May 9, 2005, 4:31 a.m. CST
I guess WE will in two or three years.
May 9, 2005, 4:47 a.m. CST
May 9, 2005, 4:51 a.m. CST
by Frank Einstein
C'mon, Paramount. Grow some balls.
May 9, 2005, 4:51 a.m. CST
by Spacker Dave
Anyone who thinks this is an easy sell for studio excecs are kidding themselves. Watchmen may be the supposed holy grail of comics but it will never make Spider-man money, and that is what Paramount might just be banking on. Granted it could be a critical hit but it's all about arses in seats.
May 9, 2005, 4:52 a.m. CST
As long as it doesn't star Chris Rock and Jackie Chan, and as long as they don't alter it so much that it's Watchmen in name only. Remain close to the source material, don't deviate to add in more romance, or reduce the suspense, or get a PG rating. Shoot it straight, and accept whatever rating the MPAA gives it- I WILL buy several tickets even if it's NC-17, but I probably won't waste my time if it's PG and sanitized. I LOVE the idea of Rorschach being a complete unknown. GREAT IDEA! This movie could certainly be an amazing move for Paramount.
May 9, 2005, 4:53 a.m. CST
But, I do have hope and I'm not saying shit until I see a finished product. On the subject of Rorshach, I think the idea of an unknown would be brilliant. He's supposed to be anonymous and if they cast someone pretty, that would really suck. Everyone keeps mentioning Steve Buscemi, but no, please, let's not and say we did. That guy would turn the character into Steve Buscemi. I want someone I have no preconceptions about whatsoever. Also, someone kinda ugly would be nice. Somehow, I don't think we're gonna be seeing this movie any time soon. I don't think negotiations will go well and you're wrong, Moriarty. This is not a commercial film. It never was. It might do really well opening weekend, but the critics, the family groups and PC dickheads who run our society will rip it a new ass the following week. My prediction is that if it ever does get made, it'll do closer to what "Sin City" did.
May 9, 2005, 4:54 a.m. CST
that'll be hilary swank as the comedian, ron perlman as Laurie, and Joaquin Phoenix as the leopard thingy. Hold on a minute... Want Jude Law as Oyzmandias, Nick Chinlund as Rorshach and Billy Crudup as Dr Manhattan and I'll be as happy as a pig in shit. Not that it'll get made or anything...
May 9, 2005, 5:01 a.m. CST
Paramount, don't get wimp out Watchmen! This is THE movie comic freaks have been waiting for... don't bail on it, and don't get tight-wadded about it-- that way lies a compromised movie that will backfire! Movies like Hitchhiker's Guide and the Fantastic Four... you can practically feel the budgetary constraints in the trailers... don't get cheap. Done right, the film will be a MASSIVE blockbuster. Believe it.
May 9, 2005, 5:02 a.m. CST
Yes it's that good. Give it the money it needs to make you money!!
May 9, 2005, 5:03 a.m. CST
by Trevor Goodchild
Although an unknown is far better an idea. Liam Neeson for Dan.
May 9, 2005, 5:05 a.m. CST
"Duty" is dead-on. This movie must be grand in scope and vision. DO IT RIGHT!
May 9, 2005, 5:06 a.m. CST
perlman as the comedian? joaquin phoenix as the night owl? hilary swank as silk spectre? that's. fucking. sweet.
May 9, 2005, 5:07 a.m. CST
Jude Law, that is. He is apparently a big fan of the book. Sign me up for DVD, MOvie ticket, toys, tripledipping aswell.
May 9, 2005, 5:08 a.m. CST
Was anyone begging you to make 'Stepford Wives'? I don't think so. Watchmen could be the next Matrix if done right. Go for it.
May 9, 2005, 5:11 a.m. CST
The entire crew is ready to go, previs complete with an acclaimed script, and you're still twiddling your thumbs over this? Look at the Watchment graphic novel sales numbers. It's been number 1 ever since it was released I believe. Oh yeah, and talk to Jude Law about Ozymandias! Heard he's dying to play the role.
May 9, 2005, 5:14 a.m. CST
by Trevor Goodchild
Where can I go to read an indepth review of Watchman? Like to see it broken down and scrutinized.
May 9, 2005, 5:14 a.m. CST
let`s save this thing!
May 9, 2005, 5:14 a.m. CST
I'd love to see the movie you're talking about here. It deserves to be made, before someone else can get their hands on the property and turn it into the Niteowl and Rorchach adventure hour or worse, try to do it with the limited budget of TV.
May 9, 2005, 5:18 a.m. CST
by Cash Bailey
Both BLOODY SUNDAY and BOURNE SUPREMACY are minor masterworks. Like Mori said, Greengrass makes intelligent adult-oriented entertainments with real integrity. In my opinion there's no more important criteria in selecting a director to make WATHCMEN. Greengrass is the man and he will deliver.
May 9, 2005, 6 a.m. CST
i can honestly say that, after reading Moriarty's article and learning who is making it and what they have done soo far, I now have a LOT of hope this adaptation could turn out to be an incredible film. If everyone on board is as serious and focused and dedicated as it seems, and if the approach is right, then The Watchmen film will be the comic-book film that re-writes the genre and blows everyone's mind. If you're looking for a film that gets everyone talking, then this is it. But Paramount need to be able to trust the film-makers and not interfere in a way that harms the vision. a bad Watchmen film will not only send a 'screw you' message to the fans, but will i believe seriously harm the whole comic-book-to-film genre. this is era defining film-making in it's earliest and most vulnerable stages.... it needs our support.
May 9, 2005, 6:02 a.m. CST
A Watchmen movie done right will sell for decades, this could be the Citizen Kane of the superhero genre. Make this movie and make it right (with Greengrass and the Hayter Script) and you'll have a thing of value on your hands, commercial, critical and with the support of a large and vocal fanbase.
May 9, 2005, 6:04 a.m. CST
Obviously. And yea, I want this movie and I want it now. And not some watered down studio version. There is a film here we all know can be amazing. Grow some balls and make it.
May 9, 2005, 6:10 a.m. CST
Fuck it. I'd rather there be no Watchmen movie. Some comics are cool because they're just comics. Like any Watchmen movie could live up to the comic! It's like saying you're going to make a Dark Knight Returns movie. I rather not have a film version than have a shitty or even mediocre version.
May 9, 2005, 6:35 a.m. CST
by Cuban Pete
On the one hand, if they do it right, seeing Watchmen up on the big screen would be fantastic, but on the other hand if they fuck it up even in the slightest little way, I'll wish they hadn't bothered. And, let's face it, there's NO WAY the ending will remain intact. At all.
May 9, 2005, 6:40 a.m. CST
Watchmen is nothing more than a bad rewrite of an old Outer Limits episode (Moore admits this) and little more than an overly-prosey, overhyped display of pure contempt for the superhero genre. Discuss.
May 9, 2005, 7:11 a.m. CST
...I will most definitely watch the Watchmen. This has been one of my favorite comics of all time, and I really want to see the film done correctly. If it's good, I'm sure I'll toss plenty of $$ towards it in pure appreciative glee. So if any Paramount peeps are listening...you've heard me.
May 9, 2005, 7:14 a.m. CST
by Ra Ra Rasputin
MAKE THE GODDAMN MOVIE...please. If only to see Dr Manhattans big blue todger.Great.(hope they include the castaway segment somehow.
May 9, 2005, 7:17 a.m. CST
by Ra Ra Rasputin
). Blasted computers. SIMON PEGG should be in it.
May 9, 2005, 7:45 a.m. CST
i wouldnt be suprised if they cast someone like John C. Reilly as Night Owl. Not my pick, but meh, it wouldnt be so bad when you think about it. Oscar winning actress to play Laurie? Hmmm, Jennifer Connelly maybe? Angelina Jolie is too big for Laurie. I could see Catherine Zeta-Jones...but, Michael Douglas kind of ruined her for me. I woudlnt be suprised if they cast BURT REYNOLDS as the Comedian. Actually, thatd be kinda cool. Maybe Tom Selleck? This movie's gonna rock, and I damn near worship the comics. There's no heavy sign it'll blow.
May 9, 2005, 7:53 a.m. CST
by Dragon Man
I'm in complete agreement with you, Moriarty, on the fact that the whole Blade Runner/Tim Burton-esque gothic setting has been way-over done. Enough of that shit. I hope this does get made.
May 9, 2005, 7:54 a.m. CST
So, Comedian may be Ron P., shame Reynolds has had too many facelifts. What about Hasselhoff? I'd love to see him thrown out a window for his Nick Fury. Silk Spectre = Kim Basinger. Sorry.
May 9, 2005, 8:10 a.m. CST
This report has the same feel as that early Aint It Cool Q/A with Peter Jackson while he was getting ready to shoot The Lord of the Rings - it sounds like they're getting everything EXACTLY right. They'd be crazy not make this thing - yes, it could be the next Matrix, and at the very least it would have a long and happy afterlife on DVD like The Fight Club.
May 9, 2005, 8:37 a.m. CST
Joaquin Phoenix is a good actor, better than alot of the films he has been in, but he is too young for Dan, he should be quite a bit older than the Silk Spectre. Also this movie will make money, but only if it is very good. This is a film that will live or die by its critical acclaim, if reviews are great people will go to see it that haven't seen comic book films before, if not then it will be a major box office flop.
May 9, 2005, 8:38 a.m. CST
What better ending could there be?
May 9, 2005, 8:44 a.m. CST
...but because not everything needs to be adapted. There's this attitude (especially in Hollywood) that film is the ONLY legitimate medium, and until something is adapted to the big-screen it might as well not exist. Screw that. Let it stay the way Moore and Gibbons intended it. That's why Gilliam ultimately decided it was a bad idea. Anyway, that's my line every time the subject comes up, so I'm a broken record at this point.
May 9, 2005, 8:51 a.m. CST
An ending where the heroes manage to stop the villian from killing nearly everyone in New York City? It's a compromised ending, a horribly compromised ending and that's why it's so great. It's saying that the sacrifce of an entire city is worth the reward. It's about heroes who resign themselves to failure for the greater good. When I read this the first time it was like getting donkey-kicked in the nuts. General audiences (and remember, these are the fucker who thought enough of "The Pacifier" to pull it past $100 million.) WILL HATE THIS ENDING! They won't get it, it'll anger them and they will reject it. By the end of "Watchmen", there's not one sympathetic character to be had. Everyone is either got a ton of blood on their hands, given up and resigned themselves to what has happened, beomce so detatched from things that they've become something alien, or they're dead. That doesn't reek of blockbuster to me.
May 9, 2005, 8:57 a.m. CST
Maybe 'cause they're angry that ALL of New York isn't destroyed? 2001 is a long time ago, dude. Tell me if you watched "Independence Day" right now you wouldn't laugh when the White House gets blown up. Come on - try to convince me. I know I would. // By the way, the old Outer Limits episode where they turn a man into a fake space monster to scare the world into uniting is a pretty good episode. Ripping it off was a darn good idea. // I agree that the film won't make money, though. Not because of the ending, and not because the characters don't fit your ideal of what superheroes should be, but just because the comic isn't well known enough. And talking about ongoing sales of the graphic novel means nothing. Spiderman didn't translate into a successful film because of the comic's recent sales figures. It was because the character was familiar to basically every American. Everyone knows who Spiderman is, whether they read comics or not. No one knows who the Watchmen are. No. One. Everyone who is a comic geek or a Hollywood creative type or a graphic novel fan knows who the Watchmen are, and when they sit around in their peer groups and talk about the subject they can sometimes forget that "regular" ticket-buying people have no idea. Seriously, sometimes watching you folks is like watching a bunch of philosophy students talking about how everyone knows who Heidegger is. You can't go by your peer group, you sillies.
May 9, 2005, 8:57 a.m. CST
This movie will be a damn masterpiece...if it's executed right. Pearlman for The Comedian is inspired.
May 9, 2005, 9 a.m. CST
I would like to see Paul Greengrass's vision go up onscreen with David Hayter's script intact. I think the team to make it is assembled. All Paramount has to do is to give it a go. I will vote by watching the movie four times and I will definitely buy the DVD and OST on CD. So for the Paramount brass who read these posts online, if you want us to start making reservations, give me the link and I'll start reserving all these through credit card.
May 9, 2005, 9:16 a.m. CST
by New in NY
Watchment is a steady descent into hell. It's a suck punch to the gut that makes your stomach drop. You walk in with a glowing love of comic book characters and costumed superheroes looking after our best interest ... and by the end, the ground has dropped underneath your feet. Remember the first time you saw SE7EN? Remember the feeling you got when you realized what was in that package delivered to Brad Pitt by the killer? THAT'S the feeling that this movie needs to build up to. If done right, this movie will be the greatest mindfuck in the history of the superhero genre. Simple, well-intentioned, iconic superheroes ... become involved and sign-off on the greatest disaster in human history ... and (cue ultimate mindfuck) it's for our own good! GAH!!! Yes, this is unmakeable after 9/11 ... Yes, it will be gloriously offensive to many reasonable viewers ... Yes, it may have trouble making a buck ... THAT IS WHY THIS MUST GET MADE, AND GET MADE RIGHT!
May 9, 2005, 9:21 a.m. CST
Although I was reading comics when Watchmen was originally on the stands, I didn't pick it up till last year. Maybe it's just that I was expecting too much, or maybe it's because my tastes have changed, but I though Watchmen was overrated. I thought the book was boring, the characters were hard to connect with, it was much longer than it needed to be, and the ending came from so far out of left field that I felt it ruined what little excitement it had built up. Who cares if they make a Watchmen movie. The whole comic book movie genre is a but dead, no more original than the terrible film adaptations of old TV shows. I have to say though, if this film must be made, make it there at Paramount with this group of artists. Don't let it go to another studio like Fox, where they'll give it to their resident hack Paul W.S. Anderson. See nay sayers, it could be worse.
May 9, 2005, 9:25 a.m. CST
May 9, 2005, 9:29 a.m. CST
1) The story material is out of date, and 2) Doing it any way other than animated is a waste of time. A film version should have hit movie screens at least ten years ago.
May 9, 2005, 9:31 a.m. CST
Greengrass will make this a towering classic. The amount of pure shit that gets greenlit is just mind boggling yet when a truly awesome comic is tapped for adaptation by a highly talented (and proven!!!)BAFTA winning filmmaker (and author: 'Spycatcher' anyone?)....the studio's shit themselves. What the fuck is going on with these studios??? Just greenlight the bloody thing!!!
May 9, 2005, 9:33 a.m. CST
Jude Law for Ozymandius!
May 9, 2005, 9:50 a.m. CST
Sin City, Batman, From Hell, there are few comics that AREN'T edgy these days. Heck, the WB even edgified Bugs & Daffy.
May 9, 2005, 9:51 a.m. CST
Look, the fact of the matter is...everything is a gamble. If Fight Club had a 20 year life as the holy grail of novels before Fincher made a film out of it, there would be all this shit talking about its ending too. I mean, come on. The Watchmen story is awesome, and everything can translate if the translators speak the right languages. There are several things about Watchmen that will require care, the main thing being that it does NOT pull punches...so the movie shouldn't either; I pray for the R. Watchmen is one of those special stories that Mort pointed out is a critique on the rest of the genre. The movie can be a part of that. It has the opportunity to be a stand-out piece, and if handled properly, could have the marathon shelf life of movies like Bladerunner. If the studio looks to make a family friendly, record weekend blockbuster out of this though, they should just leave it alone. Universal has the chance to do something special. Sign me up for two tickets and the DVD if we keep Hayter's script, Greengrass, and the artistic impetus we seem to be hearing about here and at CHUD.
May 9, 2005, 9:51 a.m. CST
All this talk about the ending being a downer is pure shit. Hey, remember that film 'Titanic'? Yeah that had a REAL fucking happy ending. Didn't do much box office either. OK Wtachmen ain't Kate and Leo syrupy shit, but it's a bullshit judgement call to say that audiences don't want to have an ending that makes them 'think' or that they won't pay to see a film that on paper seems like a downer. It's the characters that'll make this a great movie. Sure characters in the Watchmen doubt themselves, have blood on their hands and pretty much give in - but it's the reasons WHY that make the story great and it's how Greengrass will handle it that'll make it accessible to audiences.
May 9, 2005, 9:53 a.m. CST
by Gus Nukem
and this comic series is better left untraslated to other media
May 9, 2005, 9:57 a.m. CST
i hope i've misread Moriarty's hints but if that cast is true then the film already has shown a significant departure from the characters in the comic. Anyone who's seen Woody Allen's Melinda & Melinda will have seen that Will Ferrell could add a great pathos to the role of Dan, whilst still being big enough to convince as a strong crime-fighter. and if he's not available then maybe John Cusack but even Matthew Perry wouldn't be a bad choice if you think about it. Alec Baldwin would have been great but he's too old now (maybe play the original NiteOwl?). Jude Law would be great as Oz but so would the oft-suggested Cary Elwes. and The Comedian? Hasselhoff would be good, better than Perlman (remember that The Comedian is supposed to be attractive to women!!) perhaps also Billy Bob Thornton. Burt Reynolds is too old. What worries me about the names that Moriarty hints at is that they seem to be going for hot talent because they think it will be easier to sell the movie to Paramount with those names attached. But it's more important that the characters are right, because it's the STORY that will decide whether this film is a success or not. After all, when you watch The Incredibles you're not thinking about who the voice actors are.
May 9, 2005, 9:57 a.m. CST
by Calico Pete
Is that the adventurous choice the unnamed studio is afraid will be ravaged on the 'net? Come on Mori, what director, what comic book movie, and what actor are you talking about? As for Watchmen, if Paramount indeed has the option of making the Citizen Kane of comic book movies, and they don't take it, then they should get out of the movie biz. There are much safer and more boring ways for you to make money. But if Paramount takes the risk to try and make something good, something visionary, and something that will last, then my family, friends, and I will be there buying tickets. And I'd get the DVD too. I might draw the line at getting a ticket for the Broadway musical, but no, actually... Count me in for that too!
May 9, 2005, 9:58 a.m. CST
I'm betting on StarFleet Academy, because it can be done cheap (no expensive alien planets or space battles) and it'll have teen-appeal. A sci-fi Hogwarts, or "The OC" in space.
May 9, 2005, 10:02 a.m. CST
It sounds like the people running this project get it better than anyone else. I doubt it will get than chance again. I think one day a Watchmen movie will get made, somewhere some how. I rather see it made now by these people than some other idiot who will make major changes to put their style into the character.
May 9, 2005, 10:14 a.m. CST
That's the unique selling point of Watchmen to me. None of this Gotham/Metropolis/fictitious scenario stuff. We actually see a REAL world with superheroes living in it. So change the ending of you think it's too gory. The story still ends with the whole world at peace, which is hardly a downer. Sure, it needs re-working but it's a hell of an idea to end a movie on.
May 9, 2005, 10:14 a.m. CST
by Calico Pete
Read the interview w/Greengrass on chud.com (from sometime in March I think)... he talks about updating it: how he's planning to do it, and why it'll work. And ya know what? He makes an argument so convincing that afterwards I was skipping around, drawing little bloody smiley face countdown reminders in all the calendars around the house, and feeling fucking great that 1) we finally have a potentially GREAT superhero movie coming out w/full studio support (as opposed to the ones we've seen already... at best very good but usually 'meh') and 2) that David Lynch was apparently re-cutting Dune for DVD. When I found out that #2 was probably just a cruel lie and #1 was possibly up in smoke because the Paramount shakeup... well, I was not happy. It took a lot of work to put the bloody smiley faces in all my calendars, and it took a helluva lot more work to turn them all upside down.
May 9, 2005, 10:21 a.m. CST
Do the movie right. Then sell it to adults. Worked for SIN CITY, didnt it? Worked for Constantine. Dont cast Jessica Alba, or the guy from ENTOURAGE. Cast it with who is best, and then MAKE that person a star, based on performance. Don't be a pussy, Paramount. Pussy ass LCD comic movies are for Fox. Have some balls, or ovaries.
May 9, 2005, 10:34 a.m. CST
by Jar Jar 4 Prez
they actually listen to what people who care about comics think. They've never made a good Batman movie, we're about to get a totally shitty FF movie, and they gave Wonder Woman to that retarded Buffy guy... They just don't care. Watchmen should be left alone. Much like FROM HELL, it works BECAUSE IT'S A COMIC. Duh.
May 9, 2005, 10:37 a.m. CST
If you read this, Paramount, I'm sorry for calling you Universal... Me fail English? That's unpossible!
May 9, 2005, 10:39 a.m. CST
by Hoke Mosley
Greengrass is an awesome director! Now, the TV version directed by Gilliam is laying aroun somewhere on Sandman's library of dreams, but if the new script is as good as Moriarty says, then who gives a shit? Now, if there really is someone listening (and I doubt it), please make this movie!! My two cents on the cast: unknown for Rorshach; Ron Perlman or Burt Reynolds for the comedian.
May 9, 2005, 10:46 a.m. CST
...infront of kung fu hustle. It looked pretty good.
May 9, 2005, 10:47 a.m. CST
I have no idea how they're gonna squeeze it into 2-3 hours - guess all that Tales of The Black Freighter stuff will be jettisoned, and along w/ a lot of other things. If they can make a high quality flick w/ a stellar cast AND market it properly, I think there is a lot of potential, regardless of the ending or how dated the comic may be. That is a lot to ask, of course, but it seems like the film is on the right track right now, from what I've read. I say go for it - better "Watchmen" than "Along Came a Spider 2", IMHO
May 9, 2005, 10:55 a.m. CST
What I saw, was a trailer for Night Watch, at http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/night_watch/large.html Any relation???
May 9, 2005, 10:55 a.m. CST
by Hoke Mosley
Give me Liberty better than Watchmen?? Are you fucking nuts?! Watchmen is a modern masterpiece, like Marvelman, Moore's run on the Swamp Thing and V For Vendeta.
May 9, 2005, 10:58 a.m. CST
What did you guys not like about the ending? In terms of the comic, I mean. I can also see why it would be problematic as a movie ending. But in the comic itself, why did you hate it so much? To me it seemed to fit the story quite well.
May 9, 2005, 11:01 a.m. CST
by The Heathen
First off, Watchmen isn't a summer movie. If release it around November or December you could have the chance to bring in more of an audience. Because if done right this film could garner Oscar buzz and pull in those curious average people who might not have considered seeing a "comic" movie. I'm afraid if released in the summer it would be forgotten in a week by Superman or X-Men 3 or anything else that is more easy to swallow. Give it some breathing room. Titanic and ROTS pretty much everyone knows how they wil end unless their "new." The average movie goer will see costumes and think "fun." And although I love Watchmen, it really isn't the most fun read. That said, Chapter 4 is probably the single best issue of a comic I can remember.
May 9, 2005, 11:03 a.m. CST
is the silliest thing I've ever seen...good luck with that one
May 9, 2005, 11:10 a.m. CST
I think he's talking about Spacey (K-Pax) for Dan -- if you look up Lloyd on IMDB. Perlman (excellent) and Swank (excellent) -- so far so good, though Ed Norton would kick ass as Rorschach. I also vote for Jack Black as the red-head kid in the magazine office.
May 9, 2005, 11:21 a.m. CST
by The Reef
Although if you smack David Caruso in the face with somebody elses career he might just be able to screw this up. Hell I'm tall, ugly enough and physically up for it. I don't mind having my face hidden by a mask or being photographed with snot running down my face. Good luck casting this guy, it'll be a tough call.
May 9, 2005, 11:25 a.m. CST
I personally think Watchmen will blow audiences away in a similar manner as the first Matrix movie (that movie did pretty well as I recall!). That's how the studio should think of and market this movie. I WILL go see it! (as long as they make the Hayter/Greengrass version) And I will bring all my amigos!
May 9, 2005, 11:35 a.m. CST
by The Heathen
He would be good as Dan, but having him as Luthor IF the movie is released summer 06 could be a studio/scheduling problem. Swank and Perlman would be great. And if we are really talking to Paramount because they listen to the internet - fucking get Jude Law to play Ozymandias. He wants to Paramount! Let him. He has a tatoo of Rorschach for christ sakes.
May 9, 2005, 11:44 a.m. CST
by Homer Sexual
I would so like to believe that quote is actually true, but I have my doubts. I agree that a movie of Watchmen, done well, would only do Sin City-esque box office. I can't imagine releasing this movie as an "R," it will inevitably be PG-13, will probably suck and will probably not be a big hit. I'm crossing my fingers because the potential casting sounds great and I trust Moriarty on the script, but the finished product will be ...?
May 9, 2005, 11:49 a.m. CST
I've read AICN for god knows how long but I never felt the need to post something here till I read this article. I'm a huge fan of Watchmen and I hope they actually do get to make a really good movie out of it.
May 9, 2005, 12:07 p.m. CST
Dear Watchmen producers. I will come and see the film on the condition that you tell your director to KEEP THE DAMN CAMERA STILL FOR FIVE FUCKING SECONDS. Strapping a camera to a floor buffer and 25 edits per second do not an action scene make. Pull the camera back and let the audience see the action. Film school over.
May 9, 2005, 12:14 p.m. CST
'cause I wanna see it. nuff said
May 9, 2005, 12:19 p.m. CST
with generally shitty reviews. Admittedly that has alot to do with Keanu, but if you get some oscar quality actors in there this would easily make its budget back.
May 9, 2005, 12:25 p.m. CST
I was initially skeptical that Hayter and Greengrass had the ability to pull off such a monumental adaptation. In fact, I was in the
May 9, 2005, 12:27 p.m. CST
See, by the SIGNS rumor and the fact that Nite Owl is so prominent, I figured Mel Gibson (who would be a great Comedian). Joaquin Phoenix and Hilary Swank, however... boring actors. Still, Greengrass is probably smart enough to get past that. If he worked with Julia Stiles, he can work with anyone.
wolf at the door: "despite the fact that batman, superman and spiderman are household names, who can overlook the obvious commercial appeal of WATCHMEN? i hear burger king and taco bell are already fighting for the licensing rights. i mean, what kid wouldn't want a rorchach action doll?" --Let me be the first to say that you seem to have a very skewed vision of success, not to mention who Watchmen appeals to and why.
May 9, 2005, 12:50 p.m. CST
In spite of my innate cynicism, it's hard not to get excited when you hear the specifics... and here's to casting REAL ACTORS rather than wrestlers or celebrities.
May 9, 2005, 12:53 p.m. CST
by Right Bastard
I really don't think the studios read these message boards, but for what it's worth, I will be there opening day. It sounds like Greengrass knows what he's doing, and won't screw things up!
May 9, 2005, 12:53 p.m. CST
Spend some cash--get a good cast--people will come.
May 9, 2005, 12:55 p.m. CST
Is there a relation, or are these two completely different entities? The Night Watch trailer was cool btw.
May 9, 2005, 12:59 p.m. CST
the concept of truckloads of cash and film awards scares you. Dickless wonders.
May 9, 2005, 1 p.m. CST
Therefore I eagerly await it's release. Several of my friends keep asking me if I've heard anything about the Watchmen film. You see, we've been following this adaptation since Terry Gilliam was attached to it back in the early '90s. My friends and I want this film to get made and to be made well. Paramount please greenlight the Watchmen film! -Matt, Seattle
May 9, 2005, 1:01 p.m. CST
"Spend some cash--get a good cast--people will come." Spoken like a true porno visionary. Sorry, couldn't resist.
May 9, 2005, 1:06 p.m. CST
May 9, 2005, 1:08 p.m. CST
Remember one of the last nearly abandoned projects Moriarty championed that went on to be made? I think it was called ANCHORMAN: THE LEGEND OF RON BURGUNDY...
May 9, 2005, 1:08 p.m. CST
The Watchmen is about tearing comic books apart, not about glorifying them. It's brilliant, to be sure, but as a comic book, it's hardly the end-all be-all of the genre. If anything, The Watchmen is responsible for an incredible amount of bad comics. It seems every schlock writer decided that what every major comic book character suddenly needed was that down-n-dirty "Watchmen" treatment. Where we get into the superheroes heads and see "what makes them tick." What unbelievable bullshit. As a result, we got a Green Lantern who became a mass murderer, an split-personality, abused as a child Bruce Banner, an alcoholic Tony Stark, etc., etc., and as we got all of that "realism," comics became less and less fun and less and less imaginitive until we come to today's comics, where major plotlines revolve around the rape and murder of superheroes (pick up the odious Identity Crisis if you don't believe me). Ugh. I'll be interested in seeing this, but if it's a success, I'm afraid it will only lead to another two decades of crap comics.
May 9, 2005, 1:24 p.m. CST
May 9, 2005, 1:35 p.m. CST
by Trevor Goodchild
May 9, 2005, 1:39 p.m. CST
Sounds like a solid cast right there. They're going for the right looks AND talent it seems.
May 9, 2005, 1:41 p.m. CST
May 9, 2005, 1:48 p.m. CST
I will suck one dick for every million that you put into this film. I know it's not gonna be a pleasant time for me emotionally or psychologically, but I'm willing to endure it to see this done right. Hey, if you decide not to make the film or if you cut funding in half, it's not like you have any balls anyway.
May 9, 2005, 1:51 p.m. CST
...that will have comic shops buying up full houses in theaters. If a studio is too afraid to make more money than god by sitting back and doing nothing while Greengrass and co do all the work, then they don't deserve this. Now, whether it's ultimately good or not, we'll have to wait and see. But I think we deserve that opportunity to wait and see it, by letting them make the movie.
May 9, 2005, 1:52 p.m. CST
and I'll go see it, and I'll tell everyone I know to see it as well.
May 9, 2005, 2:19 p.m. CST
by Stan the Bat
...comic books are sufficiently low-profile, and the number of people required to produce them is sufficiently small, that genuinely subversive content can appear in a comic book without being filtered out in the production process. This is no longer true of movies, and this is why any Watchmen movie that gets made will be crap. They might cast people who look just right; they might make Watchmen happy meals; they might figure out a way to turn it into a Big Box Office property. But the real substance of it will be gone.
May 9, 2005, 2:47 p.m. CST
What the Godfather was to the gangster genre... What 2001: A Space Odyssey was to the science fiction genre... What Unforgiven was to the western genre... What Moulin Rouge was to the musical genre... What Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind was to the romance genre... Watchmen could be the same kind of "answer" to the superhero genre, which by now, on film, has grown familiar and conventional (and tired)
May 9, 2005, 2:48 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...as a perfect film, it is a pretty good example of how a comic book movie can be done for a comic book audience. Rodriguez and friends weren't terribly concerned with making it commercially appealing. They labored instead to make it a worthy tribute to the comics. For the most part, they succeeded... and they made their money back. Watchmen needs to be approached like that (not made in the style of Sin City, mind you). It needs to be a labor of love for a director with the support and trust of a studio that isn't looking desperately for the next huge Hollywood hit. It needs to cast actors who believe in the director and the project (if Jude Law wants to play Ozymandius, let him take a pay cut). That's the only way Watchmen can be a great movie. Put too much pressure on it to be "commercially viable" and you'll be tempted to tinker too much with it (like Sin City, it's not a story that's terribly concerned with fitting any sort of standard, easily relatable mold), and then you might as well not bother with it at all.
May 9, 2005, 2:48 p.m. CST
May 9, 2005, 3:11 p.m. CST
If they can get down that SlaughterHouse5 feeling of the Docs trip to Mars, I think we could have something special.
May 9, 2005, 3:19 p.m. CST
May 9, 2005, 3:21 p.m. CST
Not even a word of *what* it is. Who the hell are "Watchmen"? "What's it all about, then, oh my brothers?"
May 9, 2005, 3:34 p.m. CST
Well, certainly not the BEST mass delusion, if it is one. I've seen it before in my town, for Spider-Man and Sin City, and what not. Star Wars fans did it for Phantom Menace. Churches did it for the Passion (I'll leave any connection between that movie and mass delusion to you). Course that's just for opening weekend, then fanboys routinely forget. But then again, that's all movie studios care about these days, which is the whole reason they mine comics for their ready-made fanbases already.
May 9, 2005, 3:40 p.m. CST
i'm just sayin'.
May 9, 2005, 3:56 p.m. CST
...is, in fact, bullshit. As someone pointed out, Constantine made 217 million worldwide, what, because Keanu and Rachel Weisz are just that hot? And that movie didn't exactly have positive word of mouth on its side. As for "you can't blow up half of New York," you remember a little movie called "The Day After Tomorrow" that grossed more than half a billion world wide? So far Sin City has done, what, 80 million bucks in the US alone, released at the beginning of April, relatively small budget, a visual style that'll scare away half the public right from the start, and an extremely well-deserved R rating. This will have ten times the geek following right off the bat, it'll appeal to audiences as much as Constantine did, and a hell of a lot more than Sin City, if it gets an R, well, so did both of those flicks, but I don't think it needs one to stay true to the comic (hell, with the MPAA the way it is all you need to do to avoid an R is drop out all the "Fucks".) and if it's made right it could win all kinds of awards. It may be a dark movie, but people don't always shy away from dark. As for there being no likable characters, Dan and Laurie have a lot of potential to be likable if they're cast right. Saying "it'll look silly, it'll be depressing, and the ending sucks" is idiotic. Most of the story isn't Dan hopping around as NiteOwl, it's creepy-ass Rorscach, FX-heavy Manhattan, plain-clothes Dan and Laurie, and attractive and charismatic Veidt. You don't need to market this like Spider-Man with Niteowl shooting off one-liners while piloting the Owl-jet at 700 mph through the streets of New York, the biggest moneymaker in history wasn't a scifi spectacular it was a romance adventure with no really likable characters and a depressing ending. (Titanic or Gone With the Wind, take your pick.) Make sure the movie doesn't suck and make sure you cast Laurie, Dan, and Veidt to maximum likability/attractiveness and I'll guarantee a moneymaker. It'll beat the hell out of Cosntantine, anyway.
May 9, 2005, 4:21 p.m. CST
by Jack Gladney
Yeah, maybe he's not the best choice, but I've been a big fan of that suggestion ever since I saw it suggested years ago (it may have even been a talkback on this very site). Anyway, I would watch this movie. Paramount has nothing to lose by trying, anyway.
May 9, 2005, 4:24 p.m. CST
If this movie is in as capable hands as Mori and Devin at chud.com claim, and if it is made as it is SUPPOSED to be made, I will be there opening night with as many of my friends that I can drag with me. Hell, I'll probably see it three times. But it has to be done right, and from the sounds of things these guys will make it right.
May 9, 2005, 4:26 p.m. CST
by Jack Potts
...would be Sylvester Stallone. Sylvester Stallone has spent considerable time attempting to distance himself from the iconic character of Rambo. In the role of The Comedian, for once, his age and cinematic baggage would be an asset. The first thing we learn about Edward Blake is that he's an older guy who's built like a weightlifter. That's Stallone. Also, for the moviegoer who is unfamiliar with the source material, the messy and violent death of Stallone ninety seconds into the film would be a clear sign that this is not the standard superhero movie. The Comedian was, in part, a commentary on the tough-guy, ultra-violent, ultra-jingoistic male ideal of the 1980s, which Rambo embodied. Casting Stallone in the role would add a tremendous resonance to the part. Since The Comedian's role in the book is a glorified cameo, but he is such a vital catalyst and connector of the events that occur, I think you need an actor with the stature and baggage that Stallone brings.
May 9, 2005, 4:28 p.m. CST
Uh, actually, no it won't, because if the book's NYC ending is made (and by all accounts it IS left intact, albeit in a less messy fashion from what I understand), it will likely be VERY controversial. And by your logic, people won't go see that movie if they find out about that. Dudes, where the hell have you been? THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS BAD PUBLICITY. In fact, making something so controversial will actually cause a stir and get MORE people interested in a movie that they otherwise might have just dismissed as "another superhero movie." Seriously, people, use your heads.
May 9, 2005, 4:33 p.m. CST
Nah. Watchmen was the first Alan Moore I ever read, and was among the first comics I ever read, and I loved it. You don't need to be a comic book fan to appreciate a deconstruction of the superhero genre. You'll be hard-pressed to find someone who's never seen ANY of the Superman movies or TV shows, ANY of the Batman movies or TV shows, ANY of the Spider-Man movies or TV shows, ANY of the X-Men movies or TV shows... Hell, my brother's entire comic book repetoire consisted of some Preacher, Johnny the homicidal Maniac, and Ultimate Spider-Man I'd lent him and he "got" Watchmen. Even if you've enver seen a superhero movie, almost all of the riffing on superheroes can be applied to action heroes in general. James Bond and Indiana Jones are in their way as much superheroes as Batman. They have special skills, distinctive outfits, trademark names, and they perform seemingly superhuman feats in the name of a personal code, often saving the world at the same time, with distinctive and seemingly overpowering villains. We're not talking about say, Kingdom Come, where you really do need to know DC to understand what's happening, we're talking about a response to thematic elements that inhabit any story that has a distinct hero and a distinct villain. The ideas in Watchmen have as much appeal as those in The Matrix or in Star Wars. I wouldn't predict Watchmen will be as successful as those ventures, there's too much chance in that, but Watchmen will be perfectly well understood by anyone who's ever thought the world was getting out of hand and wished someone would come along and fix it. It may depress those people, but the sad truth is most of the best movies are depressing as hell, and that's never been antithetical to them making some money.
May 9, 2005, 4:57 p.m. CST
I actually took Mori's hint for the Comedian to be Jeffrey Tambor. Perlman is way more obvious but he didn't even occur to me. It probably WAS Perlman that Mori was referring to, and he'd be a great choice, but Tambor would be too IMO. Hillary Swany as Laurie? Uh, okay. Not really how I see her at all but whatever. Good actress and all that. Someone more, well voluptuous and full-faced would be my ideal. Charlize Theron would be great. And I definitely took the Dan thing to be Mel Gobson, not Phoenix. He's a tad old though, and I'm not sure I really like him much all that more. If they could find a guy who looked like a young Mel for the flashbacks (whom Mel could dub over) that could be really cool. I always saw Dan as Jeff Goldblum, myself, but he's too old too. But anyway, Paramoutn, PLEASE make this movie. With good actors (and I could definitely live with Permal, Swank and Gibson) and the right creative team (and this Greengrass certainly seems to know what he's doing) Watchmen could be REALLY special. Just let Paul do his thing.
May 9, 2005, 5:02 p.m. CST
Here's hoping this talented group of people are allowed to put their interpretation of this classic onscreen.
May 9, 2005, 5:08 p.m. CST
I think John Cusack would be the perfect Dan, he's approximately the right age, he's not superhumanly good looking, but he's definitely likable, obviously intelligent, and a fantastic actor. I could deal with Gibson, but he seems a bit too old, a bit too tough. I don't think Dan should be a natural action star. Swank's not my choice for Laurie, either, but she's got the talent to do it. I'd be more inclined to go along the lines of Anna Paquin, though she's a bit young for it. But Laurie should be someone who you can see being a cute, innocent little kid even as she plays a more distressed, bitter part. Ron Perlman would be an awesome, awesome comedian, though I think the Stallone idea had obvious merits. Dr. Manhattan I'm fairly open-minded about. I think with him the performance itself matters more than the look or natural charisma of the actor, because he's essentially inhuman. One I'm really perplexed on is Veidt, though. I can't immediately call to mind someone who can give the impression of being vastly intelligent, considered, arrogant, educated, and superior while still being good looking and absolutely athletic. Not that dream-casting gets anyone anywhere, but after Sin City managed to hit a whole lotta nails right on the head, it somehow seems less unlikely.
May 9, 2005, 5:36 p.m. CST
I don't know why people have such a hard time believing that studios might use the internet message boards as a tool to decide whether or not to go ahead on a movie. Especially when you consider the power an advanced screening and some comment cards have. I'm not saying that message boards are the beat all, end all, but when there's so much on the line, it makes sense to me that they'll want to see what people have to say. By the way, I would go see Watchmen.
May 9, 2005, 5:52 p.m. CST
yes, it was steeped in 80s cold war culture. yes, the ending will cause discomfort because of the echoes of 911. these things only enhance the value of this property. if you seriously believe that what was an 80s feeling book can't be translated into a contemporary movie, you obviously don't remember the 80s OR the cold war and feeling of goverment-fanned paranoia that translates directly to our own issues of "homeland security" of taday. the transition is effortless for any writer worth a damn, and hayter is on top of his shit. the ending of the books was exactly what this world and this country need to be shown on a large scale. we need to know that there will always be a greater threat than the one we know, and sometimes it will come from an old ally such as bin laden, hussein, milosovic, quadaffi, etc. we create our own worst enemies. this story depicts that, and if done right, could be controversial enough to rake in mountains of cash at the box office. where comic movies fail, like fantastic four will, is that they take properties too old to really appeal to today's kids and make them happy shiny primary-colored crap that no one over 25 could ever care about, alienating all audiences except longtime fans who will go knowing they will be disappointed. these stories cannot be updated because they're just archetypes and costumes and gadgets and that's all they could ever be because their stories fail to speak to the real world, they are pure fantasy with no true emotions other than maybe the occasional pang of pathos. if they avoid that, and let this movie be the wakeup call it could be, mountains of cash are in the offing. all they really need is to have the religious right freak out and start demonstrating and everyone will see it. i metaphorically watch the watchmen every day, and so should you.
May 9, 2005, 6:03 p.m. CST
...until Alan Moore agrees that the movie won't be a travesty of the comic. If the author doesn't think it can be made, then it probably can't.
May 9, 2005, 6:05 p.m. CST
Yawn. It's always a little bit fascinating watching when talkbacks get like this. Seems to be a contest of who's more cynical. Fanboys more than anyone confusing jaded cynicism with acquired wisdom, hoping to distinguish themselves as being somehow less pathetic than the other individuals furiously arguing over movies that haven't been made, about people who don't even exist. The formula seems to go: Person A will imply a person is pathetic for posting about said random movie. Person B will then imply that person A is more pathetic, because what's more pathetic, bitching about movies or bitching about bitchers bitching about movies? (Recusion is only useful when coding) talkbackers are always hoping to prove that they are somehow a cut above the others. Mentioning someone living in their parents' basement scores you some points in this regard, mentioning Joss Whedon scores you even more. In any event, I never made the argument that it would turn out a large audience, but at the same time I don't expect that to stop you. So goes the game, as I said. Whether it will appeal to the mainstream remains to be seen. I think it would depend more on marketing than content, to be brutally honest. Most likely they'd market it as a special effects-laden superhero romp. And as I previously mentioned, movie studios make the bulk of their profits openning weekend (theater owners then taking a wider chunk of the box office take as each week progresses.) And now you can proceed to mention all the pussy you are getting, or all the pussy I (whom you have never met) am missing out on. I promise I will act interested and not bored.
May 9, 2005, 6:37 p.m. CST
The story is called "Watchmen". It revolves around the phrase "Who watches the Watchmen?" It's not just about "mutually assure destruction", it's about what governments do when we're not looking, it's about people who are willing to resort to violence to do what they think is right, and it's about war and terror. What is the ending of the book if not a horrendous act of terrorism? If anything, the current world situation is the natural result of Watchmen: One of the prose pieces in the book tries to make the point that Russia may be crazy enough to kill themselves to strike at us. Now we know for sure those people are out there. They may need to play up some parts and play down others, but those choices get made in any adaptation and they don't make the adaptation any less genuine.
May 9, 2005, 7:16 p.m. CST
jude law or viggo as MADMAN(for the madman movie that'll be made someday)
May 9, 2005, 7:24 p.m. CST
Paul Greengrass is a good choice for director, and I'll have to hope the script by Hayter is good, as well. As to the cast, I'll have to borrow some other people's choices for myself: Ian Mcshane as The Comedian. Jude Law as Ozymandias. John C. Reilly as Rorshach. Russell Crowe as Nite Owl. (or maybe Jack Black?) Catherine Zeta-Jones as Silk Spectre 2. Guy Pearce as Dr. Manhattan. Sean Connery as Hollis. Lynda Carter as Silk Spectre 1. As to the plot, it HAS to end like the comic: with the threat of Veidt's dastardly scheme being revealed by Rorshach's journal. (After NY is already destroyed) Note to Greengrass: less handheld, shakey-cam in the film. It's cool in small doses, but don't over do it...
May 9, 2005, 8:39 p.m. CST
May 9, 2005, 8:50 p.m. CST
May 9, 2005, 8:51 p.m. CST
May 9, 2005, 9:25 p.m. CST
First off, Congrats on the kid, Drew...now back to fantasy...consider this article a favor to Loyd Levin, the patron saint of all web-geeks who want to be apart of The Wood. He's the one pimping Meg for CHUD, he's behind at least one AICN project...he is the real door opener for Drew and company...so it would appear Watchmen is not tracking well within Paramount, possibly because the on-line response has been tepid...perhaps this piece is meant as a way to try and reverse course for this project...if this is not true, then why would Drew spend the first several paragraphs refuting every reason *not* to make this film? His broad sweeping "people will get it" notion is such an unfounded and half-ass argument, it's laughable...to translate a comic that was designed as a parable about comic archetypes into an espionage film negates the whole purpose of the mini-series...in other words, remove what made Watchmen unique and you're just doing a standard superhero story, which, in turn, becomes a parody of Watchmen, intentionally or not...this is probably beyond Drew so I'll stop now.
May 9, 2005, 9:35 p.m. CST
Avi smashed a few non-Marvel superhero deals at Sony and don't think he was tickled pink about the greenlight they originally gave Hellboy...I doubt Grey is going to be willing to push the bible of comics now, considering it's a DC property...and to understand the Paramount/Marvel deal, you have to realize how tight the market is getting on superhero projects. WB is going to pump out one a year alongside Marvel properties...why would Avi want more properties in the marketplace, especially after he had to secure his own line of financing to produce his pics.
May 9, 2005, 9:53 p.m. CST
by Bart of Darkness
The Watchmen film will lose so much of the detail present in the comic book it will be like watching phantoms of the characters we know so well. Not everything has to be made into a film y'know. Hollywood, try coming up with an original idea for a change (some hope!).
May 9, 2005, 10:05 p.m. CST
by Rant Breath
I'm a genius!
May 9, 2005, 10:20 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
Lloyd Levin has nothing to do with either of Harry's film projects, or with anything I'm doing. Not a thing. I've never worked with Lloyd professionally. I've never even had a meeting with Lloyd about my own work. Your points about the new Marvel deal are actually good points, and I'll admit... I didn't consider Marvel once as I wrote this piece. I'm simply a fan of this project... this script... and I would love to see it happen. I know it's hard to comprehend writing something positive unless there's some sort of hidden benefit, but that's the difference between you and me, genro... I do it all the time.
May 9, 2005, 10:22 p.m. CST
by Rant Breath
Look what they did to the League of Extraordinary Gentlement! Go watch Alien vs Predator. They hate us.
May 9, 2005, 10:31 p.m. CST
that's all i wanna see
May 9, 2005, 11:31 p.m. CST
And I'll tell you why. Because in this post 9-11 world where hollywood and the media dicate what we can and cannot SEE in a film...the end of the watchmen story will be GONE and changed. Only george lucas or mel gibson has the audacity and wealth necessary to depict such an event. Again, I'm sorry...but its going to suck in ways you people would'nt believe.
May 10, 2005, 1:04 a.m. CST
John Cusack as Night Owl. Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie. Sly Stallone or Ron Pearlman would be fine as the Comedian, but part of me really wants to see Roddy Piper in that role. I always pictured either Denis Leary or Jason Statham as Rorsharch. Jeff Goldblum or Nicolas Cage as Ozymandias. Vin Diesel as Dr. Manhattan (i know I'm gonna get shit for this, but I'm serious)
May 10, 2005, 2:36 a.m. CST
Well said, Moriarty. I'm going to be frank: since Greengrass took over, everything I've heard about WATCHMEN has me excited. This news from Moriarty, in particular, is absolutely spectacular. In addition to the incredible story Alan Moore created, there were also amazing visuals that I think some people over look. Great designs, like Rorschach and of course Dr. Manhattan. My number one concern was that they would ruin these concepts, but the what Moriarty has said has very nearly eliminated those concerns. Paramount needs to make this film.
May 10, 2005, 3:04 a.m. CST
And tamethecunt, you're wrong, but I will say that if the actress in consideration is who I think it is, I'm all for it. She'd make a good Laurie. Also, I'm thinking who they're thinking for The Comedian would make a hell of a good choice too, especially since my mind went there before I even got the clue.
May 10, 2005, 3:07 a.m. CST
I've only read one comic in the last ten years, it was Watchmen and it knocked me on my ass... I'm there.
May 10, 2005, 3:42 a.m. CST
...it's not necessary to need to know about Alan Moore or have a huge fanbase to make bank. While it certainly increases a movie's chances, it's not like everything ever made that made heaps of cash has had some sort of "following" before release.
May 10, 2005, 4:35 a.m. CST
You as in paramount have something very special,they just need to have faith,step aside and support this project. It'll be worth the gamble. IF your running a film studio then your in a high position too know how to gamble big inlife and this game we be worth in"money wise,and critial",lets get back the studio,and was bold in the seventies when Robert Evans was making bold films for paramounts time. These were the films of their days that change the way the world viewed cinema,films like Rosemaries baby,and Godfather,and such...best of luck to Paramount and to all involved on this project.... INDEPENDENT PRODUCER ROBERT ALLEN WAGNER
May 10, 2005, 4:41 a.m. CST
May 10, 2005, 5:13 a.m. CST
by Reactor 4
I had reservations (as any good fanboy should) about Watchmen being made into a big 'blockbuster' summer flick. But after reading Greengrass' interview at C.H.U.D., I have to say I became intrigued. He sounded passionate, he wanted Watchmen to mean something, to make a faithful adaptation but also a taut political piece which would explore the role of a 'superhero' in 'the real world' ;as opposed to some of the recent swill in the superhero genre *cough*hulkdaredevilpunisherconstantine*cough*.) I started getting excited. I re-read Watchmen and once again, I was floored. I came to understand that not ALL of the subtler elements of the work needed to be in place to tell the story effective as a film. I noted plenty of superfluous elements that could be eliminated without compromising the integrity of the story. So I was excited again. Now this aticle has raised some concerns once more. The studio (if the film is still green-lit) is rushing the film into theatres as quickly as possible. Foreseeably, this could lead to a lack of quality control. The graphic novel was a labor of love I feel the film should be handled in the same manner, by folks who care genuinely about the project and aren't trying to force the next 'Batman and Robin' down our throats. Hopefully 'Watchmen' won't be the kind of flick parents would take their children to see on a Saturday afternoon. Handled correctly 'Watchmen' would be in line with 'Seven' or 'Insomnia', a gripping murder-mystery with VERY adult overtones. I would be crushed if this film was made into a 120 toy commercial,thats OK for Spider-Man or Batman; but this isn't the run of the mill "cape" flick. This is the big daddy, the most talked about, intelligent, and probably most important comic-book story ever set on the page and deserves to be treated with respect. Yet the fanboy in me knows that even if the movie is made and was panned, I know I would have to watch it. Good or bad, Paramount would have my $7.50.
May 10, 2005, 5:17 a.m. CST
by Reactor 4
May 10, 2005, 5:21 a.m. CST
by xavier masterson
May 10, 2005, 5:37 a.m. CST
Let this production team make this movie; stay *out* of the creative process; give them the budget they need to *make it right*; and you *will* make money. Lots and lots of it.
May 10, 2005, 6:22 a.m. CST
by Triumph poops!
Quite frankly, after plowing through 11 issues of WATCHMEN, by the time you get to 12 and "learn" what it's all about and get to the destruction of NY, blah, blah, blah, it all makes for something that was "ok" for it's time -- there's no question that Alan Moore can write a great scene -- but seriously in the passage of time WATCHMEN is now a bit overrated. It wasn't like it was the second coming of literature for God's sake. As for that ending, I liked it better on THE OUTER LIMITS which Moore not only ripped it off from, but he even acknowledges that fact with a tossaway blurb coming from a TV in the final pages. And when I saw the ending on OUTER LIMITS, they got to it in under 45 minutes...it didn't take them 12 issues and Lord knows how many pages!
May 10, 2005, 6:30 a.m. CST
by Triumph poops!
Congratulations, Reactor 4, on explaining just WHY Brad Gray will now call the other department heads of Paramount into a room, look at a piece of paper outlining a $100 million plus movie, slap his head and then say, "Fuck! We're gonna lose our shirts on this aren't we? We're gonna try and sell them on a comic book and turn right around and alienate people with this mature bullshit, and to top it off we're not gonna make shit on licensing are we?" At which point everyone sitting around the conference room table will hang their heads and sort of mumble under their breath "Uh, no, sir. Not really. Acording to all the projections we could put together, we're gonna take a bath on this one."
May 10, 2005, 6:36 a.m. CST
This should be made as faithful as possible and i think it wouldn't hurt to change it JUST a little bit to make it relevant to our days. And after reading the interviews on chud.com i'm very optimistic that Greengrass (BloodySunday was a great intense film) is the right choice to sit on the director's chair. and just to quote Trancer's plea to Paramount: "Let this production team make this movie; stay out of the creative process; give them the budget they need to make it right.
May 10, 2005, 6:57 a.m. CST
We even had that idea in the book. The idea is Ozymandias wasn't that freakin smart.
May 10, 2005, 7:24 a.m. CST
Shall I warm Sir's crack pipe now?
May 10, 2005, 7:59 a.m. CST
Watchmen is a hard sell, but there's a massive market for the 'hard sell' movie because of the millions upon millions of us who seek out the unusual, rare, interesting and above all else good. Then evangelise about it to our friends, their friends and anyone who listens. Serenity's going to hit big because of this kind of word of mouth and because, ultimately, it's a class piece of work. Watchmen will do the same; Superheroes are big, the story works and the fanbase is vocal, smart and active. Just make the thing.
May 10, 2005, 8:04 a.m. CST
by Commando Cody
First off, I'll start by saying I'm a long time comic fan, so I'd love to see WATCHMEN on the screen as much as the next person. Hell, for that matter, there's lots of comic properties still to be mined that I'd love to see on the big screen. However, that said, those clamoring for WATCHMEN and likewise yelling "It must be done right! It must be done dark and gritty and totally adult in tone like SEVEN or INSOMNIA" (or pick a movie or your choice) are really missing some realistic key business points here. For starters, DON'T try convincing Paramount they should do it based on a comparison to an "adult themed murder mystery" like INSOMNIA since that was a major box office dud for Warners. And the point many are missing here is exactly what Triumph is right about: the suits at Paramount are NOT looking to make you comic geek fanboys happy. They're looking for one thing and one thing only. TO MAKE A PROFIT. They're not looking to make art...they're not even looking to break even. They're looking to make money and have the numbers be ON THE PLUS SIDE in the ledger book. So when people like Reactor 4 say "DON'T make this the kind of movie that parents can drop their kids off at" you're only slitting its throat. Because frankly -- given target audience ages and the types of movies you can successfully market particular genres to -- the ONLY way that WATCHMEN is ever going to break even and post a profit with a $100 million budget is if kids or teens in large numbers CAN go to it. You CAN'T lock them out. As I said, Paramount isn't looking to make high art here. He's not out to please you Internet film fan geeks. The President of Paramount doesn't give 2 shits if he makes the "the greatest comic book adaptation ever" OR a new Julia Roberts romance reteaming her with Richard Gere -- he just cares that whatever he's writing a check for, whatever he's now spending $100 million on, is going to make $200 million domestic BACK. And ideally, he'd love to get a franchise out of it...which frankly, is the other problem with WATCHMEN. Those clamoring for a totally true, purist adaptation of the source material aren't taking into account that this is then pretty much a one picture deal. You do the story and that's it. It's over. Because these same purists would only raise holy hell if there was then a WATCHMEN II. Meanwhile, in taking the totally OPPOSITE view, the suits at Paramount are sitting there thinking "We only get one film out of this? Wait, I thought we were getting our own SPIDER-MAN here. Our own multi-picture franchise like Sony has!" Now, the other problem with those going on about how WATCHMEN needs to be adult-toned is this mistaken notion that adults will flock to it in droves. That's the same elusive audience the American comic book industry has been seeking for years and has STILL never managed to tap in any great or significant numbers. The truth is America just hasn't turned into Japan where comics (in book format) do sell to adults. American adults aren't flocking to comic stores to read comics. Hell, anyone involved in the comic industry can tell you flat out the business is exceedingly crappy these days and comic shops are still CLOSING across the country due to lack of ever-dropping business as kids switch more and more to video games. Today's comic market has VASTLY shrunk from the heights of the early Nineties and the Image explosion (where individual comic titles were selling in the millions). These days, even the best selling comics (like X-Men) struggle to hit a couple hundred thousand in sales, while the core average for a Marvel or DC book is down in the 25,000-40,000 copy level if even that. And think about that. THAT'S the average. Independent comics (which do target adults) sell drastically less, with print runs merely in the hundreds or maybe a few thousand. So, again, Paramount HAS to be taking this all into account and HAS to be saying, "Man, this BETTER appeal beyond the comic geeks. Because if it doesn't, we're dead even on opening weekend." Look at it this way -- do the math the same way the suits at Paramount are doing it right now. Even if every comic geek flooded out to see WATCHMEN, you'd have a situation like SIN CITY where they toss maybe $25-30 million into the box office opening weekend. But then what? The last thing you want is a $100 million plus movie whose box office arcs like SIN CITY where it then loses HALF its revenue stream in week 2. Great, you appealed to a core demographic and it's over, just like that. Because it's not like the comic geeks are ALL going to come back to see it again and again just because they're comic geeks -- that's an unrealistic notion too. Sure, some percentage of the geeks will, but the far greater number will simply say "Yeah, saw it. It was ok. Next movie!" Which means we're right back to square one and Reactor 4's comment: You CAN'T treat WATCHMEN with the attitude he was advocating. This movie HAS to appeal to a broader range and parents HAVE to be able to drop their kids off. Which means (to my guessing) that the suits at Paramount might be willing to do this, but only for a massively scaled back budget to make it more safely profitable, but as I said that's just my guess given that this property is such a "niche specific item." And I'm sure Paramount will want to make sure that the overall story and its tone and the characters are accessible to the mainstream, otherwise you can bet this will go into turnaround pretty damn quick yet again.
May 10, 2005, 8:07 a.m. CST
Oh, fuck off. Don't pretend your wanting to keep your industry buddies sweet is an altruistic gesture, you hack.
May 10, 2005, 8:31 a.m. CST
by Jam Banjo
Nite Owl: Michael Keaton (see what I done there? Brilliant!) The Comedian: Tom Selleck Rorshach: Jim Carrey / Samuel L Jackson Silk Spectre: Lindsay Lohan (Her Mom can be played by Jamie Lee Curtis like in the excellent film, Freaky Friday). Adrian Veidt: Cyclops From X-Men, James Marsden The Newsagent Guy: Dan Akroyd ----
May 10, 2005, 8:53 a.m. CST
1: It's interesting to see the number of people here who showed up just to claim that Watchmen isn't that great in the first place. Like you get some kind of geek brownie point by spitting in the face of popular opinion. The reason Watchmen is considered the be-all-end-all of superhero comics is because it's a fucking fantastic piece of work, not because all we crazy fanboys are delusional. 2: tubby_bitch, dude, what the hell? That was a pointless, poorly thought-out bit of bitchery, care to explain why you wasted all our time NOT talking about Watchmen? 3: I can't believe people are still saying you can't do the Watchmen ending. Motherfuckers, did you NOT see The Day After Tomorrow?! The Sum of All Fears? Hell, 24?! Mass urban destruction and nuclear terrorism are officially okay again. In film, I mean. Not in real life. Don't get the wrong idea. 4: Making Watchmen "too dark" wouldn't, I think, be too big an issue. No you don't want it to do "Sin City" numbers, but Sin City had so many things working against it (less built-in fanbase, April release, Black and White...) that you could make it just as dark and double those numbers if it's good. And merchandising? Kids don't buy action figures anymore, it's more and more becoming an adult market. Sin City action figures are all over the place, and they are awesome. T-shirts are a big things, too, and they could be plastered all over Hot Topic. An R-rating and a dark film will not kill this sucker. Oh, and just to throw my hat in the ring, I and everyone I know will see it, see it again, buy the DVD, and tell all our friends and families about it. Just make it good.
May 10, 2005, 9:03 a.m. CST
...the main reason super-hero movies bomb is because studios try to mess with the source-material and make it "hip" and mainstream. Spiderman 1 & 2 however had a passionate director who stayed true to the characters and tone of the comic, and hey waddayaknow, instant megahit. Just because something is "only" appreciated by the geek-squad soesn't mean it needs to be jazzed up for the mainstream, it just means that only the geeksquad has accessed the material so far. Do it right, and they all will come. Sin City will make all it's money back and more on DVD alone. So for god's sake, if you have the chance to do Watchmen right, do it. I'll be there.
May 10, 2005, 9:32 a.m. CST
They must have seen Theron with black hair in the Aeon Flux pics. And hell, they're shooting that in Berlin which could be a good cut price option. But then, what about Halle Berry, she's an Oscar winner, cast her..... I still say J K Simmons for Comedian. He'd bring his Oz ferocity. And great news on the hint about an unknown for Rorschach. I agree how distracting it'd be to notice a star in the crowd.
May 10, 2005, 10 a.m. CST
perlman for comedian and swank for silk. thinking phoenix for dan but mel gibson signing on would greenlight this one quick
May 10, 2005, 10:03 a.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...this film should or shouldn't be made is like watching a dog chase its own ass, I'll indulge in some fanboy casting. I've been a Cusack proponent for Night Owl II since I first heard they were thinking about this movie (about a year ago). He's perfect for the role... vulnerable, intelligent and sensitive but with massive potential seething just below the surface. Use Michael Keaton as Night Owl I to help viewers connect the dots to the inspiration for the character. Charlize Theron is a great idea for Silk Spectre II, and Jamie Lee Curtis could easily handle Silk Spectre I. I still say use Kurt Russell as the Comedian, but I could get behind a scarred Mel Gibson if the idea doesn't conflict with his relatively newfouond Christian sensibilities. David Caruso should be Rorschach. It's just too perfect and most folks wouldn't know David these days to look at him, so there's no real concern about identifying him too early unless you're a fanboy (in which case you'll know who Rorschach is supposed to be the minute you see the guy with the end of the world sign). And if Caruso's on board, how about bringing in his old Kiss of Death buddy Nic Cage for Ozymandius? He's worked with Cusack before, too. And for Dr. Manhattan, I don't see how you couldn't want a bald Billy Zane in the role. Throw in Morgan Freeman as the Prison Psychologist and you've got a solid cast for a solid summer blockbuster. Star poer could sell this thing to those who aren't already salivating to see it made. Not super-mega-A-list stars, but quirky almost has-been stars a'la early Tarantino. Film buffs would geek out as much as comic buffs and the studio would make its money back in the first two weekends.
May 10, 2005, 10:05 a.m. CST
Very doubtful about changing the ending. Entire point of Veidt's plan is that the utterly alien nature of the threat should unify humanity. A threat so hideous and revolting - some crawling, writhing Lovecraftian nightmare from the madness that lies outside out world - that all our differences are revealed as trivial. Rumoured solar death ray doesn't have the same effect. Given the number of cuts that will be required even to make this (the Black Freighter parallel to Veidt's journey will probably go, to name but one), difficult to change the ending without gutting the story completely. You can't lose the squid as well as the raw shark.
May 10, 2005, 10:08 a.m. CST
"that's not how those movies END, dumbass". Ooookay. So now it's movies with unhappy endings that are the problem? Or, wait, movies where the lead characters are complicit in mass murder? Tell me how much money you expect Episode III to make, again? Even Mystic River grossed 160 million worldwide--but, you're right, that hardcore Dennis Lehane fanbase probably bolstered sales. Listen, blowing up a city in a movie is okay again, and people are perfectly willing to accept imperfect, even fallen, heroes in their pop culture. And, y'know what? If there's controversey, as people have pointed out, all the better. Fahrenheit 9/11 grossed 100 million as a documentary and Passion of the Christ made ungodly amounts of coin. Even fucking Million Dollar Baby, a largely unadvertised, dark, down-beat movie with a controversial, some say offensive, dark ending where all the heroes are in some way sullied made frickin' 200 million dollars world wide. But, look, I can point out dark, R-rated, controversial, comic book, unknown, whatever movies that made mad cash all day, why don't you give me a real-world example of a genuinely good big budget, relatively well star-powered movie that failed at the box office 'cause it was too dark or depressing or violent or whatever? On another note "i'm getting a big laugh from reading posts saying "I and everyone I know will see it". yeah, because *that* will help balance the books at paramount..." Don't be so willfully ignorant. No one here thinks we alone can power a movie, but if they're looking at us as a focus group they can see there are plenty of people out there who will eat this stuff up. Just like people are eating up Sin City merchandise, just like people ate up Constantine, just like they're using screenings to generate interest in Serenity. Now I'm the first person to admit that Warner Brothers isn't gonna redesign their Superman costume 'cause a bunch of idiot 12-year-olds cal it "gay", but does interest from an existing fanbase help a project get greenlighted? If it didn't, sequels and adaptations wouldn't be so popular.
May 10, 2005, 10:11 a.m. CST
There is some really cool fan concept art in the watchmen boards: http://www.watchmenmovie.com/board/showthread.php?t=227
Ah, umm, and Hulk Hogan would rule as the Comedian... "Grando Carlissian has beer and cheets on all your base are belong to us, Ozymandias, Brother!!"
May 10, 2005, 10:39 a.m. CST
To the Powers That Be over there, at Paramount, I don't actually go to movies very often anymore but I will go see Watchmen at least 3 times if you make it and at least ten times if it's good (not to mention my buying the DVD when it comes out and the special extended edition when THAT comes out as well as the very very special extended director's cut edition christmas special version 20 disc boxed set edition 2 months later. So, please, just let your artists do their stuff. If they're as committed as it sounds they'll make a movie you'll be proud of and, more importantly, you will make truckloads of money. Thank you.
May 10, 2005, 10:50 a.m. CST
It's Watchmen. This is the most read comic ever. If you are over the age of ten and read comics, you have at least heard of Watchmen. That alone will get you asses in the seats, even with an R rating(Which is needed, you bastards).
May 10, 2005, 10:58 a.m. CST
I haven't read the comics but whenever a comic book film is made where the director is passionate about the source material, it comes out good. Much like Lord of the Rings and X-Men, this film sounds like the director lives and breathes it and that is something I have to see. Besides, this story has a huge following so I figure there must be a reason.
May 10, 2005, 11:02 a.m. CST
May 10, 2005, 11:06 a.m. CST
Sean Penn's character in Mystic River was an unabashed murderer (oh he *thought* a guy, a friend no less, had murdered his daughter (there was no rape, nor did he think there was a rape), sure, but what about the other fella? And what about the cop who lets him get away with it?), while NiteOwl in Watchmen tries like hell to catch a murderer and then fails. And when he fails, he decides exposing the truth would only, y'know, lead to nuclear armageddon. So what's he supposed to do? Just because it makes the audience think about what a moral solution would be doesn't mean the character is evil. NiteOwl is tortured by his decision. Again, do you expect Episode III to fail? We all know going in that the hero is going to become a coldhearted mass murderer, but we're damn well going in anyway. Just 'cause something isn't "Family Friendly" does NOT mean it won't make a couple hundred million worldwide. Hell, the first Matrix contained multiple scenes of killing dozens of innocent police officers who just happened to be under the delusion their world was real, we can justfiy that but not Dan and Laurie's actions in Watchmen? Again, give me some examples of a good, big-budget genre movie where being overly dark killed box office, because right now the only thing propping up your bad judgment is insults.
May 10, 2005, 11:29 a.m. CST
DUH! I mean you have valid arguments and points BUT you totally misunderstood Reactor 4's post. Watchmen shouldn't be handled like Spiderman or X-Men where you expect to attract children and teenagers(and the merchandising behind it). Dark materials like Seven were successful, weren't it? Matrix was successful. Blade and Constantine made good money. So that's the way Watchmen should earn their money and not like Spiderman...Of course there must be a few changes about the violence etc. and i'm sure they will change things to attract more people than just the FANS. Of course they have to consider every aspect of this business to be sure that it's fucking profitable. But Watchmen should maintain it's dark tone. Is it risky? You bet it! After all Paramount has to pour much money into production BUT that's the point! To take the risk for this difficult material. To take the risk of making a dark film whether it get's a PG-13 or R and market it in the appropriate way. This is not Superman or Spiderman. It's not the typical DC or Marvel comic film. I think the best way to approach it would be just to forget that it has anything to do with "comics" and that's what Paramount has to understand.
May 10, 2005, 11:35 a.m. CST
You're not propping up your arguments with insults, you're propping them up with lies! This makes a lot more sense. See, in reality, the heroes in Watchmen DON'T agree blowing up New York was a good thing and the DON'T allow it to happen. They TRY to stop Veidt, they tell him they WON'T ALLOW HIM to do it, but, alas, they're too late. After that they make the decision to keep the secret, but they do NOT endorse the murders. They simply say "if we expose you, it'll be the end of the world, so we won't expose you." They're put in an impossible situation with no good choices. Again, you skirt around my statements, picking out little bits you can pick on and ignoring the substance. Sean Penn's character was an unrepentant murderer, not just of someone he THOUGHT killed his daughter, but of at least one, and it is implied more, former associates. And you have yet to name me a movie. A rational human being in your position would, at this point, either make a real goddamn point or back the hell off.
May 10, 2005, 11:51 a.m. CST
by Homer Sexual
C.C. and Triumph are thinking like a studio, which is the way to approach this topic. Sin City was a labor of love, medium budget, and Watchmen COULD follow that path and be successful. Hellblazer was a piece of crap totally altered by the studio, again with a medium budget. Watchmen could go that route as well. But since apparently Watchmen is going the Summer Blockbuster route, I don't see how anyone can argue against Commando Cody's analysis.
May 10, 2005, 12:29 p.m. CST
I agree this movie should be a hard PG-13, but it should definitely be a *hard* PG-13. If Revenge of the Sith can manage, if War of the Worlds can manage, Watchmen should be able to. I don't think, however, an R would be a death kiss. If the people making the film are determined to make an R, absolutely let them. The Matrix movies were all Rs, Constantine was an R, Passion of the Christ was an R... You've got a built in fanbase that WILL be vocal, you've got the potential to make an oscar-worthy movie, you've got the potential to merchandise the hell out of this thing with action figures, t-shirts, even lunchboxes are back in ironic style. Hell, Chronicles of Riddick was a shit movie but they did well off the good video game. There's a whole lot of marketing options beyond cereal boxes and coloring books. Now, I have no doubt that making it more family friendly unlocks a potential for more cash, but if you make a shitty movie in the process you wash that potential down the drain anyway. I think it'd be a mistake to kill a potential Matrix or Terminator because you really want to make a Spider-Man. Everyone wants to make a Spidey or an LotR, but the attempts will flop more often than not. Watchmen? Make it good, and you'll break even at worst, and the sky is more or less the limit. What other property is unclaimed, has a built in fanbase of god knows how many hundreds of thousands (I have no doubt that watchmen has been read by millions of people; X-Men number 1 was read by millions of people, and Watchmen had a good five year son that) and has the potential to be such a critical success? Go with it and don't fuck it up.
May 10, 2005, 1:12 p.m. CST
He is a perfectionist and groundbreaking in everything he does. DAMMIT PARAMOUNT wait one more year and dont rush this!!!! As soon as hes done with the fountain he would love to jump on it!!! PLEASE!!!! WAIT!!!!!!! DONT SACRIFICE A MOVIE THAT HAS SO MUCH POTENTIAL!!!
May 10, 2005, 2:23 p.m. CST
Wolfy, the book explains why he couldnt stop it and, in point of fact, why he felt very little need to for some time. And yes, being aware of a murder you couldn't prevent is a lot better than committing a murder, especially when not keeping the secret would elad to annihilation. There is plenty of substance to my arguments, you syang otherwise doesn't make it so. What you're doing isn't taunting a deluded fnaboy it's deluding yourself into a sense of superiority by trying to pop someone else's bubble. You haven't said a single thing with evidence, examples, or even rational thought to back it up. You're spewing in every sense of the word, engaging in furious intellectual masturbation as you try to convince yourself you're better than the "fanboys". Good Christ, being hopeless and nasty for no reason isn't smart or clever or even amusing (okay, it's KINDA amusing, I mean, being bored at work isn't as fun as calling you on your copious amounts of bullshit), just what the hell do you think you're doing? MAKE A DAMN POINT! You just keep saying "nuh-uh, you're stupid!" like a whiny little kid without giving a damn reason why. I'd be frustrated if I wasn't so happy to point it out to everyone around you. I don't want or need to insult you, I'm perfectly happy to talk about whether Watchmen could be effective on the merits of the arguments, but as your arguments HAVE no merits, as your posts are made up entirely of insults, attempts to sound clever, and occasional misinformation it's not possible. I mean, I'm enjoying the distraction, but it'd be nice if you could give me some kind of reason to work with. Please? Pretty please? Just frame a coherent argument for me, back up, evidence, a single unflawed syllogism. If you have no desire to actually make a point, that's your thing, but it pretty well confirms your posts as a waste of bandwidth. I mean, why are you writing them if not to have people read and consider them? What's the psychology here? Do you even know? Just say something real, man, you might enjoy it.
May 10, 2005, 2:33 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...I have to take issue with concerning wolf at the door's arguments against making this movie. First, Lucas and Fox are doing just fine marketing a conspiracy to commit mass murder movie. That's what Revenge of the Sith is. There is a conspiracy to murder every Jedi in the galaxy and, by film's end, it is largely successful. The character most credited with this slaughter (and who is surely at least complicit in the slaughter of the baby Jedi) is all over the promotional campaign for this picture, so I don't think the argument that Watchmen is an unmarketable story because of its content or the actions of its characters works. Obviously, like Sith, the ad campaign would have to focus on something other than the slaughter. But, very much as with Sith, true fanboys would know they were going to see some deep dark shit. And as for your comment about "the good lord" not engaging in mass murder... I would argue that it depends on your concept and view of the almighty. If He's the three-personed God that Milton wrote of, then Jesus and his Father are one in the same. Therefore, Jesus is, at least retroactively, accountable for any number of Biblical slaughters and purgings, including the Great Flood, the destruction of Sodom, the final plague on Egypt and others. Not to mention all of the natural disasters that have occurred since Jesus ascended to heaven and merged with the Father, such as the recent tsunami or any number of earthquakes, volcanoes and hurricanes (I don't think it's fair to blame the Jesus/God/Holy Spirit entity for stuff like 9/11 or the War in Iraq, as we pretty much brought all that shit on ourselves). All of that said, some of your arguments about the uncertain nature of the overall big-budget appeal of a Watchmen film are valid, but you seem to have an unusually large and heavy personal chip on your shoulder concerning the story itself. Simply because something was written for and largely about another time is no reason to forget or ignore it (and it certainly hasn't stopped a plethora of movies being made from other, similarly dated stories). What makes a story timeless is its ability to cross those time/space boundaries and connect with readers living under very different circumstances, making them appreciate the subtle similarities and the applicability of the themes addressed. Given the continuing popularity of the book, I don't think anyone could argue that it isn't acheiving that with at least a sizable number of readers (and enough potential moviegoers that Paramount is thinking about it). I can understand if the story doesn't work for you (anymore or did it never?), but why the seemingly unbridled hate for it and derision for those who enjoy/appreciate it? Did someone beat you with the trade paperback or something?
May 10, 2005, 2:58 p.m. CST
by Ray Garraty #47
Because Rorschach did not stand around with his hands on his hips all the time wearing sunglasses and trying to look cool, which is all Caruso does. He is the most hands-on-hips motherfucker on the planet. Neither Reynolds or Stallone can be the Comedian, either, because they are both parodies of themselves and are at the stages in their careers where they can only be used for stunt casting (although I will concede that Sly suppoosedly did a good job in Copland, which I did not see)like Spy Kids 3 and Dukes of Hazzard. As another member of the community who's excited about seeing this movie, I can honestly say that if Burt Reynolds was in it I would not pay for a ticket. Sly needs to stick with the Contender and counting his Rocky money and Burt Reynolds needs to realize that he's not a god among men. Tom Selleck, however...he's been off the map in the big screen for a while, and his "Friends" appearance didn't do any damage...he could get some of that Travolta in Pulp Fiction mojo going. That's it.
May 10, 2005, 3:20 p.m. CST
If this movie gets made, I'm there for the theatrical release, and I'm not talking bargain matinee either. I'm not some esoteric Fanboy either. Acutally, the reason I don't care much for comics is that I made the mistake of reading WATCHMEN years ago, and every graphic novel I have read since has been an utter disappointment. I'm most certainly stoked for this film.
May 10, 2005, 3:28 p.m. CST
by Aragorn II
Shall we blame the jetlag?
May 10, 2005, 4:07 p.m. CST
Unlike most of the comic book properties being put on screen (just for the sake of doing them), I'm really looking forward to seeing what Greengrass and Hayter are doing with 'Watchmen.' If it gets put into turnaround again, it would be a disservice to the work they've done so far, and to the property. If Paramount is worried about the ROI for it, rest easy that the buzz for it might be equal to 'Batman.' The 1989 buzz. Remember that? Remember the box office? Just a hunch.
May 10, 2005, 4:41 p.m. CST
...bland insults were a basis for a conversation, you might say something meaningful. Unfortunately, you have yet to "point out" much of anything, except, perhaps, that when you're called out to present some evidence and logic, you hide behind vague insults and posturing. Come on, man, I'm sure you can think of something to say that you can back up. Have at it.
May 10, 2005, 4:57 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
You know, I can understand that. I really can. But the suitability of source material has never stopped Hollywood from having at everything from pseudo-documentaries to an MTV interpretation of Romeo+Juliet. Comics in general, despite their story-boarded nature, make pretty lousy movie fodder. That's why we haven't had many good comic book movies. You can even find people who will piss on Donner's original Superman and the recent Spiderman films, despite what seems to be a pretty wide-reaching love for those properties in general. Granted, most of those are comic geeks. Heck, on this site some of those folks will even piss on a movie before it's made for fear of having their beloved characters brought to life with a different voice than they heard in their heads while reading. The fact is, comic book heroes are a silly concept. They don't tend to translate well into "real world" depictions... which I think was part of the point Moore was trying to make in the original Watchmen story (and something I'd love to see explored thoughtfully on the big screen). I agree with those saying this shouldn't be approached as a blockbusting money maker. In fact, I suggested above taking the Sin City approach (labor of love done on a manageable budget) to try and keep it a comic movie aimed at comic book geeks. I think it all depends on the aspirations of the filmmakers and the motives of the studio. The story is as apart from mainstream comic convention as it is dependent on it and so, like Sin City (which is both dependent on distinctly apart from its pulp fiction forebears and film noir inspirations), it could create its own audience of people who are curious and can appreciate it for what it is and what its trying to be. Add those folks to the ones who are sure to line up around the block to see it opening day (the aforementioned comic book geeks) and there's a respectable bit of gold to be mined through smart movie making. But if the studio goes into it thinking they've got a license to print and pre-spend a lot of money, I think it's a mistake.
May 10, 2005, 5:43 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...wolfy. I don't think our ultimate positions on the way we'd prefer to see this property handled are that far from one another. I'd simply prefer to think Paramount might be open to the idea of a reasonably budgeted, true-to-the-spirit-of-the-story adaptation (the lines about the Dr. Manhattan in luminescent paint and the "real world" backdrops are what fuel this hope) while it seems you'd prefer nobody even try to make the movie for fear that they'll muck it up irrevocably. I just can't get behind the whole careful-to-the-point-of-paralyzation approach. But then, I've always preferred MacBeth to Hamlet. I say let them try and, if they botch it, let them reap the shitstorm.
May 10, 2005, 5:50 p.m. CST
However, a few points: What do you mean by Watchmen being the "antithesis" of a movie "joe sixpack" would enjoy? It's entirely possible Joe Sixpack is getting as tired of superhero movies as some of the Talkbackers seem to be getting; one that's dramatically different, "an answer to", as one poster above said, the banality of the genre, could be popular indeed. It's not just big splashy entertainment packages that make money. In addition, what makes you think that studios, who have managed innovative hits in the past by simply letting creators alone, won't manage it this time?
May 10, 2005, 7:33 p.m. CST
Yes, you're not working with Levin, I know that, if I implied otherwise, I apologize - but after the AICN/CHUD pimping of Hellboy, the degrees of separation from you to Levin are maybe 2, if you accept the "Harry and Del Toro are long lost brothers" line, and how Knowles has sworn he'll never kill his partnership with you. Del Toro and Levin are tighter than before with Meg and Hellboy 2 in the works, and AICN is going to do what it can to see these projects get the greenlight and succeed. That's the name of this game. If Levin succeeds, he could help carry one of your Sony projects, or Knowles and Princess of Mars, because Jack and Daniels have had a *terrible* run these past years, (like Revolution), and are in no shape to get a greenlight from Brad Grey anytime soon...so it becomes pretty clear; you may not have a vested interest in Watchmen, but AICN does in seeing Levin do well. This is all without getting into the AICN/CHUD cabal, (Devin's exclusive with Greengrass! Wow! How'd that happen?!)...Once word circualtes that a project is dead, it's hard to turn that around...and I'm not begrudging you anything. In fact, if it wasn't for your work, none of your buddies would have deal one on the table. That's admirable...what I get tired of is when the Producer-of-the-moment decides he's going to exploit the film geek audience via certain websites...Michael Bay, Dean Deviln, Avi Arad, etc... until things don't go in their favor. So, excuse the jaded outlook. I thought Hellboy was vastly overrated, Predator 2 an exercise is photocopying, and Meg a tired idea. Save Boogie Nights, Levin has a blah track record that does not covince me one iota that he could produce a Watchmen worth the film it's shot on...X-Pax? Tomb Raider? Mystery Men? The Rocketeer? Devil's Own? Which of these pictures says "Understands Alan Moore". My God, he helped cursed us with Paul "AvP" Anderson...so let's be reasonable. You think it will work. I don't. You thought Daredevil was going to be a triumph, and I didn't. I look at the elements already in place, and I see 50/50 writer and a director who should be lensing Iron Man. It's not the best start.
May 10, 2005, 9:11 p.m. CST
Major studios have had DECADES to get their shit together and learn from their mistakes. If not, then they deserve financial failure, critical backlash, and public ridicule from Fanboys Who Know Better. Frankly, there's been enough overanalysis and movie geeks who don't know fuckall about the source material getting their asses in an uproar to clue in even the most coked- out exec. Stand or fall, c'mon, we still have the graphic novel to enjoy, regardless.
May 10, 2005, 9:13 p.m. CST
One week today on BBC Radio 4 in the Uk - 11pm our time. For anyone who'll remember being so irate in a week's time
May 10, 2005, 9:25 p.m. CST
by Big Dumb Ape
Except it's really NOT, Childe. Yes, Anakin goes bad and chops down the Jedi...but they all die heroic deaths, and even something as dark as the younglings being killed is done off camera. And in the end, is Anakin "successful"? No. Because even in as dark a tale as SITH, you still see the knight in shining armor (Obi Wan) take him down. Yes, Anakin survives to live on as Darth Vader...but again, you can argue SITH gets out of being "dark" completely because we ALREADY KNOW he's going to turn good at the last minute, save Luke, kill the Emperor and quasi-redeem himself. The only aspect about SITH that's "dark" as far as I'm concerned is that, yes, Anakin goes bad. But you knew that going in and as I said, he DOES pay a price for it. That's a helluva lot different than the point of WATCHMEN which is "Hey, I've conspired to kill millions of people to trick them into coming together. And now that you heroes know that, you won't reveal it because then you'll undo it." To be honest, given that the ending really is taken from an OUTER LIMITS episode as someone noted, I don't even see where all the hoopla is that the ending of WATCHMEN is so fucking "mature." It's an old-style, OUTER LIMITS or TWILIGHT ZONE twist ending that once you get to it, it doesn't leave you thinking...you just end up sort of lookin at your date in the theater and saying "Oh. So that's what it was about. Ok, time to go home."
May 10, 2005, 9:34 p.m. CST
by Big Dumb Ape
Someone up above was tirading that you had to do this as a mature murder myster -- treat the source material as is. That said, if I was the suits at Paramount, here's the worries I'd have making this movie "adult" in tone: (1) Are audiences REALLY going to want to see actors walking about being super-serious (sorry, bad pun unavoidable) in costume...or will GENERAL audiences sit there thinking "Oh, come on! You expect me to take a guy dressed up as a fucking owl and a big blue naked glowing man SERIOUS?" And more importantly (2) the ending. If you're treating this as some big adult murder mystery, then the studio runs the same problem as ANY murder mystery or "Sixth Sense" problem: namely, once the movie hits everyone will simply turn to others who are debating seeing it and say "Oh, here's the doofy ending. Turns out the one guy staged it to fool people to come together and the other heroes let him off the hook thinking killing a few million people is for a high purpose. Yeah, that's what the shit is about." In fact, since the movie's obviously based on a pre-existing book, even BEFORE the movie opens reviewers will be revealing the supposed "mystery". So again, if I was Paramount, it's one thing to make a $30-50 million mystery movie where you can try to protect the ending as much as possible, and even if it leaks out you can still make back your money pretty easily. But at $100 million or more in budget, that becomes tougher. I'm NOT saying Paramount shouldn't make the movie -- I'm just saying that if I was in the executive wing, I'd be having second thoughts about putting THAT much money into this and worried about getting it back. To that end, I have to agree with others here that while the source material IS a great comic book, as a MOVIE Paramount could really lose a shitload on this if the cards really don't fall their way.
May 10, 2005, 9:54 p.m. CST
how about michael douglas as night owl and demi moore as silk spectre...seems perfect to me somehow....thoughts?
May 10, 2005, 10:34 p.m. CST
I think that's pretty inspired casting. The characters are supposed to be a little past their prime,so it works. Douglas even has the hooked nose and Demi has that raspy smoker's voice. I just wish William Smith was young enough to play The Comedian.
May 10, 2005, 10:40 p.m. CST
Moriarty should know better than to try to pass this off as optimism. Greengrass was in pre at Pinewood. Now he has to repitch it to new suits. That means the project is dead unless he can convince them to light it up again... before he has to abandon it and move on to his next commitment.
May 10, 2005, 10:42 p.m. CST
I always say, make 'em. If you don't make these films, people are always wishing they were made, if you make 'em and they work, good for you. If they suck and/or deviate from the source too much, I say let it go. I still like Batman comics, even though "Batman and Robin" was a big steaming pile. It didn't make "The Dark Knight Returns" any less enjoyable or important. (Although DK2 almost did). Watchmen is one of the greatest works of modern literature in my book, and I hope we get a great movie out of it (i can't see how anything less than 8 hours can tell the story well myself though), but if we get a pedestrian effort or even a stinkfest from it,oh well. We'll always have the books, and probably get some cool action figures to boot. Now, Harry Connick Jr. for Rorschach! Don't laugh until you see him in "Copycat".
May 10, 2005, 11:38 p.m. CST
[possible spoilers in this post] Firstly, I am one of the many fans who believe the Watchmen should be made as a cable mini-series or not at all. That said, it probably will never happen, and it seems liek it WILL eventually get made as a movie, so let's try to make the best of it.***WATCHMEN, as Mori points out, is the Holy Grail of comics...I think a better way of putting it is that it is teh CITZEN KANE of comics...it changed the industry...that said, Mori goes on to say that Greengrass and his people are altering Karnak (Ozymandias's Antarctic Headquarters) to look more like a military installation, and that Dreiburg/Nite Owl's ship is being altered, and that Dreiburg lives in a basement apartment that "does not look like it takes a millionaire to own"..excue me, Dreiburg IS a millionaire...read the comic book..his father left him a fortune..he owns the ENTIRE brownstone, which links to abandoned underground subways, which link to a warehouse blocks away, which he also owns, and out of which his ship launches. Dreiburg is LOADED. Why are they changing this? AND they are taking away the Egyptian motif of Karnak and making it a military style installation...WTF!?! There already IS a military installation (the Rockefeller base that Dr. Manhatten and Silk Spectre II live in)...Ozymandias is obssessed with antiquity and death, which is a key to his character..he is a megalomaniac who thinks he is modern day emperor or pahroah (which he practically is)...the Egyptian motifs are crucial to his haracter, and besides, they LOOK GREAT, and would be extraordinary on screen***I think people are getting the wrong idea about THE WATCHMEN..they think that it is solely about realistic superheroes...it is, but part of what makes it work so well is that sometimes, the superheroes really ARE super and beyond the normal..part of the point of bringing mundane reality in as a setting is that it creates a breathtaking contrast when something truly "super" DOES actually appear..Dr. Manhatten, Nite Owl's basement headquaters, Ozymandias's Karnak, all are "super" and stand out as extraordinary and exotic in te midst of the mundane world, yet the realism of the story makes them somehow seem possible...this is part of the appeal of the WATCHMEN***Furthermore, they should simply stick with ave Gibbons visuals..why are they changing anything? SIN CITY was such a large creative success because they stuck purely to the visuals of the comic book...SIN CITY is great because it just seems like the comic book come to life, with all of the style of the grapghic novels..they should do this with WATCHMEN...altering the visual style of the books is a big mistake, in my opinion...fans want their comic book adaptations to be as faithful as possible, and the best and most succesful comic-to film adaptations have been the most faithful..stick close to Gibbons and Moores work, an stray from them at your peril***
May 11, 2005, 12:09 a.m. CST
Everyone has been casting this film in their minds for years, so here are my ideas- The Comedian: Ron Perlman is a good actor, and would be fine in this role, but my original idea for Blake/The Comedian was Tom Berenger. Look at Berenger's performance in PLATOON..he LOOKS like Blake, ACTS like Blake, and even has the nasty facial scar...I think that Berenger would be great for the role, and his age is right for the part***That said, I would like to make a point about the WATCHMEN and casting. Part of the point of the WATCHMEN is showing superheroes as real and human. One key way that Moore accomplishes this is by making the lead heroes in the main time frame of the story middle-aged. Dreiburg is a paunchy, faintly pathetic, middle-aged guy having a mid-life crisis, Laurie is basically in the process of getting a divorce, Ozymandias is one of those guys who still look handsome and youthful even in middle-age, and so on. This age factor is an essential part of the story. Dreiburg comes off as more heroic becuase he conquers his middle-aged fears and dons his old gear to come out of retirement and get back into the action. Yes, he still looks faintly pathetic, but we cheer for him because we like the idea that a middle-aged nerdy guy can still be a hero AND get the girl. So, the age of these characters is an important part of the story, and youngish actors should not be cast in these roles.***Ozymandias; Everyone has been talking about Jude Law, but he looks too young to me. My own idea for Ozzy is Paul Bettany. Bettany is almost a dead ringer for Veidt's facial features, and is a really good actor to boot. He would probably do well to do some bodybuilding and put on 10 or 15 pounds of muscle, but in any case, I think he would make an excellent Adrian Veidt. I also think Bettany can convey Veidt's smug intelligence better than most of the other actors I have heard for this role.***Nite Owl: many have mentioned John Cusack for this role. I like Cusack as an actor, but I think that he is too young for this role, and does not really look like Dreiburg. Further, Dreiburg needs to be somewhat paunchy, and Cusack is too thin. My ideas for this role are Alec Baldwin, or Bill Pullman (I would prefer to see Baldwin).***Silk Spectre II: I would really like to see Julianne Moore for this part. She is attractive, looks enough like Laurie, and is a good actress. Alternatively, an odd choice that might work occurred to me: Sandra Bullock. Yes, she is not considered to be a great actress by some, but she is a mid-aged woman who looks great, she really looks like Laurie, and she can play the kind of salty humor that Laurie tends to display. And, she really is OK as an actress (see her in CRASH, out now, if you want assurance of this). But, my preferred choice is Julianne Moore.***Rorschach: My choice for this role would be Gary Sinise. He is short yet wiry, like Rorschach, is a good actor, and can play creepy and do the Rorscach voice. Others have suggested Steve Buscemi, amongst others. Buscemi is tall and skinny; Rorschach is short and muscular. I think Buscemi is a cool actor (he should have been cast as Scarecrow in the Batman film), but he is not right for this role, in my opinion.***Dr. Manhatten: my idea for this role would be William Hurt. The key thing about Manhatten/Jon Osterman is that he has become inhuman. Hurt is great at playing emotionally detached, and Osterman is very much emotionally detached. Hurt can also play the brilliant scientist type, which Osterman was, as a human (see Hurt as the robotics genius in Spielburg's AI for proof).***Moloch: I think that Gary Oldman would be great as Moloch. Enough said.***Silk Spectre I: Vanessa Redgrave, Ellen Burstyn, Faye Dunaway, Sigourney Weaver, all would be good choices.***Nite Owl I: Paul Newman, James Garner?***Hooded Justice: Ron Perlman would be great as Hooded Justice, in my opinion.***So, there are some casting ideas for WATCHMEN...
May 11, 2005, 1:01 a.m. CST
Believe it or not, most of the reasons that "Joe Sixpack" (because anyone who calls the general public "Joe Sixpack" knows sooo much about Joe Sixpack) may not want to see 'Watchmen' have been discussed before. They're old hat. Trying to find new reasons why you can't see people beyond yourself looking forward to the movie is not intelligence. It's a game, but it's no more productive than listing reasons why people MAY look forward to the movie. I stated that I'd go see 'Watchmen' if it was made the way they want to make it (or close to it). Perhaps saying I'd go buy the DVD is a little premature, but I still stick by my intentions to see it when it hits theaters. I could list reasons why I think that Greengrass and Levin and Co. have their hearts in the right place on this one, just as you can list why you think they don't, but it's tiresome and if you think this movie will bomb or shouldn't be made then you probably think that you're smarter than me anyway, so who cares? Suffice it to say that I'd rather see an interesting failure than talk about why it deserves to fail in the first place. So I'm too forgiving? Maybe. But as far as I'm concerned, you can all take your many reasons for why this movie will be a commercial failure and cram them. I'm not interested, and I don't think that's sad that I'm not interested. I think it's sad that you're not interested. Peace.
May 11, 2005, 2:38 a.m. CST
A lot more talented and smart directors have come before this Greengrass dude trying to make "The Watchmen" and they all abandonned the project for one reason, it won't work as a 2 hour movie. I also know people who read this current script and it's bad. I love the Watchmen too much to cheer on this film version of it and the production designer sounds like he's incapable of giving this thing a solid look so he's giving us the standard 'it should look normal" pitch. Great, the script is bad and the visuals are boring, COUNT ME OUT.
May 11, 2005, 2:43 a.m. CST
"The Watchmen: the movie" Another bad idea
May 11, 2005, 7:14 a.m. CST
I'm always loathe to comment on talkbacks, so imagine my dismay that I seem to still do so and so often. The watchmen was a seminal work that has rightly been remembered and held up as a benchmark for comics/graphic novels since it's release and blah blah. This film will (great or ill) have no baring on that whatsoever. Alot of people are happy to see if some of that sheen wares off onto the screen adaptation. Some are not. Discussion is one thing but launching into an entirely subjective tirade based on bias and nostalgia seems ludicrous in the extreme. Lets just see what happens. If this film proves to be the eighth level of dante's inferno, then after release is the time to start with the 'it can't be made ' arguement but until then lets see what is done with it. Whatever happens , it will be educational. Oh nearly forgot. 12 part mini series, HBO, Gilliam. so on ad infinitum.
May 11, 2005, 8:45 a.m. CST
First off, Sky Captain and Hitchhiker's were both pretty good movies. Failing at the box office is not the same thing as being crappy, and Sky Captain didn't even do well its opening weekend, so clearly people were more turned off by the style (which is why others of us loved it) than actually saw it and thought it sucked. Hitchhiker's, on the other hand, is doing pretty well so far, so I dunno what you're tlaking about there. At this point it may or may not make up its budget in the states (wow, quirky scifi comedy full of B-list actors and Brits released before the summer season fails to make 100 million, what a surprise) but it won its weekend and made a few million in only 8 international properties, so I think it's got a long way to go worldwide before it's done making money, and I'd be willing to bet DVD sales will bolster it. Second, what relevance this has to a Watchmen movie I don't know. Third, has this been a supremely positive talkback? Of course not, how often are they? BUT, the negativity stems mostly from people who think Watchmen will fail commercially. Aside from the fact that none of the people who thinkt hat have any compelling reason for thinking so, none of them are studio executives or experts in the field, so why should Paramount give a dman what they think? People were more than this bitchy over Constantine and it did well for itself. Fourth, the thing is, none of these people have said "A Watchmen movie would SUCK" or "I wouldn't go see a good Watchmen movie!" they've just said "I don't think they'll make a good Watchmen movie." Whether they admit it or not, every damn person on this thread would be there opening weekend. If the movie's good, it'll do well.
May 11, 2005, 10:09 a.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...I don't buy that just because the Jedi fight back against their murderers in Sith, they aren't the victims of a conspiracy to committ mass murder. Not all murder victims are selfless martyrs. Many go out kicking and screaming. And I used the term "largely successful" because, out of all the Jedi in the galaxy, apparently only two survived the massacre. To me that's a largely successful campaign. As for Vader not being culpable because the murders of the younglings happen off screen, does that make Mr. Blonde not culpable for slicing off the cop's ear in Reservoir Dogs? It still happens in the context of the movie. It's a plot point that isn't glossed over. The Jedi larvae were killed. Anakin did it. And I really can't buy that all the darkness in Sith is washed away by the fact that we know Vader "redeems" himself at the end of Jedi. How is he truly redeemed? He kills a guy who lied to and manipulated him. Really, that's your Revenge of the Sith right there (revenge not being a very Jedi-like trait). I'm not saying he didn't kill Palpatine to save Luke, but you can't tell me there wasn't a small piece of Anakin that took some degree of perverse pleasure in killing his former master. Wouldn't that at least balance out the altruism, if not cancel it out? Jedi are all about pure minds and suppressed emotions. Shouldn't Anakin still go to Jedi Hell for enjoying that last act of violence and all the other evil he's done? In fact, I'd argue that the ghostly visages of the three Jedi at the end of the ROTJ Special Edition are actually spirits damned for all their lies and conspiracies to murder (which is why Qui Gon isn't with them). Anakin did all that horrible, evil shit throughout Sith and the three movies of the OT, Obi Wan lied to Luke and allowed his aunt and uncle to be killed in an effort to get the boy to take out his own dad (remember, the plan was to confront and defeat Vader), and Yoda is being punished for conspiring with that plot or just for perpetuating the repressed, totalitarian regime of the Jedi for 800+ years. Okay, so that's a stretch. But how is "know-it-all-and-sacrifice-for-the-greater-good" Yoda any different in his misguided ways than Ozymandius? Both made bad calls that resulted in many, many deaths (Ozy's is an obvious logical slip while Yoda allows himself to be manipulated by situations and people in the PT). How is Sith not dark because good things happen afterward in the world of its fiction? Assuming the world of the Watchmen didn't cease to exist as a result of the events in that story, it's very possible that good things happened there after that cataclysm as well. Again, ape, I'm sorry, but your arguments hold no water or any other liquids. Only solids. And they don't smell good.
May 11, 2005, 10:19 a.m. CST
You raise a good point, actually. Veidt may kill an awful lot of people, but he does, in fact, save the world doing it. That's a pretty good thing that happens after all the darkness. On anothe rnote entirely, to the guy who said the production designers are using the "excuse" of saying Watchmen's cities should look normal so they can get away with shoddy work... Are you nuts? Watchmen is meant to take place in the very real world, not some gothic megalopolis. This isn't Gotham or Metropolis or some other fantasy location where the set should be a character in the film. What are you looking for here?
May 11, 2005, 11:09 a.m. CST
...and I'm not even religious. Why are you talking to me again? You still haven't stepped up to the last time I called you out, and you're taking potshots now? Give it a rest. That was a derisive little nonsensical barb. Stalin killed a lot of people, Veidt killed a lot of people, so therefor Watchmen has a dark ending? What? Wolfy, I never argued Veidt was a good guy. What I said was that if Anakin's eventual decision to save Luke makes his premeditated conspiracy to commit mass-murder (in fact, hasn't he already committed mass murder? Yet he's still the hero of Attack of the Clones. Huh) less "dark", then surely Ozymandias saving the world from nuclear annihilation makes his decision to commit mass murder less dark as well. It's the logical end point of the superhero ideal; someone willing to hurt people and break the law to save the world. Stalin was only willing to hurt people to save Stalin.
May 11, 2005, 11:17 a.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...if you're talking about the slaughter of the sand people in AOTC, I think a good intergalactic lawyer could get Annie off with multiple murder 2 raps or temporary insanity (after all, if you came in and found your mom strapped to some Tusken Raider's pommel horse, you might do a little lightsaber dance on their asses, too). But Vader's definitely an accessory to mass murder in Sith at the very least. And let's not forget those officers he Force-choked throughout the original trilogy. And he never even said he was sorry or asked anyone for forgiveness on his deathbed. And he thought the lava was hot!
May 11, 2005, 11:29 a.m. CST
Oh, certainly, the slaughter of the sand people was a crime of passion, but he seemed to show remorse afterward (he broke down in front of Padme), which nixes the temporary insanity idea. If you recall and feel responsible for a crime, it's legally assumed you were competent to commit it, I believe. Regardless, he did, as he mentioned, slaughter their children. That's pretty harsh. I don't, personally, have a lot of sympathy for him after that. As for his redemption... Well, what's redemption, right? I mean, do you have to ask for it? Why shoud words make such a difference? And I don't think your actions ARE who you are, they're EVIDENCE of who you are. If he had, internally, cast off the darkside to save his son, then at that time he was a good person, regardless of all past actions. He just didn't get more of a chance to prove it. A homicidal maniac who's caged and unable to kill is no less a terrible human being, and a saint who's caged and unable to heal is no less a saint. It's your mind that matters, not the capabilities of your body.
May 11, 2005, 12:03 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...on the sandpeople children and Anakin's remorse in AOTC (I'd forgotten about those bits), but I'm still not convinced of Vader's penitence at the end of ROTJ (my mention of the asking for forgiveness was actually a knock on my Catholic upbringing, what with all the "just ask to be forgiven and you get into heaven free" stuff they taught us). And I definitely don't think Yoda and Obi Wan were squeaky clean good guys in the final analysis. Also, your point concerning Veidt's gambit and its ultimate payoff is solid. While issue 12 of Watchmen certainly displays no shortage of carnage, there are suggestions that the greater effect of his actions was a semblance of world peace... at least until that journal gets read. Overall, I don't see how the "ending" is any less workable/marketable than the "ending" of Sith. In fact, if the last shot of the movie is indeed someone reaching for Rorschach's journal, the ending is very in line with what Hollywood would consider a good ending for a movie... leaving it open for a sequel (not that there should ever be one, but the story of Watchmen itself implies a cyclical nature to events, suggesting that someone else will assume Rorschach's mantle and "rock the boat" - almost a Matrix 1 ending).
May 11, 2005, 12:13 p.m. CST
Rorschach's journal as a Matrix-esque sequel tidbit is interesting. Should never be done, but it's interesting. ;) I think the greater sequel potential is actually in the comics themselves. A 12 issue series doesn't turn into a 2-our movie without some serious chopping, while a serious big-budget sequel in the style of The Lost World would still be ahrd to manage, a few inexpensive "fill in the blanks" kinda movies focusing on character backstories would work well for that. As for Vader's repentance, I think, when it comes down to it, we're different people from one moment to the next. Was Vader, when he died, the kind of person who would betray his friends and slaughter children? If not, what's the point in attaching those crimes to him? What good is it to punish someone if it won't bring about a change in their behavior and make the world a better place? In the moments that he saved his son, he was a good person.
May 11, 2005, 1:49 p.m. CST
Ok, I know the ensemble cast will run into some cash, but based on the source material and promise of making memorable, I think that the cast wouldn't be turned off by taking a pay cut for their work. And besides a few set pieces (Mars, Antarctica) there's really no exotic locations in the film, or the need for tons of CG. So why $100 mil? Now onto my casting suggestions. If they make it the right way and cast true middle aged actors to play the parts they should, then they're obviously going to need older actors to play Silk Spectre I and The Comedian. So here's how you get your Comedian. You take Dennis Farina, pump him full of steroids, give him a prosthetic scar and throw him out a window. Viola! You've got your Eddie Blake. And if the move gets made and if (big if) they cast Hooded Justice, you could get anyone to play him. I'd imagine it costs a lot more scratch for Ron Perlman recite almost no dialog and to appear faceless in a movie than would an Antonio Sabato Jr.
May 11, 2005, 2:07 p.m. CST
That's another point, people are talking like Watchmen will demand a Spider-Man-esque amount of money. I don't know what you'd even do with that amount of money on Watchmen. You have maybe two scenes of extensive CGI, a fantasy airship, an apparantly practical Dr. Manhattan, three or four major setpieces... Compare this to, say, Hitchhiker's. That flick cost 50 million dollars for potentially far more set pieces and effects. Pump up the quality and star power and 100 million is the upper limit I could see this movie costing. They made each Lord of the Rings on 100 million, do we honestly think Watchmen has those kind of demands?
May 11, 2005, 2:56 p.m. CST
Most definitely the Tales of the Black Freighter stuff. Probably most of the stuff in the back pages, you know, the exerpt from 'Under the Hood' by Hollis Mason, that kind of stuff (which sucks because that stuff fleshed out backstory really well). What do you think won't make it in?
May 11, 2005, 4:23 p.m. CST
Some Rorschach stuff, like the psychologist stuff, and the story with him killing those dogs and chaining the dude to a pipe while the building flames up. Actually I would be surprised if any of Rorschach going to jail is even in it.
May 11, 2005, 5:01 p.m. CST
First, that stuff is absolutely integral to his character. The major moral conflict in the story is between Rorschach's view of the world--right is right, wrong is wrong, and we have to impose that on people to make it so--or Veidt's, where right and wrong are a matter of making sure things work out "in the end." It's the classic Kantian absolutism vs. utilitarian relavatism conflict, with the flaws in both arguments brilliantly exposed by the "everyman" NiteOwl and the "God's eye Perspective" Dr. Manhattan. Lose Rorschach's character and you lose a huge moral fulcrum of the story. HOWEVER... It would ALMOST be worth it to lose Roschach's scenes in order to do a cohesive and awesome Rorschach prequel. Almost.
May 11, 2005, 5:02 p.m. CST
You can keep the budget down IF you cut out all of Dr. Manhattan's backstory [which would basically be a "Hulk"-like budget right there] as well as a lot of the historical stuff. You can't have Dr. Manhattan in Viet Nam, and you probably can't have the Watchmen fighting 60's and 70's protestors. The scale would just be too great. If you do it cheap-o without the right effects, on-location shooting and the proper number of extras, all of that stuff would end up looking like Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes, and that's the LAST thing we want. You have to cut that stuff out if you can't shoot it right. That leaves you with the destruction of NY as the big, expensive set piece. Frankly, the Mars bit would probably be the cheapest and easiest to do - just do two days of shooting wherever they took Battlestar Galactica to shoot the episode where Starbuck is down on the asteroid, and digitally color everything red instead of orange. It's the stuff with people that would be the most expensive.
May 11, 2005, 5:14 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...the Rorschach stuff. He's a pivotal character and, as pointed out above, makes up half of the dilemma the movie addresses. There are ways to abridge a lot of that stuff (and the Dr. Manhattan origin/backstory) that wouldn't harm the overall narrative.
May 11, 2005, 5:19 p.m. CST
I don't know why I waited so long to read this article, but I'm glad I did. The idea of a superhero movie done in the vein of something like "Heat" is something I want to see multiple times. It's the kind of thing I will tell everyone I know that they should see it. I've never read the comic and I'm only vaguely familiar with the concept. Nevertheless I want to see this movie.
May 11, 2005, 5:26 p.m. CST
I don't get it. If Warner can greenlight "V for Vendetta" whose main hero is fundamentally a terrorist, why shouldn't Paramount do the same with Watchmen? Who wouldn't go to see a Superhero thriller starring Brad Pitt, Jude Law and Hillary Swank? There's a big place in the market for non-family oriented big budget movies. Troy, Day after tomorrow, The Passion, The Village, Lord of the Rings, Last samurai, all made big money worldwide, and none of them is a low-budget kiddie movie. And some fool said that Insomnia was a failure for Warner Bros: it made three times its budget only theatrically and the guys at Warner were so unhappy that they handed its director 150 millions to do Batman.
May 11, 2005, 5:33 p.m. CST
I know they have to pay Portman and Weaving, but other than blowing up a CGI Parliament and having a few Lifeforce-style street riot scenes, I don't see anything in V that would require any more of a budget than Ian McKellen's version of Richard III had.
May 11, 2005, 5:56 p.m. CST
Can't find a figure for the budget, but there's rather more to it than street riots and one explosion. The "V-Cave", as it was, was a hell of a set piece, and if they plan on doing any of the hallucinogenic death camp flashback shit they might be in trouble. I could see this easily reaching into the 75 mil range, depending on the extent of the production design.
May 11, 2005, 6:05 p.m. CST
is there anything sacred in hollywood? i read this book in 86 and the best part about it was that you knew they couldnt possibly film it.. but that was then , personally i think they will butcher it forever turning millions of people off of the book which in end is the only way to truly get the entire story.I almost hope batman begins is a flop that may prevent them from trying to make a dark knight returns movie (shudder)
Yeah, and they will never make a Sin City faithful to the books, right?
May 11, 2005, 6:26 p.m. CST
...the same reason you'd adapt anything else. Because at some point someone made the decision to pursue this story in one format, and now someone thinks the story can be told in a different format. Something new will come of it, and they won't be the same. If they were the same, there'd be no point to one of them. Frankly, I liked Sin City the comics, but when you can have Sin City the movie they're almost superfluous, literally the story boards. Most things take more translation, and in the translation new and interesting ideas, scenes, words, whatever emerge. Will the film be as good as the book? It's unlikely, Watchmen the comic was a breakthrough and took artistic chances that probably wouldn't make it to a movie screen. But ti could be a good or even great movie, and a good or great movie is an end in of itself.
May 11, 2005, 6:31 p.m. CST
sure i agree that sin city was faithful i just dont think all things good should be made into movies i mean am i the only one starving for fresh ideas to pour out of hollywood instead of remake after remake where is our generations Apocalypse Now or The The Godfather i mean even the new Star Wars pictures dont have a fraction of the wonder and awe the original trilogy brought its just sad that somewhere out there,is a good idea that will never see the light of day because studios are too busy raiding comic stores and back issues of tv guide for the next big thing
May 11, 2005, 7:21 p.m. CST
Congratulations, JewJewBoy, you proved that this TalkBack is not overwhelmingly positive and that a poll of our ranks by Paramount would not inspire confidence. What do you win, exactly? You and people like you can talk about how "foolish" it is to be excited for a property that has no guarantee of success until the cows come home. What exactly do you stand to gain from proving that? A fraction of intellectual superiority over people you don't even respect? So that a movie you don't even want to see won't get made? Congratulations. *************** As a sidenote but on a sort of related matter, the reason that I'm pretty sure the guy in the running for Nite Owl is Joaquin Phoenix and not Mel Gibson is because Mel Gibson's salary would eat up a fifth of the movie's budget.
May 11, 2005, 7:34 p.m. CST
"where is our generations Apocalypse Now or The The Godfather?" Do you know that both those movies were adapted from books?
May 11, 2005, 7:42 p.m. CST
Good one. ;) Personally, I think remakes and adaptations are enormously important. In some cases it's like having a very severe second draft edit--you pull out the good and get rid of the bad and highlight the themes and cut off the fat. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail, but they defintiely serve a purpose.
May 11, 2005, 7:48 p.m. CST
You hit the nail right on the head. Every frickin' major release that comes along, you got this legion of moron clones predicting it's doom. I'm certainly not saying we should just mindlessly adore everything that comes down the pike, but this thing is barely in the embryonic stages, man! I would say there are an awful lot of clairvoyants/ precogs out there, but no, wait... I seem to recollect these folks being wrong before.
May 11, 2005, 8:13 p.m. CST
The following is a short list containing a very few of the many reasons we should all be grateful Hollywood is fixated on adaptations: A Clockwork Orange, A Streetcar Named Desire, American Beauty, Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner, Chinatown, Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket, Gone with the Wind, Memento, Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Pirates of the Caribbean, Sideways, Stand by Me, Strangers on a Train, The Big Sleep, The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Godfather, The Green Mile, The Lord of the Rings, The Maltese Falcon, The Shawshank Redemption, The Shining, The Silence of the Lambs, The Wizard of Oz, and To Kill a Mockingbird. There are lots more.
May 11, 2005, 8:23 p.m. CST
ok i give, maybe some adaptations have done quite well but on the whole dont you think its geting a little out of hand ...honestly?
May 11, 2005, 10:23 p.m. CST
You know how it works. Something does well, then there's a million copycats. Tank Girl goes through the roof then Sony scrambles to get Spiderman and there it goes on down the line.
May 11, 2005, 10:53 p.m. CST
Nice to hear from you as always, and I'm glad to hear that you're as sick of these mooks as I am.
May 11, 2005, 11:46 p.m. CST
Was it a nice 4X7 set?
May 12, 2005, 12:02 a.m. CST
Methinks you have the wrong article, PMK.
May 12, 2005, 2:27 a.m. CST
by Triumph poops!
Namely, Paramount waits and Warners debuts V FOR VENDETTA and it fails (or does poor at the box office). Since everyone's predicting "how" WATCHMEN will do, it's interesting that no one's taking that film into account. The reason I say Paramount has to act now is simply because if they wait and IF -- and I say IF -- V FOR VENDETTA underwhelms at the box office, man, I can just see any WATCHMEN pitch meeting after that. Producer: "Yeah, we have to do this! It's by this brilliant Brit writer!" Studio boss picking at a sample comic issue like it's a bug: "Brilliant, huh? Who's it by What else has he done?" Producer: "He's named Alan Moore. He also did LEAQUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN and V FOR VENDETTA." Studio Boss: "Get out of my office NOW."
May 12, 2005, 4:55 a.m. CST
a handful of people on the internet - and this is gonna sound weird, but just listen to me - they are saying bad things about this movie. On the internet. Until now, this technology has mostly been used for positive comments like "good job," "I'm happy," "we all respect each other and are good friends" and that sort of thing. Now all the sudden, I'm sorry to report, a couple people are cynical and negative about this movie. If I were you I would piss my pants and go cry in the corner and hope to some day earn their respect, but not now. And not soon. Or actually not ever. So don't even try. Go away.
May 12, 2005, 5:06 a.m. CST
by Triumph poops!
So what are you saying? That the ONLY people who should get to post online are those who ONLY push happy thoughts? That the ONLY people who should have a voice are those saying "Gosh darn it, we LOVE you and, gosh darn it, whoever you are, you can do NO wrong!" And then have a big Internet hug and make like a bad, drug-induced episode of BARNEY? Sorry, but regardless of where you stand on something, pro or con, open voice mics (per se) should always be the one basic rule of any format where people come to mingle in a democracy.
May 12, 2005, 8:15 a.m. CST
...way to read into some innocent sarcasm as an excuse to go into a self-aggrandizing tirade. No one said only happy things should be on the internet, Bryan just pointed out that internet geeks like ourselves are mostly known for ebing whiny, bitchy bastards. And pissing about predicting the failure of comic book flicks online isn't some great defense of the first ammendment, it's (usually) just people being brainless assholes. If you've got something constructive to say, that's fine, but most of the negativity on this site is just people spewing bile. Is that their right? Absolutley! Is it in any way useful or respectable? Ehhhh.... not so much.
May 12, 2005, 8:34 a.m. CST
I've never read "Watchmen," and I generally don't consider myself a comic book guy. As a result, the only film adaptations of comics I've ever truly enjoyed are "Batman" (the first movie), "Sin City," "X-Men II," and the "Spider-Man" films. A few other comic book movies I almost liked, but found myself not getting into them when push came to shove. The reason I'd be excited to see "Watchmen," however, is because 1) I really dug the brutality and dark hero characterizations "Sin City," and 2) because Paul Greengrass would be directing the film. Moriarty was right when he said "Bloody Sunday" was " ...a powerhouse, sober and adult and political as hell." The sense of loss and tragedy Greengrass evoked in that film really moved me, and though "The Bourne Supremacy" was a fantastical tangent from Greengrass's earlier film, the director's visual style and philosophy of realism permeated the movie. As a marginal comic book fan, I would love to see Greengrass's "Watchmen" greenlit.
May 12, 2005, 9:57 a.m. CST
Go get the book, now!
May 12, 2005, 6:31 p.m. CST
Like the other guy said, I was just being a smartass about how negative and whiny people tend to be on the internet. Personally, I am not 100% convinced that Watchmen will work as a movie (it's so self-referential as a comic book that I'm not sure it would make sense). So I'm not really partisan on this one. What I was trying to make fun of is people who are warning Paramount that it will allegedly be a box office failure. What possible motivation is there to be passionate about that other than trying to be a contrarian or to prove to yourself that you are different from these other nerds? I seem to remember that Gigli was a box office failure and, what happened, I didn't watch it and I went on with my life. It did not affect me in any way. I did not get upset that whichever studio that was may have lost money. I did not ever consider travelling back in time and warning them not to make the movie. What are these people afraid of - Paramount will make a Watchmen movie that the other people in the talkback might like, and it will be a box office failure? OH MY GOD, what a tremendous loss for all of us, who don't have anything to do with Paramount but just want to watch good movies. WE MUST WARN PARAMOUNT AWAY FROM THIS DANGEROUS PATH. If you don't care about Watchmen, then why do you, uh, care so much? (Not necessarily you specifically, Triumph, I'm not sure what your stance is on the comic book or possible movie. I'm talking about people who don't care about the comic but say not to make the movie.) I guess it's just me but I find that kind of pointless negative aggression on the internet pretty much hilarious. So please, everyone, continue.
May 12, 2005, 6:36 p.m. CST
I don't agree with the logic that it wouldn't make money unless it had a PG-13 rating. I think PG-13 these days implies that a movie is for kids, and causes many adults not to see it. On the other hand, if the movie follows the comic book story, it is not something that would appeal to little kids. So the audience is teenagers and adults. Adults are willing to bring teenagers to rated-R movies if they want to see them. You may have heard of such movies as The Matrix, Die Hard, Predator, Aliens, Terminator 2, etc. If it's rated-R then it's a trick to convince some people they want to see an intelligent, adult oriented take on guys in silly super hero costumes. But if it's PG-13 I think it would be nearly impossible to make people think it's anything other than another generic super hero movie, but one they've never heard of before.
May 12, 2005, 8:09 p.m. CST
For me this sounds like it won't be goodwhile people who don't know the Watchmen don't give a damn. It's going to be a big budget fiasco. Get ready for some big waste of cash from the studio...
May 12, 2005, 8:28 p.m. CST
To predict Watchmen will be a fiasco? And does it hurt when the wheater changes?
May 12, 2005, 9:46 p.m. CST
by Black Satin 2
If Watchmen is ever going to be successful, it needs to be broken up in 3 movies. The first should deal with the Comedian's death, Dr. Manhatten leaving and Rorschach getting arrested. The second should deal with Night Owl and Silk Spectre getting closer before Dr. Manhatten snatches her and a full view of the prison Rorschach is in before he escapes. The third should deal with Laurie's reveal about the Comedian and Rorschach and Night Owl dealing with Ozmandias before Dr.Manhatten's 'demise'. One thing though. How will they be able to pull off destroying New York? I'll bet they will have to change the city to pass it. Yes, it will cost lots of money but what's next? A remake of Homicide? Friends? I like Jude Law to be Rorschach and Charles Dutton to be the shrink trying to disect him.
May 13, 2005, 12:12 a.m. CST
by Col. Klink
Jeez, he tells you it's an Oscar winning actress, then uses the words "million" "dollar" "baby". And people are guessing Angelina Jolie!?
May 13, 2005, 12:25 a.m. CST
I'm glad SOMEone said it.
May 13, 2005, 6:15 p.m. CST
I agree that his suggestions about Hillary Swank and Ron Perlman being cast is blatantly obvious. When he suggests that Dan/NightOwl will be played by an actor from Signs, that implies to me either Mel Gibson or Joaquin Phoenix. Gibson is out because that part isn't big enough for someone of his stature, and if he wanted to do this film then Paramount would say "yes Sir" and their reservations would disappear. However the producers would then have no budget for CGI left after his salary was paid, so they wouldn't offer the part to him to begin with. So Mori has to be talking about Phoenix. Especially since he would be more age appropriate as Hilary Swank's love interest. This is very different from Alan Moore's depiction of Dan being old enough for a middle age crisis. He and Laurie are supposed to be an unlikely couple. Plus Nightowl(2) was supposed to have been active for a lengthy period of time, and then retired for an equally lengthy period of time, so an actor playing him ought to be at least in his 30's. That said, Dan and Laurie are the most generic types of all the characters and could be played by many, many actors. The most difficult casting is Rorshach, the Comedian, and Dr. Manhattan. Those can be settled when they have a confirmed green light and the rest cast afterward.
May 14, 2005, 6:33 p.m. CST
I don't know that posting a talkback message will change anything (it won't), but as a huge Watchmen fan I'll choose to take this report to heart and unreservedly advocate the making of the picture. I'll be there on opening day.
May 15, 2005, 12:47 a.m. CST
So what is that, like a tissue?
May 15, 2005, 9:07 a.m. CST
how bout this it ocurred to me last night David Caruso as rorscach and Sylvester Stallone as the comedian
May 15, 2005, 11:28 a.m. CST
David Caruso as Rorschach is probably a little on the old side, considering the casting possibilities already mentioned. Which kind of makes me wonder if they're going to have the Vietnam backstory in this movie or not.
May 16, 2005, 9:18 a.m. CST
by Rorschach's Ear
I have learned that parking signs with the WATCHMEN name have been spotted at Pinewood Studios in the UK, along with one reserved for an 'Alan Moore'. Now, we just have to dig in people, like we had to for Fellowship. You know how it feels, Even if they screw up, what, 70% of it, it will still be worth seeing, And perhaps more A-list directors will realise they've been backing the wrong stories for too long. Will Moore ever show at Pinewood, if only to cast his mighty gaze on the task in hand? UK studios like this need more of such protean talents.
May 16, 2005, 5:24 p.m. CST
Paramount, listen to Moriarty! Everything he said in that article is spot on. I first read Watchmen about 20 years ago too. Those casting ideas all sound great! All the design and costume work sounds perfect too! I will see the movie 5 times, buy the DVD, the posters, the action figures, EVERYTHING. MAKE THE MOVIE! You will make BIG PROFITS! You have a great team in place. Give them the greenlight!
May 17, 2005, 4:21 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...I missed the fact that you called me out on this talkback. Not sure where you got the idea I went to film school. You can study film in regular schools, too, you know? You must really still be sore about that spanking I gave you in the Paris Hilton talkback. I really can't help it if you don't think your arguments out carefully. All I can do is point out how stupid you sound. But you're doing a great job of making yourself seem smart here and in other talkbacks by calling a lot of childish names and whatnot. Ergo, you are pretty pathetic.
May 18, 2005, 9:17 p.m. CST
All points of view aside, some I agree with, others I don't. I'm viewing this talkback more through curiosity to see how long it degenerates into futile bickering & name calling. Which I can see is rapidly getting there. As one 'poster' noted it is a bit like a dog chasing it's own ass. I'll just be a conscientious observer and sit on the fence and watch this one for the moment. I look forward to the pointless abuse heading in my direction for this decision, by faceless 'wacky' monikered strangers. Like the bunch of old nannies some of you are, you won't be able to contain yourselves when it comes to someone simply sitting on the sidelines.
May 19, 2005, 11:51 p.m. CST
by white owl
i'm guessing its a comic?
May 28, 2005, 9:40 p.m. CST
by Nazzim O'Bazzim
For those who are saying that it's dumb and sophomoric that the world unites at the brink of war against a possible alien threat... I don't think they saw the dread hanging over the ending. Dr. Manhattan says to Ozymandias that "nothing ever ends" and the last image we see is that guy at the New Frontiersman's office hand hovering over Rorschach's journal. They're going to publish it. Inadvertantly spill the beans. And then what's going to happen? The world'll go back to normal. Ozymandias' gamble will fail and everyone comprimised for nothing. Now that's a bummer...
May 30, 2005, 4:55 p.m. CST
you know moore plants a hippie / voo doo curse on any hollywood weasels dumb enuf to mess with his shit .so far hes 3 for 3 .joel silvers v for voo doo doll is on the altar to marvel man right now
March 16, 2009, 3:03 p.m. CST
And this movie got made