Superhero Filmmakers: Where's Our Watchmen?

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.

yes, a modified modification.

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

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

http://www.rorschachsjournal.com/

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.

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

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

otm x 100

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.

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

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)

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.

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

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.

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?)

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

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.

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.

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"

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

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

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.

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.

waht

I'm with Tuomas on this one, actually.

Who knew.