Superhero Filmmakers: Where's Our Watchmen?

http://www.sting.com/bin/galImg/siteFiles/4805753713.jpg

"Sure, I'll sign off on those action figures."

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/1784_4_1.jpg

http://www.backissuecomics.co.uk/store/images/DC/DC577A-I-2.jpg

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

Yeah, they were all working Swamp Thing around the same time. Couldn't remember who exactly did what.

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!"

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.

duh of course he looks gay in his costume. as Morbz accurately points out all superheroes look pretty gay.

Rorschach thinks everyone is a homo/deviant/communist lolz at deferring to his vp for accuracy

> 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.

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?

yes and yes

Rock Hudson also a macho sex symbol btw

hmm okay Prince is questionable

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.

we all know how Snyder feels about effeminite pansies after 300, right...

^ 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.

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.

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").

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.

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

> Really wishing there was a Venture Brother movie instead.

I heard a rumor that's what's up after S4.

Venture Bros is totally the Watchmen of superhero cartoons.

Lots more clips here: http://io9.com/5156689/6-more-watchmen-clips-to-put-you-in-the-costumed-adventuring-mood

I always thought Cruise was perfect for Veidt.

yeah Cruise would be good cuz he wouldn't have to actually do any acting

Guys Ozymandias is not a midget. Maybe Cruise would have made a good Big Figure.

Wil Wheaton liked it.

so, apparently they're re-shooting the ending and re-dubbing some of Rorschach's lines

man linda f looks dope in that clip i gotta watch that movie

her cameo as rorschach's mom is pretty cool

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.

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.

Picking the name "Ozymandias" is most likely foreshadowing on Moore's part

You don't say.

nedzing!

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

THANK YOU FOR RUINING 2009

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.

RogerEbert.com editor Jim Emerson on approaching the book and the movie as separate things.

Really well put together!

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.

But otherwise it's cool.

"Remember when VMN actually still showed music videos?" = best Youtube comment ever.

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.

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.