Superhero Filmmakers: Where's Our Watchmen?

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.

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

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.

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

Why?

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!

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.

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

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."

kudos

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.

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

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/

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

Also I am pretty sure this will be unwatchable.

HAVE FAITH GOOBERS

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.

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

Also I am pretty sure this will be unwatchable.

Cue a million review headlines.

pictures for comparison

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

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

LA LA LA NOT LISTENING

snyder will become more reviled than michael bay uwe boll

whadayamean Michael Bay still gets to make huge-budget movies

x-post

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

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.

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!!

hahaha I eagerly await the Bojeffries Saga adaptation

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?

x-post -- Orlando Bloom as Miracleman.

is this a made-for-TV thing?

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?

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

so where's Gerard Butler?

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.

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

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.

what kenan said
x-post

Nu-Cruise would have been perfect as Veidt!

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).

Zalman King Presents: Alan Moore's The Cobweb

Top 10 would make a better TV show.

LOST GIRLS: THE ANIMATED SERIES

I would so watch THAT one.

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.

Fish Police!

(j/k that show was terrible)

maybe gerard butler as first nite owl?

they're all way too young nobodies

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

this will be about as good as the Judge Dredd movie

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

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.

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

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

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

Max Headroom Joins Watchmen

http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/

http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/watch-1317_select.jpg

http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/WMD-22648_select.jpg

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

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.

hey is that rorschach??? xpost

By Grendel I mean Beowulf, DOH!

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

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

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.

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

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.

looks like dick tracy

croupier otm.

Vahid also.

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.

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

they're doing it as a DVD extra.

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/

regular news/rumors about the movie

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.

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

i think that about everything tho

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Emilio Estevez and Laura San Giacomo

fuck this film. just make Watchmen Babies cartoon happen.

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

Boy, Emilio has gone to ruin since Breakfast Club!

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

the makeup fx are pretty impressive!

x-post

two parts would have suited it perfectly.

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

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

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

WHO IS DARKMAN

this thread was brought to you by nude spock

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.

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/ )

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

is that from a recent simpsons??

it's funny

lol

high quality

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

OK, WAU

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

xpost to Tuombot

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

> 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?

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

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

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.

let go

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

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

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

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.

RIP Nite Owl beergut

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.

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.

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

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

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

What he said.

OH SHI

Veidt doesn't look gay enough.

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/charliebrownwatchmen.jpg

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.

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

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

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

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

> so does cerebus

...if you know when to stop.

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

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.

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.

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.

eggzie postie

"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.

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.

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

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

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. "

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.

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.

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

Namely: raw seagulls are delicious!

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

hope Veidt's still a dub reggae fan

I HOPE IT HAS...KITTY!

p[urple kitty

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.

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?

Maybe the rest of it is about vintage car repair?

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

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.

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)

Also he gets the Kitty Geniovese thing totally wrong.

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?

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...

hope Veidt's still a dub reggae fan

"I'm into dancehall now."

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.

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

Whoa.

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

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

You've all heard this, right?

DUCKS! DUCKS!

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.

for birds!

aren't we all

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

Night Crotch

unfortunate

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.

which one is squirrel police?

Looks great!

Silhouette's hot.

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.

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

i love the old costumes homemadeness

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

The trailer hits on Friday.

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

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

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

this is going to be so terrible

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

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!

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!

"ballsy"

oh, whatever.

visually at least, it looks great.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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"

Great looking trailer even with Corrigan's nasal mewling.

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.

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

link doesn't work for me :(

Awful soundtrack to that preview.

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

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

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

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.

they did actually film on Mars i believe

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

http://base58.com/pics/watchmen/w1.jpg
http://base58.com/pics/watchmen/w2.jpg
http://base58.com/pics/watchmen/w5.jpg

http://base58.com/pics/watchmen/w6.jpg
http://base58.com/pics/watchmen/w7.jpg
http://base58.com/pics/watchmen/w8.jpg

http://base58.com/pics/watchmen/w9.jpg
http://base58.com/pics/watchmen/w10.jpg
http://base58.com/pics/watchmen/w11.jpg

http://base58.com/pics/watchmen/w12.jpg
http://base58.com/pics/watchmen/w13.jpg

sorry, i'm done

is that aged Nixon on the TVs behind Veidt then?

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).

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

> 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.

ok haven't seen trailer but stills look fucking awesome

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

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

we get it dude. you dont like it. xp

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

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

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

"I guess I look pretty Devo, huh?"

yep

top marks for manhattanpants

omgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgomg

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.

love the nipples on the Ozymandias suit

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.

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

seriously so much wrong, you guys are on crack

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

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.

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

Some panels that correspond with the stills blueski posted above:

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/4835/watchmen1up7.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/2829/watchmen2xv6.jpeg

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/7523/watchmen3qw5.jpeg

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

does not compute

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

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

i thought homeboy had nips in the comix

http://www.flytecrewblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/watchpeanuts.jpg

okay I would watch that 24/7

Linus as the Comedian is rather inspired

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

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

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.

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.

test marketing indicated widespread nipple parody approval

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

"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.

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

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.

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

Watchmen poll

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)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/LolitaPoster.jpg

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

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

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

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.

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

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.’”

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'.

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.

Dawn of the Dead was ok for a completely unnecessary remake

yep

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

Watch a minute of a Snyder interview.

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.

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.

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

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

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

give him some credit, it was 2 minutes

oh wait

6 looked liked a 5

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

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.

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.

this is kind of a shitty comic book anyways

out.

I'm wish Shakey and Pash and AlexSF. I wish this hadn't been made.

I look at it from the angle that, since it has been made, I am hoping for the best from it.

^

pretty much

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

Thirteen years?

After a second watching, I am lolling at Dr. Sadface.

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.

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.

i am going to enjoy the CGI show

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).

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.

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)

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.

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

McFarlane owns Miracleman? When did that happen?

Yeah, this is news to me too.

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.

He's obviously a complete cunt, especially as he was always shooting his mouth of about creators' rights when Image first launched.

^^^for realz

I am super-pissed there is no collected edition of the stuff, and my brother has all the individual issues we bought as kids :(

slocki you don't understand, the thingy on the celluloid doesn't look exactly like 4-color glossy ergo THIS MOVIE SUCKS QED.

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?

not exactly - I was pointing out that blueski's criteria for enjoying this film makes no sense

ie this film is not a tribute or homage to the comics' visual style

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.

that seems to be Snyder's excuse but yeah I don't find it very convincing

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?

oh its probably a little from column and a little from column b

column A bah

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.

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.

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

"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.

T Ewing sez

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.

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 can you just wait till you see the goddamned movie before you disprove it

lol, obviously no!

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31478

Shakey read that link to Tom's piece and, you know, think a bit.

Nicely condescending, Ned.

nicely condescending ned is one of the new supehero characters they've added

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.

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

Well then stop arguing with him then.

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

nicely condescending ned is one of the new supehero characters they've added

costume needs more nipples

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.

let us list the ways in which the film will be better than the book

1) shit moves

ya everyone pretty much admitted they didnt "get" it anyway xp

Well then stop arguing with him then.

I should follow your kind and thoughtful example in all things.

Hey if it works for you, go for it.

"ya everyone pretty much admitted they didnt "get" it anyway xp"

Everyone = who?

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)

thanks for interrupting what would have been a great your mama joke forks.

It's what I do.

know what i do?

* Cynicalman by Matt Feazell (xkcd owes royalties)

wow Eclipse really had some great stuff, I had forgotten - would love to see another collected volume of Zot!

I thought Zot! was collected?

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

I have a collection of the first 6 issues, never seen any subsequent volumes. I admit I haven't looked in a long time.

(er x-post)

i'll probly get in free

Yeah it's all available now (even vol 4 has finally come out.)

hey there they are on Amazon! never mind

* 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.

Is he any relation to Ernie the fastest milkman in the West?

I'm halfway positive Eclipse did not own the license to a lot of these characters when McFarlane bought them.

Reid Fleming looks exactly like Harvey Pekar. Just putting that out there.

Wonder exactly what McFarlane bought.

The spirit of Reid Fleming is alive and well and all over Adult Swim. (I'd rather see a short Milk & Cheese cartoon.)

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.)

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.

your loss

btw rosebud was his sled

your loss

I do wake up at nights sobbing because of this.

btw rosebud was his sled raft

btw rosebud was his sled raft seagull

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.

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.

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).

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)

cut out the Black Freighter and the impression left is that Rorschach is the lone voice of morality, which is ridiculous

x-post

a nation weeps

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.

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?

He kills his wife.

SPOILER

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)

It's been so long and I don't have the comic with me so I'll defer here.

I believe Tuomas is correct, he tries to strangle her...? He does kill that couple on the beach though.

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.

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.

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!

Oooh boy.

The Evil Watcher What Watches at Midnight.

WatchTick

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.

OH NO THEY RAPED MY CHILDHOOD MY CHILDHOOD WHY DOESN'T ANYONE LET THESE THINGS REST *EYES GLISTEN*

that's a joke script, right?

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

all i care about is seein my nigga ~*bubastis*~ onscreen

[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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

supposedly they're not using the squid

there are many, many conflicting reports about this though.

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

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.

This makes more sense if Snyder is a sociopath.

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.

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.''

(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"

Kinda parallels the conversion of the psychiatrist - "gosh I had never thought that basically people=shit before"

everything has already happened so it doesn't matter how quickly manhattan changes his mind, or something

BUBASTIS, FORGIVE ME

wonder if they are they keeping the genetically engineered cat thing?

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.

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.

Also, Malin Akerman is crazy hott in the trailer

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.

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.

I wonder what everyone here would say about a SANDMANG movie.

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!

Also Daniel is going to be voiced by Gilbert Godfried.

I could keep going.

"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?

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

http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/07/comic-based-mov.html

Rundown of upcoming licensed comix movies.

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.

what we need to be talking about is how bad the Spirit looks

QFT. Though Samuel Jackson as a Nazi general is something else.

also

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/080716/Comic-Con/scarlett-johansson_spirit_l.jpg

Is she supposed to be Satin or Silk or P'Gell or...?

Silken Floss.

Should point out this is Frank Miller's idea of who Silken Floss is (a sexy secretary) instead of Eisner's (a nuclear physicist).

yeah Spirit movie seems wrong on many levels

http://www.empireonline.com/images/trailer/breakdown/watchmen/8.jpg

fuzzy dong

...lop

That is how ladies like them.

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.

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.

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'.

sorry, "would NOT have been distraught by the outcome of the character"

enjoying all this watchmen talk

thot the preview looked great

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.

Y'all saw the Sally Jupiter WWII bomber/pin-up art, right?

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.

That's still on, Guillermo Del Toro is producing.

what pie does that man not have a finger in these days

gordo, are you on some access hollywood type shiz or are you industry?

to tie in with the film ... Watchmen the game?!?! http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3168969

I bet the 'destroy your therapist's faith in human nature' level is going to KICK ASS!

roflz

How about the 'sit and read a fucking comic book by a newsstand while the world dies round you' sidequest?

or hot "unable to get it up sex sequence" in Nite Owl's apartment

That can be beaten with the 'rubber suit fetish' power-up.

would love Watchmen game in the style of 1985

http://www.nme.com/news/my-chemical-romance/38442

ok, i'm in with shakey and his lot now. fuck this movie.

and they were doing so well

as long as there's no more corgan jinx

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.

best case scenario I guess

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...

Should really stick my grafitti edition up on ebay at some point in the near future.

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.

otoh this could also be taken as further proof of how stupid the general public is

(a la the "I saw a shitty overproduced trailer - that means the comic book must be cool!" school of deep thinking)

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.

so niche and underground Time magazine rates it as one of the best novels of all time

(also lolz calling a one-shot 12 issue series a "franchise")

MOST PEOPLE DO NOT READ GRAPHIC NOVELS DUH

yes exactly - and yet most people watch shitty hollywood summer blockbusters

instead

lol @ OMG DO NOT LET THE UNWASHED MASSES READ MY BOOK

I would prefer they read the book and skip the movie s'all

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.

stupid stupid stupid stupid i am going away, this annoys me.

yes exactly - and yet most people watch shitty hollywood summer blockbusters

They do, do they?

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.

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"

vs. people who read the first paragraph of the wikipedia article on the watchmen, which states that same fact.

Ned - I liked your write-up about why you liked it much more than the film itself.

Thanks!

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.

yeah sounds real classy

oh jesus shut the fuck up seriously

Your opinion is whatever but you don't have to divebomb us from the Airship High Horse.

"The same stuff that happens on the comic happens in the trailer except it is moving and is Zak Snyder, therefore it sux. "

the red band trailer is on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoKZhaigLQA

Oh my gosh, wait until this guy writes about the actual MOVIE. This is like reading a four-year-old's attempt to summarzie.

Meaning Comic-Con two paragraph quote trailer talkin' guy.

oh my god it's Nixon!

pulling a big cloth off of it

exposing a ton of cleavage.....exposing a ton of cleavage.....exposing a ton of cleavage....
...

.......

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?

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.

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.

The President swivels around in his chair and oh my god it's Nixon!

christ almighty it's the goddamn president

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.)

yeah moore has always had perfectly sound reasons to be bitter about all of it.

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.

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.”

That is totally cool.

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.

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