Superhero Filmmakers: Where's Our Watchmen?

Critics were also divided about the movie, with some saying it was too slavish to the graphic novel's many devotees.

uh

the death of the supporting character = Hollis?

has to be

Could be the Comedian.

But we saw everything but the splat with him.

new director's cut contains POV shot of statue going through his school

skull

what is wrong with me

sorry man, I know MJ's death got you rattled

read as new director's cut contains POV shot of statue going through his stool

I will see this on DVD, I guess

Wonder if Black Freighter will be integrated into the film.

It wasn't really integrated into the book....

I thought the deleted scene featuring the death of Hollis Mason was quite well done.

It wasn't really integrated into the book....

Really? I thought it was integrated quite well, it was continuously making meta references to what's happening in the main story. The whole thing is basically a one big meta commentary on the main plot.

Now that most of Moore's major works have been turned into movies, I wonder which one they'll turn to next? Halo Jones? Top 10? Promethea? Wouldn't it be fun to see someone trying to adapt Promethea...?

shitty Tom Strong movie

Alejandro Jodorowaky's {i]Promethea[/i]

surprised there's not a swamp thing revival in the works. maybe too hard to sell?

I thought the deleted scene featuring the death of Hollis Mason was quite well done.

This was one of the only parts of the film version I liked. It's not that it's a horrible adaptation, just a little dull.

As far as I know the previous Swamp Thing movies flopped, though the TV series apparently got at least some viewers. And the problem with Swamp Thing of course is that (like Top 10) it isn't a graphic novel, i.e. one big story that would be easy to adapt into a movie.

Then again, that hasn't stopped them from adapting all the major superheroes.

I wouldn't look for a Swamp Thing movie in, uh, ever. MAYBE an animated version, but some other property is going to have to break some more ground re: "animation is not just for kids."

some other property is going to have to break some more ground re: "animation is not just for kids."

what year is this, 1973?

I can't imagine any animation that could touch the original Bissette/Totleben stuff

If you're saying Bakshi already broke that ground, I agree, but after the last 20 years it has to be re-broken.

the fact they made a second shitty swamp thing movie tells me the first shitty wes craven swamp thing movie must've done OK (maybe an early video hit?) - there's an equally shitty direct-to-dvd man thing movie that lifts a few bits of the old steve gerber comic (eg 'F. A. SCHIST') to no gd effect - but there is def. a gd GLOOPY swamp/man thing/flick still to be made - just thinking - michael mann and dante spinotti shooting the everglades on low light digital film - cld be gd

the problem with Swamp Thing is that the character is more horror/monster movie than superhero

I can't imagine any animation that could touch the original Bissette/Totleben stuff
I can't imagine any animation that could touch the original Bissette/Totleben stuff
I can't imagine any animation that could touch the original Bissette/Totleben stuf
I can't imagine any animation that could touch the original Bissette/Totleben stuff
I can't imagine any animation that could touch the original Bissette/Totleben stuff

^^^^Yes!!

"original"

I'm still demanding a Dr. Strange movie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TREASON! HIGH TREASON! Guards, SEIZE HIM!

Wings of Desire to thread!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

opening credits: best I've ever seen.

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

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