studio changed hands the project was shelved and so they took it Warner Bros.

i can't imagine any film version of Watchmen being able to do justice to the souce marterial but this version has a slightly greater probability of actually getting made. the reasons being a. moore enjoying greater stature than ever (despite his fallout with the comic industry) b. the demand for superhero crap at an all-time high c. the stunning artistic and financial success of The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie.

ok, kidding about the last one.

latebloomer aka rap's yoko ono (latebloomer), Monday, 26 June 2006 09:02 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Eff Watchmen, where is Sam Raimi's Cerebus???

Huk-L (Huk-L), Monday, 26 June 2006 14:16 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Why do people not like period pieces? Set it the 80s. Probably 10 years ago I remember reading an article about the Bond series pointing out that the constant efforts to keep the series up-to-date were as much as contributing factor as anything else to the fact that the films were so tedious. I totally think that's true.

(I remember interviewing Terry Gilliam back in 89 or so, when Munchhausen came out, and him saying Watchmen was his next project.)

pleased to mitya (mitya), Monday, 26 June 2006 14:18 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Yeah, if you're going to make a Watchmen movie set it in the goddamn 80s. At the very least, that way you don't have to make up silly sci-fi/magicks reasons why the superfolks from the 40s (ie Comedian) are still relevant.

Huk-L (Huk-L), Monday, 26 June 2006 14:22 (eleven years ago) Permalink

My wife and I are the only people on Earth who liked LXG.

Jesus Dan (Dan Perry), Monday, 26 June 2006 14:25 (eleven years ago) Permalink

If they get the movie made, no doubt someone will say it's biting The Incredibles...

Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 26 June 2006 16:51 (eleven years ago) Permalink

"WTF? This is just a huge ripoff of Astro City!"

Abbott (Abbott), Monday, 26 June 2006 17:20 (eleven years ago) Permalink

there will never be a decent movie made of this, and in many ways I don't think anyone should even bother attempting it.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 26 June 2006 17:24 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Scenario: Film is made. It migh be good, it might be rubbish but no-one will go and see it?

Why?

So newspaper subs in a vague sort of know will do headlines like "Who Watches The Watchmen. No-one, that's who".

Pete (Pete), Monday, 26 June 2006 17:59 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN
by - set_neuf (Wed Oct 26 2005 14:17:40 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so... I read the buzz in IGN and superherohype.
Please, DO NOT DO THIS FILM.
Watchmen is the greatest comic book ever (or graphic novel you can say).
Yes, Watchmen is so cinematic and hace a lot of cinematographic language in his form, but please... a two hour film (or three) is so much little time to fully understand, appreciate and feel the characters and his history.


So, excuse my very bad english, and like myself say no to this film.

Thanks


Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN
by - futuramafan105 (Fri Nov 25 2005 10:24:45 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've heard rumors that Darren Aronofsky may direct it, and in that case I'm all for it. He's a terrific director, I think he could do it a lot of good.
Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN
by - Frankeeee (Mon Jan 2 2006 02:30:56 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They would not be able to do it justice. Look at 'From Hell' and 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.' Both terrible movies. 'V for Vendetta' looks like *beep* as well...Although I have been hearing great things...

Aronofsky was in talks, but that idea was scrapped...At least for now.

David Hayter wrote a screenplay for it, and Moore said it was "as close as I could imagine anyone getting to Watchmen."

I think it will be done. And it will suck. Unless someone like Aronofsky or Gilliam got ahold of it, and had Hayter's screenplay to work with.


Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN
by - stoner_839 (Fri Nov 25 2005 10:26:29 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*beep* you.
Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN
by - egacebotemes (Fri Mar 17 2006 00:38:23 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i heard that the project is suspended
Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN
by - Prof_Gotham (Fri Mar 17 2006 17:44:34 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

UPDATED Fri Mar 17 2006 17:45:48

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparentely Warner picked it up after V for Vendetta received a strong advance buzz and whether or not it moves forward all hinges on how well V does.
Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN
by - Secondhandsmoke (Sun Mar 26 2006 19:02:28 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, if they were worried that it would lose its depth, or scope, the movie could just be part of a series. The book could be done justice in two 2 and a half hour filmes.

Also, does a bad movie really harm the source material at all? Batman and Robin is awful, but do any of you like Batman less having seen it?
Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN
by - Grapefruit13 (Mon Mar 27 2006 06:16:55 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

UPDATED Mon Mar 27 2006 14:16:48

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watchmen is the greatest comic book ever (or graphic novel you can say).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I've never been that big a fan of Watchmen; in many ways it's a pretty cheesy book to begin with (I pity any actor charged with the task of making Rorschach's absurd staccato dialogue sound any more convincing off the page than it ever was on it). Whenever someone calls it the best comic book ever, I am forced to wonder exactly what other books they've read... To me, it's not even the best Alan Moore comic.

But for those people who do think it's a masterpiece, whatever film is eventually made of it, it's not the end of the world. The book won't suddenly disappear just because a crappy film was made.

Maybe a film adaptation would simply expose the emptiness of the plot - they'd no doubt decide to trim back the subplots and supporting characters until the central core, Adrian Veidt's plan to "fix" the world, was all that remained. In that event, what we'd be left with is a fairly typical superhero film with a really stupid masterplan, a little cod-psychological baggage, and a middle-age spread.

In any case, am I the only one who things that Watchmen's time came and went over a decade ago? It's not novel anymore to show the psychology of a "costumed hero". It's been done too many times. You can't swing a cat in a video store without hitting a film featuring some guy running around with his underwear over his trousers and spewing angst at the camera.

As for Watchmen's storyline of social prejudice against superheroes, and the effect on them of trying to fit into normal society... well, let's say that all the way through The Incredibles, I had a serious case of deja vu...

I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.
Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN
by - duckfandango (Fri May 26 2006 11:03:47 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for Watchmen's storyline of social prejudice against superheroes, and the effect on them of trying to fit into normal society... well, let's say that all the way through The Incredibles, I had a serious case of deja vu...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By God, is that what you think 'Watchmen' was all about? You are an idiot. I pity you.
Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN
by - Grapefruit13 (Tue May 30 2006 13:09:17 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By God, is that what you think 'Watchmen' was all about?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it's not. I would think you might have realised that from reading the rest of my post, but clearly you missed it. Watchmen is a work of many, many threads and storylines weaved together, and the storyline I mentioned is one of them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are an idiot. I pity you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not an idiot, so you needn't pity me. Just learn to read a whole post, think a bit before you respond in future, and try not to be so pointlessly rude to strangers.

Oh, yes, if a pig comes by Castle Dracula on a Tuesday, playing a banjo…
Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN
by - NCurran1987 (Mon May 29 2006 01:49:49 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Moore actually said that Watchmen doesn’t have a plot really. I mean he said at the end of the day a lot of the plot points where used in previous mediums and stories. Watchmen was about the telling more than the tale and you can't falter it for one second there. Its also one of the few comics that can truly be called comics and that have no way of ever being properly translated into a film or a book. Due to its complexities that take advantage of the comic field like no other book has.

And also I though the dialogue in the book was excellent so I don’t know what your getting at there. Also I believe adaptations of books like this DO hurt the source material. Some character like batman’s films being bad doesn’t hurt batman cause he's got just as many incarnations in the comic books field that are of mixed qualities. Batman’s a never ending character who will still be in a monthly comic LONG after were dead. Unlike Watchmen (which is a one off book which can never be re imagined by a new writer) it loses its soul because of that. Batman is a corporate character who is at the whim of an editor or executive so you pretty much know it’s only there interpretation.

Chuck Norris is'nt afraid of the dark, the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris!
Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN
by - Grapefruit13 (Tue May 30 2006 13:23:23 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And also I though the dialogue in the book was excellent so I don’t know what your getting at there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specifically, that a lot of the dialogue was a touch cheesy and b-movie esque, in particular Rorschach's stilted, monosyllabic "crazy guy" speech patterns. I often wonder if the dialogue weren't deliberately cheesy, to echo the superhero comics that Moore was referencing and building on.

But if you don't know what I'm "getting at" - well, that's because it's just an opinion, and you don't feel the same way. That's all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike Watchmen (which is a one off book which can never be re imagined by a new writer) it loses its soul because of that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The book itself would never lose its "soul"; how could it? It will still exist, even if a thousand movie versions are made.

There have been at least three film adaptations made of Wuthering Heights, none of which have managed to eclipse the power of the novel itself. My copy of V For Vendetta is still sitting out there on the shelf, unaffected by the film adaptation, just as it is unaffected by the different interpretations of other readers: one person's interpretation of a book - which is, as you say, what any film adaptation boils down to - does not infringe on my own.

It is possible that people who have never read the book will have a distorted view of what it is about if they see the film first, but then, if they hadn't seen the film they probably never would have searched out the book anyway

Oh, yes, if a pig comes by Castle Dracula on a Tuesday, playing a banjo…
Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN
by - luciddream_3 6 days ago (Tue Jun 20 2006 07:01:59 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to agree with this. The Watchmen movie will eventually get made and everyone who has read the comic knows that it will most likely be a let down due to the difficulty of bringing the sheer magnitude and scope of the content to the Big Screen. However, in the end we must all remember that it is only a movie and essentially, just one (or several writer's) interperitation of the material.

It is unfortunate that a big budget movie will most likely be the way Watchmen is brought to the masses. On the other hand, this might not be bad thing either. Maybe it will inspire those to actually read the book afterwards?

It's pretty much a given that most movies based on books just aren't as good as the source material regardless of the genre. In regards to comic books, this is probably more so due to the difficulty of blending the fantastic visual elements with a great story.

Will the Watchmen movie be terrible? Who knows? Will it ruin the characters, history, etc.? Nah...at the end of the day, it's just a movie, really. Nothing worth losing sleep over.


Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN
by - NCurran1987 5 days ago (Tue Jun 20 2006 17:15:51 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm more annoyed with hollywood. They cant come up with there own stories. I hope it crashs and burns some days. There going to make such a sh it movie outta this, its annoys me so much to see the book bastardised. Its like looking at a child you love and watching him from an alternate reality and seeing that hes become a whore. You dont like the way he's turned out in this world. It annoys you. You cant stand to see him travistised in this way. Thats how i feel about movie adaptions.

Chuck Norris is'nt afraid of the dark, the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris!

¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ (chaki), Monday, 26 June 2006 18:02 (eleven years ago) Permalink

GENE WILDER IS...RORSCHACH!

Huk-L (Huk-L), Monday, 26 June 2006 18:38 (eleven years ago) Permalink

chaki should write, direct, and score the watchmen movie.

latebloomer aka rap's yoko ono (latebloomer), Monday, 26 June 2006 18:47 (eleven years ago) Permalink

when i was 16 i would totally be able to do this. thats when i had the magik baby.

¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ (chaki), Monday, 26 June 2006 18:56 (eleven years ago) Permalink

eight months pass...
http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007/rorshach_badge.jpg

blueski, Friday, 9 March 2007 20:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

i still say chaki should do this

latebloomer, Friday, 9 March 2007 20:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

apparently snyder slipped pic that in the 300 extended trailer

latebloomer, Friday, 9 March 2007 20:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah that's how i came across it (uh)

blueski, Friday, 9 March 2007 20:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

seems like they're actually setting all this in the alternate 1985 of the comic:

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=interviews&id=9172

latebloomer, Friday, 9 March 2007 21:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

Your movie audience is basically where your comic book audience was when the graphic novel was written

i think Snyder is kinda right here!

blueski, Friday, 9 March 2007 22:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

Although superhero films tend to be more jaded, self-aware and (occasionally) subversive than mainstream comics were in the mid-eighties.

chap, Friday, 9 March 2007 22:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

I dunno about that. the 80s was a pretty adventurous time for comics.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 9 March 2007 22:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, but it was mainly going on around the margins and in Brit comics till Watchmen/DKR. You had groundbreaking mainstream writers like Claremont, I guess, but on the whole there wasn't any of the knowing winkery which Watchmen helped bring to comics, and which is present in the majority of superhero movies.

chap, Friday, 9 March 2007 22:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

Cerebus has a ton of self-referential stuff goin on in it but yeah - on the margins for sure (I only mention it cuz I've been re-reading High Society lately)

anyway I can't see this film not sucking horribly.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 9 March 2007 22:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

Agreed. An animated High Society film, on the other hand, would be amazing.

chap, Friday, 9 March 2007 22:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

Cruise as Ozymandias?!?

*shoots self*

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 9 March 2007 22:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

(sorry I just read that Snyder interview bit)

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 9 March 2007 22:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

I can't believe they are still trying to do this as a movie.

Alex in SF, Friday, 9 March 2007 23:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

well you know Hollywood, loathe to let fo of "hot properties" and all that

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 9 March 2007 23:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, they should do it as a Broadway musical!

HI DERE, Friday, 9 March 2007 23:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

I have a very dim memory of once making a poor attempt to write lyrics for a watchmen musical on ILC.

chap, Friday, 9 March 2007 23:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

Haha I was thinking that it might be possible as an HBO series. But you can't cram 12 very dense issues into a 3 hour movie.

Alex in SF, Friday, 9 March 2007 23:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

HBO series is a better idea than a feature film - the book is definitely served well by its episodic nature (every other issue focused on a diff't character, etc.)

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 9 March 2007 23:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

Also no studio pressure to shoehorn action sequences into what is essentially a detective story/character piece.

chap, Friday, 9 March 2007 23:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

haha

"shouldn't there be a car chase here?"

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 9 March 2007 23:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

What? Doctor Manhattan only blows up ONE guy's head?

chap, Friday, 9 March 2007 23:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

Superman Returns is going to be legendary

Dr. Superman, Sunday, 11 March 2007 16:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

One movie doesn't make much sense but a trilogy might make more (than a TV series also).

blueski, Sunday, 11 March 2007 17:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

Christ, this is now actually in the production? I really can't see much good coming out of it. I mean, the V for Vendetta movie was better than I expected, but at least the comic had a straigthforward plot that was relatively easy to trim down to two hours, which isn't the case with Watchmen. Imagine, for example, if they decide to leave out the whole pirate comic story, since it doesn't contribute to the main plot.

Tuomas, Monday, 12 March 2007 15:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

Is the Cruise as Ozymandias thing for real? Because that'd be a brilliant cating choice! He just needs to do the smug thing he's so good at.

Tuomas, Monday, 12 March 2007 15:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah why would you cast aaron eckhart when you can pay 400x as much for an idiot loon who needs platform shoes and hair dye to even start to look right for the part?

I'm going to give you guys credit that you can go compare and contrast aaron eckhart's resume with the character of adrian veidt without my help

TOMBOT, Monday, 12 March 2007 15:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

at any rate yeah this is going to be completely god-awful

TOMBOT, Monday, 12 March 2007 15:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

Well Zack Snyder is directing it so I wouldn't expect anything else.

Alex in SF, Monday, 12 March 2007 15:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

Cruise it not playing Ozymandius, I think it was just a rumour. I read somewhere that Snyder intends to include the pirate comic, which I would've thought would be the first thing to go.

chap, Monday, 12 March 2007 15:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

Whoops, I should've read that interview before posting, because the pirate thing is mentioned there:

You’re really going to shoot the Tales from the Black Freighter, huh?

That’s my hope. My hope is to shoot the Tales from the Black Freighter as a supplement for the DVD, for the ‘real’ Watchmen.


Funnily enough, if they leave it out, that'll make the story more open-ended than the supposedly open "I leave into your hands" ending of the comic, since the pirate story serves as (among other things) Moore's condemnation of Veidt's actions.

Tuomas, Monday, 12 March 2007 15:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm actually glad Greengrass isn't doing this either, actually. He's a million times better than Snyder, but I'd rather see him make his proposed film about Vietnam War Ambush/Dow Chemical Protest or even the third Bourne film.

Alex in SF, Monday, 12 March 2007 15:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

three hours might be do-able, but not 100-120 minutes.

That one guy that quit, Monday, 12 March 2007 15:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

Superman Returns is going to be legendary, unless it's a Waterworld, but I doubt it.

yeah, this was my fave bit, among S_P's many genius postings here

kingfish, Monday, 12 March 2007 15:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

Superman Returns is better than Waterworld. Marginally.

chap, Monday, 12 March 2007 15:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

Oh that's such a bunch of BULLSHIT what you just said

TOMBOT, Monday, 12 March 2007 15:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

All it is is Supes lifting progressively heavier objects with some boring stuff in between. I liked the bit with the plane, though.

chap, Monday, 12 March 2007 16:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

it comes down to kevin spacey vs. dennis hopper, though. waterworld was a lot more enjoyable.

TOMBOT, Monday, 12 March 2007 16:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

three months pass...

http://www.fortunecity.com/tatooine/niven/142/img/op4401.jpg

UPDATES:

-Filming allegedly begins in September with a modified (inferior, apprently) modification of David Hayter's script.
-No one is cast yet, but Gerard Butler will still be in the film, Cruise still possible for Veidt, and maybe: Thomas Jane, Keanu (Dr. Manhattan?), Jude Law (Veidt).

I want Mel Gibson for the Comedian.

poortheatre, Sunday, 1 July 2007 01:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

yes, a modified modification.

poortheatre, Sunday, 1 July 2007 01:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

Jesus H. Just film it, release it direct to DVD and ignore it.

Ned Raggett, Sunday, 1 July 2007 01:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

HBO really needs to wise up and buy the rights to this

river wolf, Sunday, 1 July 2007 02:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://www.rorschachsjournal.com/

latebloomer, Sunday, 1 July 2007 03:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

HBO needs to wise up and buy rights to a lot of comics. this, but i want an HBO series of 100 bullets really badly.

max, Sunday, 1 July 2007 03:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

animated spawn to thread. (you were so much better than the live action grubkiss)
m.

msp, Sunday, 1 July 2007 03:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

but i want an HBO series of 100 bullets really badly.

otm x 100

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 1 July 2007 05:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

SPOILERS!

One thing I've thought about the movie version is, how the hell are they gonna do the ending after WTC? Okay, V for Vendetta had V blowing up the houses of parliament, but it wasn't implied that anyone was in there (except maybe the bad guys). You'd think some producer would find Moore's ending a bit too shocking for public sensibility, especially since Veidt gets away with it.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 13:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

This is one of many problematic things about a film adaptation (as is the book's sense that nuclear war is otherwise inevitable).

The Real Dirty Vicar, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 14:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

You'd think some producer would find Moore's ending a bit too shocking for public sensibility, especially since Veidt gets away with it.

how is this different from dick cheney IRL (/cheeky)

El Tomboto, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 14:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

Adapting Alan Moore movies does not have a good track record. I do not want to see a Watchmen movie ever ever ever.

That said, Alan Moore (along with Daniel Clowes and the guy that did Maus whose name I forget) are going to be on the Simpsons as themselves Oct. 7th.

jessie monster, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 14:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

What, holy shit! Is that gonna be some special comics issue?

Tuomas, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 15:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

This is one of many problematic things about a film adaptation (as is the book's sense that nuclear war is otherwise inevitable).

To be honest, the whole "let's scare them to peace with a massive alien" bit was always the weakest, least credible part of the comic. I've never understood whether Moore really thought it was clever (he does have a tendency to do pompous, over-the-top finales), or whether it was meant to be a homage to ridiculous old-school superhero comic endings.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 16:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

Alan Moore (along with Daniel Clowes and the guy that did Maus whose name I forget) are going to be on the Simpsons as themselves Oct. 7th.

!!! wtf

(was Grant Morrison unavailable?)

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 16:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

I wonder how many Simpsons viewers will mistake Moore for some random homeless dude.

jessie monster, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 16:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

To be honest, the whole "let's scare them to peace with a massive alien" bit was always the weakest, least credible part of the comic. I've never understood whether Moore really thought it was clever (he does have a tendency to do pompous, over-the-top finales), or whether it was meant to be a homage to ridiculous old-school superhero comic endings.

-- Tuomas, Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:05 PM

The funny thing is that I read it for the first time many years ago, and for some reason my fuzzy brain managed to "remember" an ending where the good guys saved the world!

Needless to say, I was pretty shocked when I re-read it.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 16:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

To be honest, the whole "let's scare them to peace with a massive alien" bit was always the weakest, least credible part of the comic. I've never understood whether Moore really thought it was clever (he does have a tendency to do pompous, over-the-top finales), or whether it was meant to be a homage to ridiculous old-school superhero comic endings.

-- Tuomas, Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:05 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

i think it's more the latter, but either way it doesn't bother me much considering one of the novel's central characters is a nude, radioactive blue man.

latebloomer, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 16:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

give more a little credit, I don't think realism was what he was going for with the book - its more a hyper-real interpretation of comic book tropes, kinda a halfway point between genre conventions and believable "realism"

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 16:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

I mean I don't think anything in the book is remotely "credible" and why should it be.

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 16:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ag44dRO8LEA

latebloomer, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 16:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

i think it's more the latter, but either way it doesn't bother me much considering one of the novel's central characters is a nude, radioactive blue man.

Yeah, but Moore puts a lot of effort to make him into a believable radioactive blue man, whereas the ending somehow feels much less credible (for me, the fact that Moore had to back it up with the bit about the psychic's brain hints even he kinda doubted the whole resolution).

(xx-post)

Note that I'm not talking about literal realism rather than internal credibility. Even though Watchmen has some supernatural stuff in it, the way people act, and the way things begin to escalate into war is presented in a relatively realistic way, whereas compared to that Veidt's final resolution and the fact that it works (for now) seems much less believable.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 16:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

Really don't want to see this happen at all...this and that Confederacy of Dunces movie they've been 'making' forever that stars (*cries*) Will Ferrel in a fat suit as Ignatius.

Abbott, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 22:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

waht

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 22:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm with Tuomas on this one, actually.

Who knew.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 22:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

But Alan Moore has already appeared in The Simpsons as Krusty's father.

blueski, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 00:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://www.duffgardens.net/media/guests/character/rabbi1.gif

"Life isn’t divided into genres. It’s a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."

blueski, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 00:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

kudos

David R., Wednesday, 25 July 2007 00:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

watchmen (comic) (dense, multilayered narratives) is like the polar opposite of 300 (comic)(naked dudes w/ musculls kissingfighting) i don't get why anyone thinks Snyder's up to Watchmen based on 300, other than, y'know, um, no, actually, no reason at all.

Dr. Superman, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 04:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

exact moment in this revive when my heart sank:

"Cruise still possible for Veidt"

> the guy that did Maus whose name I forget

art spiegelman

koogs, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 08:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

Today, The Hollywood Reporter published a confirmed list of actors for Watchmen. Jackie Earle Haley will play Rorschach, along with Billy Crudup (Dr Manhattan), Malin Akerman (Silk Spectre), Matthew Goode (Ozymandias), Patrick Wilson (Nite-Owl), and Jeffrey Dean Morgan (the Comedian).

http://twitchfilm.net/site/view/this-is-watchmen-casting-confirmed/

, Thursday, 26 July 2007 09:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

I don't know who any of those people are!

Tuomas, Thursday, 26 July 2007 09:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

me neither! but at least tom cruise isnt one of them

, Thursday, 26 July 2007 09:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

A quick check on IMDB reveals that most of those people are quite young for their roles. Though I guess you have to pick actors who are younger than the characters, if you want to include all those flashbacks.

Tuomas, Thursday, 26 July 2007 09:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

Hold on, Patrick Wilson was in Hard Candy? That was a quite good performance, though based on that he would've been better as Rorschach.

Tuomas, Thursday, 26 July 2007 09:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

i recognise Akerman as the freaky dude's wife in Harold & Kumar but only because i only just saw that the other week.

Earle Haley seems a bit old for Rorschach? tho i can't remember how old the guy is meant to be.

JD Morgan reminds me of Downey Jr - doesn't seem very Comediany.

but of course 'evil genius' Veidt has to be played by a Brit!

blueski, Thursday, 26 July 2007 09:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

Rorschach is supposed to be fairly old, right?

> the guy that did Maus whose name I forget

art spiegelman

-- koogs, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 08:39 (Yesterday) Link

That was my guess! But I would have felt worse if I guessed and got it wrong so I just admitted I didn't really know.

jessie monster, Thursday, 26 July 2007 13:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

Also I am pretty sure this will be unwatchable.

jessie monster, Thursday, 26 July 2007 13:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

HAVE FAITH GOOBERS

David R., Thursday, 26 July 2007 13:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think Rorschach is in his mid-forties in the present day of the comic. As are all the other second generation superheroes, except for Silk Spectre II, who's a bit younger.

Tuomas, Thursday, 26 July 2007 14:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

we will have no more of forgetting art spiegelman's name, ok?

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/cruz/10.06.99/gifs/spiegelman1-9940.jpg

art spiegelman
art spiegelman
art spiegelman

kenan, Thursday, 26 July 2007 15:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

Also I am pretty sure this will be unwatchable.

Cue a million review headlines.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 July 2007 15:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

pictures for comparison

http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/07/25/watchmen-casting-officially-confirmed-early/

El Tomboto, Thursday, 26 July 2007 15:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

this movie is going to tank like nobody's business. snyder will become more reviled than michael bay

El Tomboto, Thursday, 26 July 2007 15:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

LA LA LA NOT LISTENING

blueski, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

snyder will become more reviled than michael bay uwe boll

Phil D., Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

whadayamean Michael Bay still gets to make huge-budget movies

x-post

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

but yeah this is all wrong - those guys are all way too young and their inability to attract quality talent is, I'm sure, also indicative of how shitty the script must be

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

and their inability to attract quality talent is, I'm sure, also indicative of how shitty the script must be

or maybe it's because the studio know that putting a budget bigger than 300's behind this would be rather silly no matter how good the script is.

blueski, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

this movie is going to tank like nobody's business. snyder will become more reviled than michael bay

-- El Tomboto, Thursday, 26 July 2007 15:58 (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

My god I hope so! Nightmare scenario - "watchmen" movie is a big hit, moviemakers trawl though Alan Moore's back catalog, "Halo Jones" movie is thus made AAARG NO NO NO NO nO!!!!!1!!

Pashmina, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

hahaha I eagerly await the Bojeffries Saga adaptation

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

those guys are all way too young

yep. Especially The Comedian. I do like Patrick Wilson, tho. What was he doing in a Gap commercial a few weeks ago?

kenan, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

x-post -- Orlando Bloom as Miracleman.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

is this a made-for-TV thing?

sexyDancer, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

I can imagine this not being as good as 300 (not that i've seen it) due to story complexity and nothing else, but it will probably make more money than 300 regardless.

I never saw League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, remind me why it was such a poor adaptation?

blueski, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

oh god where to begin on the p.o.s.

kenan, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

so where's Gerard Butler?

blueski, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

League was awful awful awful - basically bore no resemblance to the books, added characters, drastically changed others, different villain, different conclusion, different in tone and subtext, acting was terrible, way too much bad CGI, extraneous chase scenes, bad dialogue.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's not that it's a bad adaptation so much as that it's just a painfully bad movie, full stop.

kenan, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

hahaha I eagerly await the Bojeffries Saga adaptation

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:25 (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

"The Stars my Degradation" dir. Tinto Brass could be good for some lolz, perhaps.

Pashmina, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

what kenan said
x-post

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

Nu-Cruise would have been perfect as Veidt!

Jordan, Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

My god I hope so! Nightmare scenario - "watchmen" movie is a big hit, moviemakers trawl though Alan Moore's back catalog, "Halo Jones" movie is thus made AAARG NO NO NO NO nO!!!!!1!!

Actually, out of Moore's major works Halo Jones would probably be the most easy to film (that or Top 10).

Tuomas, Thursday, 26 July 2007 18:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

Zalman King Presents: Alan Moore's The Cobweb

David R., Thursday, 26 July 2007 18:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

Top 10 would make a better TV show.

sexyDancer, Thursday, 26 July 2007 18:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

LOST GIRLS: THE ANIMATED SERIES

I would so watch THAT one.

Abbott, Thursday, 26 July 2007 19:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

A Top 10 TV series would be awesome! Wasn't it even divided into "Season 1" and "Season 2"?

Unfortunately comics-to-TV rarely seems to work, I can't think of any example where it would've been done properly, except The Maxx.

Tuomas, Thursday, 26 July 2007 19:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

Fish Police!

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 26 July 2007 19:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

(j/k that show was terrible)

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 26 July 2007 19:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

maybe gerard butler as first nite owl?

poortheatre, Thursday, 26 July 2007 21:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

they're all way too young nobodies

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 26 July 2007 21:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

i got kingfish to admit he watched the blue man group dvd

s1ocki, Thursday, 26 July 2007 22:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

this will be about as good as the Judge Dredd movie

blueski, Thursday, 26 July 2007 22:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

dude whos set to play veidt is really good in The Lookout!

, Tuesday, 7 August 2007 00:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

i got kingfish to admit he watched the blue man group dvd

Not true. My only exposure to vid of these guys is an MTV News report from like 15 years ago, those Intel ads, and seeing their banners all over chicago when I first visited there. Oh yeah, and my station got a review copy of their CD.

kingfish, Tuesday, 7 August 2007 00:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

Blue Man Group: Why are they so bad and hated?

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 7 August 2007 00:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

Was thinking of seeing BMG in Berlin. I'm glad that I didn't now!

kv_nol, Tuesday, 7 August 2007 09:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

three months pass...

OK, Matt Frewer as Moloch is kinda inspired...

Max Headroom Joins Watchmen

Elvis Telecom, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 19:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

That doesn't look like a photo of real Nixon, or a real photo of Nixon.

Abbott, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 00:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

I have to admit, I was fearing a 300/Sin City/Grendel/Sky Captain atrocious look in this movie, but those stills aren't terrible at all.

Oilyrags, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 00:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

hey is that rorschach??? xpost

jessie monster, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 00:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

By Grendel I mean Beowulf, DOH!

Oilyrags, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 01:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

And yes, I presume that's big R. And the Bernards!

Oilyrags, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 01:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

The Backlot

After a couple months of shooting at various locations and on stages, last week we finally made the transition to our New York City backlot. Since the New York City that is rendered in the graphic novel is so particular, it was very important to me that our backlot speak the same language, the vernacular of WATCHMEN. In addition, the backlot needs to function as many different parts of the city, countless store fronts, street corners, alleys, etc. So, with that in mind, we set out to build own own custom backlot here in Vancouver, BC. In my opinion, the results speak for themselves.

Thanks to all of the many talented people who contributed to making this backlot a reality!

Here are a few interesting facts about the backlot:

• 5,800 feet of neon requiring 24,000 watts of power
• 100 unique and custom-designed graphics created for the various storefronts
• 5,000 square feet of custom posters
• Street had to work for 1938, 1945, 1953, 1957, 1964, 1974, 1975, 1977, and 1985
• 1,040 feet of 1:1 scale New York streets
• 98,400 square feet of exterior scenery
• 12,500 square feet of interior scenery
• Building heights range from 23'9" to 42'6"
• 10,325 16-foot 2x4s
• 3,600 sheets of OSB (plywood-like construction material)
• 384,000 square feet of foam brick
• 200,000 nails
• 3,500 tubes of construction adhesive
• 160,000 lbs. of steel I-beams support the facades
• 300 cubic meters of concrete
• 6,000 square feet of glass
• 4,800 square feet of plexiglass
• 20,000 donuts were consumed by the construction crew
• 20,000 gallons of water and 3,000 gallons of Gatorade was drunk by the crew

-Zack

latebloomer, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 01:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm impressed by the first still just because, well, hell, there that corner is, there's the two guys at it all the time.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 01:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

Posters for Black Freighter comics and the upcoming Pale Horse/Krystallnacht show...

Oilyrags, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 01:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

I really have no idea how they could pull this off as a movie and keep everything they're evidently keeping (always thought a cinematic version would have be crazy truncated, like basically eliminating the Minutemen storyline entirely), and aside from Jackie Earle Haley I'm not really feeling the cast (had no desire to ever see a Patrick Wilson movie again) but I've read the comic so many times that I basically HAVE to see this as soon as it comes out.

da croupier, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 01:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

looks like dick tracy

moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 01:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

croupier otm.

s1ocki, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 02:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

Vahid also.

Rock Hardy, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 02:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm torn. I hated 300 with a huge fucking passion but I think it may have been a case of irredeemable source material, because Snyder's comments about which aspects of the story are important have been OTM so far and most of the cast is pretty solid.

Also, Butler (supposedly) getting relegated to Black Freighter segment = classic.

Simon H., Tuesday, 27 November 2007 02:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

they're actually doing the Black Freighter? how LONG is this movie?

da croupier, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 02:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

they're doing it as a DVD extra.

latebloomer, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 03:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/

regular news/rumors about the movie

latebloomer, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 03:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

da croupier, I feel the same way. Those pics are pretty cool though, they capture the squalid, filthy look so necessary to get this story right.
We are going to have to face the fact that something IS going to disappoint us about the movie, and then just go along with it, embrace it - employ cognitive dissonance or suspension or disbelief or just not get our hopes up for something perfect which takes us back to the first time we read it. Alan Moore said that it's basically UN-FILMABLE, and he's right, because it would be, like 12 hours long. We will just make the most of it. It won't be "Watchmen" it will be "Watchmen - the movie version". I'll be there in line when it opens, and I hope that the makers are just huge nerds and totally obsessive and try and do the best job they can.

Chelvis, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 04:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

would be cool if they did it as an hbo series!

i think that about everything tho

s1ocki, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 05:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

I used to think they'd have to do V For Vendetta as an animated mini-series.

da croupier, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 05:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

I guess the ending will have to be as dark as it is in the comic, or its just basically gonna come off like Heroes.

da croupier, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 05:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

If they actually ended it at the same point as the comic...nice.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 05:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

I mean, that's almost my favorite "lady or the tiger?" ending ever. (Though Guy Gavriel Kay's Tigana comes close.)

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 05:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

I wonder if they're gonna include all the little details that indicate it's an alternate timeline, like the electric outlets to charge cars, those weird pipes people smoke instead of cigarettes, the blimps you can see in the sky all the time, etc.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 13:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

And does anyone know who are those folks playing the newsvendor and the kid? They're pretty big roles, if the movie is faithful to the comic.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 14:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

Emilio Estevez and Laura San Giacomo

latebloomer, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 14:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

fuck this film. just make Watchmen Babies cartoon happen.

still think they should've done it in two parts tho

blueski, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 14:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

Boy, Emilio has gone to ruin since Breakfast Club!

Tuomas, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 14:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

but i never realised Max Headroom and the geek scientist dude in Taken were actually the same person until now :o

blueski, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 14:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

the makeup fx are pretty impressive!

latebloomer, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 14:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

x-post

latebloomer, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 14:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

two parts would have suited it perfectly.

it's just a pity peter jackson couldn't have done this. /sarcasm

darraghmac, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 14:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

those stills on that site are showing good ATD tho e.g. the Veidt Sport poster on the bus shelter.

blueski, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 14:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/photos/rorshach_badge.jpg

Alan, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 14:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

WHO IS DARKMAN

blueski, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 14:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

this thread was brought to you by nude spock

DG, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 14:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

I honestly put in about 5 minutes trying to figure out of those stills were shot in Gastown or New West before reading the not-at-all smallprint and twigging on to what "BACKLOT" means. Impressive.

Dr. Superman, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 16:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

with pretty much every comic book movie they do that noirish rim-lighting effect where a backlight defines a bright outline to the bodies, mimicking the pen-and-ink outlines you see in the comics (cf. that photo of rorshach up there) ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/rimlighting/ )

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 16:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

one month passes...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Watchmenbabies.png

and what, Sunday, 30 December 2007 20:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

is that from a recent simpsons??

it's funny

s1ocki, Sunday, 30 December 2007 21:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

lol

da croupier, Sunday, 30 December 2007 21:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

high quality

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 30 December 2007 22:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

one month passes...

http://www.chud.com/articles/content_images/5/hr_Watchmen_6.jpg

latebloomer, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 10:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

OK, WAU

aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 10:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

What's so wow about that pic? It's a scene from the comic done in live action, pretty much what one expected.

That Simpsons episode with Alan Moore was very funny. I think he should do more voice acting. I thought the whole episode should've been devoted to the comic book story line, instead of the not-so-interesting gym plot.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 11:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

That's what's WAU, that it's done exactly right and so raises expectations that all the rest of it will be done right too.

aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 11:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

I guess so, though I'm not sure if adapting to the comic super-faithfully is the same as doing it right. One thing I liked about the V fo Vendetta movie is that they took the liberty to add new ideas to the story, even though not all of them worked.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 11:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

That's WAU right there, because V For Vendetta was utter shite, like taking a big dump over the still-warm corpses of Moore & lloyd.

aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 11:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

Btw, if you want to have go through incredibly detailed annotations and analysis of Watchmen the comic, this site is a great read, even though it hasn't been updated for years.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 11:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

Looked at that site years ago, Jess Nevins' annotated Watchmen was better IMO (but even then wasn't really saying anything I didn't grasp in the first place, unlike his LoEG annotations).

Also:

One thing I liked about the League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie is that they took the liberty to add new ideas to the story, even though not all of them worked.

Just as valid a statement.

aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 11:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

Eh I didn't mind LoEG, just as a cinematic romp. From Hell on the other hand...

ledge, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

Ah, but it "took the liberty to add new ideas to the story, even though not all of them worked."

(Actually, I didn't ming LXG as a BIG BUDGET CRASH BANG POW ACTION FLICK, it just wasn't LoEG. And I re-watched From Hell the other week and it's not as DREADFUL as I remember, although the stars are still piss poor.)

aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

I haven't seen LeOG, so I can't comment on that, but obviously I thought many of the new ideas in the VfV were actually good. Like the Benny Hill tribute, or the unmasking scene in the end, or the fact that Evey questioned V's motives more than in the comic. In the comic she often felt like a puppet for V, which sorta goes against the anarchist theme of the story. I don't think the movie was great in any way, but it had lots of interesting stuff going on, like the whole terrorist theme - I think putting more emphasis on that than in the comic was perfectly valid, when thinking of how world politics had changed in the 25 years between the comic and the movie.

I think that Watchmen site has lot of observations I probably wouldn't have noticed even after several rereads of the comic. For example, someone notes that the speech bubbles in it are different shaped in different eras; the 40s bubbles are more round and bubble-like, innocent in a sense, whereas the 80s bubbles are more angular and edgy, and the 60s bubbles are something in between.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think From Hell is better than its given credit for, if you just think of it as a quirky psychological thriller, and don't view it in comparison with Moore's massive, detailed historical study. It was quite obvious the directors couldn't put all that in one Hollywood movie.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

wtf, the whole unmasking deliberately undermines any anarchist theme, it places the responsibility under one man (even though other people end up taking up the cause - or, in fact, do they? Some of the people we see in the final sequence are ACTUALLY DEAD (irrespective of the fact V has allegedly asked them to stand DIRECTLY IN FRONT of several tons on building he is blowing up) so may well be a figment of his dying brain or Evey's insanity.

The Wachowskis even went as far as to say they removed as much of the anarchist stuff as possible to get it released. Moore himself has referred to it as a clumsy "Republicans vs. Democrats" analogue.

aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

I thought the point of the unmasking was, that like in the comic, V was not an individual rather than the idea of revolution/anatrchism, and the unmasking shows the variety of people acting under this supposedly uniform idea. So it's not an ideology of the faceless masses. I agree that the movie definitely is less anarchist than the comic, but I was talking about the specific treatmeant of the Evey character. In the comic the way V manipulates him to do what he wants is a bit too smooth and easy. Also, it's notable that in the movie she doesn't take V's mantle after he's dead, like she does in the comic. I've always thought that was one of the most problematic parts of the story... If V is seen as the idea of an anarchism rather than as a real person, then his actions are sorta justified. But Evey, on the other hand, is presented as a real individual, so her becoming "the guardian" of the revolution goes sorta against the idea of anarchism, in my opinion.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

they're not doing the giant squidalien explosion in this right? shame

blueski, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm confused now - why does Evey going along with things undermine the anarchist message?

xpost to Tuombot

aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

Because anarchism is about free will, but in the comic it seems V has pretty much designed her fate from the beggining to the end.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

This is also why I think the prison cell part of the story, both in the comic and the movie, is problematic, as great an episode as it is. If V wants to make Evey see the point of his anarchism, it should come by her free will and not by force, as it happens.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

That's very specific interpretation, and a definite strawman. I mean you could just as easily argue that in the outset (such as with the Bishop) he uses her as a tool, but then realises that with the 'correct' education she will come round to his way of thinking.

Or then there's the film version, where V looks up his ADDRESS BOOK OF ALL THE ANARCHISTS and sends them all a mask whereon ALL OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL they decide to ALL turn up together.

Why am I bothering, this is like arguing with Geir.

aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

Or then there's the film version, where V looks up his ADDRESS BOOK OF ALL THE ANARCHISTS and sends them all a mask whereon ALL OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL they decide to ALL turn up together.

Saying that something is gonna happen at a specific place, be there if you want to, is pretty different from locking someone into a cell. Or do you think that sending invitations to a demonstration is somehow against free will? You can still decide if you want to come there or not.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

At 100% turnout against invitations? WHERE DOES HE GET THEIR ADDRESSES FROM?

aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

How do you know it's a 100% turnout?

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

> they're not doing the giant squidalien explosion in this right? shame

spoilers!

> I'm not sure if adapting to the comic super-faithfully is the same as doing it right.

would also result in a 12 hour film. all the stills and all look great but how can they reduce it to 2 hours without killing it?

koogs, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

Based on the size of the square they are in (and rough comparison with previous demonstrations there) there are about 50,000 people there. (I seem to recall something in LitG at the time saying there were somethiing like 20,000 extras used and composited in multiplied to make the crowd look bigger). Given he sent them all a mask each, which he was having made somewhere without attracting suspicion despite being under an OH NOES FASCIST state so the scale of production has to be a limiting factor on how many he can send out, even if he only sent them with a first class stamp that's £20,000 not to mention some pissed off Post Office staff.

xpost to Tuombot

aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

i can't believe anyone's wasting valuable bytes of bandwidth on the VfV film

DG, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

Er, maybe the scene was just symbolic, you know? It's not like the movie implied in any way that he forced anyone to come there, so it seems kinda pointless to point out that oh no, maybe this scene in a allegorical sci-fi movie wasn't altogether realistic in terms of the logistics.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

let go

aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35862

Gukbe, Thursday, 6 March 2008 06:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

Nite Owl looks pretty good but Veidt too obviously 'evil' maybe? It's all looking v Batmanny.

blueski, Thursday, 6 March 2008 13:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

Comedian and Rorscach are good. Bit iffy on the others.

chap, Thursday, 6 March 2008 13:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think these new suits are way too cool... And too "Batmanny" indeed. In the comic the suits were sorta intentionally silly, to emphasize the silliness of the whole idea of dressing in one.

Tuomas, Thursday, 6 March 2008 13:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

RIP Nite Owl beergut

blueski, Thursday, 6 March 2008 13:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think it would have been kind of impossible to pull off the silly suits in the flick. Hopefully they'll be sketching out the characters well enough to make it work anyway.

Morgan as Comedian looks perfect.

Also I think some of these pics are the young, "glory days" versions of the characters.

Simon H., Thursday, 6 March 2008 13:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

I like the Nite Owl and Comedian - although the Nite Owl one kinda beats you over the head with who he's supposed to remind the audience of. The Rorschach is, well, just Rorschach really; it would have been hard to mess that one up.

The Veidt one just screams Bad Guy; which is a major mistake if you ask me. Just because it's a comic book movie doesn't mean the studio/writers/director has to assume that the typical viewer is going to be a drooling idiot.

Stone Monkey, Thursday, 6 March 2008 14:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

I guess they're still trying to figure out Dr Manhattan

blueski, Thursday, 6 March 2008 14:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think it may just be the lighting in that picture though, because there's an element of "All American boy" superhero to Veidt.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Thursday, 6 March 2008 14:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

Looks OK to me, maybe a little too grungy and dark™ for me. Liked the bright colours and clean lines of the original.

Bodrick III, Thursday, 6 March 2008 15:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

What he said.

Dr. Superman, Friday, 7 March 2008 06:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

OH SHI

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 7 March 2008 06:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

Veidt doesn't look gay enough.

The Real Dirty Vicar, Friday, 7 March 2008 13:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think these new suits are way too cool... And too "Batmanny" indeed.

There was an interview with Snyder saying something to to the effect his intent with this is to be to superhero movies what the graphic novel was to its own medium.

latebloomer, Saturday, 15 March 2008 07:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

doesn't mean it'll turn out well, of course.

latebloomer, Saturday, 15 March 2008 07:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=43692

featurette about the building of the sets, if you're interested.

latebloomer, Sunday, 6 April 2008 15:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

watchmen really gets better every time you read it. so does cerebus, but that's another thread.

ian, Monday, 7 April 2008 03:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

> so does cerebus

...if you know when to stop.

Oilyrags, Monday, 7 April 2008 12:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah, book 7 is where i get off the boat. and that's later than some people.

ian, Monday, 7 April 2008 15:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

I don't know which one book seven is, but I figure you're doing ok to quit at halftime (the end of Mothers and Daughters.) Yeah, the crazy anti-life voids bullshit starts there, but it still isn't the main focus of the book.

Oilyrags, Monday, 7 April 2008 15:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think it's good up to book 10, if you ignore the text sections in 9. There are brilliant moments tucked a way amongst the mentalism all the way to the end, though.

xpost - yeh, like Oily said.

chap, Monday, 7 April 2008 15:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

oops - just looked at wiki and I was confused. Yes, quit at halftime, but that's just the end of the first part of Mothers and Daughters, not the whole thing. And it's book seven! So we agree.

"Guys" is worth a look just for its formal invention, though. Plus teh funneee.

Oilyrags, Monday, 7 April 2008 15:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

eggzie postie

Oilyrags, Monday, 7 April 2008 15:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

"Guys" is worth a look just for its formal invention, though. Plus teh funneee.

Formal invention and occasional funnies are the main draw of the whole of the latter third.

chap, Monday, 7 April 2008 15:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

Hahah! From Wiki:

The Roach, along with Fleagle McGrew and Dirty Drew McGrew, appeared in a Sim-penned story in the anthology title AARGH (Artists Against Rampant Government Homophobia). With the title-sized speech bubbles "Terror in a Turgid Tool!" and "By my Loins- Betrayed!" it indicated the Roach was homosexual.

Oh, the ironing.

Oilyrags, Monday, 7 April 2008 15:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

one month passes...

http://www.joblo.com/video/player.php?video=Watchmen_480

latebloomer, Wednesday, 7 May 2008 04:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

i thought that was gonna be a trailer... video journal? worth watching? is squirrel police in it?

s1ocki, Wednesday, 7 May 2008 06:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/business/media/26retail.html
Key point:
"The twist is that Mr. Snyder, known for turning the Spartan comic book series “300” into a global hit movie, is also directing a separate-but-related picture that Warner plans to distribute exclusively on DVD.

The second film, tentatively called “Tales of the Black Freighter,” follows a side “Watchmen” storyline about a shipwreck and will arrive in stores five days after the main movie rolls out in theaters. The DVD will also include a documentary-style film called “Under the Hood” that will delve into the characters’ backstories. "

treefell, Monday, 26 May 2008 13:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

i always found the black freighter sections rather tedious, don't think i actually read the story until the third time i read the whole thing.

jeremy waters, Monday, 26 May 2008 14:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

I thought the black freighter bit was the glue that held the thing together. What I got from the black freighter storyline was that that was also the storyline all the characters were following in the main story - most clearly Veidt, but also Rorschach and the others.

AlanSmithee, Monday, 26 May 2008 20:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah, sort of. all the plot points converging on this horrible truth.

jeremy waters, Monday, 26 May 2008 20:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

Namely: raw seagulls are delicious!

Ned Raggett, Monday, 26 May 2008 20:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

kind of awesome that they're doing "under the hood"... the bits at the end of each issue were such an essential part of the story as a whole.

s1ocki, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

I did have to coax myself into reading them but I am glad I did bcz they are key and good.

Abbott, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

hope Veidt's still a dub reggae fan

latebloomer, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

I HOPE IT HAS...KITTY!

p[urple kitty

Abbott, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

kind of awesome that they're doing "under the hood"... the bits at the end of each issue were such an essential part of the story as a whole.

I was always wondering, how long was Hollis Mason's book supposed to be? Because his whole life story and the story of the masked heroes seems to have been pretty much covered in the 15 pages included in the comic.

Tuomas, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also, I've always wondered if Dreiberg's ornithological article in the later issue is supposed to be allegorical in the same sense the Black Freighter story is, or is it just supposed to illuminate his character?

Tuomas, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

Maybe the rest of it is about vintage car repair?

Abbott, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

I was always wondering, how long was Hollis Mason's book supposed to be? Because his whole life story and the story of the masked heroes seems to have been pretty much covered in the 15 pages included in the comic.

-- Tuomas, Monday, May 26, 2008 9:35 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

lol!! true

s1ocki, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

OMG that ornithological article is IMO the most embarrassing part...such purple prose. And that kind of thing would never, ever show up in a peer-reviewed journal.

Abbott, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

Haha, that would be awesome! Anyway, Mason turned out to be a good writer, didn't he? The scene in the beginning of the book with his boss and the fake boobs is just as touching as he imagines it to be.

(xx-post)

Tuomas, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also he gets the Kitty Geniovese thing totally wrong.

Abbott, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

The ornithological article is kinda weird, and doesn't really give that much of the sort of background information the other articles do, which is why I've thought there might be a deeper level to it. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into the Moore style of writing?

Tuomas, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

I remember reading some Neil Gaiman interview where he says he sorta helped Moore write that article. They'd already become friends back then, and it turned out Moore didn't know too much about birds, so he asked Gaiman for help, and he sent Moore some books on ornithology or something. So maybe it really was just filler, since symmetry required every issue must end with an article, and he hadn't come up with anything important for that issue...

Tuomas, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

hope Veidt's still a dub reggae fan

"I'm into dancehall now."

Ned Raggett, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

Moore has his ways with the music references, doesn't he? Has anyone else heard the recorded version of the song ("This Vicious Cabaret") V sings in V For Vendetta (it's not by Moore but some rock singer)? It's kinda disappointing.

Tuomas, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

I like it, because I am a big fan of said 'rock singer,' who is David J from Bauhaus/Love and Rockets.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

Whoa.

Abbott, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

I love in Watchmen, something like "I don't want to look like Devo."

Abbott, Monday, 26 May 2008 21:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'd love to hear a version of the song sang by Moore himself, he as such a great voice.

Tuomas, Monday, 26 May 2008 22:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

You've all heard this, right?

chap, Monday, 26 May 2008 22:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

DUCKS! DUCKS!

Ned Raggett, Monday, 26 May 2008 22:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also, I've always wondered if Dreiberg's ornithological article in the later issue is supposed to be allegorical in the same sense the Black Freighter story is, or is it just supposed to illuminate his character?

-- Tuomas, Monday, May 26, 2008 9:37 PM (58 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

I remember at one point trying really hard to read it allegorically, but not really finding anything there. I think it's just supposed to underline that homie is really, almost sadly into birds.

No dis to orinthology folks, but like Ab said dude's prose is way over the top; makes it almost come off like a coping mechanism, he's desperate for something.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 26 May 2008 22:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

for birds!

s1ocki, Monday, 26 May 2008 22:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

aren't we all

latebloomer, Monday, 26 May 2008 22:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://www.aintitcool.com/images2008/mmpic.jpg

latebloomer, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 17:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

Night Crotch

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 17:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

unfortunate

HI DERE, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 17:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

isn't the whole point of their old costumes that they're kind of silly? hopefully they'll be smart enough to play it that way.

Simon H., Tuesday, 27 May 2008 18:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

which one is squirrel police?

DG, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 18:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

Looks great!

Allen, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 18:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

Silhouette's hot.

chap, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 19:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

isn't the whole point of their old costumes that they're kind of silly? hopefully they'll be smart enough to play it that way.

Oh, I think it looks like they played it that way.

Abbott, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 20:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

Looks like they're also going to play up the "footnote" aspect of the original comics with DVD editions.

sexyDancer, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 20:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

i love the old costumes homemadeness

every time i see this thread i figure it means that watchmen movie is delayed like another year

rrrobyn, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 21:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

one month passes...

The trailer hits on Friday.

chap, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 21:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

Erm, really? I thought they'd leave it for the ComicCon panel ...

Allen, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 21:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=22942

chap, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 21:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

Ahhhh ... makes sense. Thanks for the tip.

Allen, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 21:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

this is going to be so terrible

just re-read the comics last week, the thing is unfilmable.

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 22:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

I thought the black freighter bit was the glue that held the thing together. What I got from the black freighter storyline was that that was also the storyline all the characters were following in the main story - most clearly Veidt, but also Rorschach and the others.

-- AlanSmithee, Monday, May 26, 2008 8:09 PM (1 month ago) Bookmark Link

so OTM, totally did not get this until very recently!

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 22:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

Watchmen trailer, attached to Dark Knight, premiers on Empire Online:

http://www.empireonline.com/video/watchmen/

Ballsy use of Smashing Pumpkins track from the Batman & Robin soundtrack!

Simon H., Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

"ballsy"

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

oh, whatever.

Simon H., Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

visually at least, it looks great.

latebloomer, Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah nice comic book stylings. No need for Billy "laughing boy" Corgan, though.

Neil S, Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

visually at least, it looks great.

Pretty much my thought. I'm honestly amazed. Of course, the very 21st century effects/editing touches are jarring, but to be expected.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm still convinced this film is an impossible sell to people who haven't read the book (and some who have.)

Simon H., Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I'm ultimately skeptical -- still, though. (Sharp move not showing Veidt's Antarctic base, actually.)

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

The question is whether the director can coherently transplant the plot and its ramifications, though. Given the level of subtlety of 300 I have my doubts, but here's hoping.

Neil S, Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

Dr Manhattan lookin' pretty good. Awful use of Corgan tho. the whole approach of the trailer is pretty terrible and formulaic - should'be tried to stand out more here. Cool to see the Mars glass house tho.

blueski, Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

the whole approach of the trailer is pretty terrible and formulaic

A good number of the shots are pretty much from the book -- and I'm amused at how they're all "Look, Night Owl's Batman, WE KNOW"

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

Great looking trailer even with Corrigan's nasal mewling.

Capitaine Jay Vee, Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

I better read the comic! I have had the TPB for a while now, but there's always some fan-boy crossover that takes priority. I think there should be a She-Hulk movie, that would be awesome.

jel --, Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

A good number of the shots are pretty much from the book

i know, it's just the whole style of the trailer itself but i was hoping for no music, no slow mo etc., maybe use actual Nixon speeches cut up and whatnot

also really sick and tired of 'human being destroyed/blown apart/smashed into bits but the last remaining recognisable part of them is their screaming mouth' sequences

blueski, Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

link doesn't work for me :(

Pancakes Hackman, Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

Awful soundtrack to that preview.

Alex in SF, Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

don't like the obviously-all-shot-in-front-of-a-green-screen-ness of it all :(

DG, Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think it looks terrible. color scheme is all wrong.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

would love to hear deeznuts explain how this movie is inherently superior to the comics by virtue of its being a movie

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

OK, it's also at (shudder) Harry Knowles's.

DG, it wasn't all shot in front of a green screen! It was shot mostly on practical sets!

Love the shot of Veidt nailing the assassin guy. And the Dr. Manhattan effects look great.

Pancakes Hackman, Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

they did actually film on Mars i believe

blueski, Thursday, 17 July 2008 20:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

No, they filmed on Venus doubling for Mars. It's cheaper to travel towards the sun for a movie crew.

Pancakes Hackman, Thursday, 17 July 2008 20:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

sorry, i'm done

is that aged Nixon on the TVs behind Veidt then?

blueski, Thursday, 17 July 2008 20:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

Looks interesting to me! Virtual sets/actors is the only way this thing COULD work, short of being an animation (which I can't believe no one had a serious go at).

forksclovetofu, Thursday, 17 July 2008 20:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

DG, it wasn't all shot in front of a green screen! It was shot mostly on practical sets!

i know, i read the production blog from time to time. still looks weird tho. that shot of dr manhattan blowing up a viet cong looks like some 1996 command and conquer cutscene

DG, Thursday, 17 July 2008 20:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

> would love to hear deeznuts explain how this movie is inherently superior to the comics by virtue of its being a movie

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:59 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Music is also inherently superior to sculpture.

Oilyrags, Thursday, 17 July 2008 20:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

ok haven't seen trailer but stills look fucking awesome

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 17 July 2008 20:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

the only good I can see coming of this is that maybe Dave Gibbons got a lot of money

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 July 2008 20:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

My status is still intrigued but skeptical. Only universally stinking reviews will stop me checking it out out of curiosity, though.

chap, Thursday, 17 July 2008 20:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

we get it dude. you dont like it. xp

s1ocki, Thursday, 17 July 2008 20:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

Another link for the trailer:
http://io9.com/5026402/watch-how-faithful-watchmen-will-be

Elvis Telecom, Thursday, 17 July 2008 21:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

I, like Shakey Mo, love this trailer and I will be first in line.

jeff, Thursday, 17 July 2008 21:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

i always imagined theire outfits to look way rattier/homemade/not like batman begins

Will M., Thursday, 17 July 2008 21:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

"I guess I look pretty Devo, huh?"

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 July 2008 21:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

yep

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 17 July 2008 21:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

top marks for manhattanpants

DG, Thursday, 17 July 2008 22:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

omgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomg

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Thursday, 17 July 2008 22:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

As my wife likes to remind me, I am quite often way too cynical for my own good. So as far as this movie goes, I've decided to just geek the fuck out and enjoy it.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Thursday, 17 July 2008 22:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

love the nipples on the Ozymandias suit

latebloomer, Thursday, 17 July 2008 22:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

I loved that B&W still that was released a few months back but I absolutely hate the trailer. Eh, I'll still see it.

Allen, Thursday, 17 July 2008 22:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

why is Ozymandias wearing nipple-plated leatherwear rather than the greco-egyptian shit his entire persona is centered on

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 July 2008 22:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

seriously so much wrong, you guys are on crack

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 July 2008 22:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

"You can't even turn the pages on this movie!"

forksclovetofu, Thursday, 17 July 2008 22:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's, like, metatextual, Shakey. Like how the comic was a comic about comics, the movie is a movie about movies. Therefore the "modern" (i.e., 1985) heroes in the movie have costumes more like current movie heroes, just like how 1990s Batman costume was so much different from Adam West costume.

Yes, it's anachronistic. So is Richard Nixon in the White House in 1985. Deal.

Pancakes Hackman, Thursday, 17 July 2008 22:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

this can't be bad! rorschach's mask moves! oooooooooh

DG, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

Like how the comic was a comic about comics, the movie is a movie about movies.

does not compute

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

Uh, ok. I guess not, if you're determined to be dumb/stubborn/whatever.

Pancakes Hackman, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

you might note that I'm not complaining about anachronisms - which are crucial to the "alternate reality" theme of the story - I'm complaining abotu STUPID SHIT that is in there for no reason and has nothing to do with the character other than "oooh we need to have the bad guy in black. leather. with nipples. wouldn't that be cool."

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

saying its a movie about movies is a gross misrepresentation - its a movie about a comic book about comic books. unless they've completely re-written the plot.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

I wonder if this will be worse than V For Vendetta was.

Alex in SF, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

Snyder has exlicitly stated that Ozymandias has nipples because of the Clooney-era Batsuit, in the spirit of recontextualization that Pancakes mentions. Like it or not, it's definitely not them trying to be "bad guy in scary outfit" or whatever.

Simon H., Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

Er maybe it's because designing a costume that an actual guy has to actually wear is different from just drawing one? The metal looking collar and cuffs he has in the book look quite impractical; they're still there in the movie, just a bit more realistic. And maybe on screen a poncey purple robe really doesn't look like an effective superhero costume.

xp.

ledge, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

i thought homeboy had nips in the comix

and what, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

okay I would watch that 24/7

HI DERE, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

Linus as the Comedian is rather inspired

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

I wonder if this will be worse than V For Vendetta was.

I wouldn't think it was possible but Snyder looks set to prove me wrong.

ref'ing Schumacher Batman films = stupidest excuse I've ever heard

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think Shroeder should be Manhattan and Charlie Brown the Night Owl. Of course that makes Pigpen Oz which makes no sense at all.

Alex in SF, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

so in the spirit of "recontextualization" did all the Minutemen don costumes cuz they were inspired to fight crime by Fantastic Four: The Rise of the Silver Surfer? Or was it more of a Dolph Lundgren-as-the-Punisher thing.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen_(film)

In December 2006, comic book artists Adam Hughes and John Cassaday were confirmed to work on character and costume design for Watchmen. Costume tests were being done by March 2007. 300 associate producer Wesley Coller played Rorschach in a costume test, which Snyder inserted into an R-rated trailer for 300. Although he intended to stay faithful to the look of the characters in the comic, Snyder intended Nite Owl to look scarier, and wanted Ozymandias to possess authentic Egyptian attire and artifacts. Nite Owl and Silk Spectre changed most from the comic, as Snyder felt "audiences might not appreciate the naiveté of the original costumes. So, there has been some effort to give them a (...) modern look — and not modern in the sense of 2007, but modern in terms of the superhero aesthetic". Snyder also wanted the costumes to "comment directly on many of today’s modern masked vigilantes": The Ozymandias costume, with its molded muscles and nipples, parodies the costumes in Batman Forever (1995) and Batman & Robin (1997). Set designers selected four Kansas City sculptors' works for use in the set of Dr. Manhattan's apartment after discovering their works on the Internet.

So, it looks like everyone's right! It's meta-commentary on modern superhero costumes and an attempt to pander to the audience with glossier costumes. You may now make out.

HI DERE, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

test marketing indicated widespread nipple parody approval

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

ref'ing Schumacher Batman films = stupidest excuse I've ever heard

Yeah because it's not like THOSE had any impact on the culture, right?

so in the spirit of "recontextualization" did all the Minutemen don costumes cuz they were inspired to fight crime by Fantastic Four: The Rise of the Silver Surfer? Or was it more of a Dolph Lundgren-as-the-Punisher thing.

Jesus Christ, Shakey, he's keeping the thing set in 1985, he's keeping the 1940s "Minutemen," by all accounts he's keeping the ending, what the hell is your problem here? The "recontextualization" amounts to dealing with these characters in the medium in which they're appearing, which is NOT A PIECE OF PAPER in case you hadn't noticed. If you want this movie to be even remotely watchable, Oz's costume from the comic simply would not fly. Maybe on some mid-budget Sci-Fi Channel original, but not here.

I mean, "OMFG OZYMANDIAS HAS NIPPLES THIS MOVIE IS RUINED" puts the dumbest Star Trek fanboy shit to shame.

Anyway, in the trailer scene where Dr. M appears in the cafeteria, you can definitely see some blue wang, so there's that.

Also:

http://www.toshistation.com/images/watchbabies1.jpg

Pancakes Hackman, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

"I mean, "OMFG OZYMANDIAS HAS NIPPLES THIS MOVIE IS RUINED" puts the dumbest Star Trek fanboy shit to shame."

I think Shakey has other reasons for thinking this movie is going to suck.

Alex in SF, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

Like the fact that it's directed by a complete moron for example.

Alex in SF, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

my point is this should not have been made into a movie at all, precisely because it will not translate well to film. Not because of all the minor details like, say, Ozzy's nipples (although those do matter - Moore was very meticulous in making every minor detail relevant to the larger plot), but because it is, as you say, a comic book about comics, and trying to make that into a movie about movies about comic books while also adhering tto the original plot is simply not possible. This film is a stupid fucking idea and I can't believe any of you are willing to pay money to further this fuckwit Snyder's career.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

"OMFG I SAW A BIT OF BILLY CRUDUPS BLUE WANG THIS MOVIE IS GREAT" > "OMFG OZYMANDIAS HAS NIPPLES THIS MOVIE IS RUINED"

Alex in SF, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

Watchmen poll

HI DERE, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

Not because of all the minor details like, say, Ozzy's nipples (although those do matter - Moore was very meticulous in making every minor detail relevant to the larger plot)

latebloomer, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

TS: James Mason's wang vs. Shelly Winter's nipples

Alex in SF, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

obv. Veidt's erect nipples are a commentary on the political polarity yet similarity between Nixon's victorious regime and the Soviet bloc and the resultant paradox

blueski, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

Unfortunately for you Pancakes this is more like the remake of Lolita.

Alex in SF, Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

Guess we'll see, huh? (Didn't see the "Lolita" remake, anyway.)

I am going to recommend to WB publicity that "This film is a stupid fucking idea and I can't believe any of you are willing to pay money to further this fuckwit Snyder's career" go on the posters, though.

Pancakes Hackman, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's still a better than whatever Roeper's going to come up with.

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

Well, yeah. I'm waiting for Rex Reed.

Morbius will love this:

“If you look, when you see Adrian (Veidt) hitting this would-be assassin in the trailer, the guy gets hit with a stanchion, one of those brass stanchions, and the guy flies in the fountain,” Snyder revealed to us, making reference to the scene in Alan Moore’s classic comic where Ozymandias avoids an assassination attempt.

“(The assassin) has a gun,” Snyder explained, remembering the difficult process of transforming his dark, R-rated film into a trailer for the masses. “So the MPAA said, ‘Look you can’t have him (holding the gun)‘ … I don’t even think it’s one second. I think it’s like 12 frames. He’s pointing the gun at the camera, and they said, ‘You can’t do that.’”

For years, the MPAA has prohibited weapons from being pointed at the “viewer” in advertising, presumably for fear that it will freak them out. That’s why you always see guns pointed at angles on movie posters and in film trailers.

“So we erased the gun,” Snyder grinned. “And put a walkie-talkie in his hand.”

As many film geeks remember — and are still angry about — Steven Spielberg famously re-released his family classic “E.T.” in 2002 after using CGI to transform the gun-wielding federal agents into less-threatening agents holding walkie-talkies.

“It was a total Spielberg reference,” laughed Snyder. “Because I was like, ‘Well, it worked for Spielberg, so we should do that. Just put a walkie-talkie in his hand!’ … (The editors) were like, ‘But then you cut to a real gun!’ but I’m like, ‘No one will ever see that; they’ll think he had a gun in the other shot, so it’s fine.’”

Pancakes Hackman, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think the idea of making movie watchmen about other superhero movies is a pretty smart move. I didn't see 300, cause it looked like a piece of shit. But then, the comic was a piece of shit, too! So maybe given an excellent comic to adapt Snyder will be able to make an excellent movie from it.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just wishin'.

Oilyrags, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

Okay, so Snyder has done:

"Dawn of the Dead" (remake): a movie I will never see
"300": good brainless fun and stylistically awesome
"Guardians of Ga'Hoole": lol waht teh eff
"Watchmen": stylistically intersting based on the trailer but seemingly way too large a project to successfully make the transition to film

What makes him an idiot? I know nothing about him.

HI DERE, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

Dawn of the Dead was ok for a completely unnecessary remake

latebloomer, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

yep

Oilyrags, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah dawn of the dead wasnt nearly as bad as it should have been

max, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

Watch a minute of a Snyder interview.

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

Some morons can make good movies btw. But I don't think a moron is going to be able to make a good movie out of Watchmen. Hell I don't think a GENIUS could make a good movie out of Watchmen.

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm kind of with Shakey on this one. It seems at best pointless, I dunno, I might be wrong, but s.th about the whole thing seems kind of leaden and unimaginative, like Dr Manhattan's mars clock base thing in the comic was all freaky and other, somehow. In the trailer, oh look, more CGI puffery (yawn) seen it before. Kind of hard to explain how/why exactly, but it rubs me up the wrong way totally.

Pashmina, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

In all fairness, I'm sure that's going to look more impressive on a movie screen than on a computer monitor.

HI DERE, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

(unless of course you've got a 914" monitor)

HI DERE, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

did you take 3 minutes to actually calculate the size in inches of a movie screen?

max, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

give him some credit, it was 2 minutes

latebloomer, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

oh wait

latebloomer, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

6 looked liked a 5

latebloomer, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

I had to find out what the size of a movie screen was first!

HI DERE, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

ANYWAY.

I thought the mars clockamajig looked great! The only effect in the trailer that looked kinda shoddy to me was the Vietnam bit.

I'm cautiously stoked, but I don't blame anyone for being uber-skeptical about this at all.

latebloomer, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

dawn of the dead was a decent remake but i don't know why anyone need to see it, really. 300 was pretty retarded. this one could be good, it at least looks interesting, as i should hope it would.

omar little, Friday, 18 July 2008 00:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

this is kind of a shitty comic book anyways

jeff, Friday, 18 July 2008 01:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

out.

latebloomer, Friday, 18 July 2008 01:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm wish Shakey and Pash and AlexSF. I wish this hadn't been made.

Rock Hardy, Friday, 18 July 2008 01:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

I look at it from the angle that, since it has been made, I am hoping for the best from it.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 18 July 2008 01:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

^

pretty much

latebloomer, Friday, 18 July 2008 01:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

For years, the MPAA has prohibited weapons from being pointed at the “viewer” in advertising, presumably for fear that it will freak them out. That’s why you always see guns pointed at angles on movie posters and in film trailers.

RONG!

http://www.klast.net/bond/images/ge_usadv.jpg

Elvis Telecom, Friday, 18 July 2008 01:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

Thirteen years?

David R., Friday, 18 July 2008 01:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

After a second watching, I am lolling at Dr. Sadface.

HI DERE, Friday, 18 July 2008 02:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

i agree that there is no point to this really and i've always been against the idea kind of in principle but now, i mean, the movie's made, i'm gonna check it out. i mean, i could rage about it all day but at this point might as well wait to see it first.

s1ocki, Friday, 18 July 2008 08:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah, what slocki and Ned and others said. Lots of things -- Lolita, Naked Lunch, etc. -- have been called "unfilmable" over the years, and yet decent movies have been made of them. Now, clearly Snyder is not Kubrick or Cronenberg. Hell. he's not even Ron Howard or something. But he's also not McG or Michael Bay or Brett Ratner; he appears to have some clue as to how to direct actors, and he appears to want to make the best movie possible of the source. I hope what appears to be an almost slavish desire for fanservice doesn't overwhelm getting to the meat of the story, but all I can do is wait and see.

Pancakes Hackman, Friday, 18 July 2008 10:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

i am going to enjoy the CGI show

blueski, Friday, 18 July 2008 10:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

i would forget about trying to enjoy this film as a representation of the book's story - total waste of time. but as a representation of and tribute to the book's visual ideas and style it should be good (people will complain about the effects realism no doubt - dem loons).

blueski, Friday, 18 July 2008 10:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

i agree that there is no point to this really and i've always been against the idea kind of in principle but now, i mean, the movie's made, i'm gonna check it out. i mean, i could rage about it all day but at this point might as well wait to see it first.

-- s1ocki, Friday, July 18, 2008 3:14 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Link

Yeah, that sums it up. I'm sure I'll go see it too.

Last night I had the thought that while Hollywood is crapping all over Alan Moore's no-adaptation preferences, I'd love to see a Miracleman/Marvelman film. It would be interesting to watch it gradually turn from slick and cartoony to grim and bloodspattery over two hours. It would be 500% awesome to see the Warpsmiths on screen. But the property is so tied up by that fuckhead Todd Macfarlane that it probably won't happen.

Rock Hardy, Friday, 18 July 2008 12:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

but as a representation of and tribute to the book's visual ideas and style it should be good.

except it looks nothing like the comic book...? the color scheme of the book is really bright and garish (duh, just like much of the comic book history the story references). and as for visual ideas its clear there's a ton of details that they've changed for all sorts of stupid reasons. Using comic panels as a storyboard /= tribute to book's visual ideas (actually its fairly cheap and lazy)

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 15:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

New Alan Moore interview at Entertainment Weekly:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20213004,00.html

He really does seem to be generous with his time for interviews when it's all about stuff he doesn't really give a shit about or would rather not think about.

Rock Hardy, Friday, 18 July 2008 16:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

except it looks nothing like the comic book...? the color scheme of the book is really bright and garish (duh, just like much of the comic book history the story references). and as for visual ideas its clear there's a ton of details that they've changed for all sorts of stupid reasons. Using comic panels as a storyboard /= tribute to book's visual ideas (actually its fairly cheap and lazy)

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, July 18, 2008 3:36 PM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

dude you need to chill on this

s1ocki, Friday, 18 July 2008 16:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

McFarlane owns Miracleman? When did that happen?

forksclovetofu, Friday, 18 July 2008 16:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah, this is news to me too.

Tuomas, Friday, 18 July 2008 16:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

In 1996, Todd McFarlane purchased Eclipse's creative assets for a total of $40,000. It has been suggested that McFarlane was mainly interested in the Miracleman rights; the rest of Eclipse's characters and properties were incidental, though he did not expect to keep them idle. McFarlane's plan was to reintroduce Eclipse's characters through two new Image Comics anthology titles, Todd McFarlane's Twisted Tales and Todd McFarlane's Alien Worlds. However, these were never printed and to date the only Eclipse character to appear again has been The Heap in McFarlane's Spawn title.

McFarlane clearly had plans for Miracleman, but had neglected to consult Neil Gaiman, the last person to have held part of the rights. In 1993, Gaiman had created the characters Angela and Medieval Spawn for McFarlane. Gaiman claimed that he had created them with the understanding that he would retain creative ownership of them, an ownership which McFarlane now disputed. His plans stymied, in 1997 McFarlane reached a supposed verbal agreement (and according to Gaiman, a written one as well) with Gaiman in which Gaiman would cede his half-ownership of Cogliostro and Medieval Spawn in exchange for which McFarlane would trade his rights to Miracleman. A subsequent letter from McFarlane to Gaiman would void this deal, if it ever legally existed, as McFarlane claimed that he already owned the two characters and pointed to a copyright notice on Spawn Issue 7 and cited them as the product of work-for-hire. He also stopped paying Gaiman royalties around this time for the action-figures and other items featuring the characters that were still in print. This was another of the direct causes for the legal action. At the time, no one was aware that the rights for Miracleman were not included in the purchase of most of Eclipse Comics' assets and both men believed that McFarlane held a large stake in Miracleman. That was a fact that would not become clear until after the lawsuit concluded. It turned out that McFarlane did, however, own two trademarks for Miracleman logos. Gaiman and Marvels and Miracles, LLC would take action to try to block him from being able to reregister these trademarks.

chap, Friday, 18 July 2008 16:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

He's obviously a complete cunt, especially as he was always shooting his mouth of about creators' rights when Image first launched.

chap, Friday, 18 July 2008 16:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

^^^for realz

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 16:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

I am super-pissed there is no collected edition of the stuff, and my brother has all the individual issues we bought as kids :(

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 16:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

slocki you don't understand, the thingy on the celluloid doesn't look exactly like 4-color glossy ergo THIS MOVIE SUCKS QED.

Pancakes Hackman, Friday, 18 July 2008 16:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

Wait...

So you're mad that, instead of faithfully recreating all of the comic book tropes that were recontextualized in the source material, they are recontextualizing the comic book movie tropes of the past 20 years? Do I have that right?

HI DERE, Friday, 18 July 2008 16:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

not exactly - I was pointing out that blueski's criteria for enjoying this film makes no sense

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 17:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

ie this film is not a tribute or homage to the comics' visual style

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 17:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

Oh, okay. I wasn't really paying attention to the part you quoted (lol).

I'd argue that the film is a tribute/homage to the inspiration of the comics' visual style (ie, repurposing the visuals of predecessors in its genre) but I wouldn't argue it very strongly.

HI DERE, Friday, 18 July 2008 17:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

that seems to be Snyder's excuse but yeah I don't find it very convincing

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 17:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

You don't find it convincing in that you think it doesn't work or you think he's lying about why they updated the costumes?

HI DERE, Friday, 18 July 2008 17:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

oh its probably a little from column and a little from column b

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 17:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

column A bah

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 17:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

40 grand for all of eclipse's creative rights sounds like a total fucking steal; I'm astonished that idiot hasn't done something profitable with it.

forksclovetofu, Friday, 18 July 2008 17:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

He caught Dean Mullaney's nuts in a vise at just the right moment. Eclipse lost their back issue stock in a flood in '93, Mullaney and Cat Yronwode divorced about the same time, and then there was the direct market collapse/speculator bubble-pop that shrank the whole industry.

Rock Hardy, Friday, 18 July 2008 17:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

not exactly - I was pointing out that blueski's criteria for enjoying this film makes no sense

representation of and tribute to != emulating or matching particularly

blueski, Friday, 18 July 2008 17:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

"40 grand for all of eclipse's creative rights sounds like a total fucking steal; I'm astonished that idiot hasn't done something profitable with it."

Not getting Miracleman sort of deflates it though.

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 17:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

T Ewing sez

blueski, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

I don't think its unfilmability has anything to do with "complexity" or flashbacks (?!) but with the way different narratives are laid on top of each other and interlaced - the juxtaposition of recurring images, dialogue, narrative text boxes that refer to different things on the page at the same time, etc. The comic revels in simultaneous and symmetrical narrative strains in a way that simply cannot be achieved with film (maybe it could be done with a lot of split-screening, which Snyder has apparently not bothered with...?) Moore deliberately exploited comics' unique potential as a medium.

I don't think the Lolita or Naked Lunch comparisons are particularly apt - Lolita is not particularly unfilmable in any way (it has a linear narrative and an unreliable narrator, both of which cinema is well equipped to handle). Naked Lunch is, strictly speaking, nothing like the book, and succeeds because it was made by a master director with the input of the author and largely just uses the text as an inspiration for imagery juxtaposed over the author's own autobiography. The thing is, both of those novels were considered unfilmable due to their sexual content and not because of any structural complexities - neither of them is a book about books (a la Nabokov's "Pale Fire" or Calvino's "If On A Winter's Night a Traveller" is) in the way that Watchmen is a comic book about comics.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

I mean someone could've made a movie of Lolita or Naked Lunch at any time - the problem is they would've been censored and/or banned.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

shakey can you just wait till you see the goddamned movie before you disprove it

s1ocki, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

lol, obviously no!

HI DERE, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31478

s1ocki, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

Shakey read that link to Tom's piece and, you know, think a bit.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

Nicely condescending, Ned.

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

nicely condescending ned is one of the new supehero characters they've added

s1ocki, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think un-filmable in this case = unlikely to be very good or very interesting in cinematic form. I think Tom touches on one very good reason why this is the case (and it's the one Moore is likely to be the most concerned with) but it's far from the only reason and most of Shakey's points seem to me to be entirely valid ones.

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

yes

we all agree that it probably wont be good and the reasons why

at this point we are not interested in hearing it shouted at us a billion more times

s1ocki, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

Well then stop arguing with him then.

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

I read it. Rorschach is repulsive, I don't buy his "but he made them even more badass!" tack.

If you lose the Black Freighter sequence you’ve got a relatively straightforward story, albeit one with a somewhat eyebrow-raising tonal shift at the end.

Except that this whole sequence is essentially the key to the entire story (as pointed out on some other Watchmen thread by someone else)

x-posts

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

nicely condescending ned is one of the new supehero characters they've added

costume needs more nipples

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

you can strip the black freighter layer off no problem. obv that weakens the original story but it's not as if the whole thing falls apart without it.

blueski, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

let us list the ways in which the film will be better than the book

1) shit moves

blueski, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

ya everyone pretty much admitted they didnt "get" it anyway xp

s1ocki, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

Well then stop arguing with him then.

I should follow your kind and thoughtful example in all things.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

Hey if it works for you, go for it.

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 18:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

"ya everyone pretty much admitted they didnt "get" it anyway xp"

Everyone = who?

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

Eclipse licenses that could easily be made profitable again with a bit of effort:

* Adolescent Radioactive Black Belt Hamsters (give it to kyle baker or phil foglio or ty templeton or...
* Airboy by Chuck Dixon (I'd buy new issues)
* Area 88 (I want manga books for this goddamit!)
* Axel Pressbutton by Pedro Henry, Steve Dillon, and Brian Bolland (easy film conversion)
* Aztec Ace (ditto)
* Brought to Light (due for a reprint)
* California Girls (1987) by Trina Robbins (easy cartoon for WB)
* Cynicalman by Matt Feazell (xkcd owes royalties)
* Detectives, Inc.by Don McGregor and Gene Colan (easy movie)
* Killer ... Tales by Timothy Truman
* Mai the Psychic Girl (easy reprint cash)
* Miracleman by Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, and others.
* Ms. Tree by Max Allan Collins and Terry Beatty (movie)
* Mr. Monster (all time favorite)
* The Prowler (great book, due for a revival)
* Reid Fleming, World's Toughest Milkman (nuff said)
* The Rocketeer (due for a sequel)
* Scout by Timothy Truman (has movie written all over it)
* Tales of the Beanworld by Larry Marder (is this out in reprint?)
* Winterworld (another easy film)
* Zot! by Scott McCloud (another one that I'd buy in two or three reprint books)

forksclovetofu, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

thanks for interrupting what would have been a great your mama joke forks.

s1ocki, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's what I do.

forksclovetofu, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

know what i do?

s1ocki, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

* Cynicalman by Matt Feazell (xkcd owes royalties)

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

wow Eclipse really had some great stuff, I had forgotten - would love to see another collected volume of Zot!

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

I thought Zot! was collected?

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

we all agree that it probably wont be good and the reasons why

hey I'm just trying to save you guys from wasting yr hard-earned kopecks on this movie. You'll thank me later

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

I have a collection of the first 6 issues, never seen any subsequent volumes. I admit I haven't looked in a long time.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

(er x-post)

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

i'll probly get in free

s1ocki, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah it's all available now (even vol 4 has finally come out.)

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

hey there they are on Amazon! never mind

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

* Reid Fleming, World's Toughest Milkman (nuff said)

they could totally make a funny movie out of this (pitch "Bad Santa as a milkman!") and I'm pretty sure its been optioned multiple times but just never happened.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

Is he any relation to Ernie the fastest milkman in the West?

chap, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm halfway positive Eclipse did not own the license to a lot of these characters when McFarlane bought them.

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

Reid Fleming looks exactly like Harvey Pekar. Just putting that out there.

Oilyrags, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

Wonder exactly what McFarlane bought.

forksclovetofu, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

The spirit of Reid Fleming is alive and well and all over Adult Swim. (I'd rather see a short Milk & Cheese cartoon.)

Rock Hardy, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

Harper Collins just published the Zot! collection so I'm guessing McCloud owns the rights to that (since that's who also published Understanding/Reinventing/Poking a Stick @ Comix.)

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

you can strip the black freighter layer off no problem. obv that weakens the original story but it's not as if the whole thing falls apart without it.

FACT: I have never actually read the black freighter stuff in Watchmen.

HI DERE, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

your loss

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

btw rosebud was his sled

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

your loss

I do wake up at nights sobbing because of this.

HI DERE, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

btw rosebud was his sled raft

Pancakes Hackman, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

btw rosebud was his sled raft seagull

Ned Raggett, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

The Black Freighter thing essentially just emphasizes the elements which are already there in the main story, it doesn't really add anything new that isn't already inherent to the major plot. I think the biggest thing it does related to the main story is that it questions the supposedly open "I leave it entirely to your hands" ending, because according to the Black Freighter subplot Veidt is already damned. Though maybe it just means Veidt is damned in his soul, not necessarily that his plan will be revealed to the public. Anyway, it I think it functions as a sort of a hidden morality to the story, because it makes the ending morally less ambiguous by clearly stating that Veidt was wrong. So, theoretically, if the movie cuts off the whole Black Freighter story, this could actually make it more open-ended and ambivalent than the comic.

Tuomas, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

it makes the ending morally less ambiguous by clearly stating that Veidt was wrong.

I think this is super-crucial, especially because it isn't Rorschach (who paradoxically praises Truman as one of his heroes in the opening pages) saying it.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

its part and parcel with the "battle not with monsters" Nietzsche quote - Veidt does and is damned for it. Like the guy in the Black Freighter, he has willingly become a butcher, and in the company of butchers he will stay (wonder if Snyder will keep Veidt's line about how he dreams of swimming towards the freighter).

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah, that's why I called it a hidden morality. Basically, the "I leave it entirely to you hands" ending of the main comic is Moore saying to reader, "You can judge for yourself whether Veidt was wrong or not", but the ending of the Black Freighter is him saying, "I think he was".

(x-post)

Tuomas, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

cut out the Black Freighter and the impression left is that Rorschach is the lone voice of morality, which is ridiculous

x-post

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

a nation weeps

jeff, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's not just that Veidt becomes a butcher, the main thing is that he does the wrong thing (killing innocent people/the Black Freighter guy killing his family) while thinking he is doing the right thing (saving people/saving his family). The moral judgement in Black Freighter is quite clear.

(x-post)

cut out the Black Freighter and the impression left is that Rorschach is the lone voice of morality, which is ridiculous

Well yeah, but this would mean the voice of morality actually has to be the audience.

Tuomas, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

Whoops, sorry, he doesn't actually kill his family, does he? But he still kills a couple of innocent folks.

Notice that the Black Freighter guy's name is never given. I wonder if ti bgeins with an A?

Tuomas, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

He kills his wife.

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

SPOILER

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

No, I don't think he does. He beats her up, but is stopped by their kids stepping in. His wife is shown alive a few panels later.

(x-post)

Tuomas, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's been so long and I don't have the comic with me so I'll defer here.

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

I believe Tuomas is correct, he tries to strangle her...? He does kill that couple on the beach though.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

When I first read the comic I thought he killed her too. But she is shown alive, looking at him while he runs away from their house towards the Black Freighter.

Tuomas, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

I guess most readers just assume the worst while reading that bit for the first time, so they don't notice all the details. I certainly didn't.

Tuomas, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

4. INT. STATUE - THAT MOMENT
The screen of a portable TV shows THREE HELICOPTERS lifting off from
Laguardia. We're in the OBSERVATION ROOM inside the statue's head.
A TERRORIST holds a crowd of SQUEALING TOURISTS -- men, women,
schoolchildren -- at bay with an automatic rifle. Two others stand
by the windows, scanning the harbor for signs of a double-cross; and
a fourth, the RINGLEADER, speaks into a walkie-talkie.

RINGLEADER
Good. We got forty innocent people here. One false move . . . and
we blow her brains out.

SWAT CAPTAIN (O.S.)
(filter; from walkie-talkie)
Blow whose brains out?

5. EXT. STATUE - THAT MOMENT
TIGHT on the ring of OBSERVATION WINDOWS situated just below the
jutting spikes of the CROWN. CAMERA PULLS BACK rapidly to take in
the whole of the statue's head.

RINGLEADER (O.S.)
(a nasty laugh)
Lady Liberty, my friend. Lady Liberty's brains!

6. EXT. FERRY - THAT MOMENT - DAY
MOUNTING TENSION among the SWAT TEAM on deck.

SWAT COP
Sons of bitches.

SWAT CAPTAIN
Relax. We'll nail 'em on the transfer. Let's get those hostages out
first.

SWAT COP II
Captain . . . what the hell is that?

All eyes turn upward. In the distance, a TINY SPECK descends from
the clouds and drops, in a perfectly vertical line, toward the head
of the statue. The SWAT CAPTAIN hoists a pair of binoculars:

SWAT CAPTAIN
Shit. Shit fire!!

SWAT COP
Sir! What is it?

7. POV SHOT - THROUGH BINOCULARS
A magnified view of the SPECK, which turns out to be a futuristic,
blimplike HOVERCRAFT -- the OWLSHIP.

SWAT CAPTAIN (O.S.)
Christ almighty, it's the goddamned Watchmen!

cankles, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

Oooh boy.

Alex in SF, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

The Evil Watcher What Watches at Midnight.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

WatchTick

Ned Raggett, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

anyway, i didnt read dis thread but it looks like dumb, lame crap. otoh, i would pay full ticket prices - not matinee!!!! - to see an adaptation of the SAM HAMM watchmen script (excerpted above), instead of some fool-ass nigga, like, HONESTLY trying to adapt it. the og comic is dated ass irrelevent bullshit, and it overinflates its fukkin importance to treat it like some shakespearian ass bullsquid that everyone needs to experience.

cankles, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

OH NO THEY RAPED MY CHILDHOOD MY CHILDHOOD WHY DOESN'T ANYONE LET THESE THINGS REST *EYES GLISTEN*

cankles, Friday, 18 July 2008 22:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

that's a joke script, right?

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 18 July 2008 23:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

that's a joke script, right?

Nope, it's the Sam Hamm-scripted version of Watchmen from around 1989 or so. You can read the whole thing here: http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/wtchmn.txt

Elvis Telecom, Friday, 18 July 2008 23:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

all i care about is seein my nigga ~*bubastis*~ onscreen

cankles, Friday, 18 July 2008 23:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

[21:57] HELLA like DYING: christ almighty its the goddamn justice league of america
[21:57] eviliraqi: holy farkin sh*t its the watchmen. scram boys.
[21:58] eviliraqi: *teleports chuthulu in from another dimension*
[21:58] HELLA like DYING: lol
[21:59] eviliraqi: heh. so u see. i did it like ten minutes ago.
[21:59] HELLA like DYING: pardon me gents but you won't be needing these *removes guns from all henchmen at superspeed* where you're going
[21:59] HELLA like DYING: INT: Prison
[21:59] eviliraqi: lol
[21:59] HELLA like DYING: Henchman 1: Aww nuts those goddamned watchmen!
[21:59] eviliraqi: *kicks the ground with hands in pocket, a small cloud of dust settles*
[21:59] eviliraqi: those rat fink watchment
[22:00] HELLA like DYING: lol
[22:02] eviliraqi: so u see gents...heh....i did it fifteen minutes ago...
[22:02] eviliraqi: did what ozymandias?
[22:02] eviliraqi: ozymandias: heh...u know....
[22:02] eviliraqi: CAMERA cuts to nite owls face, he is making the :iamafag: face
[22:02] eviliraqi: CAMERA cuts to ozymandias' face, he is making the :iamafag: face
[22:03] eviliraqi: Fin.

cankles, Friday, 18 July 2008 23:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

Probably already linked but if not:

MTV: Walk us through your mind-set as you assembled the trailer.

Zack Snyder: Well, the first idea everyone had, from what I saw online, everyone was saying, "Oh, they're just going to do, like, a title treatment with some Rorschach voice and no pictures." And I was like, "No, we've got to give them some pictures," because to me the debate is about how close to the graphic novel will the movie be. We've just really been trying hard to get the movie as in spirit of the graphic novel as possible, so I wanted to show pictures right now so people can go, "Wow, I recognize that frame."

Etc. etc.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 18 July 2008 23:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

Anyway, I'm looking forward to this with bemused detachment. One thing I'm leery of is Snyder's eagerness to treat the book as holy text and put EVERYTHING in might actually dilute the story and hurt the movie. For example, the Black Freighter story: it works brilliantly in the comic, but is it appropriate for the movie? Could some other element of the story be used to convey the same ambiguity and emotion?

See also: the stuff that was left out of the LOTR movies.

Elvis Telecom, Friday, 18 July 2008 23:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

Snyder: Dr. Manhattan is an interesting person to hang the movie on in a lot of ways, because he's the conscience of the movie. His perspective on humanity and mankind is a lot of the conscience of the movie, for me anyway, and how he relates to the other characters is really important. He's also spectacular in his creation, so it seemed fun.

^^^ludicrousness

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 23:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

For example, the Black Freighter story: it works brilliantly in the comic, but is it appropriate for the movie?

Wait, I thought that was all being done as a separate animated film? Or did I miss something upthread?

Ned Raggett, Friday, 18 July 2008 23:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

Wait, I thought that was all being done as a separate animated film? Or did I miss something upthread?

It's a separate animated film... Just using it as a general example.

Honestly, I'm fine if they had just skipped the Black Freighter stuff and concentrated on making the rest of the movie good.

Elvis Telecom, Friday, 18 July 2008 23:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

First time I read Watchmen, aged 14 or so, I took the Black Freighter to be a neat textural detail which echoed the beats of the main plot rather than the moral lynchpin, as has become the standard (and probably correct) reading. I still absolutely loved the book. so I don't think BF is essential to Watchmen, it just enriches it.

chap, Friday, 18 July 2008 23:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

supposedly they're not using the squid

latebloomer, Saturday, 19 July 2008 01:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

there are many, many conflicting reports about this though.

latebloomer, Saturday, 19 July 2008 01:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

Snyder: Dr. Manhattan is an interesting person to hang the movie on in a lot of ways, because he's the conscience of the movie. His perspective on humanity and mankind is a lot of the conscience of the movie, for me anyway, and how he relates to the other characters is really important. He's also spectacular in his creation, so it seemed fun.

^^^ludicrousness

I thought the whole point of Dr Manhattan was that he was past conscience. Veidt rejects conscience for the good of humanity, and Rorschach is the conscience, though is ultimately ineffectual. At least that's how I remember the story, though it's been years since I read it.

If Snyder doesn't get the basic dynamics of this story, then it will be an exquisitely arranged shitpile.

5xpost

Sparkle Motion, Saturday, 19 July 2008 07:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

Dr. Manhattan's arc in the comic is that he gains his conscience back and starts caring about human beings again - though more like a parent cares about his children than as an equal to them. (Anyway, I always thought "conversion" on Mars felt a bit too easy and quick.) But calling him the conscience of the story still doesn't make much sense, because for most of the story he is the opposite to that.

Tuomas, Saturday, 19 July 2008 08:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

This makes more sense if Snyder is a sociopath.

HI DERE, Saturday, 19 July 2008 09:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

The trailer has a shot of Dr. Manhattan fighting in Vietnam, also known as totally blowing away a scared little dude in one of those big-ass hats.

kenan, Saturday, 19 July 2008 09:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

More from Entertainment Weekly, including this great picture:

http://io9.com/assets/images/gallery/8/2008/07/medium_2679557193_0d50e4d085_o.jpg

Choice quotes:

''In my movie, Superman doesn't care about humanity, Batman can't get it up, and the bad guy wants world peace,'' Snyder says with a smirk. ''Will Watchmen be the end of superhero movies? Probably not. But it sure will kick them in the gut.''

''The average movie audience has seen so many superhero movies,'' he says. ''And some of this stuff is hard to take seriously. I mean, The Hulk? Come on.'' Snyder remembers screening some Watchmen footage for an unnamed studio executive. Afterward, Snyder says, the exec turned to him and said, ''This makes Superman look stupid.''

In 2005, Greengrass was deep into preproduction on a present-day, war-on-terror-themed adaptation by David Hayter (X-Men), when a regime change at Paramount Pictures led to its demise. Enter Warner Bros., which acquired the rights in late 2005. Snyder was working on 300 for the studio at the time, and he was alarmed when he heard about the deal. After some soul-searching, his fear of seeing a bad Watchmen movie trumped his fear of trying to make a great one. ''They were going to do it anyway,'' he says. ''And that made me nervous.'' Over many months, and many meetings, Snyder persuaded Warner Bros. to abandon the Greengrass/Hayter script and hew as faithfully as possible to the comic. The key battles: retaining the '80s milieu, keeping Richard Nixon (Moore did consider using an era-appropriate Ronald Reagan, but worried it would alienate American readers), and preserving the villain-doesn't-pay-for-his-crimes climax.

Oscar nominee Jackie Earle Haley (Little Children) campaigned for the role of Rorschach — the comic's most popular character, despite his sociopathic, sadistic vigilantism — by recruiting 14 friends to help produce a video of himself performing sequences from the comic book. ''It was a little labor of love, man,'' he says. ''Kind of cheesy, but for an audition piece, it sufficed.''

Based on footage Snyder screened for EW, at least, the work seems to have been worth it. Multiple scenes — the Comedian's murder, Rorschach's introduction, Dr. Manhattan's origin, and a hypnotic title sequence that shutter-flies through the history of Watchmen America, set to Bob Dylan's ''The Times They Are A-Changin''' — suggest a film that may capture more of Watchmen than anyone thought possible. Sure, there have been changes. The catastrophic climax is different. Provocative bits, like a timely subplot about alternative fuels, have been added. And a pirate/horror comic book that was threaded ironically throughout the Moore/Gibbons narrative is set to become a separate animated DVD. But Snyder's film clearly seeks to emulate the comic's arch-yet-dramatic tenor, its time-shifting, perspective-switching storytelling, and its richly realized alterna-New York. The Gunga Diner, the ''Who Watches the Watchmen?'' graffiti, the blood-splashed smiley-face button evoking a doomsday clock — it's all there.

Now comes the hard part: keeping it there. Snyder's current three-hour cut won't be unspooling in theaters next March. Robinov says two hours and 25 minutes is more realistic. ''Running time is dictated by how you are engaged,'' Robinov says. The studio might be gutsy enough to back Watchmen, but it wants to make a profit too. ''The challenge is to make a movie that can satisfy the fan but engage the typical moviegoer,'' he says. ''I think that's how Zack feels too.''

Pancakes Hackman, Saturday, 19 July 2008 15:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

(Anyway, I always thought "conversion" on Mars felt a bit too easy and quick.)

totally agree - it happens in the space of a few panels and his explanation is basically "gosh I had never thought of the statistical improbability of people before"

Shakey Mo Collier, Saturday, 19 July 2008 16:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

Kinda parallels the conversion of the psychiatrist - "gosh I had never thought that basically people=shit before"

ledge, Saturday, 19 July 2008 17:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

everything has already happened so it doesn't matter how quickly manhattan changes his mind, or something

DG, Saturday, 19 July 2008 17:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

BUBASTIS, FORGIVE ME

cankles, Saturday, 19 July 2008 21:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

wonder if they are they keeping the genetically engineered cat thing?

latebloomer, Sunday, 20 July 2008 03:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

None of the shit on Forks' list was owned by Eclipse. Hamsters are back already, so talk about that instead of wishing they'd come back. Cynicalman has been reprinted since, so talk about that instead of wishing for it to be reprinted. Mr Monster has been heavily reprinted and had shitloads of new issues since, talk about that instead of wishing for it to come back and be reprinted. Reid Fleming has been back since and been reprinted by the creator, talk about that instead of wishing for McFarlane to steal the rights from Boswell. Beanworld's on the way back right now and has also seen new episodes since, talk about those instead of wishing Todd had robbed his highest-level executive of his only creative property. Zot had three reprint books and you didn't buy them, why say you would have if someone had done them without the permission or involvement of the creator?

(Also book 4 is not out now and never will be, he's done issue #s 11-18 and 21-36 as one new volume instead.)

And David Boswell always wanted James Gandolfini for the Reid Fleming movie but it fell apart when the Sopranos took off.

Aaand I wish that Watchmen had never been made into a movie, but don't understand why other people who feel the same way are saying they're keen to give money to it and cross their fingers! Snyder's been a complete cock about the author's wishes, anything he says about fidelity to the work is pretty much pointless.

energy flash gordon, Sunday, 20 July 2008 07:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

Whoa, holdup, Cynicalman is now being mentioned on ILX? Excellent.

Matt Feazell is a great guy, and one of the pleasures of living in S.E. Michigan for all those years was running into him here & there. I think I still have several minicomics and a collected TPB that he autographed for me.

kingfish, Sunday, 20 July 2008 08:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also, Malin Akerman is crazy hott in the trailer

kingfish, Sunday, 20 July 2008 08:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

Reid Fleming has been back since and been reprinted by the creator, talk about that instead of wishing for McFarlane to steal the rights from Boswell. ..Zot had three reprint books and you didn't buy them, why say you would have if someone had done them without the permission or involvement of the creator?

wtf are you talking about, nobody said or wished for any such things.

Shakey Mo Collier, Sunday, 20 July 2008 17:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

Dueds this trailer/stills/etc make me think the movie will be 1000x better than my imaginings of what a Watchmen movie would be. So I'm pretty stoked. I mean it is a movie, give it a bit of a fucking break.

Also, maybe it's bcz I've only read it 2x, but I had to even look up why the crap that Black Freighter stuff was in there in the first place. And even then, I was like, "oh, I see the point, but it sure kind of killed the rhythm/thrills." IMO, natch. So I suppose T.S. Eliot and Scott McCloud are mourning my loutish inability to piece it all together in one go, but srsly, I think it is the kind of thing that would alienate a movie audience. And there's the animated DVD, so I think it's all rather silly to pick at.

Abbott, Sunday, 20 July 2008 19:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

I wonder what everyone here would say about a SANDMANG movie.

Abbott, Sunday, 20 July 2008 19:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

Okay guys, I am making SANDMANG movie and I'm only including the Kindly Ones plot. And Dream is going to have pointy nipples. Asassinate me!

Abbott, Sunday, 20 July 2008 19:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also Daniel is going to be voiced by Gilbert Godfried.

Abbott, Sunday, 20 July 2008 19:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

I could keep going.

Abbott, Sunday, 20 July 2008 19:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

"wtf are you talking about, nobody said or wished for any such things."

40 grand for all of eclipse's creative rights sounds like a total fucking steal; I'm astonished that idiot hasn't done something profitable with it.

licenses that could easily be made profitable again with a bit of effort:

(give it to kyle baker or phil foglio or ty templeton or...

(another one that I'd buy in two or three reprint books)

If McFarlane had bought the rights for these "licenses" he'd have been "making them profitable" without the involvement or approval of the creators, based on 100% of the cases in which he did attempt to make Eclipse licenses profitable, wtf are YOU talking about?

energy flash gordon, Monday, 21 July 2008 12:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

So the friends that I saw Dark Knight with this weekend, none of whom have read the graphic novel*, were really, really excited by the trailer for this. Make of that what you will.

* - I will be rectifying this ASAP

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Monday, 21 July 2008 13:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/07/comic-based-mov.html

Rundown of upcoming licensed comix movies.

kingfish, Monday, 21 July 2008 14:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

Scott Pilgrim? Really?

If McFarlane had bought the rights for these "licenses" he'd have been "making them profitable" without the involvement or approval of the creators, based on 100% of the cases in which he did attempt to make Eclipse licenses profitable, wtf are YOU talking about?

Relax. First of all, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that if MFarlane bought the rights to their creative licenses that he bought the rights to the characters they published. I'm not really up on where Eclipse stood with writer's/artists ownership and I have a glancing wiki knowledge of what he might have "bought". My supposition was (and remains) that there are characters on that list ripe for a comeback and especially ready for film adaptation and that if MFarlane has the rights to do so and is choosing not to, he's a schmuck. Which I assume to be true. I was waiting for someone to chime in to let me know if this stuff is still creator held. Again, what the heck did he buy, then?

I had no idea Hamsters was back; I'd still love to see Templeton/Foglio/Baker on them, but I have no particular irony/nostalgia iron in the fire to follow up on that. I've seen Cynicalman and Mr. Monster work post Eclipse and have purchased; wasn't sure if the terms of the deal could've included them using their own properties or if they bought back rights or never gave them up in the first place. I actually just bought the Zot b+w reprint book on Friday. I wasn't aware that McCloud had been reissuing this stuff.

I'm plenty pro-creator rights; if you took my comments as crossed fingers that artists get their material taken away from them and screwed, that wasn't my intention. I'm hardly an industry wonk; I'm a comic reader. I'm just thinking out loud about what happened to the properties and musing about the odd climate wherein a Zot movie actually sounds hot in 2011.

That Gandolfini tidbit is interesting; I'm watching the Sopranos front to back right now, so he's very on my mind. He'd be a good dairy product interlocutor.

David Banner to voice Destiny in the Sandmang epic.

Also, what we need to be talking about is how bad the Spirit looks, not the Watchmen.

forksclovetofu, Monday, 21 July 2008 14:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

what we need to be talking about is how bad the Spirit looks

QFT. Though Samuel Jackson as a Nazi general is something else.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 21 July 2008 14:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

Is she supposed to be Satin or Silk or P'Gell or...?

forksclovetofu, Monday, 21 July 2008 14:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

Silken Floss.

aldo, Monday, 21 July 2008 14:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

Should point out this is Frank Miller's idea of who Silken Floss is (a sexy secretary) instead of Eisner's (a nuclear physicist).

aldo, Monday, 21 July 2008 14:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah Spirit movie seems wrong on many levels

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 21 July 2008 15:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

fuzzy dong

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 21 July 2008 21:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

...lop

Oilyrags, Monday, 21 July 2008 21:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

That is how ladies like them.

Abbott, Monday, 21 July 2008 21:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

s'all love forks, this thread just needed more hyperbolic posturing to keep the tone up.

just that the McFarlane/Eclipse story is FOURTEEN-YEAR OLD NEWS at this point and has been maaad hashed out in press, speculation, and a LOT in court. basically what he bought was a) the trademarked magazine titles Alien Worlds and Terror Tales and such, and b) fuck all else. He plainly had no idea what he was buying except that he hoped Miracleman would be involved; at one point in legal posturings his people claimed that they hadn't even got all the Miracleman film in the deal and what they had was too damaged to use - Neil Gaiman read this, went into his basement and opened the boxes they'd sent him and discovered almost all the series in completely usable shape.

(once he realised he didn't own shit, he spent yeeears bartering with Gaiman to exchange the IMAGINARY rights he'd not really bought for the genuine contractual rights Gaiman had in Spawn characters. when a court finally said "cut it out you dipshit, pay the man," he declared bankruptcy and carried on doing business as before without paying up.)

The Spirit movie is so wrong there's nothing at all to say about it, except to weep that such a long-standing respectable creator-defending publisher as Denis Kitchen should end up spending the entire second half of his life actively fucking up the legacy of his two deceased clients.

energy flash gordon, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 11:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

Scott Pilgrim? Really?

"Edgar Wright's making a Scott Pilgrim movie" was announced a couple of years ago, I think - around the time book 3 was published.

Forest Pines Mk2, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 12:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

The eclipse story is news to me; I woulda been in college and somewhat unplugged from comics gossip at the time. So bear with me: "they hadn't even got all the Miracleman film in the deal and what they had was too damaged to use - Neil Gaiman read this, went into his basement and opened the boxes they'd sent him and discovered almost all the series in completely usable shape." <-- This suggests that there was film in the can on this project? What became of it?

As far as the Spirit goes, as much as it offends me, my inclination is to think Eisner would've been distraught by the outcome of the character. He was a businessman in much the same way Ray Charles was; I think he'd be happy to know his character would become a tentpole movie regardless of the dumbassedness of the final cut. Then again, I never read the Eisner and Miller interview book, so I'm not sure if they saw eye to eye. In the long run, it'll likely attract new fans to the archives and to Eisner's real legacy which can only be a good thing. Fuck if I plan on seeing it tho'.

forksclovetofu, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 17:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

sorry, "would NOT have been distraught by the outcome of the character"

forksclovetofu, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 17:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

enjoying all this watchmen talk

DG, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 17:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

thot the preview looked great

max, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 17:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

This suggests that there was film in the can on this project? What became of it?

It's still in Gaiman's basement (or possibly a safe archival facility now), as the rights are still a clusterfuck. Film = printer's negatives.

so I'm not sure if they saw eye to eye

ha ha, no.

energy flash gordon, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 05:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

Y'all saw the Sally Jupiter WWII bomber/pin-up art, right?

kingfish, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 05:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

Ï remember Gaiman mentioning in some intervíew back in the 90's that he was gonna do a movie based on Death: The High Cost of Living, I wonder what happened to that? I always liked that comic, and it's self-contained enough for a proper movie adaptation.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 06:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

That's still on, Guillermo Del Toro is producing.

energy flash gordon, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 07:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

what pie does that man not have a finger in these days

latebloomer, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 07:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

gordo, are you on some access hollywood type shiz or are you industry?

forksclovetofu, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 14:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

to tie in with the film ... Watchmen the game?!?! http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3168969

zappi, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 17:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

I bet the 'destroy your therapist's faith in human nature' level is going to KICK ASS!

Oilyrags, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 17:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

roflz

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 17:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

How about the 'sit and read a fucking comic book by a newsstand while the world dies round you' sidequest?

Abbott, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 17:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

or hot "unable to get it up sex sequence" in Nite Owl's apartment

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 17:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

That can be beaten with the 'rubber suit fetish' power-up.

Oilyrags, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 17:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

would love Watchmen game in the style of 1985

blueski, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 17:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://www.nme.com/news/my-chemical-romance/38442

theslothproject, Friday, 25 July 2008 14:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

ok, i'm in with shakey and his lot now. fuck this movie.

latebloomer, Friday, 25 July 2008 15:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

and they were doing so well

DG, Friday, 25 July 2008 15:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

as long as there's no more corgan jinx

blueski, Friday, 25 July 2008 15:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

But this is cool:

http://savagecritic.com/2008/07/retail-intelligence-impact-of-watchmen.html

Friend of mine is very interested in it now so I'm going to lend him my copy.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 25 July 2008 15:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

best case scenario I guess

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 25 July 2008 15:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

Was in the Comics Dungeon yesterday (no, really), buying a copy of WillWorld, checking to see if Final Crisis 3 is out yet (no luck). While I was there, they sold two copies of Watchmen. If nothing else, a lot more people will read the comic, and AM will make a LOT more money. Which he'll probably wrap in tinfoil and stuff into his sofa cushions, but still...

contenderizer, Friday, 25 July 2008 16:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

Should really stick my grafitti edition up on ebay at some point in the near future.

Pashmina, Friday, 25 July 2008 16:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

I had TWO random guys come up to me while I was at the Strand last week, assume I worked there and asked me where they kept copies of the watchmen.

forksclovetofu, Friday, 25 July 2008 17:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

otoh this could also be taken as further proof of how stupid the general public is

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 25 July 2008 17:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

(a la the "I saw a shitty overproduced trailer - that means the comic book must be cool!" school of deep thinking)

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 25 July 2008 17:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

wrong.

it is not stupid at all: a lot of people newly became aware of a decent franchise that has (until now) been something of a niche and underground sensation.

remy bean, Friday, 25 July 2008 17:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

so niche and underground Time magazine rates it as one of the best novels of all time

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 25 July 2008 17:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

(also lolz calling a one-shot 12 issue series a "franchise")

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 25 July 2008 17:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

MOST PEOPLE DO NOT READ GRAPHIC NOVELS DUH

remy bean, Friday, 25 July 2008 17:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

yes exactly - and yet most people watch shitty hollywood summer blockbusters

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 25 July 2008 17:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

instead

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 25 July 2008 17:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

lol @ OMG DO NOT LET THE UNWASHED MASSES READ MY BOOK

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Friday, 25 July 2008 17:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

I would prefer they read the book and skip the movie s'all

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 25 July 2008 17:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

augh -- why am i even bothering?

the fact that very few people know / care about 12 issues of a comic book that ran nearly twenty years ago does not make them stupid at all.

the fact that a very average movie trailer brought it to their attention does not make them stupid, it makes them curious.

remy bean, Friday, 25 July 2008 17:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

stupid stupid stupid stupid i am going away, this annoys me.

remy bean, Friday, 25 July 2008 17:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

yes exactly - and yet most people watch shitty hollywood summer blockbusters

They do, do they?

Ned Raggett, Friday, 25 July 2008 17:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

yes exactly - and yet most people watch shitty hollywood summer blockbusters

They do, do they?

Well, most of them saw the Watchman trailer before The Dark Knight, so the answer is yes.

Ned - I liked your write-up about why you liked it much more than the film itself.

EZ Snappin, Friday, 25 July 2008 18:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

plz to describe overlap between groups "people who watch shitty Hollywood blockbusters" and "people who have memorized TIME Magazine's 100 Greatest Novels list which ran three years ago"

Pancakes Hackman, Friday, 25 July 2008 18:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

vs. people who read the first paragraph of the wikipedia article on the watchmen, which states that same fact.

remy bean, Friday, 25 July 2008 18:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

Ned - I liked your write-up about why you liked it much more than the film itself.

Thanks!

Ned Raggett, Friday, 25 July 2008 18:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

Coverage of the "Watchmen" panel at ComicCon here and here. Apparently there's a red-band trailer coming:

We saw an exclusive red-band trailer that included some more adult-ish scenes from the movie. It started out with a close-up of Rohrshach's mask, then Dr. Manhattan blowing up vietnames people, who were literally exploding into pieces. Then the famous smiley face pin with blood falling on it. Rohrshach walking into flickering neon room, the Comedian's lair, looking at weapons and headlines like "Murderous Rampage Averted," and a picture of the Silk Spectre. We get to see the shapes on hishis mask transform and it looks amazingly cool. And we see some armor in the Comedian's lair. And then it switches to Nite Owl in his headquarters loking downcast and weary. And then the original Silk Specter posing for a photo with other 1940s heroes and rubbing her eyes, and then the Comedian leers at her. And then we saw a sparkling CGI rendering of the pirate ship from the Black Fortress, and a clock flickering. And then Sally unveils the Nite Owl Ship, pulling a big cloth off of it.

And someone is running a magnifying glass over tons of small clock gears, and then we see a clock ticking, and we watch Billy Crudup transform into Dr. Manhattan, with his flesh melting away into a skeleton. And we see Silk Spectre and Nite Owl lean in to kiss each other as a shooting star falls in the background, and then it turns into a nuclear explosion. The President swivels around in his chair and oh my god it's Nixon! And we saw the Nite Owl ship bursting up through the ice, and the Comedian fighting someone and totally fucking him up. And then some 1940s heroes bowling. And Dr. Manhattan obliterating someone who's pulled a gun on him — literally blasting them into pixels. And there's an amazingly sexy shot of Silk Spectre looking badass followed by a closeup of her torso as she pulls her top open, exposing a ton of cleavage. And then there's more Rohrshach, leaning in to intimidate someone, and then the Comedian falling out the window, tumb ling helplessly through the air and blood falling onto that smiley face badge again.

Pancakes Hackman, Friday, 25 July 2008 23:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah sounds real classy

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 25 July 2008 23:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

oh jesus shut the fuck up seriously

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 26 July 2008 00:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

Your opinion is whatever but you don't have to divebomb us from the Airship High Horse.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 26 July 2008 00:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

"The same stuff that happens on the comic happens in the trailer except it is moving and is Zak Snyder, therefore it sux. "

Pancakes Hackman, Saturday, 26 July 2008 00:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

the red band trailer is on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoKZhaigLQA

and what, Saturday, 26 July 2008 00:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

Oh my gosh, wait until this guy writes about the actual MOVIE. This is like reading a four-year-old's attempt to summarzie.

Abbott, Saturday, 26 July 2008 03:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

Meaning Comic-Con two paragraph quote trailer talkin' guy.

Abbott, Saturday, 26 July 2008 03:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

oh my god it's Nixon!

Martin Van Burne, Saturday, 26 July 2008 03:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

pulling a big cloth off of it

spaghetti, Saturday, 26 July 2008 03:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

exposing a ton of cleavage.....exposing a ton of cleavage.....exposing a ton of cleavage....
...

.......

Abbott, Saturday, 26 July 2008 04:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think you should all read this instead:

While in post on 300, Zack Snyder was offered the gig, and accepted. He says his aim is to be as faithful as possible, and so far it looks like he's done it.

Illustrator Dave Gibbons, on the other hand, told the fans at Con that "It's the stuff of dreams to have something come out of your head and become real." Of Moore, he says, "I wish he could feel what I'm feeling." Gibbons even managed to get his "signature" on the film, in the form of graffiti on a New York street.

A new series of clips was shown, scored to Gregorian chants, which included such things as Rorschach's ever-morphing inkblot mask, Matt Frewer as a retired supervillain, Dan Dreiberg (Patrick Wilson) looking pathetic in his basement, Laurie (Malin Akerman) kissing Dan's alter-ego Nite Owl in front of a mushroom cloud, an aging Richard Nixon, Rorschach as a young red-headed stepchild (literally), and Dr. Manhattan vaporizing foes from the inside out.

The entire principal cast were in the house, including Carla Gugino as Laurie's mom, the original Silk Spectre. Jackie Earle Haley on being Rorschach: "It was a blast, it was challenging, it was mind-numbing." Patrick Wilson as Dan/Nite Owl had to be an out-of-shape superhero, which he says "was pretty cool -- when everyone else had to get all ripped, I could sit back with a pint of Haagen Dasz and a couple beers and call it a day." As Dr. Manhattan, Crudup had to wear a motion capture suit and be covered in dots for reference. He says Akerman was"great about it -- she laughed in my face for the first week; that was cool." Matthew Goode developed a backstory for his character, Ozymandias (the world's smartest man), that involves Nazi parents. Thus you'll hear his accent have a slight German hint in the character's private scenes, though he sounds all-American in public. While researching the character, an American friend told him Ozymandias sounded like a gay pothead.

A fan dressed as Batman asked Snyder who his favorite Watchman is. "Everyone likes Rorschach the best, so that rules him out. The girls are awesome, but that's also a cop-out. Maybe I'll just stick with the girls. You know what? I like the girls best." Another fan dressed as the Joker asked Snyder how he deals with the bleakness of the book. Snyder replies that darknes is relative."SAWis dark because people get their arms sawn off. People get their arms sawn off in our movie too, but it's different! There's a moral lesson." (Um, Zack? The makers of SAW say the same thing.) A fan not dressed as any character says he heard a rumor that the WATCHMEN DVD might have some of the pre-production materials from previous attempts at filming it. Snyder denies that, but also added "I'll look into that."

The footage was screened a second time. Fans cheered even louder. The base is pumped for this movie, but will mainstream audiences follow?

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 26 July 2008 05:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

one positive thing I will ever say about this: Frewer as Moloch sounds like good casting!

and AM will make a LOT more money.

Wrong.

Should really stick my grafitti edition up on ebay at some point in the near future

You may have missed your window - the Absolute edition last year used all the Graphitti bonus features, plus enormousness.

energy flash gordon, Saturday, 26 July 2008 09:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I was just about to ask, do Moore and Gibbons even get any money from copies of Watchmen sold today? I know these days comic book creators are much more conscious of their rights, but back in the mid-80's, when Moore and Gibbons signed the contract for Watchmen, did it even include some sort of royalty system that would guarantee them money from possible reissues of their work? Even if DC didn't want to deliberately rip them off, I think back then the idea of comic book issues being collected into a "graphic novel" was still a new thing in American comics, let alone the idea that these collected books would still be reissued and selling lots of copies 20 years later. So it could be such things simply weren't considered by either party when signing the contreact.

Tuomas, Saturday, 26 July 2008 10:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

The President swivels around in his chair and oh my god it's Nixon!

christ almighty it's the goddamn president

cankles, Saturday, 26 July 2008 12:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

They get/got royalties. The big thing not considered was that the contract said rights would revert to them 12 months after publication, which they expected to be in 1988. Because "the idea that these collected books would still be reissued and selling lots of copies 20 years later" didn't exist, 'after publication' has yet to occur. This is the crux of Moore's beef with DC, that they refuse to return the rights as per the intent of the contract and have used this loophole to make Watchmen movies and Watchmen animated comics and Watchmen computer games and so on. (His first burst of beef, which he quit DC forever over, was them selling badges and watches, and claiming he wasn't due royalties on them because they were "promotion" not "merchandise". That they have refused to renegotiate terms and have deliberately fucked him over several other times has led to the current situation, where he has signed over his royalties to Gibbons and requested that his name be removed from the book itself, on the grounds that they will grant him no authorial rights nor consideration, and thus it is inappropriate to continue using his name to sell it.)

energy flash gordon, Saturday, 26 July 2008 12:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah moore has always had perfectly sound reasons to be bitter about all of it.

latebloomer, Saturday, 26 July 2008 16:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

lol @ OMG DO NOT LET THE UNWASHED MASSES READ MY BOOK
I like how you noticed a hint of "don't let them in my secret garden" comic fans.. kinda like when music elitists hate it when scenesters enjoy THEIR music (the elitists music).

Another thing.
Oh my gosh, wait until this guy writes about the actual MOVIE. This is like reading a four-year-old's attempt to summarize.
Actually, for a simple quick description of the entire trailer it's spot on.

Finally, my biggest concern about the movie is Ozymandias just because he looks small and he doesn't have blond hair (or look the part at all). Nipples in the armor isn't as big of a deal to me.

My favorite character is and always has been the Comedian. I think it's funny how even the hardcore fans are split on favorite characters so that "Everyone likes Rorschach the best, so that rules him out" lol. I do think it's awesome that the inkblot will change throughout the movie (like it should) because superheros never having changing masks like that. Not to mention trench coats. Usually though, I'd say after Rorschach popularity comes Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan in third. I'm just guesstimating from word of mouth here. So basically I rule for picking someone other than the top 3 as my favorite character but god bless the Comedian fans, they get me.

CaptainLorax, Saturday, 26 July 2008 18:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

When asked about the running time debacle, Snyder had this to say:

“I want to make the best movie I can. I want to put pressure on myself as a filmmaker and say, “What’s the coolest movie?” And if the coolest movie is 3-hours long then that’s the coolest movie. I understand and respect my partners at Warner Bros. I want them to have financial success with the film. You know, when you look at it that way, they invested a lot of money into it, they want it to be good. But on the other hand, I would tell them that I think the very things they think are too long, or too violent, or too sexy are the very reasons to go to the movie.”

Snyder was also quick to point out a noticeable development since the release of the film’s trailer.

“[The graphic novel] is #1 or #2 on Amazon right now, and that’s awesome. I think that if in the end the movie is a 3-hour advertisement for the book, then so be it. I succeeded.”

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 26 July 2008 18:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

That is totally cool.

Abbott, Saturday, 26 July 2008 18:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

He has some reason to be angry and suspicious of movie adaptations, too, as anyone unfortunate enough to have seen "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and "From Hell" can attest. I liked "V for Vendetta" pretty well, though.

Oilyrags, Saturday, 26 July 2008 19:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah, that's what i'm hoping; that no matter the quality of the end product, the flick will vault the book (back?) into a mass consciousness.

xp

kingfish, Saturday, 26 July 2008 19:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think we might as well give up on the masses ever being as smart as us whether they read the book or not.

CaptainLorax, Saturday, 26 July 2008 19:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

Move over X-Men -- here come The Watchmen! Heroic Watchmen team leader Ozymandias, the sarcastic Comedian, sexy Silk Spectre, and grim & gritty Nite Owl come together to stop the evil genius Dr. Manhattan from taking over the world and enslaving the human race. Can they stop him in time? Find out when Watchmen hits theaters June 2009!

and what, Saturday, 26 July 2008 19:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

^

actual treatment written by Snyder

latebloomer, Saturday, 26 July 2008 20:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

maybe its purposeful misdirection

CaptainLorax, Saturday, 26 July 2008 20:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think we might as well give up on the masses ever being as big of smart asses us whether they read the book or not.

Abbott, Saturday, 26 July 2008 20:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

“[The graphic novel] is #1 or #2 on Amazon right now, and that’s awesome. I think that if in the end the movie is a 3-hour advertisement for the book, then so be it. I succeeded.”

I think this fanboyish total devotion to the original source material is kinda worrysome. In every Snyder interview I've read he seems to repeat that he just wants to bring Moore & Gibbon's vision to the screen as faithfully as possible, to do justice to this great piece of art, etc. I think that's kind of a sheepish attitude; as a movie director you're supposed to be an artist yourself, and give us your take of the subject. I don't think a comic book movie should be like exactly like the original comic, only set in motion. It should at least have a fresh interpretation of the source material. I think one of the problems with the Sin City movie was exactly that it tried to slavishly copy Miller's comic books as they were, right down to the reduced, cartoonish visual style, without realizing that what looks good in the pages of comic book might look silly in a movie (the Yellow Bastard, for example). At least the folks who did V for Vendetta added their own ideas and interpretations to the original story.

Tuomas, Sunday, 27 July 2008 08:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

^^^arguably not a good thing though

DG, Sunday, 27 July 2008 08:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

v for vendetta was a shitty, shitty movie

latebloomer, Sunday, 27 July 2008 09:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

so true

Shakey Mo Collier, Sunday, 27 July 2008 13:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

oddly the people I knew who really liked it were people who had never read the book

Shakey Mo Collier, Sunday, 27 July 2008 13:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

(okay perhaps not so oddly)

Shakey Mo Collier, Sunday, 27 July 2008 13:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

This week’s Watchmen festival is finally wrapping up for me. I’m done. How much Watchmen can one guy take? Upon arriving, I thought this was a Comic Book Festival, but I was sadly mistaken. This was an awesome Watchmen commercial that I actually got to walk around in. How exciting is that?

As soon as I got off the train, I saw every person on the street was carrying a big Watchmen bag. They had Watchmen posters, and Watchmen toys and photos with their favorite Watchmen characters. Not everyone who wanted to see the Watchmen panel were able to get it, but the creators of the movie and the entire cast were there. And they talked about the movie!!!!

I found all the money the studio spent promoting Watchmen at Comic Con to be ridiculous. These are nerds. It is like trying to sell guns to the NRA. You know how the studio could market The Watchmen to nerds? Go to a remote town in Alaska and find a nerd. Then just walk up to him and whisper, “There’s going to be a Watchmen movie.” At that point, every nerd in the world will know. They have some sort of communication device.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 28 July 2008 01:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

It is like trying to sell guns to the NRA.

BAHAHAHA

Abbott, Monday, 28 July 2008 01:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

They have some sort of communication device.

I gather they've heard of those tubes up in Alaska.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 28 July 2008 01:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

I like how you noticed a hint of "don't let them in my secret garden" comic fans.. kinda like when music elitists hate it when scenesters enjoy THEIR music (the elitists music).

tbh I get just as annoyed by music fans that do this too.

Really, I'm just happy that my friends are now getting into this book and I have people to discuss it with.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Monday, 28 July 2008 02:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

as a movie director you're supposed to be an artist yourself, and give us your take of the subject.

Normally I would agree, but I really don't think I want to see Zach Snyder's interpretation of anything.

Gukbe, Monday, 28 July 2008 08:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

cool posters

blueski, Monday, 28 July 2008 10:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

A little something from the bald one. (Not Dr. Manhattan.)

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

with this, and Oliver Stone's W. trailer, and all those scary goose-bumps-inducing Veidt commercials slated to come with the movie, and their glaringly unmistakable collective vibe just points to one exact thing: the 80's IS coming back. Neither a remake, nor pastiche, and not just in a mere period sense, it's simply returning something fierce. That is the looming zeitgeist.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

The '80s

is how it is

My sister-in-law gave me a shirt that said:

I (clip art of a fake Pat Benetar)
80's

It was comfy & fit well, but I'm not all that <3 of 80's..the minor and common style issue in abbreviating that decade was what really kept me from wearing the shirt, ever.

Asshole message end.

Abbott, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

can a zeitgeist really "loom"?

max, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

it is simply returning something fierce

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

A zeitgeist is, translated extremely literally, a 'time ghost,' so I think it can't do anything but loom.

Abbott, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

i've always been partial to the idea of a leering zeitgeist

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

like damn 2008 is durnk and keeps licking its teeth at me wtf

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think geist means 'spirit' more than ghost as in the 'spirit of the age'

max, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

Imagine Boo-berry in a tardis, and somehow he is wicked looming with some American Psycho-throwback regeneration brought about by a trailer for a movie about the 21st century's president. Fuck!

Abbott, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

im not saying that it can't loom

max, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

abbott you have destroyed my mind

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah, it is 'spirit of the times' but geist can also mean ghost. I find it amusing to be way too literal in any language. Plz ignore.

Abbott, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

Srsly how is a trailer w/a young 'Dubya' proving it is now THE '80s.

Abbott, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah I don't get the Dubya connection at all. When I think 80s I don't think Dubya. (W will be way better than this, btw!)

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

he was young(er) in the 80s. IT MAKES THE SENSE.

blueski, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

i guess we all were

blueski, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

I was reading a "Weekly Reader" about the 1988 Olympics in that looming zeitgeist.

Abbott, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 22:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

"booberry in a tardis" MEANS something to me.

forksclovetofu, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 00:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

How can I avoid this looming zeitgeist? Is there an antidote?

Z S, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 00:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

Lemme guess - I'm supposed to BUY something.

Z S, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 00:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

Knock booberry out of tardis, vote Obama.

Abbott, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 00:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

i re-read my copy of watchmen last nite, just 4 tha hell of it

it kinda... isn't that good

cankles, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 09:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

challops!

latebloomer, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 10:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

I do wonder what makes you say that.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 10:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

I watched the 'motion comic' of the first issue of Watchmen last night. It was VERY not good, and even more pointless than I thought it would be.

Tied for most obnoxious:

a - one guy doing all the voices, including Sally

b - the word balloons appearing on screen as the one guy was reading them

Oilyrags, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 13:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

a - one guy doing all the voices, including Sally

this can't be as bad as Moore reading extracts from it himself on The Culture Show last year

blueski, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 13:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

What the heck is this "motion comic"?

Tuomas, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 13:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's panels from the comic with a little bit of Flash animation and a voice over. Free on iTunes, if you think you can stomach it.

Oilyrags, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 13:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

That sounds awful, who would ever think such an idea could work?

Tuomas, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 13:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

I dunno. My excuse for watching it I can't help being curious about strange formalist blends, and that certainly fit the bill. Pure unalloyed fail, though.

Oilyrags, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 13:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

that "Page1" in the url is a big tease. I thought there would be a lot more to it than just 500 words of fluff like "I like Iron Man and the Dark Knight but this is different."

Oilyrags, Thursday, 31 July 2008 19:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

I believe the crux of the movie is that it offers a moral choice. That is Watchmen. Let's just say that, without getting too spoilerish, a certain character in the movie survives that.

Rorschach lives = fuck that shit

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 31 July 2008 20:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

haha guess I shoulda read the rest of the paragraph first

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 31 July 2008 20:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

Dude, maybe you should unclench and give it a rest until the release date's less than SEVEN MONTHS AWAY.

Unless you're actually Alan Moore.

David R., Thursday, 31 July 2008 20:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/blogs/angry%20users.JPG

jeff, Thursday, 31 July 2008 20:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

sorry I had to sit through the preview last night and it got me all angried up again

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 31 July 2008 20:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

Preview really does not bode well.

contenderizer, Thursday, 31 July 2008 21:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

britishes did not get pre-batman preview ;_;

ledge, Thursday, 31 July 2008 21:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

At IMAX there was a pre-batman preview apparently, although I arrived late and didn't see it.

AlanSmithee, Thursday, 31 July 2008 21:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

Around here, Chicago, the trailer was only attached to the IMAX Batman (that I'm aware of anyway). It didn't point out that Watchmen will be getting an IMAX release as well, which kinda surprises me. I didn't think they'd be expecting the huge numbers to justify that. It only seems like the mega-franchises get IMAX treatment - Harry Potter, Spider-Man, etc.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Thursday, 31 July 2008 21:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

It didn't point out that Watchmen will be getting an IMAX release as well, which kinda surprises me.

Yours didn't? Weird, the IMAX trailer for it last night was very specifically pushing the 'Experience it in IMAX' part.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 31 July 2008 21:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm sorry, it DID point that out. Long day, etc etc.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Thursday, 31 July 2008 21:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://io9.com/5034332/nite-owls-ship-has-more-curves-than-a-race-track

little behind the scenes thing with the nite owl ship.

latebloomer, Saturday, 9 August 2008 04:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

what is the music in the trailer? billy corgan? NiN? something worse?

amateurist, Saturday, 9 August 2008 04:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

it's the remix of the smashing pumpkins tune from batman & robin

latebloomer, Saturday, 9 August 2008 04:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

ha it sounded vaguely familiar. probably all too appropriate.

amateurist, Saturday, 9 August 2008 04:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

i don't have much stake in this -- i mostly take slocki's attitude.

but one alarm bell is the fact that in every interview, synder (sp?) seems way more psyched to talk about little fetishistic details like the kind of weaponry used, etc. than about what the thing might be out, what the drama is based on, how the characters interact, etc. i mean, i'm not one who thinks the original comic is a masterpiece or anything but it does have a density that i doubt this film will know how to even approximate. could be wrong though.

amateurist, Saturday, 9 August 2008 05:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

thing might be ABOUT

and i realize now it's SNYDER. right?

amateurist, Saturday, 9 August 2008 05:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

which kind of looks like a superhero name when you squint

amateurist, Saturday, 9 August 2008 05:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

snyderman

s1ocki, Saturday, 9 August 2008 06:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

Anyone else get the animated webcomic off of itunes while it was still free?

HI DERE, Saturday, 9 August 2008 13:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

just finished reading it, really enjoyed it (though I'm really excited to hear they're doing an animated treat-up of the sub-comic "Marooned" that appears in the novel???!!)

I thought they showed Osterman killing Rorshach in the trailer, but maybe it wasn't him...they don't show him killing anybody else in the novel, but presumably it was during one of his war conflicts.

anyway, here's hoping Mr. 300 doesn't fuck it up.

Bo Jackson Overdrive, Sunday, 10 August 2008 20:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

He kills a couple of other guys in brief flashbacks in the book - a gang lord and some Vietcong I think.

chap, Sunday, 10 August 2008 20:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

yea, those were the scenes I was thinking of.

Carla Gugino, though.......boiyoiyoing....

Bo Jackson Overdrive, Sunday, 10 August 2008 20:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

good god man

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 10 August 2008 20:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

^

DC's most obscure superhero

latebloomer, Sunday, 10 August 2008 21:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/urgent-warners-watchmen-in-legal%20-peril/

Not likely to prevent the film coming out or anything, though it could mean the end of a three-hour film....

Duane Barry, Monday, 18 August 2008 22:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

Studios have been trying to make Watchmen into a movie since the 1980s when it originally was published. Producer Joel Silver at one point tried to get Arnold Schwarzenegger to play Dr. Manhattan, and Ah-nuld was said to be willing to shave his head and be painted blue.

http://www.toneoperi.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/mr-freeze.jpg

latebloomer, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 04:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

took a different joel to make it happen

latebloomer, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 04:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

Not so fascinating a chronology as they promised.

Abbott, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 04:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

apparently dave gibbons likes the movie:

http://watchmencomicmovie.com/081908-watchmen-movie-con-dave-gibbons.php

latebloomer, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 07:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

And who could doubt his motives for praising it?

Oilyrags, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 17:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

Kevin Smith:

I saw “Watchmen.” It’s fucking astounding. The Non-Disclosure Agreement I signed prevents me from saying much, but I can spout the following with complete joygasmic enthusiasm: Snyder and Co. have pulled it off.

Remember that feeling of watching “Sin City” on the big screen and being blown away by what a faithful translation of the source material it was, in terms of both content and visuals? Triple that, and you’ll come close to watching “Watchmen.” Even Alan Moore might be surprised at how close the movie is to the book. March can’t come soon enough.

/shakeybait

jeff, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 17:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

> Covering the events was ... Michael Moran

!!!

http://jaqrabbit.com/moore/Miracleman.jpg

Oilyrags, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 17:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

Sin City was awful btw

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 17:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

kevin smith saw the 3 hour cut and called it "a fucking masterpiece" or something oh xp

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 18:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

I remember back when they were pushing for Arnold. Then he was Mr. Freeze and that took care of that.

forksclovetofu, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 18:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

Sin City was awful btw

-- Shakey Mo Collier

omar little, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 18:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

Remember that feeling of watching “Sin City” on the big screen and being blown away by what a faithful translation of the source material it was, in terms of both content and visuals?
No

contenderizer, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 18:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

"joygasmic"

M@tt He1ges0n, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 18:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

"Sin City" was great on the big screen, not so great on TV.

HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 18:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

Then again everyone here hated "300", too.

HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 18:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah I saw Sin City on TV. It started to hurt my eyes after awhile and then I fell asleep. when I woke up Rosario Dawson was sweating or something.

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 18:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

i am shocked that contenderizer and shakey mo hated sin city

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 18:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

FWIW, I hated 300 and Sin City as comic books, too. Well, the art in Sin City is pretty good, but even translating panels directly to digitally fucked-with film removes the way Frank Miller handles ink, which is the only thing I've liked about the guy for years.

Oilyrags, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 18:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

nb: i am not shocked

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 18:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

I've been re-reading some of my old Miller stuff lately and frankly am shocked that anybody thinks of this guy's dialogue as anything but schlock. His stories are compelling, but the narration & speech is awful.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 18:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah he's seriously deficient as a writer - I think the only time he really overcame his limitations were with Ronin (which is truly beautiful) and Batman: Year One.

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 18:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

sin shitty

latebloomer, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

that's brilliant!

blueski, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

who scotches the botchmen

blueski, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

300 and Sin City are both excellent popcorn movies; you went expecting high drama?
Miller's high points as a writer for my money are Give Me Liberty, Ronin, Year One and most of the Daredevil run. Dark Knight, Sin City and anything he's done in the past five years doesn't hold up too well.
Also:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ryan.coombes/Myworld/cain1.JPG

forksclovetofu, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

nuke

s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

gimme a red

forksclovetofu, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

300 and Sin City are both excellent popcorn movies; you went expecting high drama?

I went to Sin City expecting a good movie.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

but it was a comic book adaptation

blueski, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

I got one. Your mileage varied, I guess.

forksclovetofu, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

ONLY SEVEN MONTHS AWAY

JUST THINK

David R., Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

Miller's second run on Daredevil (w/Mazzuchelli) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his first run

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

Remember that feeling of watching “Sin City” on the big screen and being blown away by what a faithful translation of the source material it was, in terms of both content and visuals? Triple that, and you’ll come close to watching “Watchmen.”

This actually sounds pretty bad, because one of the reasons Sin City sucked was exactly the way it tried so slavishly to transfer everything in the original comic to the screen. Film is a different medium than comic, and you as a filmmaker should realize that.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

I wouldn't call Kevin Smith a filmmaker. He's more like a fanboy with a camera.

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah, but I was referring to Snyder and whoever it was who did Sin City.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

jesus god you people are dour

HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

whadayamean Dan I lol at you all the time!

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

re: pretty-looking movies, I mean

HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm not going to defend either "300" or "Sin City" as an artistic triumph in terms of storytelling because they aren't (although "300" does a better job of getting its story across than "Sin City", mostly because there isn't a prominent actor completely flubbing an American accent in it) but both of them are visually-stunning; most of my enjoyment of both movies came from the deep commitment to visual style evidenced in both.

HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah i use that one to justify Matrix Reloaded all the time :/

blueski, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

how's that working out for you

s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

I've actually liked all the Kevin Smith films I've seen. He's not much of a filmmaker, yes, but at least the dialogue is usually funny.

Sin City, on the had, was at least cinematically ambitious, but nevertheless a failure, because 1) it tried to cram three different comic series into one movie instead of filming just one of them, thus making the pacing terrible with no breathing space at all, and 2) the director thought he could do the exact same things in a movie than in a comic, and it would still look equally good. Stuff like the cartoonish weightless bodies or caricatures like the Yellow Bastard simply looked silly, because cinema is inherently a more "realistic" medium, and therefore exaggeration and caricaturization can't be used in it the same way as in a comic.

(xxx-post)

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

Film is a different medium than comic, and you as a filmmaker should realize that.

-- Tuomas, Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:36 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

ya no duh. that doesn't mean experimenting by combining the two might not be worthwhile! or at least produce interesting results.

s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

i agree it's not quite a success but it was still pretty neat & different and a lot more interesting than many other ways a sin city adaptation could have gone.

s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

i mean the fact that people are making experimental art flicks based on "sin city" these days still kind of blows my mind... think about what an '80s adaptation would have looked like

s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

Reloaded is great, though! It's Revolution that is super-embarrassing.

Tuomas:

1. If Rodriguez/Miller had only done one story, the movie would have been 40 minutes long.
2. The entire point of the movie was to transfer the comic book's imagery to film; change that and you basically have three shitty stories unworthy of direct-to-video release. (or s1ocki OTM)

HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

The entire point of the movie was to transfer the comic book's imagery to film

this doesn't strike me as a particularly good reason to make a movie

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

what does strike you as a particularly good reason to make a movie?

s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

eh, grandma?

s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

"I really wanted to help the homeless, so I decided to make 'The House Bunny'."

HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

In Every Multiplex, A Meet The Spartans

David R., Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

</raggett>

David R., Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

1. If Rodriguez/Miller had only done one story, the movie would have been 40 minutes long.

I think you could've actually easily made an enjoyable 90-100 minute feature film based on the first comic only. But now the whole story is told in 50 minutes super-speed with no room for atmospherics, breathing space, etc. For example, take the scene where Marv walks in the rain and tries to figure out who's pulling the strings behind everything that's happened. In the comic Miller devotes several splash pages to it, and it really feels like a needed pause between the action scenes, a calm before the final storm. But in the movie the whole scene is done with fast cuts in a couple of minutes, and it doesn't have the same effect at all.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

omg that would have been the most excruciating thing on Earth

HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

what does strike you as a particularly good reason to make a movie?

To make an adaptation that uses cinema's own strengths and gives the viewer a new interpretation of the basic story, instead of slavishly copying all the visual aspects and the plot from the original comic.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

</raggett>

Too true.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

To make an adaptation that uses cinema's own strengths and gives the viewer a new interpretation of the basic story, instead of slavishly copying all the visual aspects and the plot from the original comic.

-- Tuomas, Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:05 PM (17 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

what if the visual aspect is the only interesting thing about it?

s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

15 minutes of Marv walking in the rain is probably the number one thing I would say "Sin City" would never need.

(again, s1ocki OTM)

HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

one of the reasons Sin City sucked was exactly the way it tried so slavishly to transfer everything in the original comic to the screen.

-- Tuomas

Plus, in some crucial ways, it didn't even try to translate the comix. Miller's Sin City nails a convincing kind of world-hating, brutalist noir. Crass and schlocky, sure, but alive and dynamic and even kinda adult (in an arrested sort of way). Also, the comics are charged at all times with erotic obsession, both in your face explicit and buried in the background. Movie ditches those uncomfortable elements in favor of some awful, Disneyfied, Maxim magazine vaccum. The characters are cool and it's wall to wall with squeaky-clean T&A, but it's got none of Miller's full-grown/stunted sexuality and fuck you fury. And, as oilyrags said, Miller's ink handling doesn't come across. Instead, Rodriguez & co. just robotically duplicate the basic compositions. Miller's art, for all it's limitations, is never less than beautiful, and the movie, for all its slickness, is never less than ugly as shit.

both of them are visually-stunning; most of my enjoyment of both movies came from the deep commitment to visual style evidenced in both.
See, that's a big part of the problem for me. While Sin City tries hard to look cool, and while a great deal of effort was obviously expended on this, I think it's visual sensibility is appallingly stupid and ugly. It's graceless. It farts and drools where Miller sings.

contenderizer, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

Robert Bresson's Sin City.

Pancakes Hackman, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think it farts and sings

s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

how's that working out for you

fine really

blueski, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

what if the visual aspect is the only interesting thing about it?

then its NOT A GOOD IDEA. sheesh.

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

what if the visual aspect is the only interesting thing about it?

Well, then you should realize that sometimes a certain visual aspect only works well in a comic book. If you can't come with any original ways of trying to convey the same effect in cinematic terms, don't try to slavishly the ape the comic's visuals if they're bound to look silly onscreen.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

(x-post)

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah the Man Without Fear is pretty unfuckwithable

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

jessica rabbit was hot in the comics too

remy bean, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://www.cinematical.com/media/2008/04/jessicarabbit1.jpg

remy bean, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

im not even a big sin city fan, it's just that the dogmatic approach to what SHOULD and SHOULDNT be a movie is kind of annoying

s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

I go back to my "jesus god you people are dour" post.

HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

convincing world-hating brutalist Crass schlocky alive dynamic kinda adult arrested erotic explicit Disneyfied Maxim squeaky-clean T&A full-grown/stunted sexuality fuck you fury robotically beautiful slickness ugly as shit visually-stunning appallingly stupid ugly graceless farts drools sings

omar little, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

Radiohead's finest lyrical hour.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

Roger Rabbit is great btw. I tend to hate Zemeckis (who doesn't?) but that one is a real gem.

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

im not even a big sin city fan, it's just that the dogmatic approach to what SHOULD and SHOULDNT be a movie is kind of annoying

So you can't criticize movies if you find them lacking in certain ways?

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

Stuff like the cartoonish weightless bodies or caricatures like the Yellow Bastard simply looked silly, because cinema is inherently a more "realistic" medium, and therefore exaggeration and caricaturization can't be used in it the same way as in a comic.

I don't know, anytime I need a cheer-up it's pretty great to think of Elijah wood grimacing and hopping around moonwalk-style in a Charlie Brown sweater.

Abbott, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

So you can't criticize movies if you find them lacking in certain ways?

You can, but you should be prepared for people to tell you that they think you're a dogmatic robot.

HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm not saying that Sin City SHOULD'VE been exactly this and this way, I'm just saying that for me it didn't work, and it was pretty easy to pinpoint the reasons why.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

So you can't criticize movies if you find them lacking in certain ways?

-- Tuomas, Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:19 PM (52 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

no, you just seem to be drawing these arbitrary rules that don't really mean anything or are so obvious they're not worth pointing out. hey did you know that COMICS aren't the same thing as MOVIES?!?

s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

its not so much a dogmatic idea of what shouldn't or should be done so much as it is understanding what does and doesn't work about a specific medium. I agree with contenderizer (and obviously disagree w/S1ocki and Dan) that Sin City looked terrible. I just did not think it looked good on-screen. Saying that it faithfully aped the style of the comics is not enough to recommend it, as accomplishing that particular aesthetic feat is fairly pointless and not a particularly good idea. Its like saying that a building based on a Van Gogh painting must be great, cuz it LOOKS JUST LIKE A VAN GOGH PAINTING! Never mind that its a shitty building.

x-post

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

Let's talk more about Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Love that movie. And I promise to refrain from using words that are bad.

contenderizer, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think it translated the comic pretty spot on and kudos to the casting of carla gugino imo. i didn't like the source material that much and tbh i think rodriguez did a totally fine job, even if i personally don't think the whole thing is my...thing.

omar little, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://www.chucksconnection.com/sincity/sincity03.jpg

"Watch out bitches, when I'm done with my Seventh Day Adventist shit, I'm gonna take to Mario-style hopping!"

"Srsly I am scary!"

...

"I mean it!"

Abbott, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

Ned Raggett's Post.

jeff, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://www.negativespace.net/victorian-graffiti/kevingdoll.jpg

"BOOGA BOOGA BLOOBY bippity boppity boo!"

Abbott, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also I think Jessica Alba has a midriff.

"Abbott sums up the movies 4 u"

Abbott, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

Okay, Elijah apparently is scarier IRL than as 'Kevin':

http://www.bitetv.ca/blog/archives/Elijah%20Wood.jpg

I had a crush on you since age 10, what're you DOING to me here, buddy? *96 tears*

Abbott, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

was that really necessary

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

Elijah, that wasn't really necessary! I agree.

Abbott, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

see that's an example of how to really bring illustrated visuals to life.

s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

HI DERE NOT SAFE FOR FUCKING WORK OK

David R., Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

He makes dirty jokes, but HI DERE is usually safe for work. I mean, he still has a job.

Abbott, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

Birth is a natural and beautiful event in a woman's life, David

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

Anyway, I'm still looking forward to Watchmen, though the previews smell.

contenderizer, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

has nobody brought up the lawsuit that might derail the whole enterprise yet?

s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

they smell like meat

omg i love meat

blueski, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

slocki that is why the tread got revived.

Abbott, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

has nobody brought up the lawsuit that might derail the whole enterprise yet?

-- s1ocki, Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:34 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

upthread, amigo!

latebloomer, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

x-post

latebloomer, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also, who are we kidding? One big check later, movie is back in theaters. It's gone too far to stop now.

Oilyrags, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

Oily OTM

contenderizer, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

This is just to say that I did not need a person on the internet calling himself Shakey Mo Collier to remind me about the natural beauty of childbirth with regards to a pic showing Elijah Wood's head poking through a plywood vag.

David R., Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

Had it been a real honest-to-goodness vag, say from a cow or elephant, that would have been okay.

HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

chinatown.jpg

David R., Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

maybe we can add him to the wallogina

jeff, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

homework: GIS "elephant vag"

contenderizer, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

lolz joeks bruv

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also, who are we kidding? One big check later, movie is back in theaters. It's gone too far to stop now.

-- Oilyrags, Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:38 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

seriously. has a lawsuit like this ever stopped a high-profile major studio movie like this from being released?

latebloomer, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

Fox has stated it isn't looking for monetary compensation - their aim is for the film's release to be blocked. I'd like to say with certainty they won't succeed, but who knows?

Duane Barry, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 23:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

That's completely untrue according to a quote in an Entertainment Weekly article from a spokesman for Fox. They are looking to get pizzaid.

HI DERE, Thursday, 21 August 2008 00:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

wait waht lawsuit

gbx, Thursday, 21 August 2008 00:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

The one Shakey Mo filed claiming emotional distress.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 21 August 2008 00:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/08/watchmen.html

Those familiar with the situation tell EW.com that despite the legal mess over rights, Fox isn't actually interested in suppressing Snyder’s film — they just want affirmation of ownership and/or restitution, and there are many scenarios by which Fox could get paid, including a cash settlement or distribution rights to the film. Either way, look for Watchmen to be released, as scheduled, on March 6, 2009.

HI DERE, Thursday, 21 August 2008 00:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

Ladies and Gentlemen, Carla Gugino:

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/8806/silkspectre2vi5dr2.jpg

Pancakes Hackman, Thursday, 21 August 2008 01:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

Poor prisoner. :(
That's against the eighth amendment.

Abbott, Thursday, 21 August 2008 02:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

one month passes...

Crudup as The Tron Guy as Dr Manhattan

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=14&id=61074

Brosef Stalin (latebloomer), Monday, 6 October 2008 23:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

ever since hollywood shifted into this 'ALL SUPERHERO MOVIES ALL THE TIME' mode, ive been less and less concerned about 'staying faithful to the comic' or whatever. as a kid, i was an x-men fanatic and was completely distraught as to how they handled the movies, in every way. there used to be this big sense of finality or something, like 'theyre FINALLY making a movie of it, so they HAVE to get it right! this is their ONE CHANCE!' i think part of that mentality came from comics/graphic novels being overlooked and underappreciated as storytelling devices and as an art medium and all that.

but now, i just dont care anymore... i guess the x-men stuff just made me not give a shit. you know what? go nuts, and invite billy corgan along. it just doesn't matter.

the sir weeze, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 00:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

Don't tell Alan Moore, but I'm looking forward to this film quite a lot now.

chap, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 00:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

In any case, we think we actually like Snyder's ending better than Alan Moore's — what the heck was that squid thing about, anyway?

writer is a fucking moron and I claim my $5

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 21:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

Blotchmen

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 21:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

The change sounds more or less in keeping with the intent of Moore's original ending, certainly not as bad as that horrible 90s script which is knocking around the web somewhere. The squid would be better though, its what the heckness is what makes it so brilliant - Gordian Knot and all that.

chap, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 23:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

seems to me like it doesn't resolve the central cold war conflict (ie, uniting Soviets and Americans against a common alien foe), since the "common foe" in this case, is um, American.

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 23:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

well, manhattan suddenly leaves earth fairly early in the story so it's not exactly a stretch to essentially frame him.

the squid will be missed though.

I'm glad the chihuahua beat it this wkend (latebloomer), Tuesday, 21 October 2008 23:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

essentially frame him as going rogue, that is

I'm glad the chihuahua beat it this wkend (latebloomer), Tuesday, 21 October 2008 23:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

Fuck losing the squid imo.

Although I'll still be queuing up when this piece of shit gets released.

what U cry 4 (jim), Tuesday, 21 October 2008 23:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

SPOILERS

That's a point, but I'm sure something could be crafted to solve this. Manhattan has publicly disavowed human affairs some time before the climax, after all and I assume the attacks are going to occur on both sides' soil. Not saying the new ending will be better, just saying it might not be absolute shit.

xpost to Shakey

chap, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 23:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm just sayin it doesn't make sense global-politics-wise - the Russians would blame the Americans if an American superhero suddenly blew up a bunch of cities in both their countries. No balance of power would be achieved.

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 23:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

you don't think the constant hanging threat of a superhero who could strike anytime he wanted and was no longer loyal to any country wouldn't change things?

I'm glad the chihuahua beat it this wkend (latebloomer), Tuesday, 21 October 2008 23:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

Not saying I don't prefer the sheer WTF-ness of the squid ending in the comic but the "framing Dr. Manhattan" ending isn't a terrible alternative. And probably works better cinematically.

But yeah yeah, I know "DON'T YOU SEE THIS SHOULD NEVER EVER EVER HAVE BEEN MADE INTO A MOVIE WAHHH!"

I'm glad the chihuahua beat it this wkend (latebloomer), Tuesday, 21 October 2008 23:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

it would change things, but it wouldn't achieve parity like the alien-squid threat does.

I agree that its a better alternate ending than the previous scripts'.

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 23:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

I had one of those earlier scripts downloaded but was too afraid to read it. I've heard they were pretty bad.

I'm glad the chihuahua beat it this wkend (latebloomer), Tuesday, 21 October 2008 23:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

WHERE THE HECK ARE OUR WATCHMEN?

s1ocki, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 00:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

Some new footage:

Duane Barry, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 09:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

Not saying I don't prefer the sheer WTF-ness of the squid ending in the comic but the "framing Dr. Manhattan" ending isn't a terrible alternative. And probably works better cinematically.

I agree. The whole thing squid scheme and how it so suddenly achieved peace was always the weakest part of the comic. I think it might make more sense in the context of the story to make the common enemy someone whose power and amoral attitudes towards the human race have already been firmly established rather than some random alien whose supposed threat needs to be boosted with a psychic's brain (the brain bit kinda makes me feel Moore didn't really believe in the ending himself). I think the way peace is reached in the end of the story totally stretches the internal credibility of the story anyway, so the question why Russians wouldn't blame Americans because of Dr. Manhattan's nationality is a minor quibble compared to the general suspension of disbelief the ending requires in any case.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 09:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

Endings aside, giant Dr. Manhattan hand reaching through the roof of Karnak to grab at Veidt sends chills down my spine.

Vulves A Colorier (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 22 October 2008 12:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

is the whole soundtrack gonna be that horrible billy corgan rock

s1ocki, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 13:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

According to IMDb the following songs are confirmed to be on the soundtrack:

My Chemical Romance - Desolation Row (cover of a Bob Dylan song to play over the end credits).

Bob Dylan - The Times They Are A Changing (To play over opening credits).

Simon and Garfunkel - Sounds of Silence.

Nena - 99 Luftballons

Jimi Hendrix - All Along The Watchtower

Nat King Cole - Unforgettable

A bit clichéd, but sounds okay!

Tuomas, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 13:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

some random alien whose supposed threat needs to be boosted with a psychic's brain (the brain bit kinda makes me feel Moore didn't really believe in the ending himself)

once again anything remotely metaphysical irritates Tuomas

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 15:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

you know Moore is a "magician" right?

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 15:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

who cares

s1ocki, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 15:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

you're allowed to make whatever point you want but not being able to separate an artist from his work seems like a bit of a stumbling block when it comes to properly evaluating film/music/art/whatever.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, October 21, 2008 7:12 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

s1ocki, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 15:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

right I was referring to where Tuomas thinks that Moore doesn't "really believe" the ending - doesn't really matter if Moore "believed" it or not, but I don't see any evidence supporting that, given Moore's vocal interest in magic/occult/whathaveyou

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 15:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

anyway, that soundtrack looks pretty terrible i gotta say. might as well stick "i feel good" in there for the scene where night owl gets his costume on again.

s1ocki, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 15:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

looool

"Let's Get It On" interrupted by a record scratch for the scene where he can't get it up

I'm glad the chihuahua beat it this wkend (latebloomer), Wednesday, 22 October 2008 15:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

hahahah

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 15:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

A bit clichéd

totally. didn't Moore already use some of those exact same songs in the books, like, 20 years ago.

my sweet coconut (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 22 October 2008 15:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

? he used one of them. Doubt Snyder wanted to bother licensing shitty Elvis Costello songs or Iggy Pop's "Neighborhood Threat"

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 15:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

Desolation Row and All Along The Watchtower = one song?

my sweet coconut (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 22 October 2008 15:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

MEGAMIX!!!

s1ocki, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 15:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

oh sorry I didn't see that - my eyes glazed over after the words "My Chemical Romance" and the only Dylan song I noticed was "The Times They Are a Changin' Into A Bank Commercial"

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 16:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

isn't 'unforgettable' in there as well?

allez, allons-y, on y va (ledge), Wednesday, 22 October 2008 16:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yes.

my sweet coconut (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 22 October 2008 16:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

it is? where? don't remember that one

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 16:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

nostalgia ad - see #7, p13, panels 8-9

my sweet coconut (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 22 October 2008 16:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

ah - I stand corrected thx

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 16:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

and I feel like this guy right now:

http://missgeeky.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/comic-book-guy.gif

my sweet coconut (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 22 October 2008 16:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

the times they are a-changin' is in there too... and while tuomas is painfully off-base on the appropriateness of the soundtrack I have to grant that the dylan shit was kind of dire in the original too

my sweet coconut (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 22 October 2008 16:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

some random alien whose supposed threat needs to be boosted with a psychic's brain (the brain bit kinda makes me feel Moore didn't really believe in the ending himself)

once again anything remotely metaphysical irritates Tuomas

That's not really what I meant, rather than the whole idea of the psychic's brain comes from nowhere, and it felt like Moore added it there because the idea of a common alien enemy uniting the US and the USSR is so far-fetched that it needed this silly bit of boosting to make it sound better. Also, the world of Watchmen seem to have any other paranormal things going on... Dr. Manhattan, the only other person with real superpowers, is explained with science (even if it is pseudo-science), so the idea of a psychic strong enough to influence thousands of people feels kinda tacked on compared to the relative realism of the rest of the story. So I'm not complaining about metaphysics per se, rather than Moore using them in a way that doesn't really fit the other parts of the comic.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 16:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

"the world of Watchmen doesn't seem to have any other paranormal things going on"

Tuomas, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 16:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

If a guy who can control atoms and see through time can be explained with science, then psychic powers can be explained with science.

chap, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 17:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

The missing squid doesn't bother me that much, but I *will* be annoyed if you don't see Rorschach's journal arrive at Nova Express' office.

Chris Barrus (Elvis Telecom), Wednesday, 22 October 2008 18:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

They couldn't get the John Cale song that concludes everything?

Chris Barrus (Elvis Telecom), Wednesday, 22 October 2008 19:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

The whole thing squid scheme and how it so suddenly achieved peace was always the weakest part of the comic.

I don't even remember it achieving peace...as my brane remembers it it was just like "oh fuck squid, of shit gore, oh man disquieting, ps I finished reading the pirate book."

Abbott, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 19:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

Glad they decided against Rorschach's body stocking.

chap, Monday, 27 October 2008 23:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

I read something this morning that suggested that the non-squid ending news leak was just them testing the waters and that the squid ending does exist. Can't find the link though...

Buffcoat and Beaver or Beaver and something else (jeff), Tuesday, 28 October 2008 21:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

Ronan!

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Tuesday, 11 November 2008 05:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

The tagline to that poster kinda reveals the ending of the story, doesn't it? Not that anyone who hasn't already read the comic would guess it.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 10:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

you've answered your own question there. it's vague enough, just glad the horned lioness type thing is up in this.

Cittaslow Mazza (blueski), Tuesday, 11 November 2008 12:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

There's another oblique spoiler in the trailer, in that it cuts from Blake being thrown out the window straight to a shot of Viedt.

chap, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 13:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

how often do you see a cinematic adaptation marketed with a similar aesthetic to the published work? man that typeface is a beacon amongst the madly ugly posters for movies that concern themselves with the fate of the world.

siskin/skulls, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 13:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

that poster is terrible!!

check out bubastis tho

s1ocki, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 14:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

and what kind of tagline is that?

s1ocki, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 14:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

What is the name of that typeface?

I would so not be sad if it replaced Impact in everything but lolcats.

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Tuesday, 11 November 2008 16:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

they're doing posters for all the main characters:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39054

I wonder if birds - even dinosaur birds - were created in mid-air, (latebloomer), Tuesday, 11 November 2008 17:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

tagline's still kinda ass tho

I wonder if birds - even dinosaur birds - were created in mid-air, (latebloomer), Tuesday, 11 November 2008 17:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

The Manhattan one's not bad.

chap, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 17:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

What is the name of that typeface?

think it's Futura Condensed Bold - pretty much identical to the one used by The Sun for most headlines

and yes Impact must die

Cittaslow Mazza (blueski), Tuesday, 11 November 2008 19:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

They should of used this guy as veidt
http://seat42f.com/site/images/stories/tvshows/TheMentalist/simon-baker-the-mentalist-tca.jpg
the wrong choice for veidt and the stupid punchlines are the only things I see wrong with this movie so far

❤ⓛⓞⓥⓔ❤ (CaptainLorax), Wednesday, 12 November 2008 00:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

<object width="400" height="327" id="uvp_fop"><param name="movie" value="http://l.yimg.com/cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/fop/embedflv/swf/fop.swf";></param><param name="flashVars" value="id=10658091&rd=eyc-off&ympsc=&postpanelEnable=1&prepanelEnable=1&infopanelEnable=1&carouselEnable=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed width="400" height="327" id="uvp_fop" allowscriptaccess="always" src="http://l.yimg.com/cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/fop/embedflv/swf/fop.swf"; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="id=10658091&rd=eyc-off&ympsc=&prepanelEnable=1&infopanelEnable=1"></embed></object>

Gukbe, Friday, 14 November 2008 00:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

whoops

Gukbe, Friday, 14 November 2008 00:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/watchmen.html?showVideo=1

Gukbe, Friday, 14 November 2008 00:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

there you go

Gukbe, Friday, 14 November 2008 00:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

shit trailer, btw

Gukbe, Friday, 14 November 2008 01:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

hooray for no billy corgan

the sir weeze, Friday, 14 November 2008 01:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

Is that the Koyaansqaasti theme?

Alex in SF, Friday, 14 November 2008 01:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

man i hate rorschach's voice

Thematically it's like a queer-Pipecock (blueski), Friday, 14 November 2008 01:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

i was thinking that. if ILX hated Bale's Batman voice, then hoo-boy...

Gukbe, Friday, 14 November 2008 01:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

Not keen on that trailer. Don't like Rorschach's voice in particular (should be flatter and more expressionless), and all the acting seems a bit shoddy.

On a nerdier note: there isn't actually a group in the comic called The Watchmen! It's just the name of the book.

chap, Friday, 14 November 2008 01:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

"hrmmm"

balloon in a sack (latebloomer), Friday, 14 November 2008 01:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

revealing practically the entire plot there

balloon in a sack (latebloomer), Friday, 14 November 2008 01:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

I wonder if the group's actually called "Watchmen" in the movie (they were "Crimebusters" in the book, IIRC.) "Watchmen" sounded spliced in there, like they're trying to justify the title or something.

balloon in a sack (latebloomer), Friday, 14 November 2008 01:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

from the very little evidence in the trailer it looks like we're going to get batman voice AND really exaggerated physical movements because you can't see my face! from Rorschach.

squeaky fromme where? (jessie monster), Friday, 14 November 2008 02:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

Eh, I can deal with stuff like that. I'm more concerned about all that ridiculous slow-mo. It's the most played-out movie trick ever.

If you took all the slow motion out of 300 you'd have a 5-minute short.

balloon in a sack (latebloomer), Friday, 14 November 2008 03:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

Is that fucking Muse?

James Mitchell, Friday, 14 November 2008 05:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm liking all the shots that seem to have come directly off the page.

Jon's voice is worse though, he sounds like a whiny emo kid, not a god.

ledge, Friday, 14 November 2008 10:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

POLICEMAN 1: (doffs his cap and mops his brow) W-who watches the Watchmen....

ಥ﹏ಥ (cankles), Friday, 14 November 2008 11:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

lol this is the gayest lookin bullshit btw - ozymandius looks exactly like robin in batman and robin - what an utter shitwich

one of the reasons the sam hamm CHRIST ALMIGHTY IT'S THE GODDAMN WATCHMEN shit is so ridiculous is that there's no such thing as 'the Watchmen,' yet in the trailer dude is all like watchmen DIS and watchmen DAT, NOT COOL

rorschach voice doesnt bother me even tho i hated bale as batman

i like that the comedian looks like javier bardem

i'm also cool with manhattan sounding like a whiny pussy, cuz that's kinda what he is

finally, the giant psychic exploding squid was gay as hell in the comic, but it's also gay as hell to change the ending, which is why this dumb gay movie should never have been made - too much irresolvable gayness is inherent in the property

no, wait, finally: fuk u shakey

ಥ﹏ಥ (cankles), Friday, 14 November 2008 11:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

O RLY?

that last poster, how can they change the blood splot? it's the motif of the entire book, it's how the book starts and finishes. gah.

koogs, Friday, 14 November 2008 14:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

Er, just because they changed the shape of the blot a bit doesn't mean it won't symbolize the same things... (Broken symmetry, stained innocence, the hand of the clock, etc.) I don't it has to be the exact same shape.

Tuomas, Friday, 14 November 2008 14:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

OMG/WTF/LOLOLOoLO @:

1/Philip Glass over moody movie scenes HOLY CRAP WHY DIDN'T SOMEONE THINK OF THAT BEFORE.

2/the guy who plays rorschach's voice OMG ROFFLE ROFFLE

3/the dialog in the comic, it wasn't THAT stoopid, was it?

4/corny slo-mo GET OVER IT ALREADY, Hollywood "visionaries".

5/"visionary" director of "300" ROFFLE ROFFLE

6/the woman who plays silk spectre is really really hott would spend "quality time" w/.

Def NOT going to see this, the trailer looks FAR worse than I was expecting, thought it would be competent but pointless/over-reverent, from that it looks totally, totally wack. Acting in particular is bogus, and the effects don't look all that either.

Pashmina, Friday, 14 November 2008 14:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also, Ade is pretty OTM.

Pashmina, Friday, 14 November 2008 14:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

wow, yeah.. i think they were better off with the shitty billy corgan trailer.

the worst bit is how the trailer hints that the superhero group is called "the watchmen" ; that's really annoying me!! hopefully the movie doesn't do that.

homosexual II, Friday, 14 November 2008 14:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

would it really be that big a deal if they changed "crimebusters" into "watchmen"? it's kind of the least of my worries based on the trailer.

da croupier, Friday, 14 November 2008 15:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

okay i guess in watching this for a second time, it might appeal to people who havent read the comic and are intrigued.

but not a trailer for fans, that's for certain.

homosexual II, Friday, 14 November 2008 15:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

trailer confirms this is gonna be retardo but epic

da croupier, Friday, 14 November 2008 15:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

i just hope it's not as boring as bonfire of the vanities

da croupier, Friday, 14 November 2008 15:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

> Er, just because they changed the shape of the blot a bit doesn't mean it won't symbolize the same things...

if it's going to symbolise the same things and you've got a perfectly good design already then why change it? if it's not broke, don't fix it.

koogs, Friday, 14 November 2008 15:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

Apparently the dialogue in the trailer may have been edited to take out references to 'crimebusters', replacing them with 'Watchmen' because, you know, it's an advert and the idea is to bury 'WATCHMEN' into your subconscious by repeating it over and over again.

James Mitchell, Friday, 14 November 2008 16:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

i don't care either way. so much will be lost in conversion regardless. i am kinda interested in the reasons why they have changed certain things tho.

i don't suppose the whole Big Figure sequence will be in this will it? is Rorschach staying masked throughout?

and the effects don't look all that either

they look as good as greenscreen permits

Thematically it's like a queer-Pipecock (blueski), Friday, 14 November 2008 16:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

big figure is in this

balloon in a sack (latebloomer), Friday, 14 November 2008 16:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

i just hope it's not as boring as bonfire of the vanities

― da croupier, Friday, November 14, 2008 3:08 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

weird comparison!

s1ocki, Friday, 14 November 2008 16:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

heh anthony compares everything to de palma!

balloon in a sack (latebloomer), Friday, 14 November 2008 16:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

big figure is in this

daamn, so what HAVE they cut from the main story?

Thematically it's like a queer-Pipecock (blueski), Friday, 14 November 2008 16:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

apparently it's pretty close for the most part!

balloon in a sack (latebloomer), Friday, 14 November 2008 16:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

this version is supposedly the most faithful of all the attempts at adapting the GN so far. doesn't mean it will work, obv.

balloon in a sack (latebloomer), Friday, 14 November 2008 16:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

wait, why is cankles angry at me? should I even care?

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 14 November 2008 16:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

re: bonfire - hey, if people are excited to see an '80s literary pop masscult item transformed into a bonkers big budget epic with questionable casting by a guy addicted to slo-mo, it might be worth remembering that they're not always entertaining, intentionally or otherwise.

da croupier, Friday, 14 November 2008 16:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

I read that old "Watchmen" script from years ago that wass linked upthread. I liked the ending! It was funny. It would have made a good TV movie or serial.

Pashmina, Friday, 14 November 2008 17:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

For what it's worth, an answer of sorts re: the characters saying "Watchmen" in the trailer:

http://chud.com/articles/articles/17048/1/ZACK-SNYDER-EXPLAINS-WHO-THESE-quotWATCHMENquot-ARE/Page1.html

"The original team we called the Minutemen, as per the graphic novel. We never exactly say whether or not in the more modern version we call them the Watchmen/Crimebusters. We loosely called them Watchmen as more of a symbolic name, more than anything else."

balloon in a sack (latebloomer), Friday, 14 November 2008 20:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://gardnerlinn.com/watchmensquidhope2.jpg

James Mitchell, Monday, 17 November 2008 18:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

oh dear god

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 19:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

We loosely called them Watchmen as more of a symbolic name, more than anything else.

oh shut up

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, 17 November 2008 19:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

ALL NAMES ARE SYMBOLIC, HENCE THEM BEING "NAMES"

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, 17 November 2008 19:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

YOUR NAME IS SYMBOLIC OF A FRIENDLY GREETING

Ned Raggett, Monday, 17 November 2008 19:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

ALSO: BUTTSECKS

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, 17 November 2008 19:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

Crotchmen

Ned Raggett, Monday, 17 November 2008 19:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

I don't really like Rorschach's use of "costumed heroes" anyway (does he really think of himself as a hero?). I've figured out who he sounds like tho, a gravellier Admiral Adama from BSG.

Thematically it's like a queer-Pipecock (blueski), Monday, 17 November 2008 19:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

um, yeah I'm pretty sure Rorschach does see himself as a hero? He has a pretty black and white sense of morality.

what U cry 4 (jim), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

> He has a pretty black and white sense of morality.

Mask=symbolic!

There is no Grodd but Mallah and Congorilla is His Prophet. (Oilyrags), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

I suppose the part about him becoming Rorschach rather than just playing him, and the mask becoming his skin etc. shows his contempt with playing the masked-hero vigilante. But it's rather than he is contemptuous that beforehand he wasn't sufficiently violent and extreme in the retribution he meted out to criminals.

what U cry 4 (jim), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

rather than him completely seeing through the vigilante as hero idea.

what U cry 4 (jim), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

plus he is motivated primarily by the need to protect himself and his comrades, by solving the murder mystery - having kinda given up on humanity or society generally.

Thematically it's like a queer-Pipecock (blueski), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

3/the dialog in the comic, it wasn't THAT stoopid, was it?

Some needs to rescreen the book.

David R., Monday, 17 November 2008 21:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

SomeONE kthx

David R., Monday, 17 November 2008 21:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah most of that dialogue is p much verbatim

this movie will be exactly like the comic in one regard: a hamfisted heavy ass handed piece of garbage for aspie goons that thought no country for old men was too complicated

ಥ﹏ಥ (cankles), Monday, 17 November 2008 22:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

I believe I may qualify.

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's been a few years since I last read the book, it's true. I guess I should pull it off the shelf and read it through again.

Pashmina, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 17:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

HD trailer: http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/watchmen/

Maybe this trailer does give away the plot, but it makes absolutely no sense to me (I haven't read the book).

caek, Thursday, 27 November 2008 11:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

lol nite owl action figure looks profoundly uncomfortable

BIG HOOS is those british white steens (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 27 November 2008 14:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

maybe because his goggles are tight enough to crush his left eye socket?

darraghmac, Thursday, 27 November 2008 14:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

that was just a homemade action figure btw

❤ⓛⓞⓥⓔ❤ (CaptainLorax), Sunday, 30 November 2008 04:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

in case you missed this: http://springfieldpunx.blogspot.com/2008/08/keep-watching.html

Yentl vs Predator (blueski), Friday, 5 December 2008 13:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://io9.com/5100532/new-watchmen-mobile-game-makes-alan-moore-cry

now play watchmen on your cellymophone!

Vault Boy Bobblehead: Drinking (kingfish), Friday, 5 December 2008 18:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

Long interview with Dave Gibbons, who is apparently a supporter of the upcoming film:
http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/12/archaeologizing.html

Neil S, Friday, 26 December 2008 13:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

An attorney for 20th Century Fox says the studio will continue to seek an order delaying the release of 'Watchmen.'

U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess last week agreed with Fox that Warner Bros. had infringed its copyright by developing and shooting the superhero flick, scheduled for release March 6.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081229/ap_en_ot/film_watchmen_suit

James Mitchell, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 00:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

Boycott Wolverine?
by Immortal_Fish Dec 29th, 2008
07:24:18 PM
If any of you were true comic geeks with any respect for the source material, you would have banned Wolverine from the very beginning, meaning Singer's X-Men 1! And I'm not talking about the lack of yellow spandex. I'm talking about who Singer cast for the role.

A six-foot, thirty-something chick-magnet should NEVER have played Wolverine!

A six-foot, thirty-something chick-magnet should NEVER have played Wolverine!

A six-foot, thirty-something chick-magnet should NEVER have played Wolverine!

Wolverine is a five-foot, ugly sixty-something. The role should have gone to Harvey Keitel. Mel Gibson perhaps in *this* day and age as opposed to in the 90's when he was originally speculated, but even that was a stretch. And you Danzig assholes can lick mine. But even now, still to this day, you bitches claim how Singer was SO faithful to the source material." PHOOEY!

And NOW you talk of Wolverine boycott? Now? It took a DC one-shot story to move you to such extent that you consider boycotting WINO? Please. Only Jessica Alba tops Jackman for worst comic casting ever.

pazuzu's petals (latebloomer), Wednesday, 31 December 2008 03:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

NOW?!!??!

s1ocki, Wednesday, 31 December 2008 03:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

Fox has had a shitty movie year. I suppose they're thinking they can sue their way into a profitable movie.

Chris Barrus (Elvis Telecom), Wednesday, 31 December 2008 03:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

A six-foot, thirty-something chick-magnet should NEVER have played Wolverine!

pazuzu's petals (latebloomer), Wednesday, 31 December 2008 03:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

NEVER!!!!!

s1ocki, Wednesday, 31 December 2008 03:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

yall are sleepin on PHOOEY

㋡ (cankles), Wednesday, 31 December 2008 03:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

Loadsa footage here:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=48917596

chap, Sunday, 4 January 2009 13:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

More footage: http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2009/01/japan-watchmen.html

James Mitchell, Wednesday, 7 January 2009 10:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

They screwed up comedian
by greenstyle92 Jan 7th, 2009
06:11:08 PM
he didn't have stache or cigar in that time period.

first.

tired (latebloomer), Thursday, 8 January 2009 02:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

#
STUCK ON POINT A®
http://c3.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/17/s_1a3b2fc3fed24bf3a55df8edd297505a.gif
http://x.myspace.com/images/onlinenow.gif
Dec 30, 2008 7:46 PM

i don't do novels. . . but i will watch this movie. . . .

゙(゚、 。 7 (cankles), Thursday, 8 January 2009 02:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/2009-1-8-an-open-letter-from-watchmen-producers

I recently heard from Lloyd Levin, one of the producers of this year's hotly-anticipated adaptation of "Watchmen," and he wanted to get in touch regarding the ongoing conversation about the legal battle that's been raging back and forth between Warner Bros. and Fox.

There's been a lot of virtual ink spilled in the last six months about the rights and the wrongs of this lawsuit, and it all boils down to two separate agreements. There's a 1991 quitclaim that was issued by Fox, and then a 1994 turnaround agreement, and when the federal judge issues his verdict on January 20th, those are the two things he'll be considering.

But is that enough?

Does that really answer the issue?

Lloyd told me that his own feelings on the matter were complicated, and the more we spoke, the more it became apparent that he had something he really wanted to share with people, some point he needed to make in this larger conversation, and so I offered him an unfiltered venue in which to do so. The following is an open letter that Lloyd wrote regarding the "Watchmen" lawsuit and, more importantly, the 20-year-struggle to wrestle this project onto the screen.

It's provocative stuff, and I'm glad he decided to share his thoughts. For once, this isn't just empty speculation from the outside, but the opinion of someone intimately involved in the entire thing.

Check it out:

Watchmen. A producer's perspective.

An open letter.

Who is right? In the Watchmen dispute between Warner Brothers and Fox that question is being discussed, analyzed, argued, tried and ruled on in a court of law. That's one way to answer the question - It is a fallback position in our society for parties in conflict to resolve disputes. And there are teams of lawyers and a highly regarded Federal Judge trying to do just that, which obviates any contribution I could make towards answering the "who is right" question within a legal context. But after 15 plus years of involvement in the project, and a decade more than that working in the movie business, I have another perspective, a personal perspective that I believe important to have on the public record.

No one is more keenly aware of the irony of this dispute than Larry Gordon and I who have been trying to get this movie made for many years. There's a list of people who have rejected the viability of a movie based on Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's classic graphic novel that reads like a who's who of Hollywood.

We've been told the graphic novel is unfilmable.

After 9/11 some felt the story's themes were too close to reality ever to be palatable to a mainstream audience.

There were those who considered the project but who wished it were somehow different: Could it be a buddy movie, or a team-up movie or could it focus on one main character; did it have to be so dark; did so many people have to die; could it be stripped of its flashback structure; could storylines be eliminated; could new storylines be invented; did it have to be so long; could the blue guy put clothes on... The list of dissatisfactions for what Watchmen is was as endless as the list of suggestions to make it something it never was.

Also endless are the list of studio rejections we accrued over the years. Larry and I developed screenplays at five different studios. We had two false starts in production on the movie. We were involved with prominent and commercial directors. Big name stars were interested. In one instance hundreds of people were employed, sets were being built - An A-list director and top artists in the industry were given their walking papers when the studio financing the movie lost faith.

After all these years of rejection, this is the same project, the same movie, over which two studios are now spending millions of dollars contesting ownership. Irony indeed, and then some.

Through the years, inverse of the lack of studio faith has been the passionate belief by many many individuals - movie professionals who were also passionate fans of the graphic novel - who, yes, wanted to work on the film, but more for reasons of just wanting to see the movie get made, to see this movie get made and made right, donated their time and talent to help push the film forward: Writers gave us free screenplay drafts; conceptual art was supplied by illustrators, tests were performed gratis by highly respected actors and helped along and put together by editors, designers, prop makers and vfx artists; we were the recipients of donated studio and work space, lighting and camera equipment. Another irony, given the commercial stakes implied by the pitched legal dispute between Fox and Warners, is that for years Watchmen has been a project that has survived on the fumes of whatever could be begged, borrowed and stolen - A charity case for all intents and purposes. None of that effort, none of that passion and emotional involvement, is considered in the framework of this legal dispute.

From my point of view, the flashpoint of this dispute, came in late spring of 2005. Both Fox and Warner Brothers were offered the chance to make Watchmen. They were submitted the same package, at the same time. It included a cover letter describing the project and its history, budget information, a screenplay, the graphic novel, and it made mention that a top director was involved.

And it's at this point, where the response from both parties could not have been more radically different.

The response we got from Fox was a flat "pass." That's it. An internal Fox email documents that executives there felt the script was one of the most unintelligible pieces of shit they had read in years. Conversely, Warner Brothers called us after having read the script and said they were interested in the movie - yes, they were unsure of the screenplay, and had many questions, but wanted to set a meeting to discuss the project, which they promptly did. Did anyone at Fox ask to meet on the movie? No. Did anyone at Fox express any interest in the movie? No. Express even the slightest interest in the movie? Or the graphic novel? No.

From there, the executives at Warner Brothers, who weren't yet completely comfortable with the movie, made a deal to acquire the movie rights and we all started to creatively explore the possibility of making Watchmen. We discussed creative approaches and started offering the movie to directors, our former director having moved on by then. After a few director submissions, Zack Snyder came onboard, well before the release of his movie 300. In fact, well before its completion. This was a gut, creative call by Larry, me and the studio... Zack didn't have a huge commercial track record, yet we all felt he was the right guy for the movie.

Warner Brothers continued to support, both financially and creatively, the development of the movie. And eventually, after over a year of work, they agreed to make the film, based on a script that, for what it's worth, was by and large very similar to the one Fox initially read and deemed an unintelligible piece of shit.

Now here's the part that has to be fully appreciated, if for nothing more than providing insight into producing movies in Hollywood: The Watchmen script was way above the norm in length, near 150 pages, meaning the film could clock in at close to 3 hours, the movie would not only be R rated but a hard R - for graphic violence and explicit sex - would feature no stars, and had a budget north of $100M. We also asked Warner Brothers to support an additional 1 to 1.5 hours of content incurring additional cost that would tie in with the movie but only be featured in DVD iterations of the film. Warners supported the whole package and I cannot begin to emphasize how ballsy and unprecedented a move this was on the part of a major Hollywood studio. Unheard of. And would another studio in Hollywood, let alone a studio that didn't show one shred of interest in the movie, not one, have taken such a risk? Would they ever have made such a commitment, a commitment to a film that defied all conventional wisdom?

Only the executives at Fox can answer that question. But if they were to be honest, their answer would have to be "No."

Shouldn't Warner Brothers be entitled to the spoils - if any -- of the risk they took in supporting and making Watchmen? Should Fox have any claim on something they could have had but chose to neither support nor show any interest in?

Look at it another way... One reason the movie was made was because Warner Brothers spent the time, effort and money to engage with and develop the project. If Watchmen was at Fox the decision to make the movie would never have been made because there was no interest in moving forward with the project.

Does a film studio have the right to stand in the way of an artistic endeavor and determine that it shouldn't exist? If the project had been sequestered at Fox, if Fox had any say in the matter, Watchmen simply wouldn't exist today, and there would be no film for Fox to lay claim on. It seems beyond cynical for the studio to claim ownership at this point.

By his own admission, Judge Feess is faced with an extremely complex legal case, with a contradictory contractual history, making it difficult to ascertain what is legally right. Are there circumstances here that are more meaningful, which shed light on what is ultimately just, to be taken into account when assessing who is right? In this case, what is morally right, beyond the minutiae of decades-old contractual semantics, seems clear cut.

For the sake of the artists involved, for the hundreds of people, executives and filmmakers, actors and crew, who invested their time, their money, and dedicated a good portion of their lives in order to bring this extraordinary project to life, the question of what is right is clear and unambiguous - Fox should stand down with its claim.

My father, who was a lawyer and a stickler for the minutiae of the law, was always quick to teach me that the determination of what is right and wrong was not the sole purview of the courts. I bet someone at Fox had a parent like mine who instilled the same sense of fairness and justice in them.

Lloyd Levin

headgeek wrote
Yeah, but their WOLVERINE movie would kill your WATCHMEN movie... Wolverine could scratch that naked smurf man!
At 09:07 UTC, Jan, 08, 2009

tired (latebloomer), Friday, 9 January 2009 04:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

lol Comedian JFK assassin

There was even a brief period when I preferred Sally Forth. (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 January 2009 16:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

it's hinted at a couple of times in the book!

tired (latebloomer), Friday, 9 January 2009 16:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

I know its just a funny thing to include a shot of

There was even a brief period when I preferred Sally Forth. (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 January 2009 16:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

I hope they show Woodward and Bernstein being killed too.

^likes tilt-a-whirls (Pancakes Hackman), Friday, 9 January 2009 16:56 (eight years ago) Permalink

i might have to read this book again before the film comes out. i'm not sure though

❤ⓛⓞⓥⓔ❤ (CaptainLorax), Monday, 12 January 2009 05:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://konron.koiwazurai.com/NiteOwl2.jpg

Haha MOUTH FULL

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 12 January 2009 18:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

So rong it's right.

ledge, Monday, 12 January 2009 18:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSN1515061020090116

In an astonishing and totally unpredictable development, Fox and WB decide "Hey, we can BOTH get paid!"

Velma can stay (Oilyrags), Friday, 16 January 2009 18:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

like that wasn't the plan from the beginning

chemosobby (latebloomer), Friday, 16 January 2009 20:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

I love that Fox is getting gross points and probably nobody involved w/the production from Zack Snyder down is.

Olive Wheatgrass (Pancakes Hackman), Friday, 16 January 2009 20:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

new site overhaul with blantant vangelis pilfering:

http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/

"Set phasers to thrill!" (latebloomer), Monday, 19 January 2009 03:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

In one instance hundreds of people were employed, sets were being built - An A-list director and top artists in the industry were given their walking papers when the studio financing the movie lost faith.

I wonder who's the A-list director he's talking about here? Aronofsky?

From there, the executives at Warner Brothers, who weren't yet completely comfortable with the movie, made a deal to acquire the movie rights and we all started to creatively explore the possibility of making Watchmen.

I don't really get this part... Since Warner owns DC, shouldn't they automatically own the rights to Watchmen too?

Tuomas, Monday, 19 January 2009 07:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

Not if they've sold the rights elsewhere.

Forest Pines Mk2, Monday, 19 January 2009 14:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

greengrass was attached for a while, more recently than aronofsky

゙(゚、 。 7 (cankles), Monday, 19 January 2009 16:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

bats in a kayak! (latebloomer), Thursday, 22 January 2009 12:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

sweeet

Bondzilla vs Mechaholmes (blueski), Thursday, 22 January 2009 12:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

"better blue than red"

Beloved lightbulb (Neil S), Thursday, 22 January 2009 13:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

Nice job of capturing the 1970s TV news aesthetic. Telegraphs some plot points a little, so it's kind of fanservice-y, but otherwise outstanding. Love the "Adventures of Captain Manhattan" cartoon.

Pancakes Hussein Obama (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 22 January 2009 14:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

Also, TS: "Superman exists, and he's American" vs. "God exists, and he's American."

Pancakes Hussein Obama (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 22 January 2009 14:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'm trying to remember why I used to say Comedian is my favorite masked hero in the Watchmen.
-I think it's because he was the one who epitomized "never give up for what America stands for".

I wouldn't say the same for Rorschach because he administered his own revenge.
Dr. Manhattan gave up (in his own way).
Ozymandias didn't give up but he is just as willing to break the law that binds - like Rorschach in this way - even though Rorschach would never compare himself to Ozymandias.

I wouldn't say that Nite Owl II or Silk Spectre II are true American Heroes because they never took on as big of a role as The Comedian in fighting for justice. They were 'joe the plumber' superheros.

So yeah, besides being badass, The Comedian is the real American hero.
Is there a poll of favorite main character yet? We should have one before the movie comes out.
But I predict little to no votes for Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II, so maybe a poll like this would be cruel. In which case, the poll should only include The Comedian, Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan, and Ozymandias.

CaptainLorax, Friday, 23 January 2009 12:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

true American Heroes because = *true American Heroes BUT (I'm sorry for typo AGAIN)

CaptainLorax, Friday, 23 January 2009 12:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

Are you supposed to get a notification when you suggest ban someone more than once?

Glansel & Gretel (Raw Patrick), Friday, 23 January 2009 12:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

That Youtube link (Dr. Manhattan) is great. Have a feeling this movie will be surprisingly awesome.

Capitaine Jay Vee, Friday, 23 January 2009 18:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

I love that clip!! I'm so excited for this movie, March can't come soon enough. Everything I'm seeing just looks better than I could have imagined.

VegemiteGrrrl, Saturday, 24 January 2009 03:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

hey guyz it's the official Watchmen movie halloween costumes!

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/photos/costumes-ozy-com.jpg

cupcakes off the shoulder of orion (latebloomer), Wednesday, 28 January 2009 06:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

Ozymandias and Super Mario, finally together!

Tuomas, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 09:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

wow, that is just... something.

s1ocki, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 10:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

you gotta hope that alan moore is at least having a good laugh about this.

s1ocki, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 10:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

My grandfather had the same pants as Nite Owl.

EZ Snappin, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 13:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

No codpieces no cred.

Pancakes Hussein Obama (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 28 January 2009 14:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

night owl does look suitably dumpy tho'.

miIcrosoft and I decided to do some t-shirts (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 28 January 2009 15:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

too bad they're not going to be able to use this one:

http://boingboing.net/images/LilbabySquirt.gif

cupcakes off the shoulder of orion (latebloomer), Wednesday, 28 January 2009 19:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

you gotta hope that alan moore is at least having a good laugh about this.

nuh-uh.

Shakir Mo Collia (sic), Wednesday, 28 January 2009 20:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

Some more good stuff on the New Frontiersman Friend Feed...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3255/3246779475_7c734f6f58.jpg

Vietcong surrender to Dr. M.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3387/3236530752_f0dc7e3611.jpg

Chris Barrus (Elvis Telecom), Monday, 2 February 2009 21:35 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://www.thenewfrontiersman.net/no-more-masks.mp3

James Mitchell, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

Not sure if this has been mentioned already, but apparently the Black Freighter story is to be released on DVD as an animated film shortly after the movie comes out. Bonus features are said to include live-action "footage" from Under the Hood.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

James Mitchell, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

Also

James Mitchell, Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

I was at the bookstore the other night browsing through the new "The Art of Watchmen" companion book to the movie, and I'm pretty firmly convinced that this is actually going to be OK, provided Snyder has gotten real performances out of these people. In regards to whatever changes he's made to the ending -- which I'm not going to spoil for anyone here -- he actually had Dave Gibbons and John Higgins ink and color new pages for them, then storyboarded and scripted based on those, so that he could retain fidelity to the "source material."

There's also a great book called "Watchmen Portraits," with all kinds of full-page B&W photos of cast and crew taken by the set photographer. Some really good work in there.

Pancakes Hackman, Friday, 13 February 2009 23:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

"provided Snyder has gotten real performances out of these people"

A rather bold assumption.

Alex in SF, Friday, 13 February 2009 23:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

Well, dude who plays The Comedian was fantastic on Grey's Anatomy.

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 13 February 2009 23:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

Alex, yeah, I know, but Haley and Wilson are, frankly, ringers, as is Crudup, kinda. The rest are wild cards.

Pancakes Hackman, Friday, 13 February 2009 23:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

xp to Dan, he was also good on WEEDS as Dead Husband Guy

Pancakes Hackman, Friday, 13 February 2009 23:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

xp to Dan, he was also good on WEEDS as Dead Husband Guy

IIRC, he had one scene!

WmC, Friday, 13 February 2009 23:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

> In regards to whatever changes he's made to the ending -- which I'm not going to spoil for anyone here -- he actually had Dave Gibbons and John Higgins ink and color new pages for them, then storyboarded and scripted based on those, so that he could retain fidelity to the "source material."

That's the weirdest def. of source material I've ever heard.

Magdalen Goobers (Oilyrags), Saturday, 14 February 2009 19:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

First clips are available. Bitching about plot changes, acting and lol slow-mo may commence . . . now.

Pancakes Hackman, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 00:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

Hmmm, not encouraged by that clip for a number of reasons.

chap, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 00:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

not a large number, perhaps, but more than "several"

contenderizer, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 02:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

The score is going to kill me if the slomo doesn't. Veidt's accent and overall frailty are a bit suspect, but damn if that isn't Dan Dreiberg standing there.

WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 04:56 (eight years ago) Permalink

World's First Movie Tie-in Coffee

James Mitchell, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 05:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

Made with real 100% Columbian Owl Pellets!

Father Time has always been our most reliable film critic (latebloomer), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 06:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://www.organiccoffee.com/Nite-Owl-Dark-Roast/M/B001O2KSZA.htm

Better this than a Taco Bell cup. I guess.

Magdalen Goobers (Oilyrags), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 11:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

oops, xp

Magdalen Goobers (Oilyrags), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 11:35 (eight years ago) Permalink

Click through on my last post to the other clips -- there's one of the Nite Owl/Silk Spectre fire rescue, and one of Nite Owl and Rohrshach talking.

Pancakes Hackman, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 12:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

There is a coffee of a whole TV station!

i'm shy (Abbott), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 16:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

didn't Lynch have a coffee tie-in promotion for 'INLANDEMPIRE'? that one early scene almost felt like the movie was a made just to promote the coffee!

Mr. Hal Jam, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 17:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

It's Rorschach who visits Veidt, not Dreiberg! I demand my money back!!

ledge, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 18:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

Working Prof. Milton Glass into Veidt's dialogue was pretty nice though.

ledge, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 19:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

I haven't seen 300, does Snyder always use this much Matrix-style slow motion? Because it might look cool in an action movie but it looks silly in Watchmen.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 19:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

lol basically that filming technique is the entire point of "300"

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 19:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

I wonder if Snyder has boosted the action quotient in the film to make it more appealing, because in the comic there isn't really that much action, is there? I can only think of handful of proper superheroic action scenes...

* Dan and Laurie fighting against gang members.
* Rorschach trying to escape from the cops.
* Dan and Laurie rescuing people from the apartment fire.
* Rorschach escaping from prison.
* The final confrontation with Veidt.

That's pretty much it, I think.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 19:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

ugh, that's bad news then. (I never saw 300.)
xpost

WmC, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 19:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

looking forward to lots of slo mo pomo convo imo

its gotta be HOOSy para steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 19:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

they should slow it down so much it just becomes a series of still images

O Supermanchiros (blueski), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 19:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

Making Watchmen into eye-candy sfxtravaganza is pretty fundamental point-missing.

Magdalen Goobers (Oilyrags), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 19:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

they should slow it down so much it just becomes a series of still images

24 Hour Psycho

Pancakes Hackman, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 19:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

I can only think of handful of proper superheroic action scenes...

To be fair, most action movies only have three to five big setpieces.

chap, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 19:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

I look forward to you all telling me how horrible this was

Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 19:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

It is kind of amazing. The more I learn about this, the more I'm convinced it will be a big bowl of turds, yet I'm almost certainly going to watch it opening weekend anyway.

Did I say amazing? I meant pitiful.

Magdalen Goobers (Oilyrags), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 19:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

I agree about the turds, but I'll give it a few days to let the crowds die down. Curious to see if the R rating is going to fuck up box office. The promo budget for this is so huge -- if anybody's contract relies on a back-end share of profits, having to recoup promo costs + creative bookkeeping = no "profit" in a million years.

WmC, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 20:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

so uh
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/3459/likedrmanhattanspenisgeta9.jpg

A B C, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 20:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

my prediction is that the combo of the book's rep + marketing overdrive will guarantee a good opening weekend and then word of mouth will set in and receipts will take a nosedive. Hardcore comic book fandom opinion will be split between those who are smart and those who thought 300 was awesome.

Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 20:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

Thank you, Comic Book Morbius

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

yr welcome. the difference between me and Morbius is that I am occasionally right about things

Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

narcissism of infinitesimal differences

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

really Shakey, love all things and people, like Dan and Francis of Assissi.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

haha Morbz why are you readin this thread (you know I luve ya!)

Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

luve? lurv? luv

Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

"I know" - Han Solo

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

I reserved Watchmen at the library!

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

Much background on actual superhero comics?

Magdalen Goobers (Oilyrags), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

I mean, DO YOU HAVE much backetc.

Magdalen Goobers (Oilyrags), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

I read Batmang as 11-year-old

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

Comic Book Morbius predicts you will not like it

Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

I ask because a fair chunk of the pleasure (for big fat dweebs) in the original is in the twisting around of then-popular comics tropes. Some of that will probably shoot past you, but it shouldn't hurt your appreciation too badly. Knowing who batman is will be useful, though.

Magdalen Goobers (Oilyrags), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

doesnt it have some Nixon as President for Life thing?

the last graphic novel I read was Fun Home.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

its a comic book about comic books.

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

Nixon doesn't do much, but he is played for a couple minor laughs

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

Fun Home is a lot better than Watchmen.

Magdalen Goobers (Oilyrags), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

also good to know in approaching watchmen that it was then popular (and sort of "shocking") to present batman as a borderline-psycho reactionary thug fighing his way through a human dungheap. still is, i guess. thank frank miller.

contenderizer, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

points to Morbz if he can spot the gay characters

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

well, batman and other superheros (the punisher, for ex), as watchmen & miller's dark knight came out around the same time

contenderizer, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

like there are str8 superheroes!

xp

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

I reserved Watchmen at the library!

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, February 18, 2009 4:20 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

good to see you find something else to do besides showering in the bathroom sink and changing your plastic bag shoes

harry s tfuman (and what), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

its a comic book about comic books.

― Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, February 18, 2009 3:33 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

This isn't entirely accurate. It's also a comic about individually wrapped sugar cubes.

Magdalen Goobers (Oilyrags), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

it is a comic about the glum zinger in the penultimate panel on every other page.

Fox Force Five Punchline (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 21:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

It's a comic about lesbians buying porn.

kingfish, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 22:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

it's about an alternate reality in which people really do smoke tobacco out of crack pipes.

Fox Force Five Punchline (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 22:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

its about things that are owl-shaped

contenderizer, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 22:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

It's about the button holding down your right epaulet coming undone.

Magdalen Goobers (Oilyrags), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 22:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

It's about a giant fake space vagina.

chap, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 22:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

blue cock

Fox Force Five Punchline (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 18 February 2009 23:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

, seven long feet of

contenderizer, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 23:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

lol basically that filming technique is the entire point of "300"

which is why that movie is a borderline-unwatchable piece of shit.

Father Time has always been our most reliable film critic (latebloomer), Thursday, 19 February 2009 03:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

yr welcome. the difference between me and Morbius is that I am occasionally right about things

― Courtney Love's Jew Loan Officer (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, February 18, 2009 9:09 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

morbius's cranky opinions are at least entertaining sometimes

Father Time has always been our most reliable film critic (latebloomer), Thursday, 19 February 2009 03:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

speaking of disagreeableness, here's this shit sandwich.

kingfish, Thursday, 19 February 2009 03:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

One wishes that writer, Moore, could have used his considerable talents to produce uplift as opposed to depression, to reach for the sublime instead of the prosaic, to inspire by taking the high road instead of the low. But, unfortunately, with the influence of the political view from the left upon him all he could do was take the low road. If all one can do is see the worst in man, claim nothing is ever worth the effort, and that western ideas have destroyed any vestige of light in man then you are doomed to stay on that low road. So, we end up with despair and darkness in our art, too many artists having taken the low road.

Father Time has always been our most reliable film critic (latebloomer), Thursday, 19 February 2009 03:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://www.thenewfrontiersman.net/

kingfish, Thursday, 19 February 2009 04:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

good segue!

Father Time has always been our most reliable film critic (latebloomer), Thursday, 19 February 2009 04:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

i have to admit i'm impressed at the way they've constructed the world of watchmen

its gotta be HOOSy para steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 19 February 2009 04:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

It's likely to be the best achievement of this endeavor.

WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 19 February 2009 04:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

Careful, you'll get tagged as Shakey Morbius III.

WmC, Thursday, 19 February 2009 04:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

best part of the shit sandwich (of the part i managed to read):

Why do contemporary artists all seem to think the end of the world is nigh? Why has art become a thing of ugliness, instead of light? With all the beautiful things we see every day, the delicacy of a flower, the turn of a woman's arm, the grace of a bird in flight, we are treated only to the bizarre and horrid by our artists. These days we see sculptures that look like molecular mistakes writ large. We live in architecture with the image of a jumble of blocks thrown to the ground in the midst of a temper tantrum by a gigantic, petulant child. We view paintings that appear more accidental than planned. We have movies full of violence and anti-social behavior. On the radio we hear music that celebrates all the worst in man. We even have comic books that belittle heroism, that deconstruct the good and exceptional turning their heroes as cartoonishly flawed as the most obscene head case on the Jerry Springer Show.

When did entertainment turn so dark?

i dunno, five or six hundred years ago?

contenderizer, Thursday, 19 February 2009 05:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

who is the idiot that cast veidt? this guy is so not right at all

homosexual II, Thursday, 19 February 2009 05:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

seriously. they needed a young robert redford type, and they cast a pasty english dude affecting a german accent.

Father Time has always been our most reliable film critic (latebloomer), Thursday, 19 February 2009 05:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

wilson as dreiberg/nite owl is good casting tho

Father Time has always been our most reliable film critic (latebloomer), Thursday, 19 February 2009 05:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

agreed on the veidt casting. maybe he'll pull it off over the long haul...

contenderizer, Thursday, 19 February 2009 05:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

OTOH, casting overall seems pretty okay. kelly leak as rorschach!

contenderizer, Thursday, 19 February 2009 05:35 (eight years ago) Permalink

Careful, you'll get tagged as Shakey Morbius III.

It does seem as if they're really trying to make a good movie. If nothing else, it looks to be a pretty game effort.

WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 19 February 2009 06:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

"... given the necessary compromises"

contenderizer, Thursday, 19 February 2009 06:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

seriously. they needed a young robert redford type, and they cast a pasty english dude affecting a german accent.

He doesn't bother me that much. Moore & Gibbons had always indicated in the annotations/notes that Veidt was more or less a "Sting" type.

Chris Barrus (Elvis Telecom), Thursday, 19 February 2009 06:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

haha, what a shocka that is

kingfish, Thursday, 19 February 2009 06:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

One wishes that writer, Moore, could have used his considerable talents to produce uplift as opposed to depression, to reach for the sublime instead of the prosaic, to inspire by taking the high road instead of the low.

I've always sorta seen V and Watchmen as companion pieces: V is all about "taking the high road", the possibility of change in society, whereas Watchmen is the cynical work, "the more things change the more they stay the same". It's notable though that both series have an open ending, we don't know what happens after the cataclysmic events in their finales, so V is not totally idealist and Watchmen is not totally pessimist.

Tuomas, Thursday, 19 February 2009 07:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

Graphically, it isn't very well drafted. It does have the benefit of being created in the semi-realist style that began to be popular in the 1980s though. which instantly makes it better than today's comics drawn in that horrible Japanese Anime/Manga style that has so pervaded the comic book industry of late. Thankfully, Watchmen's was not yet an era infected by this regrettable, current trend in US comic art.

OK, this person has never actually looked at Watchmen or any other comic book.

Pancakes Hackman, Thursday, 19 February 2009 12:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

There's a link to a sodding 22 page long book-by-book critique by the same guy at the bottom of that article.

chap, Thursday, 19 February 2009 12:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

He had me at "why can't art just be PRETTY?"

Magdalen Goobers (Oilyrags), Thursday, 19 February 2009 15:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

"the turn of a woman's arm"

I like how he hated Watchmen enough to write a thesis-length essay on what's bad about it.

WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 19 February 2009 16:42 (eight years ago) Permalink

"the turn of a woman's arm"

fyi lame-o watchmen the movie has a cuet girl in it

harry s tfuman (and what), Thursday, 19 February 2009 16:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

Veidt is not an effeminite euro-pansy. He's supposed to be a liberal/humanist ideal - in perfect shape, a macho sex symbol, an enlightened lefty, etc.

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

AKA STING

WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

I think you guys are confusing Veidt with John Constantine.

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

He doesn't bother me that much. Moore & Gibbons had always indicated in the annotations/notes that Veidt was more or less a "Sting" type.

― Chris Barrus (Elvis Telecom), Wednesday, February 18, 2009 10:31 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

kingfish, Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

Sting is the gift that keeps on giving.

i'm shy (Abbott), Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

I still think I am the only one in the world who will like this movie (and admit to it).

i'm shy (Abbott), Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

Girl is hott, guy looks like a schnook, should be worthwhile.

kingfish, Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

He doesn't bother me that much. Moore & Gibbons had always indicated in the annotations/notes that Veidt was more or less a "Sting" type.

yeah I've never seen/heard this anywhere and am questioning the accuracy of this statement duh

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

It's so golden I WANT to believe it.

i'm shy (Abbott), Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

At one point I thought Carry Elwes might be a good Viedt, but I've just googled what he looks like now, and hmmm, no.

chap, Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/files/2007/12/8864_0027.jpg

"I engineered a monster, cloned its brain from a human psychic, sent it to New York and killed half the city."

i'm shy (Abbott), Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

Moore created John Constantine with notes to Rick Vietch (I think) to make him look like Sting. Never heard that about Ozzy.

Magdalen Goobers (Oilyrags), Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://www.sting.com/bin/galImg/siteFiles/4805753713.jpg

"Sure, I'll sign off on those action figures."

i'm shy (Abbott), Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

Moore created John Constantine with notes to Rick Vietch (I think) to make him look like Sting. Never heard that about Ozzy.

Bissette/Totleben did the og character design

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:42 (eight years ago) Permalink

Yeah, they were all working Swamp Thing around the same time. Couldn't remember who exactly did what.

Magdalen Goobers (Oilyrags), Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

Veidt is not an effeminite euro-pansy. He's supposed to be a liberal/humanist ideal - in perfect shape, a macho sex symbol, an enlightened lefty, etc.

He was supposed to be an effeminate euro-pansy, cf Rorschach's "don't trust Veidt, maybe he's gay?" musing.

Also I'm not sure you actually saw what he looked like in his costume in the comic book if your first thought on him is "oh, macho sex symbol!"

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'm referring to the way he functions within the world of Watchmen - with action figures modelled on himself, women swooning over him, peddling sexually charged products based on himself, etc.

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

duh of course he looks gay in his costume. as Morbz accurately points out all superheroes look pretty gay.

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

Rorschach thinks everyone is a homo/deviant/communist lolz at deferring to his vp for accuracy

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

> Also I'm not sure you actually saw what he looked like in his costume in the comic book if your first thought on him is "oh, macho sex symbol!"

As The Monarch said of Phantom Limb, he wears a lot of purple for a white guy.

Magdalen Goobers (Oilyrags), Thursday, 19 February 2009 18:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

Women threw themselves at Simon LeBon, does that make him a macho sex symbol?

Women continue to throw themselves at Prince, does that make him a macho sex symbol?

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Thursday, 19 February 2009 19:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

yes and yes

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 February 2009 19:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

Rock Hudson also a macho sex symbol btw

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 February 2009 19:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

hmm okay Prince is questionable

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 February 2009 19:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

it just seems obvious to me that within the Watchmen narrative the whole point of Veidt's character is that he represents the IDEAL of western society, the achievement of some kind of rational, humanist pinnacle - and then revealing that the flipside of that character is that he is still a mass murderer. He's a best intentions kind of character. Painting him as a lolz "republic serial villain" complete with threatening homo underpinnings is missing the point entirely.

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 February 2009 19:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

we all know how Snyder feels about effeminite pansies after 300, right...

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 February 2009 19:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

^ this. veidt should seem flawless, beautiful, handsome, kind, compassionate, thoughtful, etc. like the perfect presidential candidate. playing up the creepo stuff undercuts the character. that said, i'm gonna give the movie some leeway to reenvision.

contenderizer, Thursday, 19 February 2009 19:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

I said this a long time ago upthread but Veidt is The Mentalist (it only makes perfect sense)
http://media.sheknows.com/articles/Baker-Simon-Mentalist.jpg

I can only hope the actor who plays veidt in the movie doesn't come off as impotent as night owl.

CaptainLorax, Thursday, 19 February 2009 19:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

Veidt has never come across that way to me, even on my first reading of "Watchmen". He has always come across as somewhat imperious and condescending, the type of ersatz goody-two-shoes who will cheerfully lead you down a path, then stab you in the back in the name of personal advancement. I don't think he's trying to save the world out of any type of humanistic ideal; he's trying to save the world because he wants to prove that he's the only one who can (hence the self-important codename "Ozymandius").

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Thursday, 19 February 2009 19:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

As The Monarch said of Phantom Limb, he wears a lot of purple for a white guy.

Really wishing there was a Venture Brother movie instead.

Nicolars (Nicole), Thursday, 19 February 2009 19:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

He has always come across as somewhat imperious and condescending, the type of ersatz goody-two-shoes who will cheerfully lead you down a path, then stab you in the back in the name of personal advancement.

Tom Cruise

Nicolars (Nicole), Thursday, 19 February 2009 19:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

> Really wishing there was a Venture Brother movie instead.

I heard a rumor that's what's up after S4.

Magdalen Goobers (Oilyrags), Thursday, 19 February 2009 21:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

Venture Bros is totally the Watchmen of superhero cartoons.

chap, Thursday, 19 February 2009 21:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

Lots more clips here: http://io9.com/5156689/6-more-watchmen-clips-to-put-you-in-the-costumed-adventuring-mood

Pancakes Hackman, Thursday, 19 February 2009 22:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

I always thought Cruise was perfect for Veidt.

WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 19 February 2009 23:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah Cruise would be good cuz he wouldn't have to actually do any acting

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 20 February 2009 00:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

Guys Ozymandias is not a midget. Maybe Cruise would have made a good Big Figure.

Pancakes Hackman, Friday, 20 February 2009 00:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

Wil Wheaton liked it.

James Mitchell, Friday, 20 February 2009 00:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

man linda f looks dope in that clip i gotta watch that movie

harry s tfuman (and what), Friday, 20 February 2009 04:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

her cameo as rorschach's mom is pretty cool

Father Time has always been our most reliable film critic (latebloomer), Friday, 20 February 2009 04:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

Guys Ozymandias is not a midget. Maybe Cruise would have made a good Big Figure.

― Pancakes Hackman, Friday, February 20, 2009 12:20 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

you realize that like every male lead in hollywood is pint-sized right? they have ways of shooting around that.

s1ocki, Friday, 20 February 2009 04:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

he's trying to save the world because he wants to prove that he's the only one who can (hence the self-important codename "Ozymandius").

Except that the name "Ozymandias" (as opposed to "Ramses II") is only remembered due to Shelley's poem (which is quoted in the comic):

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Picking the name "Ozymandias" is most likely foreshadowing on Moore's part, but you could also argue that Veidt must've known about the poem, and that he picked the name knowing subconsciously that he would ultimately fail.

Tuomas, Friday, 20 February 2009 06:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

Picking the name "Ozymandias" is most likely foreshadowing on Moore's part

You don't say.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 20 February 2009 06:42 (eight years ago) Permalink

nedzing!

butt-rock miyagi (rogermexico.), Friday, 20 February 2009 06:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

I fished out my copy of the deluxe Graffiti Designs' Watchmen and some of the notes are kinda funny in retrospect. Bear in mind that these were shorthand notes on fleshing out the characters and not on casting decisions.

Dr. Manhattan: Bowie, Elric, permanent 25 going on 44

Ozymandias: Barry Foster (which is the most spot-on description ever), Michaelangelo's David, Julio Iglesias (!), white suit, high forehead, blond hair, Redford, Kennedy, rich, perfect, loner, sees world as organism with him at center

Nite Owl: Ordinary, fallible, human, heroic though not naturally courageous, Paul Newman, Furrillo (a.k.a. Daniel Travanti from Hill Street Blues)

Rorschach: Psychopath or saint?, quintessential Ditko, wild card, Bronson

The Comedian: Dirty Harry meets Nick Fury meets Hannibal of A-Team, one man version of the Dirty Tricks division of the C.I.A.

Silk Spectre: deprived childhood, Dunaway, Streep

Chris Barrus (Elvis Telecom), Friday, 20 February 2009 07:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

see, now that's a cast. redford, newman, bronson, eastwood & streep. like at least 20 years ago. and, uh, elric. why didn't they go that way?

contenderizer, Friday, 20 February 2009 07:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

I think Ozymandias looks effeminate in his costume only because all the superheroes in Watchmen are supposed to look a bit silly. Shakey is right that inside the comic's universe Veidt is supposed to be seen as this perfect humanist superman, not as a suspicious pansy.

Tuomas, Friday, 20 February 2009 07:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

Though eighties was also the decade when effeminate guys were considered hot. I guess Gibbons just drew him according to the beauty standards of the era.

Tuomas, Friday, 20 February 2009 07:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

he's kinda effeminate-seeming in the comic, but in a radiant, manly, many-large-teeth sort of way. movie's portrayal seems more like depraved nazi bureaucrat

you are nude spock (contenderizer), Friday, 20 February 2009 07:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

I hope they haven't made him too villainous in the movie, because that would ruin the surprise for those not familiar with the story. When I first read the comic I never guessed he'd be the bad guy.

Tuomas, Friday, 20 February 2009 07:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

THANK YOU FOR RUINING 2009

you are nude spock (contenderizer), Friday, 20 February 2009 07:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

Guys Ozymandias is not a midget. Maybe Cruise would have made a good Big Figure.

― Pancakes Hackman, Friday, February 20, 2009 12:20 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

you realize that like every male lead in hollywood is pint-sized right? they have ways of shooting around that.

joeks, bruv.

see, now that's a cast. redford, newman, bronson, eastwood & streep. like at least 20 years ago. and, uh, elric. why didn't they go that way?

Because "movie stars" make piss-poor superheroes, esp. in movies like this one.

Pancakes Hackman, Friday, 20 February 2009 11:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

RogerEbert.com editor Jim Emerson on approaching the book and the movie as separate things.

Pancakes Hackman, Friday, 20 February 2009 13:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

James Mitchell, Friday, 20 February 2009 13:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

Really well put together!

I feel twitterers around me (forksclovetofu), Friday, 20 February 2009 14:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

The presenter doesn't really look like 80s though, more like an 00s idea of the 80s. And it's a bit too obvious that "Veidt Music Network" should have Veidt as number 1.

Tuomas, Friday, 20 February 2009 14:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

But otherwise it's cool.

Tuomas, Friday, 20 February 2009 14:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

"Remember when VMN actually still showed music videos?" = best Youtube comment ever.

James Mitchell, Friday, 20 February 2009 14:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

Because "movie stars" make piss-poor superheroes, esp. in movies like this one.

― Pancakes Hackman

??? not sure what you mean. thought keaton and bale were at least decent as batman. besides them, i can't think of many movie stars who've played superheros. cept in shit movies like batman forever and daredevil that probably couldn't have been saved no matter who was in 'em.

and what "movies like this one" are there? as far as i know, this is the first big-budget revisionist/subversive superhero flick.

welcome little swetty (contenderizer), Friday, 20 February 2009 16:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

this is the first big-budget revisionist/subversive superhero flick.

An argument could be made for The Incredibles, though it's coming at it from quite a different direction.

chap, Friday, 20 February 2009 16:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

The "Sub QUantum Intrinsic Device" thing sounds interesting...

James Mitchell, Friday, 20 February 2009 16:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

Bale was hardly a "movie star" at the time of Batman Begins. What was he most known for? A movie he made when he was 12, and American Psycho? Keaton, arguably, was a movie star, but certainly not of the Redford/Newman/Eastwood caliber. Otherwise, yeah, Clooney, Kilmer, Affleck, Halle Berry, Jennifer Garner . . . all of them have made terrible, terrible superheroes. If you want people to concentrate on the characters, use relative unknowns. Would the first "Superman" have been better with a movie star instead of unknown Chris Reeve?

as far as i know, this is the first big-budget revisionist/subversive superhero flick.

Argubaly "The Dark Knight," but OK, fair enough.

Anyway, lol fire:

Did you have previous experience with weapons?

I got to go to the firing range quite a few times. It was a blast. I loved that part of it... There was a flame thrower range in the warehouse, that was a trip... The day that I did the scene where I have to keep the flame on this guy for ten seconds, do a ten count in your head, which is an exceedingly long time to pointing a flame thrower at some guy who has a little gel on him. You're just nailing him with these flames, and I kept pulling up early. I thought I'm going to really hurt this guy and I can't deal with that. And Zack's like, "Do it again man, and you're enjoying this too."

I kept having to redo it because I was pulled up. And I'm smiling and having my little moment but, so finally the last time I did it, I held it on this guy, but in the mean time I'd done it so many times that the rice paddy had been covered with gasoline from shooting this thing. So I'm burning this guy up and I do it and I'm like, "yeah you fucking bastard," and I look down and there's flames coming at me, and it comes right up my leg and there's no one near me. I'm in the middle of a rice paddy. And I look up and I see Zack and his eyes are this big (makes big circles over his eyes) and all I can think is "I can't ruin the costume."

The guys did so much work on the costume and I thought I'm just going to have to put it out myself. It was a nightmare (laughs). They're imperfect heroes. I kept the cigar lit the whole time, I just sucking on that.

Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach) interrupts:
Rorschach would have been like "27, 28..." (Laughs)

Pancakes Hackman, Friday, 20 February 2009 16:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

Otherwise, yeah, Clooney, Kilmer, Affleck, Halle Berry, Jennifer Garner . . . all of them have made terrible, terrible superheroes.

cage too. but i don't blame the actors. all the folks you mention starred in irredeemably shitty movies. and while chris reeve was exc for superman, that doesn't really prove that serious actor-types are unsuited to superhero roles. my point about the cast wasn't that they're big stars (though they are/were), but that they're enormously capable, charismatic, sort-of-superheroic screen personalities. would have liked to see a bit more of that kind of firepower (charisma and acting chops) in the watchmen cast.

welcome little swetty (contenderizer), Friday, 20 February 2009 18:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

I feel twitterers around me (forksclovetofu), Friday, 20 February 2009 18:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

At least Kelly Leak appears to get the "Hrrm" right.

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Tuesday, 24 February 2009 20:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

what the hell is going on with those music cues

temple of butts (cankles), Tuesday, 24 February 2009 20:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

I know, sounds like the music from a bad 90s SF tv show.

chap, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 20:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

Also he couldn't sound much more different from the Rorscach in my head.

chap, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 20:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

they're probly temp/tracking cues

it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Tuesday, 24 February 2009 20:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

Rorschach is nearly creepy/pathetic enough.

i fuck mathematics, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 20:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

rorschach voice is crazy retarded. doesn't sound at all natural, rather like some nerd affecting a "tough & creepy" tone. like bale's batman voice in the dark knight. :(

mask is cool though

welcome little swetty (contenderizer), Tuesday, 24 February 2009 20:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

OTOH, if the idea is that rorschach really IS a nerd trying (and failing) to act "dangerous", then congrats

welcome little swetty (contenderizer), Tuesday, 24 February 2009 20:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

rorshach =

it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Tuesday, 24 February 2009 21:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I do hope the "rough" voice is supposed to be just a part of Rorschach's tough guy act, and if/when they show flashbacks of him pre-Rorschach, he'll have a squeaky geek voice or something.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 21:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

They do that with lettering in the comics. Oh, and balloon borders.

Oilyrags, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 21:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

Speaking of balloon borders, I'm not sure if everyone's noticed this, but in Watchmen in the scenes that take place in the 1940s the speech balloons are kinda soft and cloud-shaped, whereas the 1980s speech balloons are rougher and angular, and the 1960s balloons are somewhere between those two.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 21:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

That's some crazy attention to detail, I didn't even notice it until I read the comic for the fourth time or something.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 21:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

Can't wait to find out what they do for the

PASSWORD INCOMPLETE: DO YOU WISH TO ADD RIDER?

scene

ledge, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 21:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

If they don't get that one right I'm boycotting this motherfucker

abominable spirit (latebloomer), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 13:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

Best yet:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3549/3308946065_61b604fa06_o.jpg

James Mitchell, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 19:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

hey wait, why didn't Dr Manhattan just magic up enough food for everyone

O Supermanchiros (blueski), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 19:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'm guessing he couldn't be bothered.

NotEnough, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 19:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

fuckin' guy

O Supermanchiros (blueski), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 19:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

those are some weird lookin starving kids

ledge, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 19:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

OTOH, if the idea is that rorschach really IS a nerd trying (and failing) to act "dangerous",

thats the impression i always got from the book

its gotta be HOOSy para steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 21:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

FAILING to act dangerous?

What?

Oilyrags, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 21:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

with his voice, not with his psychotic killings/maimings

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 21:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

he's the dylan klebold of grim n gritty

it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 21:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

Well, yeah he's a maladjusted little pipsqueak without the mask and lift shoes, and maybe he's coasting on his rep when everyone is intimidated by his very presence, but I can't recall anything that suggests people ever failed to take Rorschach seriously as a threat. Eric, or whatever his secret identity is, sure, no one cares about that guy.

Oilyrags, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 21:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

Uh he's not exactly shy and retiring when he's unmasked and in prison.

the innermost wee guy (onimo), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

i never read him that way. i always figured that there was no element of pose to rorschach - that he was very "pure" is his creepy, psychotic anti-heroism. that he wasn't trying to impress or scare anyone, rather his basic character was scary by nature in ways he didn't even understand. i took the "spooky" word bubbles as indicative of a pathological lack of affect, a genuinely weird speaking voice, and the muffling effect of his mask. comics give you a lot of room for interpretation tho...

They don’t understand. And I eat a lot of matzo brie. (contenderizer), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

^^^ yeah, this is how i've always understood him.

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

I didn't really communicated what I meant there: I always felt that as much as Rorshach is definitely a sociopath he's a very theatrical sociopath. His mannerisms seem....mannered.

its gotta be HOOSy para steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

no, see, that's the thing: i've always felt like he's very un-mannered. there's nothing theatrical about him at all, which is why he's so creepy.

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah, me too. but now that i'm used to the idea, i could see it working the other way. kind of undercuts the character, though. i mean, part of rorschach's function is to represent an idealistic, almost childish authenticity and purity in a fallen world. not only to represent, but to criticize, to deconstruct the idealistic integrity of the lone wolf here archetype.

to make him part of that fallen world, just another ego-boosing superficial persona, is to undercut the critique in some ways. then again, maybe it opens up other ideas...

They don’t understand. And I eat a lot of matzo brie. (contenderizer), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

"hero archetype"

"ego-boosting"

etc.

They don’t understand. And I eat a lot of matzo brie. (contenderizer), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

> Uh he's not exactly shy and retiring when he's unmasked and in prison.

Yeah, the props aren't the whole thing; he really is a fucking killer nutbag. He's not in his secret identity in those scenes. But as placard guy on the street he just disappears, to the point that the newsie spits out his coffee, because he doesn't even realize he's there.

Oilyrags, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

I think the way he tells his story to the psychiatrist suggest certain (maybe subconscious?) ego-boosting and sense of theatrics. He wants the psychiatrist to understand his mission as Rorschach. If he truly didn't care, he wouldn't have said anything to the guy.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

He had, like, a polish accent in the book didn't he?

Throwing Puffy under the gay bus, whatever that means (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

to make him part of that fallen world, just another ego-boosing superficial persona, is to undercut the critique in some ways. then again, maybe it opens up other ideas...

― They don’t understand. And I eat a lot of matzo brie. (contenderizer), Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:21 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

exactly i always understood him as a critique of the sociopathic lone wolf

its gotta be HOOSy para steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

just borrowed the comic from a friend at work. haven't read this is over 10 years, lost my copy somewhere along the line.

anyway excited to read it again, wanted to be able to participate in the post-release "why did they change that" bitchfest.

The Notorious B.Y.O.B. (M@tt He1ges0n), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

Also, the fact that he keeps a journal (presumably for someone else to read, at least posthumously) with all those pompous words suggests that he does what he does at leats partially to boost his ego, he's not just a force of nature or something. It's the classic story of a bullied kid becoming the lone, misunderstood hero of a story he writes in his head.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

And I think the critique of lone-wolf vigilante works better that way. The idealistic depictions of these kind of "heroes" depict them exactly as pure, child-like forces of nature, whereas Moore shows that they're more likely to be just fucked-up self-centred creeps.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

like

ain't shit romantic or noble about the dude even beneath his sociopathic impulses

he's just fuckin nuts

its gotta be HOOSy para steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:35 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah, he's a total egomaniac, no doubt. wouldn't argue that, but i nevertheless always figured him for a very "real" sort of person, for someone who just sort of is. not for a would-be hero putting on a tough-guy act

also agree about the "fucked-up self-centered creeps" bit, but if he's also a phony then it becomes more a critique of pretenses based on the ideal, not of the ideal itself. and i think moore intended to critique the ideal.

They don’t understand. And I eat a lot of matzo brie. (contenderizer), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

and i think that's the point moore was making about a whole swath of costumed types xp

its gotta be HOOSy para steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

but if he's also a phony then it becomes more a critique of pretenses based on the ideal, not of the ideal itself. and i think moore intended to critique the ideal.

I think what Moore is trying to say is that those sort of ideals are impossible to achieve in practice, that in real world this sort of "heroism" would become antiheroism. Note that the main character in V is also a lone wolf tough guy bent one making a better world, and the only way Moore can make him a hero is by making him a non-person.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

"bent on making a better world"

Tuomas, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

> a lone wolf tough guy bent on making a better world

That sounds more like you're talking about Veidt. Rorschach isn't really interested in that, is he? Only punishing the guilty

"They'll Cry out 'save us' and I'll look down and say 'no.'"

Oilyrags, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

My favorite quote from Moore on Watchmen:
"The gritty, deconstructivist postmodern superhero comic, as exemplified by Watchmen, also became a genre. It was never meant to. It was meant to be one work on its own. I think, to that degree, it may have had a deleterious effect upon the medium since then. I'd have liked to have seen more people trying to do something that was as technically complex as Watchmen, or as ambitious, but which wasn't strumming the same chords that Watchmen had strummed so repetitively. This is not to say that the entire industry became like this, but at least a big enough chunk of it did that it is a noticeable thing. The apocalyptic bleakness of comics over the past 15 years sometimes seems odd to me, because it's like that was a bad mood that I was in 15 years ago. It was the 1980s, we'd got this insane right-wing voter fear running the country, and I was in a bad mood, politically and socially and in most other ways. So that tended to reflect in my work. But it was a genuine bad mood, and it was mine. I tend to think that I've seen a lot of things over the past 15 years that have been a bizarre echo of somebody else's bad mood. It's not even their bad mood, it's mine, but they're still working out the ramifications of me being a bit grumpy 15 years ago."

Throwing Puffy under the gay bus, whatever that means (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

ya rly

where is Promethea movie lolz

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

That sounds more like you're talking about Veidt. Rorschach isn't really interested in that, is he? Only punishing the guilty

But punishing the guilty is his way of making a better world, isn't it? In the psychiatrist issue he says something about being free to "carve his mark into the world". It's true though that, even more than Rorschach, Veidt is a critical variation on V (right down to his name), his well-meaning idealism gone horrible wrong.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:59 (eight years ago) Permalink

moore ain't the most humble dude on earth, but YES. the popularity of grim & gritty fin de siècle revisionism bugged the SHIT out of me in the 90s. especially when attached to a smirking kind of "punk rock" nihilist cool. especially when adopted by writers i liked for other reasons (morisson's invisibles, for instance, though he ended up doing interesting things within the approach).

They don’t understand. And I eat a lot of matzo brie. (contenderizer), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 23:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

^ nadir of this, so far = sin city (the movie)

They don’t understand. And I eat a lot of matzo brie. (contenderizer), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 23:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

Invisibles is amazing. Just on a structural level alone.

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 23:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah, i ended up loving it. but i was very disappointed at first. thought he was working the "young! cool! hip!" angles waaaaaaay to hard. especially after the heart-on-sleeve humanism of doom patrol & animal man, which i LOVED.

They don’t understand. And I eat a lot of matzo brie. (contenderizer), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 23:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

especially when adopted by writers i liked for other reasons (morisson's invisibles, for instance, though he ended up doing interesting things within the approach).

Morrison has always been critical of "grim and gritty" though, hasn't he? Even in The Invisibles he had that one issue about the life of the henchman King Mob randomly shot down. And he was probably the first mainstream writer to mourn grittiness replacing old-school sense of wonder, in the final issues of Animal Man.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 23:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

(xx-post)

Tuomas, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 23:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

^ nadir of this, so far = sin city (the movie)

Yeah, that was pretty awful. Though there wasn't really anything more awful in there than what Miller had already done in the comics.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 23:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

but prior to the invisibles, i liked the fact that morrisson indulged the freedom offered by "new comics" post miller/moore to tell personal stories without pandering to what eventually became vertigo's house-brand gothpunk cool.

will defend miller's work because he's such a wonderful artist and because his style was HIS. whatever it may have pandered to, it always seemed like the product of a distinct, personal POV.

They don’t understand. And I eat a lot of matzo brie. (contenderizer), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 23:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

i've been pronouncing it "Vaydt" all this time btw boy is my face red

O Supermanchiros (blueski), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 23:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

Well yeah, the first Sin City story was pretty awesome when it originally came out simply because Miller had managed to distill his whole style into something so pure and striking. But once he started putting out more and more SC stories it was pretty soon a case of diminishing returns. Also, the creative freedom he got after leaving superheroes behind also meant that he was free to explore all the ugly right-wing macho sexist tenets of his personality, which was pretty much what made me stop caring about his work.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 23:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

(x-post)

Tuomas, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 23:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

hey wait, why didn't Dr Manhattan just magic up enough food for everyone

The biggest problem/plot hole in the comic, even. So you have a dude who can do anything? So what's the trouble?

kenan, Thursday, 26 February 2009 01:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

It's not a plot hole -- it's the plot!! It's precisely because Dr. Manhattan can do anything that Veidt feels he has to neutralize him; not just to get rid of his destabilizing effects on world security, but so human beings (and especially Americans) can rely on themselves and not their new God.

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 26 February 2009 01:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

And Manhattan's reluctance to act is among the major moral issues of the book! It's not like it gets ignored.

its gotta be HOOSy para steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 26 February 2009 01:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

Also, the creative freedom he got after leaving superheroes behind also meant that he was free to explore all the ugly right-wing macho sexist tenets of his personality, which was pretty much what made me stop caring about his work.

Abstracting the hard-boiled genre to the point of absurdity is definitely no job for a comic book.

butt-rock miyagi (rogermexico.), Thursday, 26 February 2009 02:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

you guys need to read one (1) run of miracleman

Throwing Puffy under the gay bus, whatever that means (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 26 February 2009 03:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

he's such a wonderful artist

lolz

Bernard's Butter (sic), Thursday, 26 February 2009 03:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

Say what you will, the guy's got line and composition.

Oilyrags, Thursday, 26 February 2009 04:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

I really really really like Gibbons and I'll be damned if I can understand why that's lolworthy.

Throwing Puffy under the gay bus, whatever that means (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 26 February 2009 05:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

Oh wait, we're talking Miller. I'd defend his work too (most especially the daredevil/ronin style), but that's a whole other thread.

Throwing Puffy under the gay bus, whatever that means (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 26 February 2009 05:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

say whatever you want about his content, miller can draw. like oily sez, line and comp for days. pages look as good as anyone's

They don’t understand. And I eat a lot of matzo brie. (contenderizer), Thursday, 26 February 2009 06:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

srsly how is this even in question?

butt-rock miyagi (rogermexico.), Thursday, 26 February 2009 07:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

How is what in question?

Tuomas, Thursday, 26 February 2009 08:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

Saw this too late to sign up - http://www.futurecinema.co.uk

James Mitchell, Thursday, 26 February 2009 09:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

>you guys need to read one (1) run of miracleman

OTM. Moore's run with Veitch and Totleben is up there with his very best work. The Gaiman / Buckingham issues are excellent too.

Bill A, Thursday, 26 February 2009 10:42 (eight years ago) Permalink

Hahaha! I OWN one (1) run of miracleman! No, I'm not selling it.

Oilyrags, Thursday, 26 February 2009 12:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

"When one superhero has to take a Zen break, he does so on Mars. Of course he does."

sums up reviewer's BAD ATTITUDE imo

O Supermanchiros (blueski), Thursday, 26 February 2009 13:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

We pick up the relationships quickly enough, but soon realize these backstories owe more to soap operas than to superhero comics.

Haha, he hasn't read many superhero comics, has he?

chap, Thursday, 26 February 2009 13:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

get used to these reviews, i fear

caek, Thursday, 26 February 2009 13:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

variety less negative: http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117939777.html?categoryid=31&cs=1

caek, Thursday, 26 February 2009 13:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

To be fair though, if you can only understand the film in the context of having read a lot of superhero comics, it's probably not a very good film.

chap, Thursday, 26 February 2009 13:42 (eight years ago) Permalink

no kidding

caek, Thursday, 26 February 2009 13:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

The thing is, these aren't so much superheroes as ordinary human beings with, let us say, comic-book martial arts prowess.

YOU MEAN LIKE BATMANG FOR CRISSAKES?

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 26 February 2009 14:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

The thing is, these aren't so much superheroes as ordinary human beings with, let us say, comic-book martial arts prowess. OH YEAH, AND ONE OF EM IS GOD.

Oilyrags, Thursday, 26 February 2009 15:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

okay that first review is lolleriffic

I would be more concerned about its negative tone had several easily-verified facts been correct.

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Thursday, 26 February 2009 15:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

there was a bit of a The Dark Knight backlash wasn't there - despite it's monstrous commercial success. Watchmen will probably get more hate and it certainly won't make as much money. maybe not as good a film either (wasn't really interested in The Dark Knight based on trailers and what i heard, for some reason).

O Supermanchiros (blueski), Thursday, 26 February 2009 15:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

> If you're not already invested in these characters because of the original graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, nothing this movie does is likely to change that predicament.

To be fair, this is about what I figured for any Watchmen movie.

Oilyrags, Thursday, 26 February 2009 16:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3315/3308945971_1be5ba3b1f.jpg

James Mitchell, Thursday, 26 February 2009 16:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

I was talking about Sin City with my drummer the other day - we both agreed that, like 300, as a film adaptation of Miller's work its very true, and strikingly faithful. The problem is the source material is a bunch of beautifully executed crap. A quarter of the way through Sin City (after the shock of how well Miller's style had been translated to screen wore off) I remembered why I stopped reading Miller's comics sometime in the mid-90s: they suck.

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 February 2009 16:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3647/3308946249_d0800ae971.jpg

James Mitchell, Thursday, 26 February 2009 16:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

nice to see that David Hyde Pierce hasn't been typecast after Frasier.

Bone Thugs-N-Harmony ft Phil Collins (jim), Thursday, 26 February 2009 16:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

loving the fake veidt ads

sippin margaritas on the beach in my adidas (and what), Thursday, 26 February 2009 16:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

One thing is that with the comics medium, it has been proven—I believe by Pentagon tests in the late '80s—that comics are actually the best medium for imparting information to somebody in a form that they will retain and remember. That's not just me saying that, that's the Pentagon.

They don’t understand. And I eat a lot of matzo brie. (contenderizer), Thursday, 26 February 2009 17:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

The Alan Moore/Jack Chick collaboration really needs to happen.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 February 2009 17:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

I was talking about Sin City with my drummer the other day

picturing this as Shakey having a drummer who follows him around everywhere

abominable spirit (latebloomer), Thursday, 26 February 2009 17:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

I was talking about Sin City with my drummer the other day

He said Frank Miller was a sucker.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 February 2009 17:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

lolz

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 February 2009 17:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

fwiw the geek press seems to like it

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/

abominable spirit (latebloomer), Thursday, 26 February 2009 17:56 (eight years ago) Permalink

"They're being bought in many cases by hopeless nostalgics or, putting the worst construction on it, perhaps cases of arrested development who are not prepared to let their childhoods go, no matter how trite the adventures of their various heroes and idols."

Alex in SF, Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

arrrrrrrrrrgh. I'd like to share with whoever wrote that quote one of the important pieces of life wisdom I've learned from comics:

Any conflict can be resolved with a punch to the jaw.

Oilyrags, Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

Are you SURE about wanting to share that, Oilyrags?

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

"arrrrrrrrrrgh. I'd like to share with whoever wrote that quote one of the important pieces of life wisdom I've learned from comics:"

Alan Moore's a twig. I'm sure you can take him.

Alex in SF, Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

Haha! Also: checking sources is for sissies.

Oilyrags, Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

lets not forget that watchmen is leftist propaganda (the first bad review I read here)

CaptainLorax, Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

oilyrags is chris brown

bobby dijindal (and what), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

"The real disappointment is that the film does not transport an audience to another world, as 300 did."

Alex in SF, Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

The Veidt guy has an awfully weak chin for a superhero.

2nd-place ladyboy (Nicole), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

The opening murder happens to a character called the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), who was once a member of a now-banished team of superheroes called the Masks.

abominable spirit (latebloomer), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

There is something a little lackadaisical here. The set pieces are surprisingly flat and the characters have little resonance. Fight scenes don't hold a candle to Asian action.

abominable spirit (latebloomer), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

The opening murder happens to a character called the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), who was once a member of a now-banished team of superheroes called the Masks.

― abominable spirit (latebloomer), Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:14 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

cameo from jim carrey?

bobby dijindal (and what), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'm just disappointed that it didn't transport me to another world. The world of this one a couple of thousand years ago, albeit one with giant dudes with claw hands and enormous transvestites.

Alex in SF, Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

#
80. GodsGOD comments:
February 26, 2009
How does it feel to be such a moron? Did your parents have any kids that lived? I'm sure they're thrilled about having a brain-dead, waste of space for a child. We should blame them for conceiving you. You aren't worth the skin you were printed on.

abominable spirit (latebloomer), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

#
49. kirksuxballs comments:
February 26, 2009
see username

abominable spirit (latebloomer), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

I let my Dad read the book. He liked it and said Rorshach was his favorite character. I told him that The Comedian was my favorite character and he said that The Comedian was too immoral. But then again, so is Rorschach right? And so is Veidt and I would say Dr. Manhattan as well. I'm seriously contemplating making a favorite character poll :p

I wonder what actor they got to play the midget dude during the jail scene.

CaptainLorax, Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

I admit I lol'ed at this:Owen Gleiberman will certainly find some mincing way to pan this movie, if he gets the assignment, because it's not "Moulin Rouge" or "Priscilla Queen of the Desert".

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

"He liked it and said Rorshach was his favorite character."

I'd worry about your dad.

Alex in SF, Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

Rorschach is the most overtly moral character in the story.

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

Captain Lorax, "Big Figure" is being played by this dude, Danny Woodburn:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/nov2007/Danny%20Woodburn.jpg

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

^^^are you fucking kidding me

there are no moral characters in the graphic novel

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

FWIW, I think this film's gonna be huge regardless of how it's reviewed and even if it's good or not.
patiently waiting

Fight scenes don't hold a candle to Asian action (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

A huge piece of crap.

Alex in SF, Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

I think it's going to do three good weeks of box office then drop like it was pushed off a table.

WmC, Thursday, 26 February 2009 21:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

there are no moral characters in the graphic novel

― Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, February 26, 2009 8:38 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark

they all think they're really moral, but iirc each one seems to have a personal code that becomes impotent when confronted with the complications of the real world

its gotta be HOOSy para steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 26 February 2009 21:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

I can get why Dan calls Rorschach the only character in the novel and understand why he appeals to so many people - he's the only one who doesn't sacrifice his principles. What these people often conveniently overlook is that Rorscach's principles are completely fucked up - he is an utterly alienated, sadistic bastard, devoid of compassion and empathy. The only difference between him and Ozymandias is that Veidt actually found a way to impact the world on a scale that Rorscach only wishes he was capable of. Rorscach does not have any problem with mass murder per se, he just has a problem with the person orchestrating it being someone other than himself and someone who is not aligned with Rorscach's particular principles.

But there is no one in the book who presents an uncompromised moral, humanist, empathetic voice (ie a Jesus or a Gandhi or lolz an Alan Moore)

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 February 2009 22:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

only MORAL character

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 February 2009 22:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

i thought rorschach's appeal was always his holden caulfield-esque righteous contempt that invites identification from alienated young men, tbh

obi don quixote (elmo argonaut), Thursday, 26 February 2009 22:08 (eight years ago)