Escape Artists
Escape Pod => Science Fiction Discussion => Topic started by: Alasdair5000 on July 18, 2008, 03:09:02 PM
-
Is up at the official site, empireonline.com and youtube.
Ummm...
WOW.
Seriously.
Also, for the first time in very nearly as long as I can rememeber, it made me want to go and re-read the book instantly.
-
Is up at the official site, empireonline.com and youtube.
Ummm...
WOW.
Seriously.
I hae a doubt. I'm not seeing how Watchmen could be adapted to film well; the story and backstory are all over the place.
That said, I'll probably go to see it anyway.
-
Interestingly, the director actually shares your concerns especially about the "Black Freighter" pirate comics sub plot. Which is why they're being done as a seperate film, released on DVD the same week Watchmen hits theatres with plans already in place to slot it into the film on a director's cut DVD a few months later.
Also, apparently, the ending? Is in.
This may just pull it off.
-
Interestingly, the director actually shares your concerns especially about the "Black Freighter" pirate comics sub plot. Which is why they're being done as a seperate film, released on DVD the same week Watchmen hits theatres with plans already in place to slot it into the film on a director's cut DVD a few months later.
My stated doubt does not even consider the pirate comic subplot. The main story alone is a challenge enough.
-
Also, apparently, the ending? Is in.
If the ending wasn't there, would it still be the Watchmen?
I've got hopes for this. I read the comic book for the first time last year. And I dig that Snyder is doing all the stuff (like the pirate comic) for a BIG DVD. (Although it would've been cool if somehow that could've been in the movie, too.)
I think the trailer looks tight. Very, very tight. I was a little worried about Snyder overdoing it because I don't think 300 and Watchmen are the same kind of comics, much less movies, at all. And I still have some doubts. It already looks way sexier than the comic ever did (style and shots, I mean, not just sex). But I'm not sure how you'd do it differently as a movie.
Fingers crossed for me on this one.
-
It already looks way sexier than the comic ever did (style and shots, I mean, not just sex).
It looks shinier, certainly. And all of the characters look like they do in the comic (except is that meant to be Ozymandias in front of the wall of monitors?), and every scene in the trailer evokes a specific panel from the comic. But still, it seems to lack something.
Still, the ending can't be worse than Terry Gilliam's "Doc Manhattan goes back in time and stops Jon Osterman getting trapped in the machine" travesty...
-
Still, the ending can't be worse than Terry Gilliam's "Doc Manhattan goes back in time and stops Jon Osterman getting trapped in the machine" travesty...
what what WHAT? ???
-
Friends of mine were journalists in the comic book field, and interviewed Gilliam after the movie fell apart. I actually had the
good fortune to read the script.
It was the most amazing adaptation in the history of cinema. Until that final scene.
-
Wowza. I heard there were some bad adaptations of it before, but that one's got to take the cake.
I'd still like to read that Sandman script where Morpheus gets into a fistfight with the Corinthian or whoever the villain is in the climactic scene.
But what the hell do I know? I thought V for Vendetta was mostly enjoyable.
-
But what the hell do I know? I thought V for Vendetta was mostly enjoyable.
[aol]
Me, too!
[/aol]
And I'd have liked to see Jodorowsky's Dune. From what I've read, it would have been almost unrecognizable to readers of Herbert's novel, but I probably would have liked it better than Lynch's film.
-
But what the hell do I know? I thought V for Vendetta was mostly enjoyable.
[aol]
Me, too!
[/aol]
And I'd have liked to see Jodorowsky's Dune. From what I've read, it would have been almost unrecognizable to readers of Herbert's novel, but I probably would have liked it better than Lynch's film.
Dude, we seriously need to find that Impossible Dreams DVD store. ;)
-
Dude, we seriously need to find that Impossible Dreams DVD store. ;)
Hopefully (unlike in the story,) the DVDs will be in a format readable to our players, or they'll have players compatible with our power supplies.
-
I have been hearing a lot about Watchmen movie lately, and quite frankly I am not holding my breath to see it. I have been a fan of Moore's since the mid-80s and have seen every film adaptation of his work, and they have all sucked (except, perhaps, From Hell). There seems to be something about a Moore story that does not translate well to film. Gibbons appears to like the adaptation, or at least doesn't hate it. Moore, on the other hand, once again refused to attach his name to the project and will not be credited. I hope I am wrong though, I would love to see a live action Watchmen that does justice to the story. I really, do. However, I said this about V For Vendetta and was horribly, horribly disappointed. The Warchowski Brothers proved again that they were incapable of making a decent film or an even half decent screenplay. They couldn't even get the opening scene right.
All that being said, Watchmen probably doesn't even need to be made into a movie. Kind of like how Raiders of the Lost Ark really didn't need sequels.
-
Gibbons appears to like the adaptation, or at least doesn't hate it. Moore, on the other hand, once again refused to attach his name to the project and will not be credited.
Previously, Moore's attitude to films of his work was that he'd already made his art, and if someone was going to pay him to make something completely different that just happened to have the same title, then why should he care? Apparently, he never even bothered to watch the movie adaptation of From Hell.
And then came LXG.
Screenwriter Larry Cohen alleged that the LXG movie was identical to a script he'd written and 20th Century Fox had turned down, and that Moore's comic was basically a hackwork that he could sell to Fox so they could make this other script without paying Cohen. Naturally, Moore was slightly annoyed at this; and the man knows how to hold a grudge.
So, from that point, he's refused to deal with Hollywood in any way whatsoever. Those stories he owns copyright on will never be filmed; where he doesn't own the rights, he insists his name is taken off the credits, and any money owed to him be given instead to charity. This was the case with Constantine and V for Vendetta, as well as Watchmen.
-
Screenwriter Larry Cohen alleged that the LXG movie was identical to a script he'd written and 20th Century Fox had turned down, and that Moore's comic was basically a hackwork that he could sell to Fox so they could make this other script without paying Cohen. Naturally, Moore was slightly annoyed at this; and the man knows how to hold a grudge.
Am I reading the above right -- Cohen is alleging that Moore wrote the comic in order to pirate Cohen's script? I've read the first two League of Extraordinary Gentlemen collections and they're the farthest thing from "hackwork".
I've stayed clear of the movie because all reports have it sucking like a black hole.
-
stePH, it does indeed SUCK. And this is coming from someone who read the comic *after* he saw the movie.
I read the quote a little bit differently...that Cohen had written a movie script similar to League of Extraordinary Gentlemen that was turned down, and then he got commissioned to write LXG and used his own stuff to cobble together a script resulting in the POS that played in theaters.
However, rereading the quote, I could be totally wrong. But I'd be hard-pressed to listen to anyone who calls the comic "hackwork." The first one (haven't grabbed the second yet) is of the most fun comics I've ever read.
-
Well i can't really comment since I don't know the comics, but I like Snyder's work so far. The dawn of the dead remake was fun (and yeah I know it wasn't a zombie film cause zombies don't run, but it still was a good film). And 300 was fan-fucking-tastic.
So I'm looking forward to the Watchmen movie.
-
Wowza. I heard there were some bad adaptations of it before, but that one's got to take the cake.
I'd still like to read that Sandman script where Morpheus gets into a fistfight with the Corinthian or whoever the villain is in the climactic scene.
But what the hell do I know? I thought V for Vendetta was mostly enjoyable.
Me too. I LOVE the book (Growing up next to England in the 1980s, oddly, gives you a certain fondness for kitchen sink dystopias) and I really enjoyed the movie.
And as for bad adaptations?
Judge Dredd.
Basically everything after the first ten minutes.
-
And as for bad adaptations?
Judge Dredd.
Basically everything after the first ten minutes.
Yeah, but those first ten minutes were SOMETHING ;)
-
The comic I'd really like to see adapted to screen, and I don't really think it would be difficult in the right hands, is Frank Miller's Ronin. Save for Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, it's the only truly worthy thing Miller ever did IMO.
[edit]
Actually, the comic book I would most like to see adapted to screen is The Incal (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1793.0). But Ronin is definitely second.
-
Screenwriter Larry Cohen alleged that the LXG movie was identical to a script he'd written and 20th Century Fox had turned down, and that Moore's comic was basically a hackwork that he could sell to Fox so they could make this other script without paying Cohen. Naturally, Moore was slightly annoyed at this; and the man knows how to hold a grudge.
Am I reading the above right -- Cohen is alleging that Moore wrote the comic in order to pirate Cohen's script? I've read the first two League of Extraordinary Gentlemen collections and they're the farthest thing from "hackwork".
I've stayed clear of the movie because all reports have it sucking like a black hole.
Yes, you understand correctly.
Cohen submitted a script called Cast of Characters to 20th Century Fox, they turned it down, and then made League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which (I'm told) has more in common with Cast of Characters than with the comic it's supposed to be based on. Had he alleged that Fox bought LXG in order to infringe on his copyright, then I'd have a hard time thinking he was in any way wrong. But instead he also accused Moore of colluding with them.
And then Fox came to a settlement with Cohen which Moore characterises as a complete capitulation, dragging his integrity even further through the mud. Which is more evidence that the film they really wanted to make was Cast of Characters.
Anyway, you can see why he's not best pleased with the Hollywood machine.
-
Just finished watching the trailer for the first time… Dude, if they are as faithful to the story as they were to the artwork, we may have one hell of a movie. One can only hope…
-
aye, like 300 they're being exceptionally true to the art. they literally copy the frames (http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/watchmen_trailer_to_comic_comparison/) at times.
except for Ozymandias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias_(comics)). not a whole lotta resemblance there.
-
aye, like 300 they're being exceptionally true to the art. they literally copy the frames (http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/watchmen_trailer_to_comic_comparison/) at times.
except for Ozymandias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias_(comics)). not a whole lotta resemblance there.
Or the Silk Spectre. They've slutted her up quite a bit from what she looked like in the book.
-
Whatever Alan Moore says, it looks awesome. I've been waiting for this for 20 years.
I'm surprised no one mentioned Nite Owl. He was middle-aged and portly in the comic, but pretty buff in the trailer. I have to admit that I would rather see a kick-ass Batman type than flabby Shatner type.
I'm a little disappointed with Ozy, too. It looks like they are envisioning him as the frustrated nerd, like the kid Buddy/Syndrome* from The Incredibles. But I could be reading too much into a nanosecond shot.
The music is haunting. Is that the Smashing Pumpkins? I always find it ironic when a filmmaker uses a band that is almost 20 years old to do something edgy.
Actually, it doesn't seem too out of character for Dr Manhattan to stop his younger self from entering the nukey chamber. I don't think I would have minded that.
*just found out he was voiced by Jason Lee, the dude from My Name is Earl. Who knew?
-
The music is haunting. Is that the Smashing Pumpkins? I always find it ironic when a filmmaker uses a band that is almost 20 years old to do something edgy.
It is indeed Smashing Pumpkins. Want to know the ironic bit about it? It's a song that was originally on the soundtrack for one of the worst comic book movies ever -- Batman and Robin. Weird that now it's playing the trailer for "the most celebrated comic book of our time" or whatever. Still, I always did think that was a good song.
I noticed that about Nite Owl, too. I always thought he looked a bit ridiculous in the comic, so seeing him all Batman-esque is kind of weird. I'm a bit worried about Ozymandias, but I'm hoping they pull it off. I would've thought someone a little more...confident looking. But I'm willing to give the actor the benefit of the doubt.
-
I'm a little disappointed with Ozy, too. It looks like they are envisioning him as the frustrated nerd, like the kid Buddy/Syndrome* from The Incredibles.
...
*just found out he was voiced by Jason Lee, the dude from My Name is Earl. Who knew?
I did. :) I'm a bit of a Jason Lee fan, despite the rather large proportion of bad movies he's been in (Stealing Harvard and Dreamcatcher come to mind) mostly because of his roles in Mallrats, Chasing Amy, and Dogma
-
The music is haunting. Is that the Smashing Pumpkins? I always find it ironic when a filmmaker uses a band that is almost 20 years old to do something edgy.
It is indeed Smashing Pumpkins. Want to know the ironic bit about it? It's a song that was originally on the soundtrack for one of the worst comic book movies ever -- Batman and Robin. Weird that now it's playing the trailer for "the most celebrated comic book of our time" or whatever. Still, I always did think that was a good song.
Different version, though. More haunting than the rockin' version from B&R.
-
I'm surprised no one mentioned Nite Owl. He was middle-aged and portly in the comic, but pretty buff in the trailer. I have to admit that I would rather see a kick-ass Batman type than flabby Shatner type.
I'm a little disappointed with Ozy, too. It looks like they are envisioning him as the frustrated nerd, like the kid Buddy/Syndrome* from The Incredibles. But I could be reading too much into a nanosecond shot.
I noticed that about Nite Owl, too. I always thought he looked a bit ridiculous in the comic, so seeing him all Batman-esque is kind of weird. I'm a bit worried about Ozymandias, but I'm hoping they pull it off. I would've thought someone a little more...confident looking. But I'm willing to give the actor the benefit of the doubt.
Ozy doesn't bother me too much, but it's been over a decade since i've read the book. I actually think he's a closer fit than Nite Owl. I feel it's integral to Nite Owl's character to be a bit portly and nearing middle age. Plus, they messed with his goggles too much and took away the "owlness." Still, by and large, it looks like they have really respected Dave Gibbons' artwork.
Or the Silk Spectre. They've slutted her up quite a bit from what she looked like in the book.
Like i said, it's been a while since i read the book, but i thought part of the whole deal with her costume was it's sluttiness (Silk Spectre 1, anyway, and i thought the SS2 wasn't too far off).
-
The music is haunting. Is that the Smashing Pumpkins? I always find it ironic when a filmmaker uses a band that is almost 20 years old to do something edgy.
It is indeed Smashing Pumpkins. Want to know the ironic bit about it? It's a song that was originally on the soundtrack for one of the worst comic book movies ever -- Batman and Robin. Weird that now it's playing the trailer for "the most celebrated comic book of our time" or whatever. Still, I always did think that was a good song.
Different version, though. More haunting than the rockin' version from B&R.
Ah, but that version was on the B&R soundtrack, too. (Don't ask me how I know this!)
-
The music is haunting. Is that the Smashing Pumpkins? I always find it ironic when a filmmaker uses a band that is almost 20 years old to do something edgy.
It is indeed Smashing Pumpkins. Want to know the ironic bit about it? It's a song that was originally on the soundtrack for one of the worst comic book movies ever -- Batman and Robin. Weird that now it's playing the trailer for "the most celebrated comic book of our time" or whatever. Still, I always did think that was a good song.
Different version, though. More haunting than the rockin' version from B&R.
Ah, but that version was on the B&R soundtrack, too. (Don't ask me how I know this!)
I have both versions on my compy. I know exactly what you mean. :)
-
Want to know the ironic bit about it? It's a song that was originally on the soundtrack for one of the worst comic book movies ever -- Batman and Robin. Weird that now it's playing the trailer for "the most celebrated comic book of our time" or whatever. Still, I always did think that was a good song.
Wow, multiple levels of irony. Wouldn't it be cool if they used the song for a movie about a comic with a bunch of subtle, ironic jokes and stuff.
U2's Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me from the Batman Forever soundtrack is still one of my favorite songs. Seems like those guys would have been better off making mix albums than movies.
So who do you guys think should have played Ozy? (while admitting that the jury is still out on the poor guy we are already disappointed with).
-
I just noticed that Carla Gugino is the Silk Spectre.
Yum.
Pardon my lechery, but really... she's beautiful.
-
Or the Silk Spectre. They've slutted her up quite a bit from what she looked like in the book.
Like i said, it's been a while since i read the book, but i thought part of the whole deal with her costume was it's sluttiness (Silk Spectre 1, anyway, and i thought the SS2 wasn't too far off).
I mean really slutted her up, far beyond what her costume was in the book.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/36/Laurie_Jupeczyk.jpg)
hmm... guess it's subjective ;)
-
U2's Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me from the Batman Forever soundtrack is still one of my favorite songs. Seems like those guys would have been better off making mix albums than movies.
I. LOVE. That. Song. The video was lots of fun, too (well, the cartoon stuff more than the movie clips).
Ozymandias...I don't know for sure, but I'd be inclined to go with someone like Jude Law. Someone who I imagine can look a little more menacing.
-
I. LOVE. That. Song. The video was lots of fun, too (well, the cartoon stuff more than the movie clips).
Ozymandias...I don't know for sure, but I'd be inclined to go with someone like Jude Law. Someone who I imagine can look a little more menacing.
Interesting choice. He has classic good looks, and can pull off both Nice Guy and Menacing. But he's not that bulky. I'm thinking a blond, Superman The Movie Christopher Reeve type.
And another thing. This trailer reminded me that we are in the middle of a particular style of shooting action sequences. The action speeds up for the actiony part, and then slows way down for the results of the action. Nite Owl falls to the street really fast, then gets up really slow. The Comedian is hit really fast then flies through the window really slow. This style seems to have replaced clipping out one in every couple of frames to make the action seem sped up a choppy (Gladiator, Private Ryan), and the Matrixy freezing and spinning of the action, which was cool at first but there was never any real point to it.
-
This trailer reminded me that we are in the middle of a particular style of shooting action sequences. The action speeds up for the actiony part, and then slows way down for the results of the action.
Is that what they call "speed ramping"?
-
This trailer reminded me that we are in the middle of a particular style of shooting action sequences. The action speeds up for the actiony part, and then slows way down for the results of the action.
Is that what they call "speed ramping"?
I thought that was what happens to your car when you coast on a cloverleaf-shaped ramp and you somehow gain speed even though you're not going downward. ???
(kidding)
-
I'm surprised no one mentioned Nite Owl. He was middle-aged and portly in the comic, but pretty buff in the trailer. I have to admit that I would rather see a kick-ass Batman type than flabby Shatner type.
I'm a little disappointed with Ozy, too. It looks like they are envisioning him as the frustrated nerd, like the kid Buddy/Syndrome* from The Incredibles. But I could be reading too much into a nanosecond shot.
I noticed that about Nite Owl, too. I always thought he looked a bit ridiculous in the comic, so seeing him all Batman-esque is kind of weird. I'm a bit worried about Ozymandias, but I'm hoping they pull it off. I would've thought someone a little more...confident looking. But I'm willing to give the actor the benefit of the doubt.
Ozy doesn't bother me too much, but it's been over a decade since i've read the book. I actually think he's a closer fit than Nite Owl. I feel it's integral to Nite Owl's character to be a bit portly and nearing middle age. Plus, they messed with his goggles too much and took away the "owlness." Still, by and large, it looks like they have really respected Dave Gibbons' artwork.
Or the Silk Spectre. They've slutted her up quite a bit from what she looked like in the book.
Like i said, it's been a while since i read the book, but i thought part of the whole deal with her costume was it's sluttiness (Silk Spectre 1, anyway, and i thought the SS2 wasn't too far off).
Now that I have finally seen the trailer on a decent computer with a nice big datapipe, I am less and less impressed with the choices the director has made. Ozymandius is the very definition of confident, not as wakela mentioned, a frustrated nerd. Strike one. The second Nite Owl buff? No thanks. The whole point of the comic was that these heroes were retired, middle aged, past their prime and drawn into a conspiracy involving the death of one of their own. It has been years since the passing of the Keane Act and they have not been fighting crime. Hell, I gained flab in the one year that I went back to university. Strike two.
Granted this is a trailer. There could be lots that we are missing (like justification for the above). Recent trend in Hollywood trailers tends to be "show all the best parts so people will come to our crappy movie thinking it will be good because of the trailer". And, I am still not convinced that Watchmen can even be adapted for film. There is far too much backstory, sidestory, meta-text, and carefully sprinkled visual and textual clues that just don't work well in film. Too many people assume that because comics are a visual medium that they are easy to adapt to the screen. V For Vendetta was written in a visual medium too, and looked what happened there.
-
Recent trend in Hollywood trailers tends to be "show all the best parts so people will come to our crappy movie thinking it will be good because of the trailer".
"Recent"?
That is, and always has been, the very purpose of a trailer.
-
Too many people assume that because comics are a visual medium that they are easy to adapt to the screen. V For Vendetta was written in a visual medium too, and looked what happened there.
In theory, comics should be the easiest literary medium to convert to film. They consist of a chronological sequence of images, with dialogue and sound effects. Just because V for Vendetta failed to make a decent film does not mean that it's impossible to film a comic; or even that it's impossible to film V for Vendetta; in the hands of a competent director who understood and appreciated the source material, it could have been great. Alas, the Wachowski brothers are not such a director; nor is Zack Snyder.
On the other hand, Sin City was a textbook example of how to do something like this right; have it directed by a serious comic book geek (ideally with the original author acting as co-director), and use the comic as your storyboard.
Of course, there are comics that use layout techniques that would be impossible to convert to the silver screen (Moore's Promethia includes a double-page spread laid out as an infinity symbol), but these are a tiny minority.
-
Just because V for Vendetta failed to make a decent film does not mean that it's impossible to film a comic; or even that it's impossible to film V for Vendetta; in the hands of a competent director who understood and appreciated the source material, it could have been great. Alas, the Wachowski brothers are not such a director; nor is Zack Snyder.
Just to be fair, I think the Wachowski Brothers producted V for Vendetta. James McTeigue directed the movie.
I thought Sin City was okay, visually it was stunning, but it was so faithful of an adaptation, trying so hard to mirror a comic book that at other points, I couldn't stop being pulled out of it.
I think there's things comics, movies, and books can do that the other medias can't even imagine (witness Wintermute's infinity symbol example, or a lot of stuff that happens in Grant Morrison comics). Still, that doesn't stop us from going to see them.
-
And, I am still not convinced that Watchmen can even be adapted for film. There is far too much backstory, sidestory, meta-text, and carefully sprinkled visual and textual clues that just don't work well in film.
My thoughts exactly. I stated early in this thread that I have a doubt.
V For Vendetta was written in a visual medium too, and looked what happened there.
To be fair, the screenwriters didn't follow the book's story very closely when adapting that one. But I'm already on record as liking the film in spite of it.
-
I thought Sin City was okay, visually it was stunning, but it was so faithful of an adaptation, trying so hard to mirror a comic book that at other points, I couldn't stop being pulled out of it.
Sin City was a frame-perfect adaptation; my problem with it is that the source book just wasn't that good to begin with. Let's see one of Miller's good works brought to screen -- Ronin or The Dark Knight Returns.
-
Recent trend in Hollywood trailers tends to be "show all the best parts so people will come to our crappy movie thinking it will be good because of the trailer".
"Recent"?
That is, and always has been, the very purpose of a trailer.
I have seen several trailers for films not made in the last 15 years, and guess what? They talked about the film, not just soundbite quick cuts of the only parts worth watching. Check out the trailer for Apocalypse Now or Sophie's Choice or hell even schlock like Yentl. For at least one of these, Apocalypse Now the most impressive parts of the film weren't in the trailer at all. The purpose of a movie trailer is to gain theinterest of the audience. If takes the best scenes of the film to do that, then there is something wrong or your film isn't all that interesting is it? If you can gain sufficient interest in the film without showing the best scenes, then your film is probably pretty good. Film trailers are now made for our depressingly attention-deficeit sound-bite over-hype fad-following culture.
-
Too many people assume that because comics are a visual medium that they are easy to adapt to the screen. V For Vendetta was written in a visual medium too, and looked what happened there.
In theory, comics should be the easiest literary medium to convert to film. They consist of a chronological sequence of images, with dialogue and sound effects. Just because V for Vendetta failed to make a decent film does not mean that it's impossible to film a comic; or even that it's impossible to film V for Vendetta; in the hands of a competent director who understood and appreciated the source material, it could have been great. Alas, the Wachowski brothers are not such a director; nor is Zack Snyder.
On the other hand, Sin City was a textbook example of how to do something like this right; have it directed by a serious comic book geek (ideally with the original author acting as co-director), and use the comic as your storyboard.
Of course, there are comics that use layout techniques that would be impossible to convert to the silver screen (Moore's Promethia includes a double-page spread laid out as an infinity symbol), but these are a tiny minority.
I will agree with you on Sin City. That is how a comic book is adapted to film. Yes, in theory, it is easy to adapt a comic to film. Storyboards are little more than a comic book anyway. But theory seldom survives the real world. How many stinkers of comic book adaptations have there been recently? Hollywood seems to be incapable of putting out a halfway decent film for the past 10 years or so, with notable exceptions of course. I blame it on the Lowest Common Denominator theory of movie making.
-
And, I am still not convinced that Watchmen can even be adapted for film. There is far too much backstory, sidestory, meta-text, and carefully sprinkled visual and textual clues that just don't work well in film.
My thoughts exactly. I stated early in this thread that I have a doubt.
V For Vendetta was written in a visual medium too, and looked what happened there.
To be fair, the screenwriters didn't follow the book's story very closely when adapting that one. But I'm already on record as liking the film in spite of it.
I got sucked into seeing it because 1: it was based on my favorite comic and 2: the trailer looked great. Imagine my disappointment. I mean, really, the director Mcteigh didn't even bother to have the right symphony playing when V blew up the Bailey. I began to hate it about 15 minutes in, and loathed it by the end (other than the one supercool fight scene near the end and the always impressive John Hurt {what the hell did they have him on anyway? did you see the size of his pupils?}). It's is almost as if the Wachowski Brothers decided they wanted to ruin it on purpose.
/rant off
In any case, I stand by my above opinion, I don't think Watchmen can be adapted. Even if the screen-play was written by Moore himself and it was directed by zombie Kubrick.
-
I just read in a EW article (still reading it, in fact), that Moore is in the "can't be adapted to screen" camp. In fact, he's had his name pulled from any credits and has "abdicated his royalty check to Gibbons" (which, if that wasn't simply a clever pun by the writer, was a pretty classy move, imo). What I found even more interesting, though, was that Zack Snyder (the director) was formerly of the camp that it couldn't be made into a movie, and, from what he said in the article, i'm not sure he isn't still in that camp.
Many in Hollywood have tried to get Watchmen on film and failed, including… Bourne Supremacy director Paul Greengrass. In 2005, Greengrass was deep into preproduction on a present-day, war-on-terror-themed adaptation… 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 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] script and hew as faithfully as possible to the comic.
The article also said that Jude Law (among other big-brand celebrities) was interested in the Greengrass production (which i am SO glad didn't make it out of preproduction!!!), but Snyder felt celebrity would detract from the substance. But good call by DK!
And apparently Nite Owl is going to have a pot-belly:
Patrick Wilson came aboard first and immediately started packing on weight to play the potbellied, middle-aged Nite Owl.
Snyder's current cut is 3 hours long, but it'll likely be pared down to 2 hours 25 minutes by the time it hits theaters. Hopefully the DVD will have a Director's Cut. One thing I'm a little worried about though:
[small spoiler]the "catastrophic climax is different."[/small spoiler]
And, lastly, my favorite quote from the article:
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.”
-
The article also said that Jude Law (among other big-brand celebrities) was interested in the Greengrass production (which i am SO glad didn't make it out of preproduction!!!), but Snyder felt celebrity would detract from the substance. But good call by DK!
In some alternate universe, I make a good living as a casting director ;)
I think it's interesting Snyder attempted to make Watchmen because he was worried somebody else might mess it up if they were going to "do it anyway." I'm trying to figure out if that makes me like him more, or less. (Right now, I'm leaning toward more, even though I like Greengrass in general.)
And, lastly, my favorite quote from the article:
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.”
That's not hard. Superman Returns made Superman look stupid ;D
-
I prefer not to me too on a thread, but I got here late :(
The only way "The Watchmen" ends up being a good movie is if they ignore the entire book and make up a story with the characters. In the same way "300" has nothing whatsoever to do with real history.
The entire pirate/horror comic sidestory is near impossible to work into the movie and while you can tell the basic story without it, it really was critical to the flavour/sense of the story
Without making the movie 6 hours long they couldn't possibly do justice to Rorschach's analysis with the psychiatrist (or the impact on the doctor's relationships), Dr. Manhattan and Sally, and so on.
I could see this as a mini series but never a movie.
''There are things we did that could only work in a comic, and were indeed designed to show off the things that comics can do that other media can't.''
I agree with Moore!
-
The entire pirate/horror comic sidestory is near impossible to work into the movie and while you can tell the basic story without it, it really was critical to the flavour/sense of the story
But like I say, it's being done. It's being done in a crass, commercial way that requires you to buy a DVD if you want it but it IS being done.
I could see this as a mini series but never a movie.
I've actually lost count of the amount of movies that would work better this way. Jumper for example even played like a really, really good pilot.
And I find myself in a slightly odd position, simply because I think that trailer looks great and I loved the book. Also, from a process geek point of view I'm fascinated to see what stays (And judging by that footage there's a lot of surprising stuff still in) and what goes:)
-
The entire pirate/horror comic sidestory is near impossible to work into the movie and while you can tell the basic story without it, it really was critical to the flavour/sense of the story
But like I say, it's being done. It's being done in a crass, commercial way that requires you to buy a DVD if you want it but it IS being done.
Bu it really isn't. Including it as an animated special feature on the side isn't the point. The reflection of the horror comic against what was happening and the way it interwove with the main plot is one of the key experiences of the story. It's being cut out as a seperate entity -it's like having a kidney taken out - you still have a good life, but your quality is comprimised.
I also liked "V for Vendetta" as a movie even though it butchered the original. I may just like The Watchmen movie too - a well told story is still enjoyable, but it won't ever be "The Watchmen" any more than a Children's Illustrated Classic or a Reader's Digest version is actually the original novel.
-
Well, having missed most of the conversation, and having little to add to amplify any of the comments, all I can really offer is a trailer link:
Leaked Watchmen trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsDzH05cL8c&feature=related)
-
Stinker - you and Rick will get yours someday :P
-
Well, having missed most of the conversation, and having little to add to amplify any of the comments, all I can really offer is a trailer link:
Leaked Watchmen trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsDzH05cL8c&feature=related)
First time I've been successfully Rick Rolled. I will seek my revenge. Maybe all of your posts from now on will end up in Pink.
-
Well, having missed most of the conversation, and having little to add to amplify any of the comments, all I can really offer is a trailer link:
Leaked Watchmen trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsDzH05cL8c&feature=related)
Wow, kind of poppy and dancey-prancey. I like it. The Watchman has some potential. ;)
-
Well, having missed most of the conversation, and having little to add to amplify any of the comments, all I can really offer is a trailer link:
Leaked Watchmen trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsDzH05cL8c&feature=related)
First time I've been successfully Rick Rolled. I will seek my revenge. Maybe all of your posts from now on will end up in Pink.
Being Pinked by a deity is worth it. I've never successfully Rick Rolled anyone before. :P
-
Being Pinked by a deity is worth it. I've never successfully Rick Rolled anyone before. :P
You don't want to be pink. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subgenius)
(http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/pics6/funway/JR-BOB-DOBBS.jpg)
-
Oh, come on. That's not pink. THIS *is* pink.
(http://www.madcowprod.com/214047h.jpg)
-
Oh, come on. That's not pink. THIS *is* pink.
I never said BOB was pink. I just included the picture of BOB as a reminder of why one does not want to be pink.
-
Well, having missed most of the conversation, and having little to add to amplify any of the comments, all I can really offer is a trailer link:
Leaked Watchmen trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsDzH05cL8c&feature=related)
First time I've been successfully Rick Rolled. I will seek my revenge. Maybe all of your posts from now on will end up in Pink.
Being Pinked by a deity is worth it. I've never successfully Rick Rolled anyone before. :P
Hmph... I expected it to be more "minty".
Mod: How's that?
-
Some very cool one sheets (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37736) from ComicCon have been posted. They all look pretty cool, but I think I like the Comedian one best. Maybe it's the quote.
-
Jeffrey Dean Morgan's great:) Excellent as a badass in Supernatural and as good as an amiable everyman in Grey's Anatomy. He's one of the big reasons I'm up for this.
-
Well, having missed most of the conversation, and having little to add to amplify any of the comments, all I can really offer is a trailer link:
Leaked Watchmen trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsDzH05cL8c&feature=related)
First time I've been successfully Rick Rolled. I will seek my revenge. Maybe all of your posts from now on will end up in Pink.
Being Pinked by a deity is worth it. I've never successfully Rick Rolled anyone before. :P
Hmph... I expected it to be more "minty".
Mod: How's that?
It's that kind of treatment that addicts people to internet forums, don't you know? :D
Mod: I guess I'm just an enabler.
-
Ruh-Roh (http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/urgent-warners-watchmen-in-legal-peril/)
-
Ruh-Roh (http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/urgent-warners-watchmen-in-legal-peril/)
Probably was a little obtuse — Fox is saying that they have the rights to Watchmen and are suing to enjoin WB from releasing the film. NYT Article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/business/media/19movie.html)
-
Ruh-Roh (http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/urgent-warners-watchmen-in-legal-peril/)
When a man named Edward Blake (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is brutally murdered, the investigations of masked right-winger Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) reveal that Blake was once The Comedian,...
??? Rorschach is a "right winger"? I didn't see him as having any particular political leanings at all. More like a religious fundamentalist whack-job.
-
I'd have to read it again to remember the details, but I'm pretty sure he was a hardline right-winger. He subscribed to the New Patriot, or whatever it was called, and generally held right-wing views on morality. I recall his views on sexual morality coming up more than once.
-
I recall his views on sexual morality coming up more than once.
Hence my impression of "religious fundie whackjob".
And speaking of Rorschach: YTMND (http://watchgnarls.ytmnd.com/).
-
But he's not a religious fundamentalist; he barely mentions any religious beliefs he might have, and religion certainly seems to drive his personality far less than the physical abuse he suffered as a child and the things he's seen on the street. He seems to believe in a higher power only in the abstract; certainly he doesn't believe that prayers are granted or that he's going to be rewarded for doing what needs to be done.
True, Rorshach's beliefs intersect with those of the religious fundamentalists, but that's because both are right-wing, not because both are religious. Right-wing beliefs (being conservative) are informed by the more reactionary Christian morals, but that doesn't mean that every right-winger is a reactionary Christian.
-
I always saw the character of Rorschach as more of a comment on the Batman archtype. What would have happened if Bruce Wayne had of been more damaged by the death of his parents. I feel that Moore was also making a comment on the 'unrealistic'-ness of comic book heroes when he wrote Watchmen, and developed his characters along the lines of how 'real' peopel would react in the situations he presents them.
-
I always saw the character of Rorschach as more of a comment on the Batman archtype. What would have happened if Bruce Wayne had of been more damaged by the death of his parents. I feel that Moore was also making a comment on the 'unrealistic'-ness of comic book heroes when he wrote Watchmen, and developed his characters along the lines of how 'real' peopel would react in the situations he presents them.
I agree with that somewhat, the more rough, desipicable version of Batman, but really more the Punisher/Question/Spirit type. Clearly though Owlman is the 80's version of Bats with all the fancy gadgets.
I agree with wintermute, Rorschach isn't religious. I don't recall any religious comments whatsoever regarding his charatcer. His was the Black is black and White is white(hence his love of the material he made into his mask) - his belief was "you do bad things you get punished/hurt"
-
I always saw the character of Rorschach as more of a comment on the Batman archtype. What would have happened if Bruce Wayne had of been more damaged by the death of his parents. I feel that Moore was also making a comment on the 'unrealistic'-ness of comic book heroes when he wrote Watchmen, and developed his characters along the lines of how 'real' peopel would react in the situations he presents them.
I agree with that somewhat, the more rough, desipicable version of Batman, but really more the Punisher/Question/Spirit type. Clearly though Owlman is the 80's version of Bats with all the fancy gadgets.
I thought it was interesting that Moore seemed to split up Bruce Wayne/Batman into Rorschach and Nite Owl. Maybe it was so he could deal with some of the issues completely seperately? They both, to some extent, reminded me of Batman, though. Although I like the Punisher comparison, too. Which is probably timely, as I think he was hitting his stride in the 80s.
-
I agree with wintermute, Rorschach isn't religious. I don't recall any religious comments whatsoever regarding his charatcer. His was the Black is black and White is white(hence his love of the material he made into his mask) - his belief was "you do bad things you get punished/hurt"
Doesn't explain his sexual hangups.
-
I agree with wintermute, Rorschach isn't religious. I don't recall any religious comments whatsoever regarding his charatcer. His was the Black is black and White is white(hence his love of the material he made into his mask) - his belief was "you do bad things you get punished/hurt"
Doesn't explain his sexual hangups.
The fact that his mother was a prostitute, frequently suffering at the hands of her customers, and emotionally and physically abusive towards him might, just possibly, explain his distaste for sex and for women in general. It seems a rather better explanation than assuming he belongs to a fundamentalist religion which the authors simply never bother to show, anyway.
Rorschach’s actions and journal writings display a belief in moral absolutism and objectivism, where good and evil are clearly defined and evil must be violently punished. He has alienated himself from the rest of society to achieve these aims. Politically, he is an anti-communist, anti-liberal, reactionary, and strong nationalist. Rorschach is described by Alan Moore as an extremely right-wing character.
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_(comics)
-
I always saw the character of Rorschach as more of a comment on the Batman archtype. What would have happened if Bruce Wayne had of been more damaged by the death of his parents. I feel that Moore was also making a comment on the 'unrealistic'-ness of comic book heroes when he wrote Watchmen, and developed his characters along the lines of how 'real' peopel would react in the situations he presents them.
I agree with that somewhat, the more rough, desipicable version of Batman, but really more the Punisher/Question/Spirit type. Clearly though Owlman is the 80's version of Bats with all the fancy gadgets.
I thought it was interesting that Moore seemed to split up Bruce Wayne/Batman into Rorschach and Nite Owl. Maybe it was so he could deal with some of the issues completely seperately? They both, to some extent, reminded me of Batman, though. Although I like the Punisher comparison, too. Which is probably timely, as I think he was hitting his stride in the 80s.
Yes, it is interesting isn't it. Especially considering that both Rorschach and Nite Owl were partners of sorts before the Keane Act. The two together might been seen as Moore's examination of Batman as a split personality: Nite Owl as the (gadget laden but capable) Caped Crusader, Rorschach as the (psychotic but intelligent) Dark Knight. The passage of the Keane Act effectively severed the personalities, with the Rorschach personality being allowed to descend deeper and deeper into paranoia and psychosis and the Nite Owl personality reverting to mild mannered Bruce Wayne (including the fortune though without the playboy aspects).
-
I always saw the character of Rorschach as more of a comment on the Batman archtype. What would have happened if Bruce Wayne had of been more damaged by the death of his parents. I feel that Moore was also making a comment on the 'unrealistic'-ness of comic book heroes when he wrote Watchmen, and developed his characters along the lines of how 'real' peopel would react in the situations he presents them.
I agree with that somewhat, the more rough, desipicable version of Batman, but really more the Punisher/Question/Spirit type. Clearly though Owlman is the 80's version of Bats with all the fancy gadgets.
I thought it was interesting that Moore seemed to split up Bruce Wayne/Batman into Rorschach and Nite Owl. Maybe it was so he could deal with some of the issues completely seperately? They both, to some extent, reminded me of Batman, though. Although I like the Punisher comparison, too. Which is probably timely, as I think he was hitting his stride in the 80s.
Yes, it is interesting isn't it. Especially considering that both Rorschach and Nite Owl were partners of sorts before the Keane Act. The two together might been seen as Moore's examination of Batman as a split personality: Nite Owl as the (gadget laden but capable) Caped Crusader, Rorschach as the (psychotic but intelligent) Dark Knight. The passage of the Keane Act effectively severed the personalities, with the Rorschach personality being allowed to descend deeper and deeper into paranoia and psychosis and the Nite Owl personality reverting to mild mannered Bruce Wayne (including the fortune though without the playboy aspects).
Geez. I never thought of it like psychotic/split personality aspect before but I love it. It fits so perfectly.
-
Geez. I never thought of it like psychotic/split personality aspect before but I love it. It fits so perfectly.
It does. So much so that I'm beginning to wonder if it wasn't actually a subconscious influence. Rorschach was based on The Question, and Nite Owl on Blue Beetle, and Moore's never suggested that Batman was any part of the equation, but this thread is starting to convince me that maybe there are things in there he didn't notice...
Or maybe not. Maybe it's just a great metaphor.
-
I agree with wintermute, Rorschach isn't religious. I don't recall any religious comments whatsoever regarding his charatcer. His was the Black is black and White is white(hence his love of the material he made into his mask) - his belief was "you do bad things you get punished/hurt"
Doesn't explain his sexual hangups.
The fact that his mother was a prostitute, frequently suffering at the hands of her customers, and emotionally and physically abusive towards him might, just possibly, explain his distaste for sex and for women in general. It seems a rather better explanation than assuming he belongs to a fundamentalist religion which the authors simply never bother to show, anyway.
Rorschach’s actions and journal writings display a belief in moral absolutism and objectivism, where good and evil are clearly defined and evil must be violently punished. He has alienated himself from the rest of society to achieve these aims. Politically, he is an anti-communist, anti-liberal, reactionary, and strong nationalist. Rorschach is described by Alan Moore as an extremely right-wing character.
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_(comics)
Fine details have slipped my mind; I stand corrected. I was due for another reread of the book, and was going to start this week, but with the movie's release still distand and possibly not even going to happen, I'm not really in a hurry.
-
Geez. I never thought of it like psychotic/split personality aspect before but I love it. It fits so perfectly.
It does. So much so that I'm beginning to wonder if it wasn't actually a subconscious influence. Rorschach was based on The Question, and Nite Owl on Blue Beetle, and Moore's never suggested that Batman was any part of the equation, but this thread is starting to convince me that maybe there are things in there he didn't notice...
Or maybe not. Maybe it's just a great metaphor.
I think that's a sign of very well considered characters; characters with real depth. They grow outside the outlines their authors intend.
Not sure if you read it somewhere wintermute, but I had never considered Nite Owl to be Blue Beetle. I have never thought of the timelines, but I had thought the "new" BB look was based on Nite Owl. Especially the shape of the flying bug.
-
Not sure if you read it somewhere wintermute, but I had never considered Nite Owl to be Blue Beetle. I have never thought of the timelines, but I had thought the "new" BB look was based on Nite Owl. Especially the shape of the flying bug.
FromWikipedia:
Dick Giordano, who had worked for Charlton Comics, suggested using a cast of old Charlton characters that had recently been acquired by DC. However, the Charlton heroes were being slowly integrated into normal DC continuity. Because Moore and Gibbons wanted to do a serious storyline in which some of the newly acquired characters would die and the world would be drastically altered by story's end, using the Charlton heroes was not feasible. Giordano then suggested that Moore and Gibbons simply start from scratch and create their own characters. So while certain characters in Watchmen are loosely based upon the Charlton characters (such as Dr. Manhattan, who was inspired by Captain Atom; Rorschach, who was based upon the Question; and Nite Owl, who was loosely based on the Blue Beetle as well as Batman), Moore decided to create characters that ultimately would only casually resemble their Charlton counterparts.
-
FromWikipedia:
Dick Giordano, who had worked for Charlton Comics, suggested using a cast of old Charlton characters that had recently been acquired by DC. However, the Charlton heroes were being slowly integrated into normal DC continuity. Because Moore and Gibbons wanted to do a serious storyline in which some of the newly acquired characters would die and the world would be drastically altered by story's end, using the Charlton heroes was not feasible. Giordano then suggested that Moore and Gibbons simply start from scratch and create their own characters. So while certain characters in Watchmen are loosely based upon the Charlton characters (such as Dr. Manhattan, who was inspired by Captain Atom; Rorschach, who was based upon the Question; and Nite Owl, who was loosely based on the Blue Beetle as well as Batman), Moore decided to create characters that ultimately would only casually resemble their Charlton counterparts.
Well there goes my finely constructed (or is that deconstructed?) thesis. Now I will never get that PhD.! Just kidding, I already have a MA and do not want to go back to school again, ever (unless I am the one at the front facing the students instead of the one at the front facing the lecturn).
Anyway, the Rorschach and Nite Owl characters do bear more than a passing resemblance to The Question and Blue Beetle. The can be no doubt that Moore and Lloyd based R/NO on ?/BB. I am still fond of my whole psychotic, split personality Batman idea (but mostly 'cause it's mine, bwahahahahaha), and it does make sense in a intertextual way; and I think that the argument gets stronger as the past relationship is revealed and the new relationship is developed (pre- and post-Keane Act). As Nite Owl is drawn deeper into the conspiracy Rorschach has uncovered, he continually acts as a restraining force, dulling the violence that Rorschach has (and continues to) indulge in. Nite Owl interrogates, Rorschach snaps fingers (which is something I can see Batman doing). Two semi-opposing personalities working together for a common goal. In the case of Batman, we can see these two influences as well (I really should re-read Dark Knight and Watchmen again with an eye for this). In Miller's Dark Knight we see in Batman/Bruce Wayne a constant struggle between the opposing personalities of restraint (old, pre-retirement, pre-Richard/Robin death) and the ultra-violent (new, post-retirement Mutant fighting, Joker killing, Superman stomping). This, were I asked, is the core of the narrative of Dark Knight. Batman has always been a violent character; he relies on violence (and a hefty dose of intelligence, but those things are often found together) where other superheroes rely on their powers. In fact, one could argue that Batman must be violent, it is the only way he can compete. Anyway, I digress.
I think that there is some meat there for the enterprising essayist. If I ever get to meet Moore, I will ask him (yeah, like that will happen).
-
Well there goes my finely constructed (or is that deconstructed?) thesis. Now I will never get that PhD.! Just kidding, I already have a MA and do not want to go back to school again, ever (unless I am the one at the front facing the students instead of the one at the front facing the lecturn).
Anyway, the Rorschach and Nite Owl characters do bear more than a passing resemblance to The Question and Blue Beetle. The can be no doubt that Moore and Lloyd based R/NO on ?/BB. I am still fond of my whole psychotic, split personality Batman idea (but mostly 'cause it's mine, bwahahahahaha), and it does make sense in a intertextual way; and I think that the argument gets stronger as the past relationship is revealed and the new relationship is developed (pre- and post-Keane Act).
Well, the Watchmen character design was based on those prior characters, as has been cited, but I don't think that invalidates the notion of Night Owl and Rorschach being two aspects of Batman's personality. I rather like the idea myself now that it's been brought up here. Maybe it was even a conscious choice by Moore to have it that way.
-
I don't think it was a conscious choice, but it may well have been an unconscious influence. And, even if it wasn't, it's a valid interpretation.
I don't entirely hold with Derrida's ideas that "there is only the text"*, but it's generally a decent starting point. And the idea that Rorschach and Nite Owl represent two faces of a single character (one as deeply embedded in the Zeitgeist as Bats, no less) is one that could at a lot of depth to the book.
Of course, next time I read it, I'm also going to be thinking of Ozymandias as Tony Stark...
* I think that an author has a privileged position from which he can provide non-textural opinions and background on the story, and have them carry more weight than if they come from a third party. But this doesn't mean that the author is always right about their work; as an obvious example, Danny Boyle claims that 28 Days later is not a zombie movie, the lackwitted fool. Anyway, to be fair, Moore has never (to my knowledge) said that Rorschach and Nite Owl are not Batman, so it's probably a distinction without a difference.
-
Of course, next time I read it, I'm also going to be thinking of Ozymandias as Tony Stark...
I can't remember ... did Ozymandias ever make a suit of powered armor?
-
Of course, next time I read it, I'm also going to be thinking of Ozymandias as Tony Stark...
I can't remember ... did Ozymandias ever make a suit of powered armor?
No, he never did. But an industrialist weapons designer who thinks he's smarter than everyone else and is prepared to kill everyone to save the world? That's Stark right there, even if it isn't Iron Man.
-
Of course, next time I read it, I'm also going to be thinking of Ozymandias as Tony Stark...
I can't remember ... did Ozymandias ever make a suit of powered armor?
No, he never did. But an industrialist weapons designer who thinks he's smarter than everyone else and is prepared to kill everyone to save the world? That's Stark right there, even if it isn't Iron Man.
;D Point taken.
-
Of course, next time I read it, I'm also going to be thinking of Ozymandias as Tony Stark...
I can't remember ... did Ozymandias ever make a suit of powered armor?
No, he never did. But an industrialist weapons designer who thinks he's smarter than everyone else and is prepared to kill everyone to save the world? That's Stark right there, even if it isn't Iron Man.
Stark or Ra's Al Ghul?
Stark has never been willing to sacrifice anyone for the better good. Way back in Armor Wars he even went up against Cap to get back his stolen tech to prevent his work from having any reprecussions of injury.
I also agree with stePH and wintermute - basically just because the general look of the characters were based on pre-existing designs doesn't mean that their personalities were. In fact the Question was more of a mystery man (like Phantom Stranger) than a violent psychopath. I would say that Nite Owl and the BB from the 60's were similar though.
-
Stark has never been willing to sacrifice anyone for the better good.
Uuuuh, have you read any Marvel comics in the last two years?
The difference between Tony Stark and Victor Von Doom is about paper thin right now...
-
I was thinking about that, too. It was one of the driving forces behind Marvel's Civil War (although I suppose you could say what Stark is doing in the Marvel U right now is coming to grips with whether or not sacrifices should be made for the greater good).
-
new trailer (http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/watchmen/feature-trailer) available.
there are a couple of results of live action i wasn't expecting. Dr Manhattan has a calm, centered appearance through so much of the story that actually seeing him move and speak felt oddly different. on the other hand Rorschach's animated mask effect is fantastic.
-
new trailer (http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/watchmen/feature-trailer) available.
there are a couple of results of live action i wasn't expecting. Dr Manhattan has a calm, centered appearance through so much of the story that actually seeing him move and speak felt oddly different. on the other hand Rorschach's animated mask effect is fantastic.
This sounds weird, but I can only hear him in text. There's an authority in that silent text of Doc Manhattan that I haven't gotten from what little we've heard of him. But there was something in the cadence which might evolve into something that works in a longer form.
-
I'm warming to the film. As I said, I can see really liking it - but it will never match the comic.
I was impressed with Nite Owl's look, and ditto on Rorschach's mask.
I thought Ozy looked too much like Robin's movie costume. And Dr. M looked too computer animated for me.
-
And the possibility that we'll all see it on time in the theaters (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-fi-watchmen30-2008dec30,0,3808078.story) get a little smaller.
-
I feel like a silly twit for it bothering me but everyone looks 10years to young and in to good of shape.
-
I feel like a silly twit for it bothering me but everyone looks 10years to young and in to good of shape.
Not at all. That's kind of the essence of Watchmen ... these are supposed to be retired superheroes, past their prime (except Ozymandias and Doctor Manhattan, maybe). Young hardbodies are exactly what they shouldn't be.
-
hello kitty, I mean stePH is right. Owl Man in particular is all dumpy and out of shape - Batman if he let himself go.
-
On Rorschach's motivations having to do with religion--considering what he says while being evaluated, I'd say that's pretty unlikely:
"Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever, and we are alone."
...
"This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us." (Chapter VI, page 26)
As for his politics--he says in the first page of the first issue that people should follow the lead of men like his (absent) father and "President Truman." Also, on page 19, after meeting with Viedt, he says that Veidt "is pompered and decadent, betraying even his own shallow, liberal affections."
-
Money changes hands, problem's fixed (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117998665.html?categoryid=13=1&cs=1):
WB, Fox make deal for 'Watchmen'
Warner to open superhero film March 6
Warner Bros. and Fox have settled their very public battle over "Watchmen." A deal has been hammered out that that gives WB some face-saving points, but which gives Fox the equivalent of a movie star’s gross participation.
Warner Bros. gets the right to open its superhero pic on March 6 as planned, and Fox's logo will not be on the film, sources said.
Fox, on the other hand, will emerge with an upfront cash payment that sources pegged between $5 million and $10 million, covering reimbursement of $1.4 million the studio invested in development fees, and also millions of dollars in legal fees incurred during the case.
More importantly, Fox will get a gross participation in "Watchmen" that scales between 5% and 8.5%, depending on the film’s worldwide revenues. Fox also participates as a gross player in any sequels and spinoffs, sources said.
-
More importantly, Fox will get a gross participation in "Watchmen" that scales between 5% and 8.5%, depending on the film’s worldwide revenues. Fox also participates as a gross player in any sequels and spinoffs, sources said.
[/quote]
That at least I'm actually happy about. It drastically reduces the chance that the studio will actually make any spinoffs if they have to share the profits. And... There. Should. Be. No. Spinoffs.
-
Anybody else heard aboot the Watchmen Motion Comic (http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/)? Looks interesting, and will probably be a better "movie" than the theatrical film promises to be. I'm not ready to buy webisodes yet though ... I can't really afford luxuries right now; probably won't even be able to go see the movie. :(
-
I find Roger Ebert to be a pretty decent reviewer. I don't always agree with him, but if he doesn't like something, he blasts it. You gotta respect that. In his review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090304/REVIEWS/903049997) he gave Watchmen four stars.
After the revelation of “The Dark Knight,” here is “Watchmen,” another bold exercise in the liberation of the superhero movie. It’s a compelling visceral film — sound, images and characters combined into a decidedly odd visual experience that evokes the feel of a graphic novel. It seems charged from within by its power as a fable; we sense it’s not interested in a plot so much as with the dilemma of functioning in a world losing hope.
-
What if Watchmen was a Saturday morning cartoon?
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485797
I consider it a cross between Watchmen, Scooby Doo, TMNT, and Jem and the Holograms.
-
Went to see the movie last night, 2 3/4 hours and I could have sat for much longer, thought it was brilliantly put together, the casting was spot on, for me they captured the real feel of the book. Even though they couldn't repeat it scene for scene they recreated some of the key scenes virtually frame for frame, and there were enough nods to the parts that they couldn't use fully to show that they knew the source material well.
-
I saw watchmen last night and thought it was absolutely awesome. Just a really good time. It didnt even seem that long to me.
-
I find Roger Ebert to be a pretty decent reviewer. I don't always agree with him, but if he doesn't like something, he blasts it. You gotta respect that. In his review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090304/REVIEWS/903049997) he gave Watchmen four stars.
After the revelation of “The Dark Knight,” here is “Watchmen,” another bold exercise in the liberation of the superhero movie. It’s a compelling visceral film — sound, images and characters combined into a decidedly odd visual experience that evokes the feel of a graphic novel. It seems charged from within by its power as a fable; we sense it’s not interested in a plot so much as with the dilemma of functioning in a world losing hope.
Ebert's not especially well known over here but everything I've seen of his has impressed me. That quote is no exception.
-
I'm surprised this threaded faded away since the movie came out.
I just got around to seeing it, and thought it was fantastic. I'm sure Alan Moore could come up with a hundred legitimate reasons why it was awful, but I can't. Maybe it's because I was younger and dopier when I read the book (I resisted the temptation to read it again before seeing the movie), but the characters really jumped out for me in the movie and gave me a better appreciation for the book.
Was it financially successful? I could see how the studio would expect it to be based on the success of Heroes and Dark Night, but I could also see how audiences wouldn't like it based on the darkness, unfamiliar characters, and complete moral uncertainty. I think audiences are more sophisticated than most do, but when you see a superhero movie you go in with certain expectations that Watchmen doesn't fulfill.
Overall, I'm with Ebert. Four stars.
-
Finally watched this; came from Netflix in today's mail.
The ending doesn't work for me. I can't see [what was used] being anywhere near as effective in uniting the world as the "alien" monster that Veidt invented and dropped on New York City in the book. It just doesn't make sense.
That aside, I'm impressed with how well the rest was done, particularly the adventures of Rorschach behind bars (my favorite part of the book).
Three stars out of five, and I'm being generous (was almost inclined to give it a mere two). If the ending had been done right, it would be four, maybe even 4-1/2.