Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News


Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...

Although I can’t publish my full detailed report until May, I had a very interesting visit this week to the editing room of the new Warner Bros. film 300, directed by Zack Snyder. I walked into the encounter thinking he was a talented guy who had made a pretty good first film. I left the encounter convinced that Snyder is one of the best-kept secrets in Hollywood right now, a visionary with a wicked eye and a real feel for how to bring fantastic material to the bigscreen.

While I was there, I noticed a copy of the WATCHMEN graphic novel sitting on the desk of his office, and in our conversations about Frank Miller and his newfound luck in film translations of his work, the subject of Alan Moore came up. Snyder mentioned that he was about to meet with the producers of WATCHMEN to discuss whether or not he would come aboard to direct the long-in-development film.

I’ve been able to confirm now that Snyder has entered negotiations with Warner Bros. to helm the project, which is fantastic news. I know that all you guys have seen so far is DAWN OF THE DEAD, so that’s all you can judge him on, but trust me... 300 is a whole different ball game. When you get a load of what this guy is capable of... when you see how far he pushes things with bringing Frank Miller’s world to life... you’ll be just as excited as I am. I’ve always said that WATCHMEN had the right producers and writer attached, and I think there have been some interesting directors (Aronofsky and Greengrass) attached to it in the last few years. But with Snyder, I think the WATCHMEN may have finally found the perfect guy for the job, and I am absolutely rabid to see what he’s going to do.

And speaking of that script... I’ve heard there are some revisions underway to really fine-tune the various Hayter drafts and make sure that what ends up onscreen is the most perfect realization of Moore’s book possible. I’m hoping I can work something out where I can track down the new writer and talk with him about the work he’s doing, because I know how important this book is to so many of you. Zack Snyder said the same thing about it to me, talking about the responsibility of bringing something like WATCHMEN to life. “If I screw up 300, that would be heartbreaking, but ultimately, it’s not as well known a property. If you get WATCHMEN wrong... well...”

He didn’t have to finish the sentence, and he doesn’t have to worry. I have utmost faith that he’s going to knock it out of the park. I’m as sure of that as I am of the fact that when the trades finally report Snyder has signed as director, they won’t mention that the story broke here first. Take that to the bank.

Okay... I wanted to add a few comments in light of the incredibly redundant talkback that has erupted below. If I could strike any one regurgitated bit of parrot speak from the collective vocabulary of fandom, it would be that numbingly predictable "WATCHMEN should be an HBO series" horseshit. I love Terry Gilliam. The man made my favorite film, BRAZIL. But when he said what he said fifteen years ago, he was responding to a script draft by Sam Hamm and a development process that involved producers that have been off the film for a long, long time. And at the time, maybe he really did think that was the only hope for the property.

But this steadfast insistence that the property can't be done justice in film form is just plain wrong. I disagree completely. And that's because I've read many drafts of the current project, including the one I reviewed here. It is possible. And not only that, it's a priority to Lloyd Levin and Larry Gordon, who have stayed with this property in its journey from Universal to Revolution to Paramount to Warner Bros. They've been with it through several different directors. And although I haven't heard from them on this, I assume they're the ones who are working with the young writer who is currently crafting what will hopefully be the final draft of this script. When you dismiss this project... when you dismiss the possibility of it out of hand, and when you say it could "only" work in television form... it's simply not true. More is possible if you're dealing with a script that genuinely respects the source material than you may even believe.

At its worst, fandom has a close-minded victim's mentality that must be incredibly frustrating for anyone actually trying to develop something like this, because you're faced with obstinance for the mere point of it. If you haven't seen what they're up to yet, and you don't know what they've done with the adaptation, and you haven't seen one image or design or indication of the look or feel, how can you make such a grand sweeping pronouncement? "It's not possible." All that says is that you can't do it. That doesn't mean it's beyond someone else.

I have spent years writing about this project and following its development not because I want it to suck, but because I believe that there's a chance it could be something great. And if there's any chance for that to happen at all, I know how incredibly tricky it's going to be. It's going to require a perfect mix of director and actors and script and production design and cinematography, and there are a million points along the way where something could go wrong. But if you take the attitude up front that it can "never" work, then it seems to me you really shouldn't even bother commenting any further. There was a time when you could have said that it would "never" work to make a film of SIN CITY, or that Warner would "never" make a serious Batman film, or that they would "never" get Spider-Man to move like Spider-Man, or that LORD OF THE RINGS would "never" work as a film, or even as a trilogy. And if you can look at all the times people have done exactly what they should "never" have been able to do, and you can still be so incredibly closed to this film sight unseen, then just give it up. You can just go off and imagine your pointless masturbatory 12 hour version of the thing, and be done with it. For some of us, the potential of film is part of the pleasure, and your pessimism seems like poison for the sake of poison.

"Moriarty" out.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 24, 2006, 5:50 p.m. CST

    If 300 is as good as the photos look

    by drjohnnyfever

    We're all in for a treat... for that film and probably for Watchmen.

  • March 24, 2006, 5:51 p.m. CST

    And no, you aren't first.

    by drjohnnyfever


  • March 24, 2006, 5:52 p.m. CST


    by Kash18

    We'll see what happens

  • March 24, 2006, 5:53 p.m. CST

    Im not convinced

    by just_hamish

    I guess it will all revolve around how good 300 turns out, can't say I found anything to enjoy in the Dawn Of The Dead remake.

  • March 24, 2006, 5:53 p.m. CST

    Okay Third

    by Kash18

    I really do wish we could have just gotten an awesome uncensored HBO mini for watchmen.... Now that coulda been beautiful

  • March 24, 2006, 5:54 p.m. CST

    Something to enjoy about Dawn of the Dead Remake...

    by drjohnnyfever

    It wasn't directed by Uwe Boll. Like father, like son, think about it, won't you?

  • March 24, 2006, 5:55 p.m. CST


    by AmirReza

    Just Maybe. Watched V 2nd time. Was a lot better now that I wasn't nitpicking at discrepancies.

  • March 24, 2006, 5:55 p.m. CST

    what the fuck are...

    by calami-shami

    ...chris nolan and arnofsky doing that they can't be involved in this in any way?

  • March 24, 2006, 5:57 p.m. CST

    I thought Greengrass was perfect.

    by spacehog

    That lengthy interview at CHUD convinced me. But, yeah. I'm not sure I even want to see an adaptation at this point.

  • March 24, 2006, 5:57 p.m. CST

    I Just Checked In To See If It Was Me...

    by Buzz Maverik

    ...having attached myself to the project years ago. I suppose, other people have to know yer attached before you actually get to direct it...

  • March 24, 2006, 6:01 p.m. CST

    by Anoblu

  • March 24, 2006, 6:01 p.m. CST

    Glycon will not be happy

    by The Heathen

  • March 24, 2006, 6:03 p.m. CST


    by The Heathen

    he's also doing Flicker and something with Lone Wolf and Cub.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:04 p.m. CST

    Zack Snyder, eh?

    by Ribbons

    Interesting. I really enjoyed his 'Dawn of the Dead' and he seems like a talented director who really knows what he's talking about, so I wish him the best of luck on making as good a bad movie as possible. Terry Gilliam once said that "Watchmen" was unadaptable unless it was a 12-parter on HBO, so therefore we know that this project will suck.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:12 p.m. CST

    Loved Dawn, but I'm worried about the scale of this

    by modlight

    I think Watchmen would make a perfect HBO 12 1 hour ep series

  • March 24, 2006, 6:17 p.m. CST

    No Aronofsky, But Maybe They Could Get Rachel...

    by Buzz Maverik

    ...for Silk Spectre. She's beautiful, talented, and over 30 which would put her prime as a non-powered super-heroine. WATCHMEN casting is extremely tricky. I always see too young, too old, too unknown, too well known when I see the same names. And, nothing against anybody else, but screw the HBO mini. I mean, you always see that whenever talk of a WATCHMEN movie comes out just because somebody said it once. I think if they can do GONE WITH THE WIND or LORD OF THE RINGS or LAWRENCE O' ARABIA, they can probably do WATCHMEN...which I know nobody was saying, but still.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:18 p.m. CST

    Keep Hollywood's gutless loons away from Watchmen

    by Vynson

    **SPOILERS follow** Having read the Hayter draft with Laurie being changed to SlingShot with stupid powers and the Calamari Alien being switched with Moloch's dumb solar weapon, I have to say that anyone who thinks that's the way to go with Watchmen has no business anywhere near the property. The characters were almost unrecognizeable and this script affords the original story almost no respect at all. Changes are gratuitous and senseless and reflect a lack of understanding of the story's themes and ideas. And the ending is just all kinds of wrong. It has Dan offing Adrian with an Owlerang ruining the philosophical and circumstantial stalemate that ends the book. Did Hayter just not get it at all? Sure, we like to hope that future drafts work out these stupidities, but when was the last time Hollywood brought an adapted screenplay CLOSER to the original material in future drafts? No, they just screw it up beyond all recognition. Why even call this movie WATCHMEN? Give the characters new names and tell your story. But if you aren't going to tell Alan Moore' story, why disrespect his characters to tell yours? Can Hollywood just keep their hands off what they can't understand? Do Moore right or don't do him at all. After they cut the spine out of V for Vendetta by removing all traces of anarchism (which happened to be the character's defining trait), I don't feel inclined to watch another gutless adaptation. V was billed as "uncompromising" but it was cowardly. They even compromised the bishop's death. What a wonderful scene in the book when V makes him eat a poisoned communion wafer which, of course, fails to transmogrify into the body of Christ and kills him. That was beautiful writing but the Wachowardskis cut it. They cut the balls and spine out of that story and I don't imagine Watchmen will fare any better. Alan Moore is right. Keep Hollywood away from it because they are either too stupid or too gutless or both. Watchmen fans assemble at:

  • March 24, 2006, 6:19 p.m. CST

    i wonder if this will lead to that watchmen sequel...

    by blackthought

    everything's got to be franchised...hell the cogs are franchised...or that could just be this one. look for blackthought v. 1.2 in the future...with more muffin damn BC is takig it to nova.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:23 p.m. CST

    Still dont think it'll work either...

    by Scioptic

    and I'm not knocking the team behind trying to bring it to the big screen, its just the fact that is going to be one film, which even at 3 hours long won't be able to show anywhere near the amount of detail and depth that's in the graphic novel. The HBO 12 parter would've been the better route to go down in my opinion. I think the only way they're going to come anywhere near close to showing all the detail that we want in a film version would be if they split it up and made numerous films in volumes, ala Lord Of The Rings or Kill Bill, but on a larger scale.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:23 p.m. CST

    The film that will never be

    by zekmoe

    is Watchman. It's just a fun topic to talk about, and we'll be speculating about it 5 years from now, but as a feature film, it will NEVER HAPPEN! I'm taking all betters on this.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:23 p.m. CST

    I Meant Weiss Would...

    by Buzz Maverik slightly PAST her prime for non-powered heroing, as was the Spectre.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:25 p.m. CST

    "I think Watchmen would make a perfect 12 ep series"

    by Ribbons

    I don't. I'm not gonna get into this argument again because I've had it, like, 5 times and it never gets any less frustrating, but I just wanna say this before I bite my tongue: I think 12 hours is far too long for a TV/movie adaptation of "Watchmen." Even assuming that they recreate every issue shot-for-shot, panel-for-panel -- including the "Tales of the Black Freigther" (somehow, since people out there actually seem to think this is a viable option) and I'm still not sure you've got one hour per issue. Not to mention the fact that certain things not only can be condensed, but should be condensed in order to work in that medium. I'll admit that I can see it working as a miniseries of some length (not 12 epp. though), but I don't see what's so infeasible about adapting it for the big screen as well. I also think the cost of good production values and the scope of the story are not to be underestimated. Paul Greengrass has made some pretty successful low budget films and even he struggled to keep 'Watchmen' under $100 million. Sure, maybe you won't see as much of the psychologist who interviews Rorshach or something along the lines as you would if the project was serialized, but I certainly think that a movie is possible, and there are certain benefits to a big-screen adaptation as well. But thanks to this ridiculous meme that Terry Gilliam started, people who haven't even looked at the script (admittedly, neither have I) refuse to believe that it can be done. Hell, Alan Moore said he was satisfied with it. Does that mean nothing to you people? Ah, whatever.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:27 p.m. CST

    It Doesn't Have To Have Everything The Comic Had.

    by Buzz Maverik

    In fact, it shouldn't. They can adapt. I mean, you want everything from the comic, you still have the comic, right? Just so they don't try to "improve" it with their own ideas. Taking away is often okay, it's what THEY add that often wrecks things.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:33 p.m. CST

    The Watchmen should be an HBO series

    by jpbas

    It's the only way to tell the entire story without losing what makes it so unique. V for Vendetta, as a movie, was very good. It kept the basic ideas intact even with a complete rewrite of the 3rd act. That could never be done with The Watchmen. You'd need to tell this story over 12 one hour episodes.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:33 p.m. CST

    Greengrass should be brought back

    by ChorleyFM

    He left when the rights reverted and pre-production stopped, Warners should bring him on board.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:37 p.m. CST

    Ribbons and HBO Haters, here are my reasons for it...

    by modlight

    First off, if you haven't watched Rome then you must, because that shows you what they are capable of in scale and story. F' the Sopranos. And maybe just maybe you could invite Alan Moore to pull his head out of his ass and help on a series adding things to make it work for television rather than cutting it for film. And if you really read the comic you would know that there is tons of viable material at the end of each issue in normal non illustrated prose form that a'la LOST (which counts Watchmen as an influence)could add even more depth to the story.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:38 p.m. CST

    Agree about HBO

    by Adapter56

    YES! I really hope the people at HBO take notice of the material and at Warners at least considers that as an option. A 12 episode mini-series with a huge budget would be record-breaking TV.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:42 p.m. CST

    And perhaps maybe not even HBO, but dare I say...

    by modlight

    Sci-Fi.. They produce some really fun crap, but then again... HBO had Dream on and Tales from the Crypt before Sex, and Sopranos, and their Movies. Maybe Battlestar and Watchmen could usher them into a new realm. They almost had something good with Taken. And that was long as fuck.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:44 p.m. CST


    by Ribbons

    Umm, did you read my post? Yes, asshole, I "really read the comic," and I acknowledged the "non-illustrated prose" that accompanies the end of each issue. By the way, I would hardly call myself an "HBO hater" just because I think that a good 'Watchmen' movie is plausible. Fucking "hater" is a word that needs to be abolished from AICN.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:45 p.m. CST

    Here here, Vynson!

    by 3 Bag Enema

    And though I agree with all of your points, I will still endlessly debate casting decisions with gleeful shame. By the way, everytime some douche in this talkback says it should be an HBO series, take a drink. And then die of alcohol poisoning.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:46 p.m. CST

    It can be done,

    by OurManInMontr

    just needs to be done RIGHT. Buzz just said it, it's ok to trim some fat, just don't presume you have anything better to ADD to it... A mini series might have been ideal, but would the budget have been sufficient, even if it was on HBO? I'm hoping & praying for an announcement -IF this is indeed happening (nudge-nudge, zekmoe!)- that they're splitting it in two installments, to maybe come out 6 months apart

  • March 24, 2006, 6:46 p.m. CST

    I have an idea

    by The Heathen

  • March 24, 2006, 6:49 p.m. CST

    No one said it had to remake the comic panel for panel

    by Vynson

    Why is it every time we hope that the movie adaptation will at least attempt to tell the same story, someone acts like that's a travesty. I understand adaptation. I understand that a picture is worth a thousand words and a clever screenwriter can bring a dense novel to the screen faithfully if he has sufficient understanding and respect for the source material and a very polished talent. I understand that some pretty tough choices have to be made to take a story out of 200 plus pages and put it down in 120 pages... and then put it on screen in two hours. And I know for a fact that this story can be adapted into such a script. But Hollywood doesn't get Alan Moore. Hayter's script wasn't as bad as Sam Hamm's but that's like saying a sharp stick in the eye isn't as bad as a knife in the back. Both scripts added tons of crap instead of just paring the story down to a workable size and doing the logical consolidations necessary to bring the story to the screen. Obviously, neither Hayter, nor Hamm believe in the story or they wouldn't have butchered it so heinously. Watchmen is not an ongoing serial that allows for the same liberties as X-Men. It is a story. Is it too much to ask the filmmakers to ADAPT that story rather than make up a new one with shallow representations of the characters and giving it the same title? Hell, why bother buying the rights if you aren't going to tell the story and honor the themes? And I don't believe Alan Moore said he was satisfied with the Hayter script. I believe he said something along the lines of that being about as close as Hollywood is likely to get. That's a far cry from "satisfaction."

  • March 24, 2006, 6:50 p.m. CST

    Sci-Fi "they produce some really fun CRAP"

    by The Heathen

    What else is there to say? Don't say Sci-Fi, don't dare it, seriously.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:52 p.m. CST

    wow, typical talk backer moving straight to insults...

    by modlight

    How bout this for a hater (which I was using in the parlance of the boards as Maude would say), go fuck yourself. I was trying to get a decent discussion with you (who had obviously read the comic due to your long post where you discussed the Black Freighter et al) and the other heshers above you on here here may or may not be talking out of their ass. So thanks for reminding me that I shouldn't waste my time. Enjoy your Watchmen movie where the Comdian will be played by Robin Williams in a "prestige role" and all back stories that gave the story its meat will be whittled down to footnotes. But I'm glad that it has such patient and understanding fans as yourself in its corner.

  • March 24, 2006, 6:53 p.m. CST

    I'll believe it when I see it.

    by fiester

    And when Moore give it his blessing, not before.

  • March 24, 2006, 7:03 p.m. CST

    I really wish they wouldn't do this.

    by robotdevil

    Alan Moore's material is great because of the amazingly unique way in which takes advantage of the comic-book medium. This is automatically lost in translation to film. All three of the movies made from his work (From Hell, LXG, and VfV) have been pretty awful. Watchmen is just too good (and the fucking dumbass public will probably think it's a rip-off of the Incredibles). Leave a good thing alone. Please.

  • March 24, 2006, 7:04 p.m. CST

    100 THAT should be an HBO series

    by xocgx

    If you haven't read 100 Bullets, you monthly series out by Vertigo. PERFECT for HBO.

  • March 24, 2006, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Moore blesses nothing but Glycon

    by The Heathen

  • March 24, 2006, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Yeah, speaking of insults...

    by Ribbons

    ..."go fuck yourself?" Yeesh. Let me guess: "you started it?" Look, I'm sorry for calling you an asshole (which was actually my only "insult" in that post, unless the adjective fucking applied to something else counts as an insult); when you said "...had you really read the comic..." or whatever I thought that you were trying to imply that I must not have read the comic based on what I was proposing, which is a pretty aggravating position to be placed in by somebody else. As for a decent discussion... I mean, I don't know exactly what it is that you want to discuss. You're trying to tell me that an HBO series COULD work when I never said that it couldn't. I'm just sick of hearing all these people say that it's the only way it can be done (although I'm not as convinced as you are that HBO's got the dinero to make it happen). You want a good, honest discussion? Tell me specifically what it is about the non-illustrated flashbacks, without "typical TalkBacker insults," that make their detailed adaptation so essential to the story of "Watchmen."

  • March 24, 2006, 7:07 p.m. CST

    No audience for a flawed version of this one

    by Vynson

    Let's not kid ourselves about this being a two or three parter ala LOTR. LOTR is the fifth most influential book to modern readers according to a Library of Congress poll. Watchmen does not have that kind of built-in audience. Warner Brothers would be stupid to put that kind of money into it. Watchmen is also an oddity in that it is a rather adult story, yet adults may not shine to superheroes... and kids won't recognize NiteOwl and can't pronounce Ozymandias, so there goes your Happy Meal and action figure money. Watchmen isn't exactly a family movie. And while I think an 8 to 10 episode HBO series would be cool, I think a decent 2 hour movie is theoretically possible. I just don't think it will happen. And I'd rather they leave it alone than "retell" it. But I think it's great that there are so many passionate fans of the material here, even though our opinions are likely to differ wildly. My opinion is that if the studio doesn't deliver a very faithful adaptation, this movie will die at the box office. If they don't capture what is special about the comic, they will not find an audience.

  • March 24, 2006, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Phaedrus I agree.

    by modlight

    Ultimately I think if they have to adapt it a series would be best to preserve all it entails. (despite what the venerable Mr. RIBBONS thinks) But ultimately they shouldn't adapt it. It is the best in its field because it is in its field. It is one of those rare occurances where someone so completely understands the medium that they work in and create a true work of unique art. Changing mediums could really hurt it.

  • March 24, 2006, 7:14 p.m. CST

    Ribbons, fair enough....

    by modlight

    When I was much younger I read the Watchmen without reading those sections cause, well they weren't comics. But then as I was older I revisited it and made sure to read them and I find that they help to flesh out even further the self contained world of the Watchmen. It can be done without them true, but unlike Spiderman and Supes adn Bats which have had 50 years of stories to pull atmostphere and history from, the genius of the Watchmen is that it is self contained, but we immediately associate with that. That is due to the character archtypes of the Superman/Punisher/Batman but what makes it truly great is the details much of which come in the illustrated flashbacks and the side stories. Say what you will about V, but I was really happy they kept in the side stories.

  • March 24, 2006, 7:15 p.m. CST

    The "perfect guy for the job" was Kubrick and he's dead

    by zikade zarathos

    DAWN OF THE DEAD was subpar, so color me not-thrilled.

  • March 24, 2006, 7:17 p.m. CST


    by robotdevil

    Yeah, an HBO quality series is probably the best that could be hoped for if it must be attempted. Oh well, it's in the hands of the Hollywood gods now.

  • March 24, 2006, 7:19 p.m. CST

    Ribbons, hate to cut and run..

    by modlight

    Cause I do think it could be a movie, but I am more afraid of it getting screwedup that way. But I have to beat LA friday traffic and get to a dinner. put your rebutle up and I'll be back on tomorrow. now don't be a hater (tee hee).

  • March 24, 2006, 7:22 p.m. CST

    This AICN Exclusive is an actual story..... ALMOST

    by Incrediburgible

  • March 24, 2006, 7:23 p.m. CST

    I've got faith in Snyder...

    by Anti-fanboy

    Dawn was really good, in and of itself. The 300 production diaries are reassuring. I can see Watchmen being successfully adapted into a 2 hour plus movie, faithful in essence, if not detail.

  • March 24, 2006, 7:27 p.m. CST

    The Dawn Of The Dead remake

    by TheManWho

    was fun fluff, but not exactly a great demonstration of anyone's abilities. I don't think the guy behind that is anywhere near ready for Watchmen. Hmm - has anyone thought about making an HBO miniseries out of it?

  • March 24, 2006, 7:34 p.m. CST

    After the way they butchered V for Vendetta...

    by darthferris

    ...I hope this never happens.

  • March 24, 2006, 7:44 p.m. CST

    I really don't think it was butchered

    by The Heathen

    League of Extraodinary Gentlemen

  • March 24, 2006, 7:54 p.m. CST


    by Jonas Grumpy

    David Caruso as Rorschach. Dennis Farina as the Comedian. Dan Aykroyd as Nite Owl. Brad Pitt as Ozymandias. Danny Devito as Dr. Manhattan. It's just crazy enough to work!

  • March 24, 2006, 7:59 p.m. CST

    "Danny Devito as Dr. Manhattan." Ha! Ha!

    by The Heathen

    Have you seen Dan Aykroyd lately? Yeah, neither have eye

  • March 24, 2006, 7:59 p.m. CST

    ...what is it that people don't get about adaptions?

    by vitaminwater222

    not everything can be Sin City people.... V was adapted well, and the changes were made for a reason; albeit, it is a far from perfect film, I enjoyed it tremendously. It is refreshing that a major studio will greenlight an 'action thriller' with a brain. I'm also glad that most people who aren't pretentious fanboy fucks/film snobs enjoy the flick. As for Watchmen...Peter Jackson should take it and spread it out into a three movie epic. It worked for Lord of the Rings yes? (another movie that was bashed for its different take on the source material!)

  • March 24, 2006, 8 p.m. CST

    It should be done, if at all, as a radio series.

    by MartinBlank

    Not everything needs to be a movie. But if it absolutely has to be done in another medium, a web or podcast radio show would do fine. Budget worries: gone. Middle-aged actors looking kinda stupid in Nite Owl or Ozymandias costumes: gone. The climax: a lot of horrific sound effects unfolding in your mind's eye. (Of course, Dave Gibbons visualized it all for you anyway.) And instead of going into comics culture like the book did with 'Tales of the Black Freighter' it could do a comparable thing with radio culture. How many people prefer the 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' radio show to the movie? Thought so. Imagine something done with that level of intelligence, only dramatic, and pretty much following Moore's script like a, well, radio script. Otherwise I agree with the Gilliam/Moore exchange. GILLIAM: Alan, how would you do 'Watchmen' as a film? MOORE: I wouldn't. GILLIAM (after a while): Yeah, he's right.

  • March 24, 2006, 8:21 p.m. CST

    Tired of hearing about Watchmen the Movie

    by jimmy_009

    Let me know when shooting has started, otherwise, who cares.

  • March 24, 2006, 8:27 p.m. CST


    by The_Comedian

    Unknown Actor for Rorschach! Bruce Campbell for The Comedian! Tim Robbins for Nite Owl II! Clint Eastwood for Nite Owl! Christopher Walken for Moloch! Julianne Moore for Silk Spectre! Christian Bale for Dr. Manhattan! Brad Pitt for Ozymandias!

  • March 24, 2006, 8:32 p.m. CST


    by Brendon

    The only man for the job.

  • March 24, 2006, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Man, I hope this movie never gets made

    by rev_skarekroe

    "Watchmen" has no reason to be adapted aside from financial gain. None.

  • March 24, 2006, 8:46 p.m. CST

    Update the 300 blog

    by noirsith

    Tell Zak Snyder to update the movie blog, its been over a month, fans are dying here.

  • March 24, 2006, 9:02 p.m. CST

    nothing against Snyder

    by beastie

    but I would like to see Curtis Hanson take this thing.

  • March 24, 2006, 9:23 p.m. CST


    by JiggamanSpence

    I feel that Greengrass mightve been a bit too shaky cam for the project. I'm not saying i dont like that, i think its worked great for him on his past 2 projects and looks to be working again on United 93, but Watchmen needed to feel a bit steadier, i think. Snyder may just be the right guy. Id have preferred Aaranofsky, but Snyder doesnt sound a total mistake.

  • March 24, 2006, 9:48 p.m. CST

    Alan Moore will hate it, regardless.

    by ZeroCorpse

    I love Alan Moore's writing, but he sure does seem like a primadonna when it comes to his comics being optioned as movies. Yes, "League" sucked, but his hissy fit and removal from everything having to do with "V for Vendetta" has taken him out of the picture in receiving credit for what is one of the best movies ever made. So it isn't 100% true to his book-- What movie IS 100% true to the source book? He won't take credit for "Watchmen" when it hits the silver screen, either, and he'll probably go on record nitpicking every little thing about the script and director. So, from the bottom of my heart, as a HUGE fan of Alan Moore, I have to say to him: Get over yourself. You're one of the best writers of this age, no doubt, but your books will NEVER hit the screen exactly as written. It won't happen. Perhaps you should be grateful that you're able to get your stuff on the screen at all so that MILLIONS of people for many generations will hear your basic story, and then seek out your books to read it the way you wrote it. I'm really sick of this "fame is such a bitch" attitude.

  • March 24, 2006, 9:56 p.m. CST


    by Ribbons

    I dunno if I have one, t'be honest. So uhh... yeah. I guess I see your point, but I just don't know why certain flashbacks can't just be glanced over. Maybe it depends on which ones you're thinking of specifically. ****** Regardless of whether or not Greengrass comes back or if Snyder ends up taking the reins, I hope they keep that shot of the Comedian falling out the window that was pre-viz'd, where there's a tight close-up on his face that makes it look like he's flying... which then pulls away to reveal that he's about to kiss the pavement. That's a neat, subversive shot, and I imagine it would also probably look pretty cool too, although my idea of how it would work is vague at best.

  • March 24, 2006, 9:56 p.m. CST

    Hey, I've got the perfect idea for how to do "Watchmen"

    by Delete Me

    As a fucking COMIC BOOK. Leave it alone, you fucking jackals. God.

  • March 24, 2006, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Re: Longer TV series

    by Ray Garraty #47

    There are valid arguments both for and against the "HBO series" point that comes up in every Watchmen talkback. I would think that it would be better, however, to be too long than to be too short. For example, the Rorschach (sp?) issue in which he speaks to his psychiatrist could be edited out, but in the graphic novel format it is one of the 12 issues most commonly lauded as a true work of art due to its structure on the page. If I'm not mistaken that's the issue with the symmetrical panels, just like the mirror images on the left and right side of R's mask. Ditto for the Black Freighter and "Manhattan on Mars" issues. They need to be addressed on film because they lend depth to the story and make it more than another "alternate universe with superheroes in it" hack job that would be hard to avoid in a 2 hour film. We don't need the next "Band of Brothers" but the story does deserve to be saved from drastic condensation and editing. When X-files was popular, people loved the "cigarette smoking man" episode that featured none of the main characters and ended with the CSM killing Kennedy in was a curveball but it worked. If you were reading the TV listings and saw that the new episode of Watchmen echoed back and forth between the newsstand and a live version of the Black Freighter story, I think it would generate a lot of appreciation and interest. With the recent success of Sin City and v for Vendetta, a six-hour miniseries might not be out of the question. Cable Tv 1. Is willing to take a flyer on odd material and 2. Won't shy away from the violence. It's a great medium for an adaptation of a graphic novel such as this, assuming they avoid stunt casting and unneccesary egotistic rewrites.

  • March 24, 2006, 10:13 p.m. CST

    other potentials for HBO series

    by future help

    Serenity, Star Wars, and Frank Millers Dark Knight1&2. oh, and Harry...could you mix up the wallpaper once in awhile? No disrespect to you and your Kong Kraziness...but...enough with this fuckin wall paper already. thanks.

  • March 24, 2006, 10:22 p.m. CST

    It will never work...

    by badboymason

    The money required to bring the kind of epic superhero movie to the screen will scare the studio into "dumbing it down" and adding more traditional action/villainry for a mainstream audience - attempting to make it into a Batman/Spider-Man imitator that the original story most definitely isn't. Probably the only way to get a near-faithful adaption: Animate it. If people buy Ultimate Avengers, they'll buy a straight-to-DVD Watchmen movie (or series). Second option, wait 100 years and do it photorealistic CGI for $10 on a home computer... :) Or give it to Robert Rodriguez, I'd rather have a scaled-down character piece true to the original (a la Sin City) - than another overblown superhero romp a la LXG.

  • March 24, 2006, 10:58 p.m. CST

    Well Said Mori...

    by LeckoManiac

    I haven't posted in the TB in a while...I stick mostly to the ZoNe now-a-days...but I totally agree with everything Moriarty just said and I feel it is high time for me to acknowledge that fact. So cheers to you Mori for a well argued point.

  • March 24, 2006, 11:14 p.m. CST

    If you can pull about half of V for Vendetta out

    by Fatboy Roberts

    of the film adaptation and still get the movie to not only work, but pack more punch than the book did, I can't see why that couldn't happen with Watchmen, especially since half of the content in that book is a metatextual commentary on comics itself, in a form that only works IN comics. You can't translate that to film, and it wouldn't make sense to do so, because once you pull that stuff off the page, it won't work--it's comics using comics conventions to comment on comics. It'd be futile to take a large amount of that fun stuff Moore threw in and try to adapt it. The thing is that Moore's story is solid enough (like V) that you can lift that out of the book almost completely and it would adapt REALLY well to film. It doesn't need to be a mini-series, because once you pull the short-story background stuff, the Black Freighter side-stories, and some of Moore's more indulgent sidetracks, you have a good couple hours worth of story/mystery/social commentary that a writer can sink their teeth into. 12 hours is overkill.

  • March 24, 2006, 11:19 p.m. CST

    I agree with Mori

    by Rindain

    The film could work. They just have to toss the ridiculous ending from the Hayter draft where Ozymandias is captured.

  • March 24, 2006, 11:20 p.m. CST

    Hey Mori, thats just, like, your opinion man.

    by chickychow

    "If I could strike any one regurgitated bit of parrot speak from the collective vocabulary of fandom, it would be that numbingly predictable "WATCHMEN should be an HBO series" horseshit." Dude, everyone is entitled to their opinions. If that's the consensus, then that's it. I don't see you piping up when everyone predicts X3 will suck ass, or say, when everyone was ripping apart "Cigarette Burns" for being a piece of crap... Maybe this project can be done as a feature, who knows, but you talk like you know it for a FACT and THAT my silly pal, is just plain wrong. (and p.s. Sin City didn't work... imo)

  • March 24, 2006, 11:22 p.m. CST

    Nice rant Moriarity

    by hargon27

    Wow, nice rant Moriarty. You hit the nail on the head with the way fandom reacts to the announcement of movies nowdays. Of course, lets not forget that for every Batman Begins and Spider-Man there is a Fantastic Four and a Hulk. Sometimes the fandom is justified in their pessimism. Also, I loved Synder's take on Dawn Of The Dead, he took a cliche movie and gave it a pulse. It helps to suck you in that the first 10 minutes are brillantly edited.

  • March 24, 2006, 11:24 p.m. CST

    Pessimism, Mori? Watch League of Ex. Gentlemen again.

    by Heywood Jablowme

    This guy's made 1 movie. ONE. A single movie that's even worth mentioning and now he's angling for a shot at THE definitive graphic novel?!? Sorry, it's not "pessimism for the sake of poison". It's more like, please don't do this because it's a great piece of art that's almost sure to be tarnished by being associated with a mediocre film. See: League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Sure, you could say this is different, he's doing 300, which is going to rule (to reference the hype you're giving it-I'll believe it when I see it). Yeah, well remember, Stephen Norrington directed Blade before he did League and look at the level of quality between those two films. It's not that Watchmen can't be done, it shouldn't be done. At least not done in some cookie-cut-out PG-13 tentpole project, which is just what the studios will try to give us. This is a huge property and it's where some rube director will not be able to deliver or will cave to the above demands of some know-nothing studio exec. I'd rather it not get made at all than to see it butchered. I'd like to think I speak for more than a few people in saying that.

  • March 24, 2006, 11:45 p.m. CST

    I still hope they don't make Watchmen into a film

    by Rupee88

    First of all, they aren't going to get a big enough budget, because the sci-fi genre isn't that well supported for the most part. Beyond that, Watchmen the comic is just too good, and there's no way you could do it justice on the big screen. Sin City was pretty close, but they still arbitrarily changed some things that took away from the enjoyment of the film. But Watchmen is more grand and epic than Sin City of course. Anyway, this film will suck if it gets made, sad to say.

  • March 24, 2006, 11:52 p.m. CST

    fandom isn't an impossible obstacle. it can be won over

    by Silver Shamrock

    how much resistance was there to the new BSG? Even Harry posted his knee jerk reaction. If Snyder is at the creative level of a Ron Moore, Mori has nothing to fear or bitch about. People express fears about this project because they want it to be great.

  • March 24, 2006, 11:56 p.m. CST

    Changing the ending is stupid

    by INWOsuxRED

    If you can't make the book into a movie "because of 9/11" or whatever b.s. reason, then don't make the movie. The original ending makes more sense now than it did when it was written, and if the people working on this think otherwise, they deserve no vote of confidence from anyone(especially anyone with money). When the base of your fandom wants you to not make something, and your material isn't very accessable to begin with, you should go home and rethink your life. Even if you accidentally make a good movie, you won't make any money and everyone will hate you for doing it. Hire a WRITER to WRITE an original FILM. Stop adapting everything. A POX ON ALL OF YOUR HOUSES!

  • March 25, 2006, 12:22 a.m. CST

    Watchmen is about to get Fed in the A

    by Vynson

    Frankly, Mori, if you think the totally compromised and cowardly V movie was a decent adaptation then you just didn't get the book. If you think Hayter's adaptation of Watchmen was good, then you just don't get Watchmen. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but so are all the people who would prefer to see this done in chapter form... a form that worked very well in the comic book. But I find your endorsement of a guy with a zombie movie to his credit to handle the ultimate comic book adaptation to be highly suspect. What is he? Your brother or something? Best pal? What's with trying to sell this thing? One zombie movie. WB must really believe in the project. Wow.

  • March 25, 2006, 12:39 a.m. CST

    Mori you are one bitter fuck...

    by HavokJD

    do you need a hug?

  • March 25, 2006, 12:39 a.m. CST

    Mori Struck down my regurgitated BS

    by Kash18


  • March 25, 2006, 12:42 a.m. CST

    If anything, 9/11 Proved we need the original ending

    by Virtual Satyr

    Nothing short of an alien attack on New York would unite the world.

  • March 25, 2006, 12:54 a.m. CST

    Mori, adaptations suck most of the time

    by zikade zarathos

    In fact, they suck the VAST majority of the time. It's incredibly rare to have something written with the intelligence, patience and respect for the reader like WATCHMEN be turned into an equally intelligent film. I would say that if you line up 100 adaptations (comics or novels, it doesn't matter), about five would be the equal of their source material, and maybe two would be better. So yeah, we're not optomistic about it, ESPECIALLY considering Moore's track record. For some, it's 1/4, for me it's 0/4. And, next to the FROM HELL, this is his most ambitious work, so why on Earth would we expect great things when people can't get even LEAGUE right? So, fine, you go ahead and expect great things from the guy that made the worse of two versions of the same damn film that came out decades prior, and we'll sit over here and expect the worst, and we'll come back two years to this very talkback and see who was right.

  • March 25, 2006, 12:59 a.m. CST


    by ironburl

    I have not read any of the talkback yet, but your LOTR justification makes sense. If Watchmen is spread over 3 films and is a total of 11 hours long (directors cut.) It could work. It could work anyway, but Watchmen was 12 chapters. In a 120 minute movie, that's 10 minutes a chapter. I can't believe that this is still happening. I question though. Wouldn't it be cool to make an original movie, that had some of the same qualities that you enjoyed in the comic. Why is everything so unoriginal and remade now in geekdom?

  • March 25, 2006, 1:06 a.m. CST

    I thought "Vendetta" would suck; I was wrong

    by Zardoz

    I saw it in IMAX the other day and thought it was great. I liked the changes that they made to the story, and even thought that it was improved by them in most places. (didn't really care for the "Benny Hill" comedy-bit, though) And I thought the ending worked very well; I was wondering if they were going to have Evey become V at the end, as in the book, and I'm glad that wasn't the case. Because as much as I liked it in the book, it just wouldn't have worked in the film. Hugo Weaving was fantastic as V, and while Portman's accent was troublesome at times, her emotional performance was incredible. Her prison scene was everything I'd hoped for and more, a very moving performance. As to Watchmen, here's my cast choices: Harrison Ford as Dan, Catherine Zeta-Jones as Laurie, Susan Sarandon as her Mom, Hugo Weaving as Rorschach, Jude Law as Ozzy, Ian McShane as The Comedian, and Tom Hanks as Dr. Manhattan. And maybe Paul Newman as Hollis Mason.

  • March 25, 2006, 1:07 a.m. CST

    Golf clap for Moriarty

    by spider-ham

    I totally agree with you. That said, I think the Dawn of the Dead remake is a train wreak and the fact that someone who doesn't respect original IPs like Zack Snyder really worries me. However since you have seen more than we have, I'm going to have faith.

  • March 25, 2006, 1:17 a.m. CST


    by drew mcweeny

    Yes... I'm the bitter one. Damn my bitter optimism! Damn me for having faith in filmmakers based on the evidence of my own eyes! How can I live with such bitterness in my heart?!

  • March 25, 2006, 1:18 a.m. CST

    300 is looking Grrreeeaaat!

    by Saluki

    Honestly, 300 is looking very nice. I enjoy the fact that Snyder is only taking R-rated projects (he turned down S.W.A.T. because they made it PG-13), and Watchmen HAS to be R-rated. Yes, it can be made into a single film. It won't be the book, but if it is anything like Vendetta, than we will all be the better for having both forms to enjoy for all their strengths and weaknesses.

  • March 25, 2006, 1:18 a.m. CST

    I can't wait to read the comic adaptation of the film!

    by paralyser-pro

    But seriously...way to go Moriarty! Time for those incessant, innocuous whiners to quit their bitching. It's not fucking War and Peace, for Chrissakes, its a comic book! Of course they can make a movie out of it. Did you see all the shit George Fucking Lucas put into his last flick? If he can have a gigantic space battle over Coruscant, then we can have a teeny little film noir about some Super Heroes. If Peter Fucking Jackson can do a giant gorilla figure skating in New York with Naomi Fucking Watts, then Zach Fucking Snider can do a big blue guy! For the lovva Pete, Mystery Fucking Men was about as complex as this mofo needs to be! Quit yer bitching and take a Midol, you fucking BITCHES! BTW - I saw V for Vendetta last night and said "Meh..."

  • March 25, 2006, 1:30 a.m. CST

    Yeah, yeah, Watchmen

    by Don Lockwood

    Yawn. It won't get made. It hasn't been made yet. Everytime it looks like it's going to be made, there's a regime change or they lower the budget or they have to retouch the script. Watchmen may as well be a synonym for Development Hell. Mori had his rant. My rant? Remember when AICN posted scoops? Remember when nobody said, "I can't go into the details yet..."? Stop being afraid of getting your "access" cut off or that the studio might not buy your next precious script and get back to the job of AICN. Write it, spoil it, bring back the old AICN.

  • March 25, 2006, 1:40 a.m. CST


    by j_nuh

    I'm right! No, I'm right! No, I am! No, you're not, I am! I know more about fucking COMIC BOOKS than you will ever know! No, I do! Only I am capable of determining how this COMIC BOOK should be translated to film! No Way! I have the definitive insights to EVERY film that has ever, or will ever, been made! Nuh uh! Blah, blah, blah... How 'bout one of you retards MAKE a film instead of crying about everything. I hate this site sometimes.

  • March 25, 2006, 1:43 a.m. CST

    Vynson's commentary on Hayter's script...

    by Mavrikfire

    I've never read Hayter's script, but I have read the original graphic novel, and both Moriarty's review of Hayter's script and Vynson's comments on the same script. Judging from the reactions, it looks to me as if the two read totally different scripts of the material. If the changes that Vynson quoted were true, than Moriarty would not have said "There is essentially no invention here. I can count the number of things that Hayter has created for this script on one hand." Read Mori's script review. If what he says in that review is true of the script today, then the movie does seem to have a solid foundation to stand on. Granted that the review is a bit old, hopefully it has stayed essentially unchanged. I did read that Moore blessed Hayter's undertaking, even though he did not want to be a part of the project. If Mori's analysis is true, than it is easy to see why.

  • March 25, 2006, 2:09 a.m. CST


    by Flummage

    If you put the optomism vs cynicism debate aside for a while and think it through a little bit, in my opinion it would seem that Watchman is easily in the best shape it's been in for a good while now. What seems to be kind of overlooked here is that Mori has information we simply don't have. He's seen something in what Zack Snyder's doing with 300, which we haven't, he's met the guy and talked about Watchman, which we haven't. And from that he's buzzed. What more do you need? He loves the graphic novel like you do, he's seen Snyder's previous work like you have. Does his experience as a proffessional writer, a proffessional film critic, a full time fucking geek on par with anyone else here, not at least qualify him to have something of a seasoned opinion, based on his overwhelming experience and out of everyone here, things only he has seen? This is positive news. You may have general fears about how the project is going to be translated but if Watchmen is indeed going to find a home on Cinema screens, which is almost inevitable as time goes on, then this article is a reason to be more optomistic than you were... and with good reason too.

  • March 25, 2006, 2:12 a.m. CST

    Hahah Asperger's boys...

    by ILK

    Moriarty just bitch-slapped you all the way to Uranus.

  • March 25, 2006, 2:17 a.m. CST


    by Flummage

    And it's too easy to look at directors who have done well or done badly as their careers progress. Lucas - from American Graffiti to Star Wars. Wachowski Bros - from Bound to The Matrix and countless others in either direction. They all just cancel eachother out. By it's very nature film making is too full of potential for you ever to write it off completely, ESPECIALLY something that hasn't even neared production yet.

  • March 25, 2006, 2:26 a.m. CST

    "Damn me for having faith in filmmakers..."

    by xavier masterson

    "...based on the evidence of my own eyes!" Hi, Moriarty. May I borrow your eys for a moment? You see I haven't had the privelage to read Hayter's Drafts or the newest revisions. I also have not met Zack Snyder nor have I had the opportunity to see any behind the scenes work on his adaptation of 300(besides what's been released in an official capacity)or been able to talk to him to get a good idea of his philosophy on filmaking and his thoughts on watchmen. I'm not against the idea of a watchmen film but don't decry the lack of faith in the ability to successfully adapt such a beloved work when some have not had the chance to SEE what you have with YOUR eyes. Adaptation s will always be a tough sell to the fans of the work about to be adapted. Now, while I'll agree ther is way to much bile at times when it comes to these sorts of properties lets not get so preachy when you find yourself in the position to aquaint yourself with the producers and posiible future dirctors. That stinks a little of elitism.

  • March 25, 2006, 2:36 a.m. CST

    Must admit, I find it kind of amusing...

    by LeiaDown&FuckHer

    To see someone act all high and mighty and speak down to the unwashed fanboy masses and preach to them how clearly wrong and narrow minded their own opinions are, then watch that exact same person, elsewhere, be guilty of that exact same pre-judgement mentality on many, many occasions. The original piece was good, and I'm actually anticipating 300 quite highly, hope Snyder really nails it, but the added rant on the end was hypocritical bullshit, unless of course you're gonna stop doing the exact same thing that you just bitched to other people about. That's not to say there's not an argument for the wait and see and then judge approach, in fact I thoroughly believe in that principal, so I support the sentiment, but it just seemed a little preachy coming from someone who rips down so much before it even nears hitting a screen, that's all.

  • March 25, 2006, 2:55 a.m. CST

    this would be great as an 12 part HBO miniseries

    by talbuckin

  • March 25, 2006, 3:04 a.m. CST

    Irc-Hollywood & Leia

    by drew mcweeny

    I'm not telling you how to think. Far from it. But I'm allowed to be tired of hearing the same phrase barfed up every time this project is mentioned. It all comes down to respect for the original property, and I think what bugs me most is the assumption that only fanboys are able to "truly" respect WATCHMEN properly. The whole point of the piece is to help impart some of the enthusiasm I have based on actually seeing and reading things. And it's not remotely hypocritical of me, Leia, unless you can find a project where all I've done is spew bile without any information at all about the actual approach to the material. I want all films to be great. I don't ever root for anyone to fail. I may be discouraged by what I read or see sometimes, but that's different than just deciding "it will never work" simply because I feel like, since I read a comic book, I own it.

  • March 25, 2006, 3:05 a.m. CST

    well, it wouldn't be the first time Mori's...

    by xavier masterson

    let his emotions steer him into a hypocritical editorial. I know I'm busting your balls here, Moriarty, but you have to understand that we can't base our opinions on what you have seen and been privileged to see during an AICN assignment. However, I will agree the " HBO mini-series" talk has grown stale and cliche but when a fan is afraid of one of there favorite works being mishandled they will cling to any alternative like a ratty old security blanket.---I should probably clarify that while I am a fan of Moore's Watchmen I share his feelings that a poor adaptation will not erase the original work from existence. However, I do share your hope that the property can be hit out of the park by whoever winds up directing it.

  • March 25, 2006, 3:09 a.m. CST

    the sad truth about watchmen:

    by newc0253

    (1) it was groundbreaking at the time but it hasn't aged well - the whole 'superheros as losers and sociopaths' thing has the feel of a 70s downer flick; (2) it has the stupidest fucking ending ever. (3) its intrinsic lack of broad audience appeal (outside the comic book faithful) means that no studio would want to waste money bringing it to the big screen without demanding the kinds of changes that would gut the story. face it, mori: watchmen is no spiderman or superman. it ain't even a sin city. wake up and smell the metaphor for reality already.

  • March 25, 2006, 3:10 a.m. CST

    Mori, i think the hypocritical talk is coming...

    by xavier masterson

    from the fact that your update reads like it is talking down to fans of the property. Your enthusiasm is always highly contagious. I love to read about a project you are sincerely excited about because of how well you articlate that excitement, but you can't expect everyone to be as equally excited because of what you have seen during a behind the scenes visit.

  • March 25, 2006, 3:18 a.m. CST

    Let me clarify, I think the talk of hypocrisy...

    by xavier masterson

    in your update comes from the fact that we are all guilty of a bit of hyperbole when it comes to geekcentric properties being adapted to the screen. We get emotional about it just as you have gotten emotional about the property because of what you have been privy to during your many interviews and articles related to the multitude of scripts and directors that have been attached to this project. Hyperbole may be the biggest cliche in film related internet discussion but you cannot begrudge the hyperbole (both positve and negative hyperbole)without looking at the many instances of it from yourself and especially the patron saint of this site, Mr. Knowles himself.

  • March 25, 2006, 3:28 a.m. CST

    a sphere through 2D land and other reasons against...

    by Gus Nukem

    ... the film adaptation: **** And here the faux-uber intelligent arguments begin: 1.) Imo, David Hayter, of X-men, X2 (and MGS) fame should never be mentioned in the same paragraph with Watchmen. Never. 2.) I fear for 300. Check out the 3 videos released (in the official "blog") so far and perhaps you will too. By all means, the acting sucks. 3.) The 3D object in 2D land, well, I don't need to explain this, it is a simple concept. (What a poser smart ass I am) 4.) Another very good reason why Moore will object to it, is why, as with V, he was cheated out of his rights for it. Gibbons and he, sold the rights to DC UNTIL they would stop printing it. Unlike everything else back in the late '80s, DC now had material of huge artistic and commercial success. They NEVER stopped reprints and until they do, they (DC) OWN the property, therefore we now are discussing this adaptation. 5.) Heathen, don't bring Glycon into this, please.

  • March 25, 2006, 3:30 a.m. CST


    by grendel824

    People seem to be forgetting that there weren't three movies made from Moore's work - the fourth was Constantine.

  • March 25, 2006, 3:33 a.m. CST


    by drew mcweeny

    And that's the point. It's all just enthusiasm and optimism. I can't see into the future and tell you what the final film will be. Hell, at this point, Snyder's just in talks to direct, and he's still got a year of work to do before 300 is ready for theaters. But I was shocked at how much of a step up 300 looks to be from DAWN OF THE DEAD, and I was impressed by how serious he was about the responsibility of adapting something with the fan base and the genre importance of WATCHMEN. All I'm saying is that dismissing him out of hand without seeing or reading ANYTHING is ludicrous, and people always fall back on this one alternative like that solves all problems automatically.

  • March 25, 2006, 3:36 a.m. CST

    TRUST me.

    by Son of Batman

    Just like your Bush always says, and your Limbaugh. Trust in me, that is what Kaa says too, yes? He even sings it to Mowgli, doesn't Kaa? Is funny but probably meaningless that after Mr. Moriarty interviews a person he becomes best friend and trust me. Is a challenge, yes, has Mr. Moriarty ever interviewed or talked to a person and wrote a negative, unsupportive article? Bring it to me and I will purchase Paris Hilton and bring her to my beautiful Burnei and you will never have to see her anymore.

  • March 25, 2006, 3:55 a.m. CST

    Moriarty, I agree with you that the HBO talk...

    by xavier masterson

    should be completely abandoned. Maybe that's what the update should have said in giant neon red letters:FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LET THE HBO MINI_SERIES TALK BE FINISHED WITH! Simple and could have got your point across without having to trumpet your hopes and enthusiasm for the project while also getting into a bit of an editorial about certain fans giving into negativism. I get it. You're excited. I hope to be excited as well, but that will have to be left until I see what Snyder has in mind. And maybe that is the best way to this could have been handled. Let the filmmakers speak for themseleves and let them get us excited. This story was put up because you wanted to be the first to break it. Because of that you weren't allowed to go into detail about what you saw that has you so enthused. Basically, this article may have been better served just letting the news of who may be directing without the tease of the things you talked about and were privy to during your visit with Snyder. If you remember, people relly began getting excited about Greengrass's Watchmen with your in-detail articles about the production. It was during those editorials where your enthusiasm was better served than this newspiece which you were obviously under some sort of embargo until closer to 300's release, or so I am assuming. I'll leave it that. i hope your enthusiasm is well warranted because like you I never wish for a poor film to be made.

  • March 25, 2006, 4:59 a.m. CST

    Re: victim complex

    by BrandLoyalist

    It's real, but try to remember the profound emotional traumas many of us geeks have had to go through without proper psychological counseling (plain-clothes Captain America, Dolph's Punisher movie, midichlorians, etc.). Re: Watchmen: gimme both!

  • March 25, 2006, 5:42 a.m. CST

    "pointless masturbatory 12 hour version of the thing"

    by kiddae

    Yeah, I wish Watchmen was four issues long, too. All that depth and complexity was pointless and masturbatory.

  • March 25, 2006, 7:01 a.m. CST

    For the new writer

    by Blueberry

    I read Hayter's third draft and I think it's a good work. I know soemthing was already worked on with greengrass (Sally's power and the owlrang), but my main concerns are others. First, we are given too many hints about the identity of the person behind the conspiracy, so it doesn't come as the surprise it shoul be in the end. Second, the political background is fuzzy, we don't feel the danger of an incoming war conflict. I had an idea to update it: Let's say Doc Manhattan is working on cold fusion project but it's still not close to develop a process that can be used to produce energy on a large scale. Moreover when the news leaks about his experiments, the USA President says he won't share freely Doc Manhattan's discoveries with the other countries. In a world where nations are fighting for the control of the last oil and gas drills and uranium (all things that in OUR universe aren't going to last more than 20 years), the fact that USA won't share freely the cold fusion process exacerbates the conflict even more...

  • March 25, 2006, 7:12 a.m. CST


    by Mutant X

    What language do you speak where "hour" and "issue" mean the same thing? Jesus fucking Christ, people are dumb.

  • March 25, 2006, 7:20 a.m. CST

    Let's Play "Spot Moriarty's Ulterior Motive"!

    by SuperDan

    Look past the fog of grotesque high-and-mighty posturing and outright hypocrisy and the real reason becomes patently obvious: ol' Moriarty is engaging in "Future Dividends" ie: sucking up to the talent so as to generate the good graces that will allow him regular access to pre-production materials and then a set-visit to the production, which will in turn provide him with materials to get this site exclusives, loads of hits, advertising etc. There's nothing wrong with this, of course - that's all part of the film/genre journalist game (and I speak as one myself). However, you COULD have just said that, old boy... :-)

  • March 25, 2006, 7:31 a.m. CST

    "Irony" isnt something you use to flaten shirts

    by Lightwave7871

    I love Moriarty's comment... *QUOTE* At its worst, fandom has a close-minded victim's mentality that must be incredibly frustrating for anyone actually trying to develop something like this, because you're faced with obstinance for the mere point of it. If you haven't seen what they're up to yet, and you don't know what they've done with the adaptation, and you haven't seen one image or design or indication of the look or feel, how can you make such a grand sweeping pronouncement? *END QUOTE* Hi Mr Pot... Its Kettle here! Apparently your black too!

  • March 25, 2006, 7:47 a.m. CST

    Mutant X

    by kiddae

    Hey buddy! How're you doing? Moriarty says that a 12 hour version of Watchmen - with ONE HOUR for ONE ISSUE, one presumes - would be "pointless and masturbatory". This implies (intentionally or not) that any material not included in Hayter's condensed 2 hour (let's say) script is also "pointless and masturbatory". Put another way, why would slavishly rendering every panel onscreen (again, for argument's sake) be "pointless and masturbatory" if that original material wasn't? His description of a potential 12 hour adaptation as "pointless and masturbatory" decries the original work, and this is what I sought to highlight with my post. Clear enough for you, you hideous, fuckjawed cretin?

  • March 25, 2006, 7:50 a.m. CST

    Damn skippy!

    by Drexl

    Once again, Moriarty is right and gets bashed because of it. Give the guy a break, all he's saying is that he wants every movie to be good. I feel exactly the same way. I never see a movie thinking "man, this is gonna suck"... I always go in thinking "what is it you're gonna tell me and how are you gonna tell me your story?". I have my opinion ready after the credits, not months in advance. The cynicism and pessimism that somehow seems "cool" these days makes me wonder if many of you talkbackers actually "like" film. If I were bitching about it so much, I'd find myself another hobby and interest. Life's too short to be annoyed all the time fellows.

  • March 25, 2006, 8:07 a.m. CST

    Mori, this is why Hayter's script is flawed...

    by Vynson

    **SPOILERS** Mori, are you really complaining because we think only a fan of the material will afford it the proper respect? Because, frankly, you have to read the thing a half dozen times to even begin to fathom the density of it. A gun for hire reading it once or twice is going to fire off a script that reads like... well like David Hayter's. I read your article back in 2002 and got excited. I respected your opinion and had high hopes for a Watchmen movie. But in the script I read, dated 9-26-03, we have Jon giving Laurie the power to fire energy balls from between her thumb and forefinger as if they were a slingshot... and she is no longer Silk Spectre, but is called they can keep the SS I guess. Now tell me that is respect for the source material. Or maybe its the magic memory mirror that Jon gives Laurie because she is too stupid to have a flashback without him giving her this dumbass mirror. For all the good it does her because she still can't figure out on her own that Blake is her Dad and Jon just flatly tells her. Talk about disrespect for the character. Or maybe you liked the dumb solar ray that replaces the squid (this is the worst science you can imagine, but made lamer by the fact that it could be so easily tracked and destroyed), or the stupid black boxes Adrian sends to the world leaders to "instruct them." Right. Or maybe its the new Veidt who, like the rest of the characters, bears almost no resemblence to the character in the comic. But maybe fans will love his new gay manservant, Eric. And why does Adrian, as a condition of letting them live, demand that Dan give up "adventuring?" This demand has nothing to do with anything other than to motivate Dan to act so out of character that fans will be rolling their eyes. Maybe everyone will love that Dan sees Jon kill Rorschach and decides that he needs to be more like his lunatic partner and so kills Adrian so that he can continue adventuring. And how does he kill the smartest man alive? By getting him monologuing and then throwing an owlerang... which, when it misses him, Adrian dismisses... forgetting that it's going to come back around, what with being a freakin' boomerang and all, and when Dan ducks, ala Spidey ducking the goblin glider, the owlerang plunges into Ozymandias solar plexus and he dies whining about how will the world get on without him. How does Adrian get so stupid so quick? Then Dan sends Beatles lyrics to the leaders on their black boxes to inspire world peace. Which obviously are so moving that conflict cannot be sustained... which explains the Lennon McCartney feud, right? Then we wrap up with Sally visiting Dan and Laurie and their baby girl. "She's your granddaughter, Mom... yours and Eddie's." sweet. Not. Is this the script you say is so faithful? This monstrosity littered with NEEDLESS changes? Not changes that aid in adapting to the screen, but POINTLESS changes that weaken the story. Is this the script that we're supposed to "trust you" and get excited about? I couln't even identify this tripe as Watchmen if it didn't tell us on the title page. We need a writer who loves the material enough to ADAPT it without trying to inject his own egotistical reworking of the story. There is a difference between adapting a story to another medium and reworking the story itself. But then you liked the V movie even though they stripped the character of his defining characteristic. If you think that is respect for the story then I think you didn't understand the story. And why get so upset because of the HBO thing. The fact is that the reason everyone tries to justify the whacked out changes to adapting Moore is that his stories are so dense that two hours isn't enough time. The medium where we would have sufficient time that most resembles the chapter by chapter telling of Watchmen is a miniseries. So why does that piss you off. It's an obvious solution. However, like you, I do believe that the story and themes can be conveyed in a screenplay. You have to make cuts, and those cuts need to be integrated, but there is no need to alter the story as severely as Hamm and Hayter have in their scripts. There is no need to alter the characters until they become untrue. There is no need to replace key elements like the alien with something as stupid as an orbiting solar death ray. Do you have any idea how big it would have to be and how long it would take before the beam gained sufficient intensity to scorch NYC? If Hayter had done the research, he'd know it would take weeks, during which time, people would be saying "damn it's getting warm, I think its because of that stupid solar beam" and they'd see it coming from an orbiting lens big enough to see from the earth and they'd shatter it with a missile before it could so much as start a grassfire. Of course, the fragments would likely have the Veidt logo on them and they'd track Adrian down and that'd be that. At least ground the science fiction in science, please. In my humble opinion, neither Hamm nor Hayter wrote adaptations of Watchmen. Rather, they decided that they could create better characters and a better story than Moore and proceeded to rework it rather than adapt it. Yes, we all know and accept that there will be changes necessary to adaptation. Very few fans are suggesting a Sin City shot for shot experiment. But the characters, story, and themes should make the media transition intact. Or else why bother? Now I realize that some time has passed since Fall of 03 and that there have likely been new drafts. Please tell me that you are basing your optimism on drafts that don't include Slingshot powers for Laurie and a dumbass magic memory mirror so she can act retarded instead of being relatively intelligent. Please tell me that they have moved closer to the comic by keeping the idea of tricking the world into peace instead of black boxes and solar rays to blackmail it. Please tell me that the philosophical stalemate that MAKES the ending is back instead of having this unrecognizeable Dan Dreiberg killing Adrian... with a silly owlerang. Please tell me you've read a script with intact themes and characterization instead of this 134 page butchershop I'm looking at.

  • March 25, 2006, 8:30 a.m. CST

    Vynson, the fact is...

    by Blueberry

    That Moore read the Hayter's script and said it was the best adaptation conceivable.

  • March 25, 2006, 8:37 a.m. CST

    About time someone said that

    by Flipao

    I genuinely can't stand the pessimism that seeps through the talkbacks each time a film is announced, it happens time and time again whenever a new Pixar film appears (cars looks stunning btw) and seing people panning watchmen when it hasn't even entered production is downright hilarious... it's probably the same people who come out here and claim Sin City was a dissapointment, I mean please, there's people out there who go to insane extremes to ensure people enjoy these films, and the sheer ingratitude of some fans makes me wanna break stuff, bastards! | In regards to the DOTD remake, I had blast while watching, the first 10 minutes were genuinely powerful stuff, and it wasn't a straight remakeit was simply a different take on the film. | Can't wait to watch 300, even though that Butler dude is on it.

  • March 25, 2006, 8:40 a.m. CST

    RE: Poison for the sake of poison...

    by The Tao of Joe

    I feel that the problem with every film based on a Moore work has to do with they way in which they were condensed. Moore's work is excellent because it explores different POV's. From Hell suffered because they couldn't tell the stories of London's minor characters, and thus removed the shared consciousness that made that book so excellent. The collage of POV's is especially crucial for the Watchmen. There are lots of things that will be removed from the work that shouldn't: the guy at the newsstand, the pirate comic, and the various digressions into the past for starters. Yes, you could make a film about Watchmen. Sure, it could be as good as V for Vendetta and maybe even better if it isn't marred by a pointless glut of medium shots. But like V, it won't have the impact of the book. Mark my words. In the end, I really think it would work best as a miniseries for HBO. Kerry Conran made an FX-heavy film on the cheap. Perhaps he should do it. I say the animated route would be the best way to go. Hire Dini and the best voice talent available, and we would have the greatest Watchmen film anyone could possibly make. Moriarty himself once said animation was the best way to handle superheroes (in his review of Ultimate Avengers). With a decent budget, a WB Animated miniseries by Paul Dini on HBO would rock. The geek dollars pour in for the DVD's, from the world over. And we all know it. This isn't poison for the sake of poison. We all know, even Moriarty knows, that it's just true. I never doubted Sin City could be turned into a movie (as a matter of fact, it seemed obvious to me that it should). All of his stories are short, and told usually from one perspective. That is not the case with Moore. They are opposites in that way, and it is foolish to think they could be adapted along the same lines.

  • March 25, 2006, 8:46 a.m. CST


    by The_Comedian

    Actually, I think it was more along the lines of, that's as close as I can see them get it.

  • March 25, 2006, 8:52 a.m. CST


    by wackynephews

    Mori, you work for a webpage that caters to geeks, you made your name off of the backs of geeks, and you are one yourself (shall we point out the Superman review again?), and you continue to shit all over them. Why don't you just stop doing AICN and go write mediocre scripts for the next round of Masters of Horror? That's clearly what you want to be doing so go do it full time. Or do you not want to lose the perks of being Mori when your writing career disappears?

  • March 25, 2006, 9:05 a.m. CST

    Moore did not create Constantine

    by Jack Burton

    or did he and someone else took over? I've seen this before on talkbacks, am I just misinformed?

  • March 25, 2006, 9:09 a.m. CST

    The exact Moore quote

    by Blueberry

    "David Hayter's screenplay was as close as I could imagine anyone getting to Watchmen. That said, I shan't be going to see it. My book is a comic book. Not a movie, not a novel. A comic book. It's been made in a certain way, and designed to be read a certain way: in an armchair, nice and cozy next to a fire, with a steaming cup of coffee. Personally, I think that would make for a lovely Saturday night." As I said, Hayter's script does a good job of condensing the book in a script for a 2 and half hour movie. There's still some possibility of improvement and I don't think that improvement goes to being closer to the book, as in updating the political background. Just as te Wachowsky did in "V for Vendetta"

  • March 25, 2006, 9:09 a.m. CST

    Moore created John Constantine for Swamp Thing

    by kiddae

    But he never wrote Hellblazer, which is probably why "Constantine" isn't thought of as a Moore adaptation.

  • March 25, 2006, 9:13 a.m. CST

    To Jack Burton

    by Blueberry

    Moore did indeed creat Constantine in his wonderful run of Swamp Thing. Saga of the Swamp Thing #37 saw the debut of the character.

  • March 25, 2006, 9:16 a.m. CST

    Hayter's script...

    by Ninja Nerd

    I haven't read any script, but I have read Watchmen several times. If what Vynson relates is accurate, it sounds pretty awful. I don't think a 12 hour HBO deal sounds good, but Peter Jackson has shown that people (and theatre owners) will embrace 3 hour films. A well-written treatment could absolutely be done in 3 hours.

  • March 25, 2006, 9:17 a.m. CST


    by Vynson

    If that's a "fact" please reference that quote. Last time someone said Moore was happy with a script was Joel Silver and look how well that worked out. I believe that Moore's words on the subject have been closer to uncaring dismissal than happy endorsement. While you're at it, how about backing up your claim that oil, gas, and uranium will be depleted in 20 years. You're certainly entitled to your own opinions, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. And frankly, with America's whacked out foreign policies, we don't need another lame cold fusion plot taped onto this story to create political unease. Watchmen is more potent today than it was in '86. Perhaps if you will revisit the story, you will recall that there is no need for cold fusion as Jon can mass produce lithium very easily making cheap energy so abundant that there are electric cars and spark hydrants on every corner... which, if you'll recall, are under a patent held by Adrian Veidt, which, if you'll recall, is how he made most of his fortune... so why do we need this cold fusion thing tacked on again? Why is everyone trying to rewrite this story? It works as it is and can be adapted to the screen without all these dumbass changes just for the sake of making changes. Why does everyone consider Alan Moore's work an ideal canvas for them to express themselves? Go write your own story already.

  • March 25, 2006, 9:24 a.m. CST


    by Blueberry

    The Moore quote was from an EW article still accessible to subscribers here: Concerning the ending of uranium, oil and gas, you can find a report of the US Army here: But a lot of information can be still found here: And in the book, Jon says he can massproduce Lithium to use for the batteries of electric cars, not for producing energy. You should have read better the book or go back to you science classes.

  • March 25, 2006, 9:26 a.m. CST

    Blueberry / Moore quote

    by Vynson

    Thanks for digging up the quote. As you see, it's a far cry from being happy with the script. Moore is a very polite English gentlemen. My own "take" on what he's trying so nicely to say is that he doesn't think anyone in Hollywood has either the respect or the intelligence to write a better script and that this dog turd is about as close as they will get and who cares because we have the story in the comic book medium just as he intended so who wants to go see a public butchery of it anyway. Again, while my own "translation" may seem overly harsh, you'd have to be really generous or even dishonest to call this a happy endorsement.

  • March 25, 2006, 9:32 a.m. CST


    by robotdevil

    Sorry bro, you can't post a talkbalk and then TELL em what to think. We have every right to be terrified at the prospect of this movie. The simple fact is that all 3 movies made from Alan Moore's work have been awful corruptions and your assurances that you've been following the development of the script are worthless to many of us as a consequence of the tremendous praise you lavished on V for Vendetta (yes, it was better than From Hell and LXG, but no... it was NOT a good adaptation by any conceivable standard). The HBO series idea is a great one and the reason many of us like it has nothing to do with Terry Gilliam. It's about scope. We don't want to be rushed through a condensed 2 hour version. We love the whole of the story and want every little detail included and if that cannot be done we'd rather not see it at all. We don't want to see the Watchmen suffer the same shoddy treatment V suffered. You think film is a medium capable of presenting Moore's work... many (most?) of us disagree. So far, we've been right 3 times and those who don't learn from history are doomed to sit through a pathetic shadow of a great story (yet again).

  • March 25, 2006, 9:40 a.m. CST

    You're point about LOTR is valid, Moriaty

    by mortsleam

    There was too much story in LOTR to be anything other than a trilogy. Same fucking thing as Watchmen. Too much story to be compressed down to two or even three hours. That's all there is to it. If you can't see that, you have no business pretendind to be a working screenwriter, because you have no concept of what the important aspects of the story are. Much like (if not almost exactly like) LOTR, the richness of Watchmen is thye idea of a long past history, and the detailed interaction of the main characters. Any attempt to trim that down does deadly disservice to the book.

  • March 25, 2006, 9:42 a.m. CST

    Moriarty, have you read Ulysses by James Joyce?

    by 3 Bag Enema

    This is also a book that was revolutionary because it was an experiment in form. It attempted to radically expand what the novel is capable of. Adapting those characters into a screenplay is possible. It just misses the point entirely. No one watching "Ulysses: The Motion Picture" would have any idea why the fucking story was written to begin with. The same goes with Watchman. It has interesting characters, and a neat story. But it's *how* that story is told which is the book's real value. Adapt it into any other medium, and it's just a neat story. I don't care if it's a movie, a novel, a 12-part HBO special, or a fucking ballet. Unlike Spider-Man, Sin City, or even Ghost World, Watchman is robbed of its purpose when adapted into another medium. You said, "It all comes down to respect for the original property." That is wrong. The "property" (a term I'm sure the author would find particularly poignent, considering he was cheated out of it) should not be adapted because adaptation completely misses the point. Read the first page *alone* and tell me that even that one page could be adapted into any other medium and retain it's beauty and interlacing meanings. Impossible. And that's just the first fucking page, man. Don't agree with me? Then you disagree with the guy who wrote it as well. Though I'm sure he might think twice if he knew the director of the remake of Dawn of the Dead was on the case.

  • March 25, 2006, 9:48 a.m. CST

    My point was undercut by my lack of typing ability

    by mortsleam

    I'll disappear again for awhile in shame. But really, a trilogy of two-hour movies makes more sense than a twelve-houre HBO miniseries.

  • March 25, 2006, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Oil and such

    by Vynson

    Actually, the facts are closer to this: If we don't discover any more oil or natural gas at all, at 2003 consumption levels, the remaining reserves represent 44.6 years of oil and 66.2 years of natural gas. Does this mean that the world will be out of fossil fuels in 50 years? That theory has been around since the 1970s. In fact, the figures for years of remaining reserves have remained constant over the past few decades as the industry has replaced consumption with newly discovered oil and gas deposits and has developed technologies to increase the amount of oil and gas that can be recovered from existing reservoirs. I don't see any indication in Watchmen that fossil fuels remain in use after Jon's appearance and every comment and indication concerning energy is that Jon has already taken care of the issue in a clean non-polluting fashion. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan might well indicate that they are not benefitting from this and still need oil.

  • March 25, 2006, 10:09 a.m. CST

    All I know, if this IS happening

    by OurManInMontr

    is they have a chance at getting one thing right: DENNIS FARINA IS THE COMEDIAN. It's plain to see.

  • March 25, 2006, 10:12 a.m. CST

    Oil again

    by Blueberry

    Vynson, you probably didn't read the report I gave you the link of. You should see the rise in just the last few months of oil import to China. Control of energy resources is the real reason for the last (and next) wars. Watchmen worked in 1986 when the threat of a Nuclear conflict between USA and USSR was strong and felt by the people worldwide. If we want to keep Watchmen's social and political background updated, I think that's a clever way to do it. Unless we decide that the movie should still take place in an alternative 1986, and I don't think even Moore would like that approach.

  • March 25, 2006, 10:16 a.m. CST


    by tiredpm

    All this for rumor and speculation. There's not even a deal that we know of to bring Snyder on as director. In fact, if 300 stinks up the joint both critically and at the box office, Snyder will probably get the hook or the studio will, again, get cold feet. So a little calming down would be good. However, I'm sorry, Moriarty, but the only difference between your original report and the test screening reviews and set reports that populate this site is that nobody is screaming "PLANT!" Beacuse that's what it reads like. You got exclusive access, met the director, liked him and he has respect for the material. So he gets the AICN seal of approval. Um. Okay. Most directors say they respect the material they are working with, particularly if it's something that has a rabid base behind it. It's the first rule of PR -- declare respect the source material. Not saying Snyder doesn't, but I wouldn't expect him to come out and say that he felt Watchmen needs to be updated and NiteOwl won't work on film so they're making him into something else. As for all the downer thoughts about this film, why shouldn't the people that bother to post their opinions have reservations about either the director, medium or finished product? Last time I checked, nobody jumped into the X3 talkbacks from this site and asked everyone to back off. In fact, the people who run this site pretty much fanned the flames. What's the difference, Mori? And saying the track record of the director doesn't count: most of us have no basis for comparison with Snyder, he's made one film which was, for me, the same entertainment level as the Rush Hour movies -- Friday night after a bunch of beers and you can't be arsed sitting through all the 'story' in a Skinemax movie for a 60 second tit shot. To wrap this up: Thanks for the original report, it's interesting to see where the project stands. Mori, you have the respect of many of the people who come to this site, but your update comes off as petulant. Not everyone liked Dawn of the Dead, so people will have negative reactions to Snyder. You've seen stuff that makes you optimistic, good for you. Most of us have not seen anything new from Snyder, so we should we share your opinion, even though we may respect it? I think even you would admit that some of the raves you have handed out on this site have been for projects, actors or directors that have turned out to be utter garbage.

  • March 25, 2006, 10:18 a.m. CST

    And btw, Moore has created John Constantine,

    by OurManInMontr

    but to say that 'Constantine' is another adaptation of his work is like saying 'X-Men' is an adaptation of 'the comic by Stan Lee'... actually true, but terribly restrictive.

  • March 25, 2006, 10:22 a.m. CST


    by Blueberry

    James McTeigue is also interested in the movie and I bet Aronofsky would jump again on the ship if the schedule allows him to start working some months after the birth of his baby.

  • March 25, 2006, 10:32 a.m. CST

    Why is a TV series Mastabatory? ('Sup Ribbons)

    by modlight

    Because I find things taking their time enjoyable? Because there is a lot of story? Because I feel that if the budget was smaller it would help not hurt because it would force the filmmakers to be creative, rather than the throw it all against a wall and see what sticks attitude of WOTW and Kong. I call it the John Woo syndrome. Look at the Dune Miniseriesesesss (plural). Yeah the effects got shakey at points, but that was far better than the version done by a groundbreaking and amazing director. Because they realized that for that story the plot was more important than the spectacle. .. pt 2 coming because I get lost reading these big things....

  • March 25, 2006, 10:35 a.m. CST

    AND NOW - the reality behind this piece...

    by genro

    It's called a trial balloon. If you want to believe Mori found out about Snyder by accident, fine. I'm rather skeptical considering the Hellboy/Del Toro/CHUD/MEG network that Levin and Gordon just happen to be in the thick of. Now combine that with how Mori was kept up on everything regarding the Greengass Production, and coincidence seems less likely...what this looks to be is Levin/Gordon trying to line up their '07 film slate since Hellboy 2 is fluid. Snyder gets floated to see the reaction and Drew flips out because it's aint cool, (not tracking well and all that)...also with Watchmen back at WB, there's now a chance of Levin/Gordon losing control of the property, hence the HBO outrage. Don't believe me? Ask Jon Peters about Superman. De Bonventura about for what Mori doesn't understand about Watchmen, it's because he's so immersed in the production of a film that he now fully realizes how damn hard it is to get a picture made. The alginment of the stars it would take for the fan version of Watchmen is near impossible for Levin/Gordon. So it's a choice - back the fanbase idea of the film or back Levin/Gordon's version...personally, no one involved with this to date has the foresight to see this thing gets made correctly, and I'm not referring to the character storyline. There's a rhythm to the layout which is near impossible for a theatrical movie to mimic. Levin/Gordon/Greengrass/Snyder/Hayter/Hamm/Gilliam - not one of these people has shown in any previous film the insight it would take to translate that aspect. Cronenberg, Egoyan or Chan-wook Park would have the best chance.

  • March 25, 2006, 10:41 a.m. CST

    pt II

    by modlight

    I think that a miniseries is no less Mastabatory than a multi part movie, but I get worried that a multipart movie could get cut off at the knees. Here are the precedents and why I FEEL (hence my opinion) that it wouldn't work. Matrix.... can stand alone, and many people feel (although not me) that it should have. There is no point in Watchmen where you can make a clean break without akwardly cutting the story in two, which thanks to Tarantino, we know can be done. But, Snyder, Aranofsky, and Greengrass are no Tarantino (in terms or popularity and bankability , I'm not getting into talent so ease up) so they need a studio to really trust in the material and agree to split a movie up. Will a studio agree to that after Hell, League and V? I dunno. LOTR... Very similar massive cult property, but much wider fan base and an easier sell with swords and sworcery rather than political unrest and depressed superheroes. Anyways. I'm only writing this much cause the only comic I love more than that is Dark Knight and they'll never pull that off I'm afraid. But I'd put Aranofsky back on that before Watchmen.... Thanks for reading.

  • March 25, 2006, 10:51 a.m. CST

    Since when did "masturbatory" become a bad word?

    by Vynson

    Reality has already updated Watchmen's social and political climate... or don't you read/watch world news? As for the oil... we've heard the same doomsayer's BS since the 70s. No point in arguing though when another 20 years will prove the point... again.

  • March 25, 2006, 11:20 a.m. CST

    Let's meet halfway: 7 hour movie version

    by BrandLoyalist

    with two intermissions

  • March 25, 2006, 11:28 a.m. CST

    For me Dawn of the Dead was awesome, so Zack's great

    by MrFloppy

    for this job.

  • March 25, 2006, 11:39 a.m. CST

    Let's just get this straight -

    by Demon Disco

    An adaptation is exactly that: AN ADAPTATION. No, it won't be the same as the original comic. Film is an entirly different medium, it plays by different rules. A good adaptation realises that it must make certain sacrifices for the original material to work for a different art-form. This does not mean it's not true to or inferior to the original - it's an aesthetically different interpretation. So long as the spirit of the piece, the story, the essence, remains intact then I would regard anything adapted, be it a novel, comic, TV series, remake, what have you, as being successful. We need a little bit more perspective, we need to grant a little more creative leeway. Watchmen the film won't be Watchmen the comic - but (if done well) it will be Watchmen. Just in a different form...

  • March 25, 2006, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Moriarty, you arrogant weenie

    by omarthesnake

    People say that it would work best as a 12-part HBO series because IT WOULD WORK BEST AS A 12-PART HBO SERIES! How dare you claim that people who say this are parroting, or being contrary, or any such thing. The simple fact is, a single feature film would have to gut the story too much, and unlike Sin City it's not possible to do a part of the overall story without the whole narrative. So get off your goddamned high horse.

  • March 25, 2006, 11:53 a.m. CST

    If anyone can write a good script,

    by Novaman5000

    It's solid snake.

  • March 25, 2006, 11:58 a.m. CST

    I'm not gonna deny Moore is talented, but

    by Novaman5000

    He seems to be kind of a prick.

  • March 25, 2006, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Watchmen wouldn't work as a movie.

    by Jar Jar 4 Prez

    No matter how much sunshine this guy wants to blow up our asses. The Dark Knight Returns shouldn't be a movie either. With so many great comics out there you think that they'd just pick a different one to make. If'n you can't even make a good Batman movie you should just leave Watchmen the fuck alone.

  • March 25, 2006, 12:03 p.m. CST

    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

    by Capt. Spaulding

    I just think this is like "Catcher in the Rye" the movie. Yes, hypothetically it could work, but would it work as well? No, I don't think so. As much as I would love to see a really kick-ass version of "Watchmen" I'm not convinced that it can be done. But, you're welcome to prove me wrong.

  • March 25, 2006, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Listen up....

    by ian216a

    If it takes 3 hours to read the whole of Watchmen... why would you need a 12 hour miniseries to watch it? Maths... works in many everyday situations!

  • March 25, 2006, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Watchmen would work as a movie

    by ChorleyFM

    It just wouldn't be the same as the comic. As long as it is good does that matter? No, you still have the source material and you would have a cinematic interpretation of a fantastic story and brilliant characters. I know there will be no pirate stuff, but if it was to be included you could have the kid in a video store, talking to the clerk and watching a pirate movie on a screen, instead of talking to the stall owner and reading a comic.

  • March 25, 2006, 12:19 p.m. CST

    3 hours

    by Vynson

    People who spent three hours with Watchmen and think they've read it is exactly why we will never see a decent film adaptation.

  • March 25, 2006, 12:21 p.m. CST


    by Jar Jar 4 Prez

    Yeah, maybe it'll be as great a cinematic interpretation as LXG, From Hell, or Constantine (that's called SARCASM for the uninitiated). Or... maybe they'll really knock it outta the park and make it as good as Catwoman or Daredevil. Wouldn't that be great?

  • March 25, 2006, 12:24 p.m. CST



    I've been optimistically waiting for a Watchmen movie as long as everybody else, but am new to the idea of an HBO series. So I'm not parroting or regurgitating anything when I say I like the idea of a series. I'm also the kind of guy that likes a good 3 hr movie over a good 2 hr movie. A bad 3 hr movie is too long, sure. So is a bad 2 hr movie, a bad 1 hr movie, a bad 22 min tv show etc. So my position is, the more the better, provided it doesn't suck. What's attractive about the prospect of an HBO series: It could take it's time and it's episodic, just like the book was. But having said that, if a good adaptation of the story can be crammed into a 2 (or dare I say 3?) hour flick and actually ends up on a screen near me, I'll be happy. My pessimism manifests itself, frankly, in that I doubt it'll ever happen at all. Prove me wrong too,Hollywood bitches! Bring it!

  • March 25, 2006, 1:16 p.m. CST

    I think the important thing we've learned here...

    by modlight

    Is that "Hollywood" can look at this page and see that there isn't much interest for an adaptation of some sort so they don't need to keep dragging this out. Hand it over to Corman before they lose the rights, have him knock one off real quick so they recoup some of their costs and call it a day. No one cares about the Watchmen.

  • March 25, 2006, 1:37 p.m. CST

    I care about Watchmen.

    by Jar Jar 4 Prez

    I care so much that I don't want to see Hollywood fuck it up.

  • March 25, 2006, 1:42 p.m. CST

    look at my posts above....

    by modlight

    I Was kidding dude. unless you were doing that as a Han Soloesque "I care" in which case. nice.

  • March 25, 2006, 1:43 p.m. CST

    and to nerd it up further...

    by modlight

    I meant Skywalkeresque and I'm done for the day. GOOD NIGHT!!!

  • March 25, 2006, 1:44 p.m. CST

    I try to make everything that I do Han Soloesque

    by Jar Jar 4 Prez

    Thanks for noticing.

  • March 25, 2006, 1:45 p.m. CST

    But not Skywalkeresque

    by Jar Jar 4 Prez

    Not that there's anything wrong with that.

  • March 25, 2006, 2:12 p.m. CST

    Well said Demon Disco

    by BrandLoyalist

    And "here here!" to MrFloppy about DotD; but it was Anoblu's post that said it all best.

  • March 25, 2006, 2:14 p.m. CST

    Moriarty, I'll give you LOTR and Batman but,

    by slder78

    I thought Sin City was a whole lotta flash and no substance (idicativie of pretty much every Rodriguez film). Spiderman, there are moments in Spiderman man where you can clearly tell he's CG and for me the split second I know it CG the movie is over (which is why i prefer practical to CGI 90% of the time.) BTW I didn't see a CG Batman once in Batman Begins, that coupled with the story makes me put it head and shoulders above the Spider movies.

  • March 25, 2006, 2:20 p.m. CST

    And what's so bad about putting it on HBO?

    by slder78

    Less of a budget? Small screen size? Have you seen Rome? Every episode of nearly every HBO show is like a mini movie. Watchmen is so complex a universe, do you think you could do it justice in 110 minutes? LOTR took almost 8 hours to do it in movie form and Jackson had to do the extended editions to go to 12 hours to feel like he fully fleshed out the story.

  • March 25, 2006, 3:20 p.m. CST


    by blackthought

  • March 25, 2006, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Quality is all that matters in the end

    by Adapter56

    You know I really enjoy a lot of aspects of the geek scene, like here at Ain't it Cool. A lot of quality information gets disseminated amongst the nerdmasses very quickly. What I have never liked is the way many of the inhabitants like to use the forums to hurl insults back and forth. I expect many find it entertaining, but to me it is tiresome, and plays right into the arrested development comic-book-guy stereotypes that are so often conjured up. Many of the people that read this forum are extremely intelligent, creative people with strong opinions about modern pop culture. This is such a great thing, and is not very often reflected in forums like these talk-backs. It pales severely when intolerance for opposing opinions reaches such critical mass that the average solution is to enter the arena of bitch-slapping--and by the proprietor of the site itself no less. I don't check in with this site that often, so I am guilty perhaps of not being aware of any stale and routine suggestions that have come to the forefront of the this current Watchmen movie topic. It seems to me that a 12 part series used as a medium to adapt a 12 part series is a good idea (especially given the complexities of the characters and opportunities for historical development this would allow, as opposed to a 2 or 3 hour movie). Having said that I am certainly not adverse to seeing a well done 2 or 3 hour movie done of this material provided that the quality of writing is there. This director that is currently being touted, Snyder, surely seems capable of providing the quality of vision. I certainly hope so. I enjoyed the new V for Vendetta film, I went with my wife, and we both were engrossed in it, and very entertained by it. It provoked conversation and thought, something that most action adventure films do not. I think the major strength in it, is the performances of Weaving and Portman, and the script capturing at least some of the major plot points of the graphic novel to an adequate degree. It was leaps and bounds above The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. (I know that is not saying much). I agree with one of the above posters who says that it was quite spineless. It was. It backed off many plot and philosophical points that could have made it a much stronger and provoking film (The bishop example listed above certainly demonstrates this). But given the climate of what we are currently experiencing from most of the big budget Hollywood films, I can say I am pleased that they came up with what they did, rather than not at all, as Alan Moore would have absolutely preferred. I can really understand someone not appreciating it at all for exactly that same reasoning. The Watchmen is a story about the realistic portrayal of power in a fantastic situation. If producers/writers/director can do justice to this idea with intelligence and creativity, be it in a movie or mini-series, I'll be pleased. I am of the opinion that a 12 part big-budget series will give the creators the best possible means to that. I am sure that a movie could possibly achieve that too. Lets hope that the right people make the right decisions... and if they can't then lets hope they don't do it at all...

  • March 25, 2006, 3:56 p.m. CST


    by slder78

    i hope that's not the case, i like Moriarty's posts, but if true, i'd be disappointed.

  • March 25, 2006, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Not So Cool

    by Barron34

    I respectfully have to side with the naysayers on this one. I read the Sam Hamm WATCHMEN script a long time ago, and frankly it was awful. If Vynson's coverage of Hayter's script is accurate, that "adaptation" is even worse. None of the changes noted in the Hayter are neccessary. In fact, they are awful. There is no rhyme or reason to them, and they demonstrate that the writer has no respect or appreciation for the source material. Sorry, just my take. And, when fans bring out the HBO mini-series argument, it is simply because they do not want to see a classic eviscerated. WATCHMEN is perhaps the closest thing to a masterwork in comics. Fans will tend to be skeptical. I admit, WATCHMEN conceivably MIGHT work as a 2-hour movie, but the script would have to be a masterwork of adaptation itself. If the Hayter script is anything like Vynson described, then it is apparently a bastardization, and would be better left unfilmed. Sorry to disagree with you, Mori, but that is just how I see it in this case.

  • March 25, 2006, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Not So Cool

    by Barron34

    I respectfully have to side with the naysayers on this one. I read the Sam Hamm WATCHMEN script a long time ago, and frankly it was awful. If Vynson's coverage of Hayter's script is accurate, that "adaptation" is even worse. None of the changes noted in the Hayter are neccessary. In fact, they are awful. There is no rhyme or reason to them, and they demonstrate that the writer has no respect or appreciation for the source material. Sorry, just my take. And, when fans bring out the HBO mini-series argument, it is simply because they do not want to see a classic eviscerated. WATCHMEN is perhaps the closest thing to a masterwork in comics. Fans will tend to be skeptical. I admit, WATCHMEN conceivably MIGHT work as a 2-hour movie, but the script would have to be a masterwork of adaptation itself. If the Hayter script is anything like Vynson described, then it is apparently a bastardization, and would be better left unfilmed. Sorry to disagree with you, Mori, but that is just how I see it in this case.

  • March 25, 2006, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Sorry For The Double-Post

    by Barron34

    And I must agree with those who point out what HBO can do with a show like ROME, and that the same argument could be applicable to a WATCHMEN series, but after such a long time with this project being in development on and off, I am almost at the point where I would rather not even see them attempt WATCHMEN as a film.

  • March 25, 2006, 4:09 p.m. CST


    by drew mcweeny

    I love how you've dug in and all of your negativity towards the project is because of one draft. I'll give you this, though... at least you actually read something.

  • March 25, 2006, 4:51 p.m. CST


    by kiddae

    I love how you completely fail to answer his question about whether the draft you heaped praise on contained this "Slingshot" and "Ozymandias foiled by Owlerang" garbage.

  • March 25, 2006, 5:19 p.m. CST

    All right, I won't say this SHOULDN'T be made....

    by DOGSOUP

    But it should make any average american viewer expecting a super hero story ala Spider Man or X-Men writhe in their seats for 3 hours in an uncomfortable realization that this ISN'T a superhero movie it is a thriller ala Se7en or Silence of the Lambs only with superpowers. The Comedian should revulse people, Dr. Manhattan should shock and awe people, and Rorschach should make people wince with his brutality in finding the truth like they were watching a Miike movie. It could be a good movie if done right but you know what? It'll NEVER be as good as it's source material. I wish Zack luck and I'm not going to dog this movie unless I really feel it's getting the Brett Ratner treatment.

  • March 25, 2006, 5:21 p.m. CST


    by Vynson

    Negativity? Perhaps, like some suspect of you, I have a secret agenda.... Hurm. But really, Mori, what else would I base my opinion on? You asking me to trust your insight? The script review you reference is from 02. The draft I read is from 03. Have you read a more recent and more faithful draft in the meantime? By all means, please share with us. That's why we come to this site. As for negativity... dude you've spewed your share of that based on less, haven't you? We're geeks. We're conditioned to having our stories screwed up more often than not and so I suppose some of us are a bit neurotic about it. But we aren't against you, Drew, so why don't you can the snide attitude and tell us what you honestly think of Sling Shot powers and Dan killing Adrian with an Owlerang. Damn the access and the asskissing. Do you like that crap or not? Be a geek first and a journalist later. Because if you honestly like these things and think they serve a Watchmen script well, then maybe granting you the trust you ask for is a pretty creepy idea. Frankly, I'm a bit used to the idea that Moriarty liking a movie means I can go see it and at least not want my money back. You say " least you actually read something." Dude most of the people here would like to read what you've read but they don't have access to it. That's why they count on you... and then you endorse stuff that butchers the stories they love and ask for more "trust." Yes, at least I've read something. But I've gone one better. I've written something, too... ahh... the secret agenda... Hurm. I got tired of wondering if it could be done and answered the challenge myself. I wrote a Watchmen screenplay. I challenge you to read it and tell me honestly what you think of it. An honest comparison to the drafts you've read. And I'm not stingy, I'll send it as a Word doc to anyone here who wants to give it a read. Send a request to vynson at aol dot com. Or visit my site at and leave a request. But after writing several drafts in the last six months or so and trying to be as respectful of Moore and Gibbons as possible, I still think the cuts necessary to bring this home in two hours are unforgiveable to most fans. Hence the HBO miniseries is a good idea, though I would say 6 or 7 one hour episodes is plenty. Well, Mori... are you up to the challenge? I'm setting myself up here... read it and tell me here how much it sucks... and I'll be counting on the fact that, in spite of all this talkback crap, you are at heart a Watchmen fan and a writer and you will enjoy it, and see why such massive changes as Hamm and Hayter made are so unnecessary. The bloody cuts are bad enough... necessary surgery... but gratuitous changes and additions are just butchery.

  • March 25, 2006, 6:34 p.m. CST


    by Brundlefly

    I totally agree with you on this one. Fuck the haters. Here's hoping Zack can pull this one off.

  • March 25, 2006, 6:47 p.m. CST

    Vynson - and some news for you Moore fan-boys

    by ian216a

    It took you longer than 3 hours to read Watchmen? Well I do remember some joined up writing in it. Of course re-reading it would take longer, much in the same way re-watching a film would take longer than it's running time. See what I'm saying here, you insulting little fucktard - or do you want to spend some more time reading this post? BTW Weird Al Moore was on the front page of the local paper here in Northampton on Thursday, supporting a campaign to defend council housing in the town. Looks like he is going to be designing a ltd edition of 100 posters for it and putting them on sale on ebay. So keep an eye on it if you like that kinda thing.

  • March 25, 2006, 6:53 p.m. CST

    "Fuck the haters"

    by newc0253

    that's the attitude, buddy. reading your post made me realise something. there *will* be a watchmen movie one day. perhaps not soon, but one day. and it will suck. suck ass. and what's more, you'll admit to yourself that the watchmen was essentially unfilmable as a mainstream hollywood movie and that you were an idiot for ever thinking otherwise. just remember: you read it here first.

  • March 25, 2006, 7:32 p.m. CST

    DOTD was uninteresting on both visual and story levels

    by LilOgre

    It wasn't horrible, just boring. Visually it looked like a TV movie. As far as story, it dragged and was predictable at all the wrong times, zombie baby, etc.... And that is why I'm shocked that Zack Snyder is directing 300. WATCHMEN, for fanboys, is a beloved comic. And to give it to the dude who directed DOTD well, it just raises a few shall we say "red flags." So maybe Warners really loves what it's seeing out of 300. So far, the production diaries have been less than mind-blowing but it sounds like it is a pretty "post-heavy" movie so we'll see.

  • March 25, 2006, 7:34 p.m. CST


    by LilOgre

    Meant to say, "shocked that Snyder is directing WATCHMEN." Although on some level, I guess 300 too.

  • March 25, 2006, 8:06 p.m. CST

    Hey, pot? This is Moriarty.

    by tiredpm

    Drew, Vynson read a draft. That gives him the right to give an opinion. "If you haven't seen what they're up to yet, and you don't know what they've done with the can you make such a grand sweeping pronouncement?" Your words, Drew. Vynson claims to have read a draft by the currently attached screenwriter. So why the hell can't he make a "sweeping pronouncement" and "direct his negativity" toward the project? Unless he's full of crap -- are you willing to state that? The fact that Vynson has read a draft puts him in the same place as you, he's seen behind the scenes material. And he doesn't like what he's seen. So, discredit his statement with facts or update his information, but replying to his many posts with a snarky two line post, that you try and soften with a condescending final line, is not cool. Bluntly, Drew, you kinda look like you've been caught out and are taking your ball and going home.

  • March 25, 2006, 8:27 p.m. CST

    I know Zack Snyder......

    by Capt. Miller

    You haters should be on your hands and fucking knees thanking your God of choice that a guy like Zack Snyder has his hands on WATCHMEN. Instead you grumble about a script that some failed screenwriter wrote some bad fucking coverage on and talk about all the guys that you, in your infinite underemployed wisdom, think would "nail" the movie if the people who run things in Hollywood finally saw what a genuis you were and said, "hey you in your underwear still living in the room that you grew up in, get out here and show us how it's done!!!" Not going to happen. I've seen you guys cut slack for hacks who don't deserve it. Terry Gilliam??? Are you fucking kidding??? Loved a lot of his movies but not for a long time. Paul Greengrass?? Based on what? A fake documentary? Some spastic camera work on a BOURNE sequel?? I can't even remember what that movie was about. Also, as far as Alan Moore goes, does anyone who knows anything about him think that he would ever endorse the idea of somebody making a movie of his work? He'll take the money, as he should, but he will never help sell it. Here's something important to remember, and you should pay attention to this, no matter what any of you haters say, you will see this movie, likely opening night, and Hollywood knows it. On the way out tell the guy at the ticket window that you gave your 10 bucks to, WORST EPISODE EVER!! That will show them.

  • March 25, 2006, 8:58 p.m. CST

    Umm... sup, modlight?

    by Ribbons

    I'm not sure what that "'sup" was about, but... whatever. ******* Now for a general comment: the thing that's sort of confusing me is that... uhh... why do people NOT want to see this get made? If you truly think that "Watchmen" is unadaptable, then what does it matter to you? I can see finding yourself frustrated with a shitty adaptation of something that you think has the potential to be good, but if you think that there's no possible way that a "Watchmen" movie (OR radio show, or TV show, or off-Broadway play, and cetera...) can work, then what do you care what happens to the movie? Honestly, can somebody explain that one to me? Is it just because you hate Hollywood, or, whatever? Because I suppose that's mildly understandable.

  • March 25, 2006, 9:08 p.m. CST

    Re: Ribbons

    by Capt. Miller

    It's the same impotent rage that we have seen on this site since it started. Bitter people who think these properties belong to them. I think a lot of it has to do with frustration they feel in their own lives. It's a great release to piss on other peoples' work with anonymity and impunity.

  • March 25, 2006, 9:14 p.m. CST

    The current screenwriter hasn't delivered yet

    by Capt. Miller

    So anyone who says that they have read it is a liar.

  • March 25, 2006, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Tell em Mori!

    by Jaka

    Fuckers! Some days these talkbacks are brilliant. Some days....not so much. I just don't get all the negativity from people ABOUT movies that haven't even come out, or even gone into production, on a MOVIE NEWS site. Never have.

  • March 25, 2006, 9:32 p.m. CST

    Capt. Miller, cool down

    by tiredpm

    Dude, relax. And if you want people to respect your opinion and hold fire on the person you say you know, you should maybe not have a go at others. Do you know Gilliam or Greengrass? You don't namedrop them, so I guess not: that make you feel you have the right to say what you want? Fine, then ANYONE ELSE HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT ABOUT SNYDER IF THEY DON'T KNOW HIM. Also, quick question: wasn't it very public that Moore refused all money from the adaptation of one of his recent works, either V or LXG? And as for impotent rage, um, have you read your anonymous posts raging against the other people posting in this forum? Just checking... :-)

  • March 25, 2006, 9:35 p.m. CST

    Capt Miller

    by Vynson

    Wow. What classy friends Zack has. Why don't you read my script. Then, as Drew says, at least you will have read something... then you can call me a failed screenwriter and actually be informed about it. And anyone who's been to my site knows I don't bother with anonymity. Let's hope "impunity" isn't actually necessary. But you were right about one thing. As pessimistic as I am about Watchmen being made well, whether Moore emerges from Northhampton to write the damn screenplay himself, or they go back to the Sam Hamm script and shoot it word for unbearable word, I will see it at the first available showing because I am a geek and I cannot pass up this kind of GeekCrack no matter how impure it may appear. But, even a crackhead knows going in... it just isn't going to work out well and I can't pretend to be optimistic.

  • March 25, 2006, 9:40 p.m. CST

    And Capt. Miller Shines The Light...

    by genro

    ...ya all see now? This isn't about making the best film possible. It's about what can get the deal done. Cappy Miller knows feedback like this doesn't help. What's his answer? "Fuck You. We'll make it how we want and you'll still go"...hey Cappy, I'll be excited about this when Levin/Gordon gives up the ghost to someone *who sees more than a fucking Superhero/Mystery movie* - comprehende you Toolbot? Any guy who would sign to direct a remake of Dawn shows he doesn't have the acumen for this material...and before you spout off the "not everyone can be M. Night" cliche, realize that's the fucking point. You shouldn't be coming near this book if all you do are studio cookie-cutter projects...and for the record, I don't fault Snyder, he needs a paycheck like everyone else. It's the handlers who've shown time and again they don't get what it's going to take...doesn't anyone want to know why when superhero projects are in full bloom, can Levin/Gordon only attract mid-tier players to the most influential comic of the past 30 years? Why aren't names like Mann or M. Night being bandied about as "in negotiations"? Instead of AK Walker and Fincher, we got Hayter and Greengrass. Now, it's Snyder and a rookie writer. How the hell this is a step in the right direction? Because I'm supposed to have faith in AICN? One word - Daredevil.

  • March 25, 2006, 9:43 p.m. CST


    by Vynson

    Dude, I didn't even know another screenwriter had been attached until Mori mentioned it above... but he did say the guy was working from Hayter's drafts didn't he? I didn't claim to read the new guy's work. He could be the greatest thing since Shakespeare for all I know. I hope he is.

  • March 26, 2006, midnight CST

    If it's a one-off film, it must be a different animal

    by joe b

    A reasonably lengthed film may or may not stand well on its own, but it's by necessity going to have to stand on its own. I'm oblivious to all the rabid fandom surrounding the comic, what I'm angling at is the rich, deeply layered and self-referential complexity of the material that won't translate well no matter who tackles the project. A multi-part Tee Vee series may be even worse (even HBO). At least an American Tee Vee series, where the attention spans of the polled public will be a high consideration. I'm sure for instance that Kieslowski could not have gotten Dekalogue off the ground for US television. Too sophisticated. Watchmen has so much self-reference and turning back in on itself, so much metastory, I think that the only way to convey the expansive pallette of inferred ideas in that comic is by reducing the surface stories and characters. Expanding by focusing, if that makes any sense. Even then, much will be lost. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about however it turns out, no matter who is working on it.

  • March 26, 2006, 1:17 a.m. CST

    Why isn't Greengrass on this one anymore ?

    by Milou

    I mean why Greengrass has been dropped out of this project ? He had the support of the fan base 'cause he showed he had a great -political, engaged, respectful- vision for this film... I mean he has been dropped while the movie was at Paramount and because there was changes at the direction : so it isn't because of his vision or work... I could understand they choose another director if this director wasn't working today and so was free to handle Watchmen in the next months but Snyder must work on 300 for almost a year... I don't understand. (It also works if you change Greengrass by Aranofsky... But Aranofsky didn't show his vision of the projct through interviews)

  • March 26, 2006, 1:21 a.m. CST


    by DS9Sisko

    Thank GOD Mori said what needs to be said. A lot of fans and geeks are thoughtful, excited, interested and invested in the genre of their affection. But there is a large number of people who call themselves fans who are the most negative, navel-gazing, small-minded nabobs of negativity, whose sole purpose is to shoot down any and every project as if they are run Viacom, NBC, Vivendi-Universal, Marvel, DC or Pixar instead of making change for senior citizens at Wal-Mart and selling 2-for$10 DVD's at Blockbuster. Forgive me for saying so, but Moriarty is telling nothing but the truth. And it seems the prevalent charge against him is either a) his "fame" comes from "the fans" so how dare his criticize and/or b) the "I have a right to be as much of an asshole as I fucking please." Of the former, it's a silly argument that is only made by small minded hypocrites who usually can't stand anyone disagreeing with their infinite knowledge of all things geeky. Of the latter, I have no quarrel with people being assholes if they so wish, but getting pissed off because someone said your man-gina smells doesn't make it any less full of shit.

  • March 26, 2006, 2:55 a.m. CST

    The director keeps falling on quality everytime...

    by chien_sale

    I`m telling you, this guy will drop off too and then Frank Oz will direct. But then he will drop off too and Gore Verbinsky will be chosen. Then he will go...for the producers to finally settle on Bret Ratner!

  • March 26, 2006, 2:56 a.m. CST

    Oh year and...BRING BACK GREENGRASS!

    by chien_sale

  • March 26, 2006, 6:04 a.m. CST


    by moviemaniac-7

    Of all the troubled 'development hell' movies of recent years (Indy 4, Spider-Man, etc.) this might be the most interesting. The Sam Hamm draft was a terrible experience to read, but I believe in Hayter's abilities to bring the comic (or graphic novel, whatever) medium to the screen. I've heard a lot of talk about this version of his and it's one of the things I'd love to see to hit the 'net someday, just to find out what all these people got so exciting over. Snyder is in my opinion an excellent choice.

  • March 26, 2006, 8:10 a.m. CST


    by robotdevil

    You are too fucking stupid to live. Please kill yourself now and spare the gene pool.

  • March 26, 2006, 8:15 a.m. CST


    by Vynson

    Wow that was some diatribe. Do you really spend that much time contemplating the occupations and living arrangements of other geeks? Perhaps you could tear yourself away from that long enough to discuss Watchmen with us? The fact is that fans like the idea of being able to influence their favorite characters and stories as they head for the big screen. We've all seen a lot of disappointing efforts... but they weren't always the same ones. You may have loved both Punisher movies while I didn't care for them. There is not a universal fan vision. We all have a different outlook. People who want to see a big budget major motion picture of Watchmen tend to bash the HBO mini series idea and vice versa. No biggie. But I see no reason why our host can't mind his manners and be respectful of others opinions even as he expresses his own. It sets an immature tone and we end up with some people running around calling everyone else a basement-dwelling fucktard. Seems rather immature. This can be a fun place and I try to take it all in humor, because at the heart of this site is the fact that we all love comic/movie/geeky goodness. But we aren't all the stereotype geek hoping to make assistant manager at some min. wage job, living at home with mom and dad, and dreaming of touching a real live girl. That's funny and all... made a cool movie even. But if the stereotype were more universal, we'd agree on more things and talkbacks would consist of three posts establishing our universal concurrence. Sure, I'd rather see Watchmen given the LOTR treatment. But, even if I were the WB prexy, I wouldn't greenlight that. It doesn't have the potential to sustain the investment. Superheroes for adults. No Incredibles audience. No major merchandising. Maybe a soundtrack (what do you think Pale Horse and Krystalnacht sound like?) But marketing on this will be tricky. In my opinion, the only hope is to do to the mainstream audience what the graphic novel did to comics fans in 1986... blow everyone away along with everything they think they know about superheroes. Give them a densely layered film (ala Kieslowski) that demands a second and a fifth viewing... that achieves word of mouth and gives this movie legs... so that the second weekend is bigger than the first. In my horribly uninformed and unqualified opinion, the draft of the Hayter script I read will not serve as a blueprint for a film that can accomplish that. Is that negativity? So be it. But I've read watchmen dozens of times since my original reading when it was a year long monthly back in '86. I've written a half dozen screenplays (not including my own Watchmen effort). I've studied the movies of such geniuses as Kieslowski who did in films what Alan Moore has done in comics, mastering the medium itself to the point that everything in every frame is thought out and contains an integrated wealth that adds to the story. More than slingshot powers and memory mirrors and Ozy expiring from an owlerang, the biggest flaw in Hayter's script (and I'm of the opinion that David Hayter is a talented screenwriter) is the lack of layering. One of the things we loved about the comic was the rich (if sometimes blatant) symbolism, the multi-layered image systems, the scene transitions, the constant double meanings... the sheer density. Hayter's script does not even attempt this. Whether this shortcoming is at studio direction or his own choice, I couldn't begin to guess. I can only judge the script at hand, not the totality of the screenwriter's talent. However, the economy and efficiency and depth of writing necessary to even suggest this in a script while compressing and compositing the myriad plot points so that the director has a proper foundation for the film is... challenging to say the least. These are the things we could be discussing here... or you can get back to whether or not you still live with your mom, which, frankly, I don't give a damn about.

  • March 26, 2006, 9:05 a.m. CST

    Oh, and because people forget so easily...

    by Milou

    I was so happy with what was said in this old article : Why didn't it get greenlighted ??

  • March 26, 2006, 10:02 a.m. CST

    Paul Giamatti(sic) as Roarscharch(sic)

    by Againtoday

    How can you deny it? The perfect casting right there. Even their names have the same difficulty to spell for retards like me. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want a Watchmen movie. A failed Watchmen is better than a successful Daredevil or X-Men.

  • March 26, 2006, 11:54 a.m. CST


    by Capt. Miller

    You're right dude. I have never read your work and so I can't comment on your abilities as a screenwriter. My use of "failed screenwriter" was meant as a blanket to cover a lot of people who post negative shit on this site. It was not cool to throw it directly at you. Here's what I have a problem with: it's the general negativity that comes with these posts and people in Hollywood do read them. And this is a critical time for projects like this. We all assume that WATCHMEN is a property if, rendered correctly (movie, HBO, whatever you believe), could be huge. Fact of the matter is, Hollywood is never sure. They can't just rely on you guys to see. That means $40M, maybe. They would much rather shit out sequels to properties that have already worked. It is easier to get a sequel to FANTASTIC 4 then something new and cool. WATCHMEN hasn't happened yet because it FELL APART OVER BUDGET. It has moved from studio to studio because NOBODY HAS WANTED TO MAKE IT. All the names that you guys bring up, some of them very cool, AREN'T INTERESTED. So now we have a director who wants to make it, and a studio that wants to make it with him. Don't talk them out of it because it's not going the way you always dreamed it would.

  • March 26, 2006, 12:49 p.m. CST

    Stick to writing horrible scripts and living your dream

    by Schmiggy JK

    Moriarty... Leave the watchmen to the fans, who have an appreciation for the graphic novel aspect, and the details in this story, which cant be fully achieved in a 3 hour movie...

  • March 26, 2006, 12:50 p.m. CST

    the comic translates to film poorly

    by Jack Burton

    I love Watchmen but if a movie is going to be made it really needs to be a separate entity from the book. I would say either a sequel or a spinoff story. The book is just too damn complex that I don't think it's possible to get even a quarter of the book in a movie and still be coherent and under a 3 hour run time. I read Hayter's script and it just didn't work. Maybe it's impossible to give a screenplay of it a fair shake when we all think we know what it should be and we don't have the illustrations to see what it is going to look like. I'd rather it stay unfilmed then be mediocre because mediocre adaptations really besmirch the reputation of the source material. I'm not hating on the project, I'm not making any judgements until I see the final product.

  • March 26, 2006, 1:07 p.m. CST


    by Wonderboys

    I agree with you word for word. I'd love too to see that multi-layered Watchmen movie I've always dreamed to see, but I know its impossible, but, as you, Im a geek, and Im a big Watchmen geek, so I'll be there, wether if at the end we have a Batman Begins or we have a Fantastic Four...

  • March 26, 2006, 1:26 p.m. CST

    A moriorty set review

    by INWOsuxRED

    I went into this skeptical. All the publicity photos look horrible, and the script I read stinks, and each re-write has been progressively worse. Then I ment with the director and he told me how great he is, but I was still a bit skeptical. Then he gave me a poster, some toys, and told me I could come back to the set of his next film if I give him a good plug. THIS GUY IS AMAZING AND ALL OF HIS FILMS WILL BE GREAT!

  • March 26, 2006, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Well Said, Moriarty

    by Ted Striker

    I think what Moriarty said bares repeating: "And if you can look at all the times people have done exactly what they should "never" have been able to do, and you can still be so incredibly closed to this film sight unseen, then just give it up." Amen - I think this applies to life as well. What you want in life is 'possible' but you need to focus on the 'possible' not the negatives. Focusing on the negatives will ultimately lead to a negative outcome. Here's to Watchmen succeeding!

  • March 26, 2006, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Best TB I've read in a while

    by Tony Mike Hall

    Fantastic - so much passion here. This is what makes this site and the TB process worthwhile. Like the JJ Abrams

  • March 26, 2006, 1:37 p.m. CST

    uh, that was "fledgling film"

    by Tony Mike Hall

    carry on. as you were.

  • March 26, 2006, 3:55 p.m. CST

    Mori are you SURE you don't need a hug??

    by HavokJD


  • March 26, 2006, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Capt Miller - applause for honesty...

    by genro

    Seriously. If some webmasters followed your path and stopped trying to manipulate their audience, maybe they wouldn't generate so much ill will. So now that we can put aside the issue of fansite tracking, here's the heart of the problem - certain things shouldn't be made just to be made. That's the motherfuckin' rubicon the Industry does not want to cross because it throws a wrench into everyone's financial plans, corporate and personal. The need to fill a schedule at all costs is producing so much bad shit that it's literally killing theatrical business. And as great as I find The Watchmen, it has to be approcahed as more than just a slot to fill a hole - and you know like I know that *no one* involved with this film has the clout to secure that type of care from Warner Balkans. Even if Snyder approached this project like Gibson and The Passion, Alan Horn just has to wave his leftie wrist and say "it's not superhero enough for A&M" and Levin/Gordon will gut it that night out of for name players not wanting to be involved, the question is still *why not*. Michael Mann's "At Night He Comes" is in the vein of Watchmen as to how it approaches the humanity of being a superhero. That project is spinning in circles. M. Night is going to be in need of a major property after his Mermaid flick melts down. And Fincher...the guy admitted he couldn't get any of his personal projects greenlit. So I'm left with two choices as to why guys like this are not involved - Money and/or Control.

  • March 26, 2006, 5:39 p.m. CST

    Give it to Frakes

    by BrandLoyalist

  • March 26, 2006, 6:48 p.m. CST

    Maybe part of the problem with Hollywood is...

    by chaplinatemyshoe

    instead of working on developing their own original creative shit, they take someone else's and then mutilate it to no end. At this point, you might as well just base a film on Watchmen and call it something else and spare us all the inevitable obnoxiously unreasonable lashback that will occur if this project goes forward...

  • March 26, 2006, 7:19 p.m. CST

    The Comedian...

    by neetstuff

    ....Enjoy your Watchmen movie where the Comdian will be played by Robin Williams in a "prestige role"....Well, if I ruled the world the only actor possible for this role is Burt Reynolds. He was born for this role. I think it's petition time...Burt Reynolds! Burt Reynolds! Burt Reynolds! (personally I don't think this movie should be filmed at all, but if it is- it must have Burt Reynolds)!

  • March 26, 2006, 8 p.m. CST

    The Casting Game

    by Barron34

    OK, to maybe try and lighten thing up, whatever your opinion about whether or not WAYCHMEN should be made as a 2 hour movie, etc, it is always fun to play the Casting Game, ie, who would we like to see as The Comedian, Veidt, etc. My own choices follow: 1) The Comedian- Michael Ironside or Tom Berenger (Berenger in PLATOON almost IS The Comedian, and Ironside does a good version in STARSHIP TROOPERS). 2) Veidt- Paul Bettany or Jeffery Nordling (Nordling is a relatively unknown TV and character actor. I was channel surfing one day and saw him playing a hockey coach in one of the MIGHT DUCKS sequels, and he looked like the spitting image of Veidt in that film. His IMDB bio says he is also a certified fight choreographer, which should be helpul playing Ozymandias as the super-martial artist the character is). 3) Rorschach- Gary Sinise or Paul Giamatti. Sinise is my original choice. Giamatti is a great actor, but I think that Sinise could play the physicality of the violent psycho Rorscach better. 4) Nite Owl II- Beau Bridges or Alec Baldwin. Beau Bridges is almost the spitting image of Dreiburg, but he is maybe a bit old for the role. Baldwin could play down his lead actor looks a bit to play the nerdier neuroses of Dreiburg, who ultimately must come off as first a loser and then second as a reborn hero. Tricky role, but key for the whole WATCHMEN story. 5) Silk Spectre II- Julianne Moore or Sandra Bullock. My first choice has always been Moore. I was impressed by Bullock's acting in CRASH, though, and feel that she would be a decent second choice. But, Julianne Moore all the way as a first choice. 6) Dr. Manhatten- Tough character to cast. Someone mentioned Christian Bale, which is a decent idea, but he is a bit young. My own thought was William Hurt. 7) Moloch- Christopher Walken. Maybe Gary Oldman or Steve Buscemi as back-up choices. 8) Nite Owl I- James Garner. Any other ideas? 9) Silk Spectre I- Faye Dunaway. So, those are the lead "hero" characters. Maybe Forest Whitaker as Rorschach's Doctor. Anyone else have any ideas?

  • March 26, 2006, 8:01 p.m. CST

    Burt Reynolds can't be the Comedian now...

    by Ray Garraty #47

    ...because despite his resemblance to the original character and age the man has become another symptom of the "stunt casting" plague that needs to be avoided at all costs if this project is to be taken seriously. He hasn't appeared in a serious film in a long time and he is in the "mailing it in to cash a check" stage in his career. In my humble opinion.

  • March 26, 2006, 8:03 p.m. CST

    Damn Typos

    by Barron34

    "WATCHMEN", not "WAYCHMEN", etc...

  • March 26, 2006, 9:23 p.m. CST

    Capt. Miller

    by Vynson

    Cool post, man. Thank you for that. I agree with a lot of your points. I'm in the camp that wishes they would leave it alone for two reasons. First, out of respect to the author. The whole work for hire shit Marvel and DC foisted on their creators sucks. If Moore and Gibbons had taken their idea to Knopf, they'd own it. I know it isn't quite that simple, but in my mind, this "property" is indeed the intellectual property of Moore and Gibbons. Second... as much as I would LOVE to see this story on the big screen, I just don't see any indication from the Hamm or Hayter drafts that we're moving in a positive direction. If it's negative to point that out, then I guess I'm being negative. Of course, I'm free to stay away from the cinema and cuddle up with my beloved graphic novel. I know that. I also know I'll go see it even if they get the cast from Hee Haw to do an improve sendup. Once. I can't help it. But I won't see it multiple times or buy the DVD unless it kicks some ass. The script is the real trick. It's a goddamned Gordian knot. The story is so intricately constructed that every cut risks ruining a dozen other scenes. So, the shortcut is to rework rather than adapt. To cut the knot rather than undoing it and reknotting it for the screen. As I mentioned, I wrote a script that makes a modest effort at putting the layers and density of the graphic novel into something that could come in around two hours. An adaptation that surprised me. For example, I had always thought the Black Freighter would be the first thing to go. By my fourth draft, I realized how well it could fit. However, I made a drastic sequence cut that, storywise, was very intelligent (I don't believe the sequence was in Moore's original vision of the story and is quite tangental plotwise), but it also means that some of our favorite scenes and lines were cut with it. And every fan wants to see his favorite lines. It also means that a dozen other scenes had to be altered somewhat due to the lack of the sequence to which they were integrated. But I compensated by really using the time to make the rest of it as detailed and dense as I could. It also means there is a small surprise that I think works well by way of consolation. If you try to cram the whole graphic novel in, you get a thin, shallow, and disappointing telling. Reworking it screws up the story. The only remaining option in a screenplay aimed at a two hour run time is to make a major cut. I gave it my best shot. I hope Zack's (assuming he snags the gig) writer does more than tinker with Hayter's script. I hope he goes back to the comic book and works on an actual adaptation. I hope he's loved it for 20 years and that he's so intimate with the story that he can untie Alan Moore's Gordian knot and refasten it around the silver screen.

  • March 27, 2006, 1:11 a.m. CST

    My 2 cents if anyone is paying attention

    by darthSaul666

    Well.... I'm skeptical but I think It could work ( But who I'm I fooling? I'd see a Watchmen film even if it was to see how bad it was ) But really... Sin City the movie had 3 graphic novels worth of stories packed into it and still was %95 accurate to it's source material. I think given the right vision a Watchmen film could be done with little change from the graphic novel... I'd gripe about something but it all would be gripes about other films.

  • March 27, 2006, 3:20 a.m. CST

    Respect for the source material

    by Almost Sexy

    I very rarely post here anymore, but I just couldn't refrain from chiming in on this polarizing topic. Moriarty's attitude in this post does remind me of the time that someone posted a largely unfavorable script review here (of a script maybe written by one of Moriarty's friends or colleagues??) and Moriarty was just incensed and scandalized that someone would take advantage of a leaked script to post a scathing review of it at AICN. And I remember thinking "Man, isn't that, like, your job?" But to be fair, no one can be perfectly consistent all the time, and no movie reviewer could help but be compromised by set visits and exclusive behind-the-scenes visits with the people involved with the movies. I hate to sound like an absolutist, but if you review movies seriously, you really have no business doing set visits or junkets. All of which is besides the point of why I really posted. It feels like Moriarty is saying that at this stage in the development of Watchmen, "respect for the source material" is the signal consideration to take into account. I can't help but feel that that's a little off-center. Didn't the guy that directed Daredevil have a terrific and long-held love of the comic? Did that really do anything for that poor movie? I'll take a storyteller with a sensitivity for story-telling and respect for the audience over "respect for the source material" any day. Respect for the source material should be a pre-requisite anyway, and not a "bonus."

  • March 27, 2006, 6:22 a.m. CST

    Watchmen No Happy Meal

    by servator


  • March 27, 2006, 7:34 a.m. CST

    Greengrass and casting

    by Blueberry

    Paul Greengrass will be shooting the new Bourne movie from August on and has another project in the can after that. And let me remember who were the actors rumored for his version last year: Joaquin Phoenix for Dan Dreiberg/NiteOwl II; Hilary Swank for Laurie Juspeczyk/Silk Spectre/Slingshot; Brad Pitt for Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias; Ron Perlman for Eddie Blake/The Comedian and a heavily made-up Jude Law for Rorschach. A "superhero" movie with this cast would be a sure success.

  • March 27, 2006, 7:39 a.m. CST

    by Blueberry

  • March 27, 2006, 9:14 a.m. CST

    Everyone says Brad Pitt for Veidt...

    by kiddae

    But I'd much rather see him as Dr. Manhattan. I'm not a huge Jude Law fan, but I think he could do Veidt justice, as was rumoured/suggested by him. And as much as I'd like to see Giovanni Ribisi as Rorscharch, it really HAS to go to an unknown.

  • March 27, 2006, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Respect to this Talkback

    by Koola_Norway

    Hey - just wanted to chime in and say something that someone else already has said - this TB is a great read! Thanks for making me want to read the comic BADLY. And thanks to Mori for the scoop and passion as well.

  • March 27, 2006, 10:01 a.m. CST

    the real

    by ZO

    reason watchmen would never be a miniseries is because of money. why have a 10 part mini on hbo when u can make 500 million? snyder might be good but come on. hes done one film. greengrass did 2. aronofsky did 3. this is the talent they're going after?

  • March 27, 2006, 10:05 a.m. CST

    Still should be an HBO series.

    by Chest_Rockwell

    I'm sorry, but Band of Brothers, ate Saving Private Ryan's lunch, then went and fucked Ryan's mom in the ass and then kicked his dog clear across the room. In a series, you can explore stuff a bit deeper than you can in a movie. Sometimes, it's better to not get the start, middle, and end of something, in 2 hours. HBO has shown a penchant for developing excellent writing and creativity. When compared to aobut 90%+ of the shit we see on the bigscreen nowadays, I'd trust their judgment first.

  • March 27, 2006, 10:22 a.m. CST

    Just had a thought over at the Zone

    by mortsleam

    That I felt I should share with everybody becuase, what the fuck, it's another chance to see my name: What if they did Watchmen like Curtis Hanson did L.A. Confidential. Similar problems with complexity and length and period detail and characters and to my mind that was one of the most successful adaptations of recent years and certainly the best movie of that year. Yes, much was excised, compressed and edited, but he still maintained the main themes of the book and most of teh set pieces and didn't sacrifice the feeling of history or the unique approach to a tired genre. If Zack Snyder truly has that sort of talent, and can wrangle a screenplay into shape that intelligently adapts the source material, without adding superfluous nonsense or dumbing down the themes, it could be brilliant movie.

  • March 27, 2006, 12:37 p.m. CST


    by DS9Sisko

    When you said to me, "Wow that was some diatribe.Wow that was some diatribe. Do you really spend that much time contemplating the occupations and living arrangements of other geeks?" and "You may have loved both Punisher movies..." [for the record, I could care less about Punisher or the movies made about the character] were you playing the pot or the kettle? Because that hypocritical Wondershowzen rant you went on for about 7,000 words certainly leaves the question open. As for discussing "Watchmen," I would be happy to do. But my comment was agreeing with Moriarty about how SOME fans (could be many, could be a few) exist to do nothing but bash, bash, bash at any and every opportunity. Did you miss that part of my original post while you were busy getting a burr up your ass in offense. I didn't paint the entire universe of geekdom as negative nabobs of negativity, but that faction which seems to exist to say nothing but "It's going to suck" tends to be the loudest. And it's OK for fans to want to influence work for what they see for the better. But did you ever consider, Vynson, that there are hundreds of interpretations among fans about what is good, what will rock, what is proper, even what is canon? Didn't you say "We all have a different outlook"? Yours is that you do not want Watchmen to come to screen..and you make a couple of good points to back it up. But mine is I wouldn't mind seeing a big screen adaptation OR a mini-series, as long as it respects the source material. My point is this, along the lines of what Moriarty said: When so-called fans say that something should/could/ought not/never SHOULD be done, they deny both history and possibility. Have there been shitty adapations of stuff? Of course. Have there been really good and decent adaptations of works? Of course! And no matter how good an adaptation may be, there will always be people who will thouroghly hate it because i's not a word for word/image for image transcription of the original text. But to damn a project before anything substantive has been done in terms of its productions seems to me to be more destructive than constructive. I stand by every word I said and if you disagree with me about how SOME fans overreact in the most negative of ways, then you are welcome to your opinion. No matter how wrong it may be.

  • March 27, 2006, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Cusack was on my "dream cast" list for this project...

    by Childe Roland Nite Owl II when Aronofsky was attached. I also had Caruso as Rorschach. Farrina as the Comedian would've been inspired about fifteen years ago. I think he's getting a little long in the tooth to bulk up the way he'd need to for the role now. I'd like to see Kurt Russel give it a go. Pitt would make a much better Dr. Manhattan than Ozymandius (he can do the vacant-yet-deadly-contemplative stare as demonstrated in Meet Joe Black) and Jude Law could easily muster the smugness for Veidt. I'd rather see virtually anyone but Swank as the Spectre, though. As for the inherent virtues of a continuing mini, I can't see it. Any adaptation of this story to a motion-picture medium is going to be just that, an adaptation. I wouldn't want a completely faithful frame-for-frame retelling. I can re-read the books for that. I want the essence of the characters and the conflict preserved and that can be acheived wihtin a two-and-a-half or three-hour timeframe. If Watchmen gets as loving if not as faithful an adaptation as Romero's Dawn of the Dead from Snyder, it will be worth shelling out ten bucks for in the theater and perhaps more to own.

  • March 27, 2006, 1:39 p.m. CST

    There Is No Reason To Get Upset About The HBO Thing...

    by Buzz Maverik

    ...even though it is idiotic and lemming-like. Somebody said it once, probably in WIZARD which nobody reads (except me) but seems to shape all fan thought. You don't have to get upset about it, you can just laugh at it. If it is the way it happens, I'm sure HBO subscribers will enjoy the product. But it's not necessarily the way to go because somebody read it in WIZARD and somebody else posted it online and everybody says it....Let's see, what else: Stanley Kurbrick wouldn't have fucked WATCHMEN with YOUR dick... OK, I posted that, I posted that...There isn't going to be a direct, panel to panel tranfer from the comic, no matter what the transfer. Why do you need that? Read your damned comic again, or make a slide show out of it. Remember, if they translate it completely, all the people whom you've told how wonderful the book is will now know that you're as geeky as they've always thought you were. Somebody good can make this both acessible and authentic... Finally, about how only a 12 episode thingie can capture the depth and breath and bullshit. 's a comic book. Excuse me. Graphic comic book novel. Let's say yer 19 years old. You get maybe 13 weeks of training at best. Yer dropped into a jungle where everyone wants to kill you. Guys like you often die their first night there. Everyone seems to know so much more than you but won't tell you shit, and many of these hardened vets have only been there a month longer than you. Guys just like you are slaughtered, often through the fuck ups of people who should be able to keep them alive. Guys just like you start killing helpless people. You don't really sleep for a whole year. You're wounded but not bad enough. You hate everybody around you and they hate you and none of you really hate the enemy, who may be the same people you're allegedly there to protect. All you have to do is make it through a fucking year of this shit. Okay, Comic Book Buddies, they put that in a movie. Not a 12 part series, but a feature film or two. Didja see PLATOON? FULL METAL JACKET? BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY? Or, in a different, freakier, somewhat more horrible view, APOCALYPSE NOW? And they can't make a movie from the comic book?

  • March 27, 2006, 2:14 p.m. CST

    While I understand the point of the analogy, Buzz...

    by Childe Roland

    ...please tell me you didn't just draw a sincere parallel between the experience of having read Watchmen and serving in Vietnam. Please?

  • March 27, 2006, 2:41 p.m. CST


    by Vynson

    ***"But to damn a project before anything substantive has been done in terms of its productions seems to me to be more destructive than constructive."***...........But this isn't the case, so why address this nonsense to me? As I said, I've read one of Hayter's drafts and gave my opinion of it. A screenplay is pretty damned substantive. Moriarty read at least one Hayter draft so he knows my coverage is accurate, but doesn't want to fess up that he's been raving for years about a script that contains magic mirrors, Veidt-slaying owlerangs, and slingshot powers... and no Watchmen type layering/symbolism/density. And he didn't bother to tell us about this silly shit. What the hell's an inside track for? How embarrassing for him. Maybe he really does like that crap. Maybe he just doesn't want to piss off Zack or Levin and Gordon. We've all heard about reviewers who sell their real opinion for access and perks. Who knows? There's a million reviewers out there. There aren't a lot of people with the kind of insider geeky goodness that AICN provides. So I suppose we're supposed to shut up and not be negative so that the powers in Hollywood will greenlight a piece of crap script that bombs so that Drew can have access and make connections for his own screenwriting career... all so AICN can provide us the inside scoop on movies that WE have no influence on because we have to shut up and be positive so they will make more movies we don't like... and then the cycle becomes so self-defeating that we don't even bother anymore. We can all sell out together. Not. I thank Harry for providing the site and I thank Drew and the rest of the gang for all they do. But as long as I'm allowed to log in and post, I'll be calling it as I see it without being paranoid that my "negativity" is going to cause WB to pull the plug on a crappy version of Watchmen. Frankly, the real negativity around here doesn't come from fans expressing an opinion either way, but from those who resort to senseless ad hominems and of course the tantrum of this thread's illustrious host who might consider showing more respect for the people who read his columns and reviews. Moriarty might do well to remember that the rest of us are entitled to our opinions as much as he is entitled to his. He would also do well to remember that just because you own the ball and bat doesn't mean we have to let you score a run if you pop a fly. That just because his talkbacks are in black, doesn't automatically make them smarter or better than the rest. And that this is a business, and if you piss off your customers and they go away, and your hits go down and you can't sell your ad space, that will negatively effect your bottom line. I don't see other ad-based media treating their audience like second class citizens, making snide remarks at them, and basically riding the ego train. Imagine if you wrote a letter to CBS saying you didn't like something and they sent back a snotty remark? It's just bad business to disrespect your market... not to mention just bad manners.

  • March 27, 2006, 2:56 p.m. CST

    A NEGATIVE comment to WarnerBros

    by Vynson

    With all due respect to David Hayter, the Sept 03 draft of the script sucks. There ya go, WB. It sucks. Drink deep of the negativity. Make it at your own peril, but know that there are a lot of us fans who will hate the film if it lacks density, if it lacks the cool symbolism and transitions that enriched the comic, and many of us will hate it if you have Dan kill Veidt with a goddamned stupid owlerang. No, you cannot make all of us happy, but if you will try to bring the story and thematics to the screen in a respectful adaptation, we will understand that cuts had to be made. But we do not want to see you cut Moore's work just to replace Laurie's struggle with a friggin' magic memory mirror. Most of us don't expect you to spend 200m on this or make it into three LOTR movies or even a 3 hour schedule-busting dealbreaker for theatre owners who have never heard of Watchmen. We just want a solid effort that puts on screen the soul of what we love about this book. If there really are Hollywood lurkers here who actually care about the opinions of the geeks who haunt this site, I'm happy to provide free advice. Get another script. David Hayter is a talented guy. Give him another whack at it. Tell him to adapt it rather than rework it. Ask him to tell Alan Moore's and Dave Gibbons' story and not David Hayter's. This is not an original screenplay. It's based on other material. USE that other material, please. Anyone notice how constructive criticism can be POSITIVE even though some whine about negativity? Ah well.

  • March 27, 2006, 4 p.m. CST

    No, Roland, What I Was Saying...

    by Buzz Maverik that if movies can be made that capture the experiences of infantrymen in the heart of darkness, that it is somewhat ridiculous for people to say that a film cannot capture "the depth" of WATCHMEN. People insist on HBO because someone else said HBO. BTW, good casting on John Cusack. In the recent past, he would have been too young but if the movie were made today, he'd be perfect.

  • March 27, 2006, 6 p.m. CST

    Buzz: Okay, that's a relief.

    by Childe Roland

    I was worried for a minute that you were taking comics a bit too seriously (I mean, we all suffered through the 90s as fanboys, but it wasn't like being in "the shit"). I think Cusack will stay the right age for Nite Owl for another ten years, so they have time. But the window is closing pretty fast for Caruso and Russell. Even Law might need to get some work done if we have to sit around and talk about the best way to do (or reasons not to do) this movie much longer. ;)

  • March 27, 2006, 6:15 p.m. CST

    I'll give the guy a chance but....

    by LHombreSiniestro

    I feel like it should be directed by a more mature director. Although, granted the guy just turned 40. Now, I did like Dawn of the Dead, but it had that grimy feel to it that just irked me. And NO, I don't think it would work as a mini-series. It'd be too cheap. I just hope he doesn't pump up the action. But, I'm just happy they're going along with the damn thing. VIVA LA WATCHMEN!

  • March 27, 2006, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Awesome Back-to-Back Posts Vynson...

    by genro

    That's a perfect rant.

  • March 27, 2006, 7:40 p.m. CST

    Always felt Bruce Campbell as the Comedian

    by SamuraiJackBaur

    That would be sweet. Maybe Kiefer Sutherland as Roaschact. Jack Bauer would be perfect.

  • March 28, 2006, 12:23 a.m. CST

    More Casting Thoughts

    by Barron34

    I agree with those suggesting Cusack for Dreiburg. He WAS too young for it in the past few years, but he is reaching an age where he can finally pass for Dan Dreiburg. It always seemed key to me that the heroes were all middle-aged. It added poignancy to Nite Owl's rebirth as a hero to first see him as a useful older guy in his basement, and then to see him transformed and getting back into the vigilante/hero life. The middle-aged aspect to the characters also lent towards the realistic edge that WATCHMEN took. ******As far as David Caruso goes for Rorschach: isn't he kind of tall to play the character? One of the neat things about Rorschach is that he is somehwat diminutive, yet he scares holy hell out of the criminals simply through the force of his (psycho) personality. You kind of lose this aspect of the character if the actor is tall. I would still go with Gary Sinise, who is a good actor of the right age and appearance for Rorschach, or barring Sinise, Paul Giamatti. Kiefer Sutherland might be good, but he seems like too conventional a leading man for Rorschach. You really need a character actor like Sinise or Giamatti, I think.***** I still think Julianne Moore would make a great Laurie/Silk Spectre, William Hurt as Dr. Manhattan, maybe Paul Bettany as Ozymandias (Jude Law doesn't strike me as a great choice for Veidt, not sure why. He is a pretty good actor, but I am not sure I would buy him as The Smartest Man In The World. I could be wrong, though, and I hear that he is a comic book fan, which is a cool plus, outside of normal casting logic).

  • March 28, 2006, 12:26 a.m. CST


    by Barron34

    Excuse me: "Nite Owl's rebirth as a hero to first see him as a USELESS older guy", not "useful". Ugh.

  • March 28, 2006, 12:42 a.m. CST

    Casting The Comedian

    by Barron34

    I left out the Comedian. I would vote for Tom Berenger. He needs to be slightly older than most of the other actors. (Veidt is well-preserved and looks younger than he is, which is one reason I think I do not like Jude Law for the role. I would suggest Paul Bettany, who comes across as more mature than Law, IMO, or a realtively unknown actor named Jeffery Nordling, who bears a real resemblence to the Veidt character****Dr. Manhattan is sort of ageless and frozen in time at the age he was when Osterman had the nuclear accident in which he was transformed.*****The Comedian/Eddie Blake is established as being older than both Veidt and Osterman. Blake was a younger member of the first group of heroes- Hooded Justice, Nite Owl I, Silk Spectre I, etc- and so is somewhat older than the latter group...Berenger would pass well as the older Blake, I think, and they could do some CGI to show the younger Blake in the obligatory flashbacks. I know the movie is 20 years old, but Berenger in PLATOON basically IS Eddie Blake. After Berenger, I would suggest Michael Ironside (see his performance in STARSHIP TROOPERS for a good parallel to the Blake character). Bruce Campbell or Kurt Russell might be good choices at also, but I still think that Berenger is best, Ironside as a good second choice.****Also, I figure Faye Dunaway as Silk Spectre I/ Sally Jupiter, and James Garner as Nite Owl I.

  • March 28, 2006, 6:24 a.m. CST

    Sitting on the fence...

    by lead_sharp

    Making a comic adaption is easy when it's Batman or Spider-Man or any number of other characters hat have been re churned so many times since their inception. They are just fun to see live action whether you like them or not. But... When it's V or Watchmen or any number of recent adaptions of singular work that was made for the love of the medium and not for the mass market it does jangle a nerve, because it's a more important piece of work. Why did Alan Moore write the Watchmen? Because fundamentaly he thought it was an important story that needed to be wrtten. Why is it being turned into a film? For money. Money which Alan Moore will no doubt turn down again. If you can decide whether that's integrity or stupidity then at least you know which side of the fence your on.

  • March 28, 2006, 6:27 a.m. CST

    Mori's preachy editorial

    by dastickboy

    No doubt about it, it was holier than thou. Not to say Mori is wrong, I don't think he is. The vocal minority will always be the first to attack. Batman Begins and Sin City have paved the way for this film now, and I think it could work as a movie. Unfortunately Mori's addition just added fuel to the fire, maybe he should just stick to reviews and critique rather than telling people what and what not to think. Let them make their own mistakes Mori!!

  • March 28, 2006, 8:09 a.m. CST

    Guess what Buzz

    by mortsleam

    Sometimes, we're not mindless lemmings so much as we simply agree with an idea and would like to see it realized. What's Wizard?

  • March 28, 2006, 9:56 a.m. CST

    The Casting Vote

    by servator

    I'd like to hear what Glycon has to say.

  • March 28, 2006, 10:51 a.m. CST

    Granted, lead_sharp...

    by Childe Roland

    ...the first suspicion of any comic fan when they hear one of their favorite properties is being translated to film should be that someone thought there was a buck to be made. That goes without saying. But making money and telling an important story do not have to be mutually exclusive. Nor does the fact that a director will profit from a property necessarily mean he (or she) can't love it and treat it with the respect it deserves. I believe the first Superman movie, both Spider Man films, Batman Begins and both of the X-films are pretty good examples of what can happen when a director has a real feel for the source material. He or she may tweak it, but the tweaks don't necessarily diminish the original intent of the mythos. Sin City is an example of a director who was downright passionate about the source material. Personally, as a film, I think it's less successful than the others (and, I suspect, the box office numbers and DVD sales play that theory out) I mentioned. But as a work of art and homage,I think it's pretty spectacular. I could be happy with either treatment of Watchmen, but I think that even moreso than Sin City, the themes of Watchmen could be applied to an updated version of the tale to root it more in the now and still have immense significance. The world of today is not all that different than the one Moore was so many ways.

  • March 28, 2006, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Watchmen should be A-material or else don't bother

    by Max Meanie

    If anyone is allowed to criticize any film of his work it's Alan Moore. He created the basis for these films & if he is so anal that he feels even the best adaptation falls short then he has the right despite what any fanboy thinks. Anyone in his position as the CREATOR of these works would feel the same way. Having said that, it is up to us to judge whether a film captures the "feel" of the work since the author will not. "League of X-Gen" was pulp fiction to begin with & the film reduced it even further. "From Hell" barely scratched the surface of the politics and mystery of the piece. THAT should've been a mini-series rather than another cheap Ripper flick. "V for Vendetta" may not have been definitive but it did capture the essence of the book and is rather subversive for these times. "WATCHMEN" is the pinnacle of Moore's superhero work and to reduce it to a B-level effects film rather than an A-Level project would be a shame. So far the news here doesn't support the latter. And to dismiss the suggestion that an HBO-style miniseries wouldn't work doesn't mean a 2 hour film would. Why reduce the possibilities? WATCHMEN is a multi-layered novel deep in metaphor & ripe with meaning. To simply say it's an overated comic book says volumes about today's quick-edit society. Obviously, people really are passionate about this book. The filmakers should be just as passionate & respectful or drop the project. And my vote for RORSHACH is Willam H Macy.

  • March 28, 2006, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Casting fun

    by Adapter56

    Here's my two cents on casting (for fun): Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan- Viggo Mortensen or James Caviezel, Barry Pepper. Rorschach/Walter Kovacs - John C. Reilly, Paul Bettany (but LOVE Giamatti and Buscemi too--and Sinese), Sean Penn would be fun. Comedian/Eddie Blake - Ed Harris, Nick Nolte , Gene Hackman, Tommy Lee Jones, Sam Shepard (like Kurt Russell too) any of the older tough guys... also possibly Billy Bob Thornton and James Gandolfini. Ozymandias/Adrian Veidt - Aaron Eckhart , Ralph Fiennes, Jude Law, Peter Krause(the Golden Boy Brad Pitt would be great). Nite-Owl/Daniel Dreiberg - Nicholas Cage(possibly) -- maybe even Phillip Seymour Hoffman , Kevin Spacey, Giamatti could do this also (LOVE the Cusack idea.) Silk Spectre/Laurie Juspeczyk - Rachel Weisz, Amanda Peet, (I like Julianne Moore) Diane Lane, Uma Thurman. Moloch- James Cromwell, Martin Landau

  • March 28, 2006, 12:19 p.m. CST

    sorry, but...the movie SHOULDN'T be made. END OF STORY.

    by LouStick

    The problem with all of Alan Moore's work, in regards to adapting it, is density. Everything he does is elaborately structured, designed-and fiddling with it too much tends to make the whole thing collapse on itself. There hasn't been one good adaptation so far. V for Vendetta had the glimmerings of one, WHERE THEY STUCK FAITHFULLY TO HIS STORY. The murder of the coroner. Evey's imprisonment. The only original bit that worked was the Benny Hill-esque bit on the TV show, mainly because they had a real idea in that sequence. And yeah, it's an 'adaptation,' it's not supposed to be word for word, but if the end result doesn't resemble or highly dilutes the original work, why the hell bother? And by the way, the miniseries is really the best way to go with Watchmen. That way you're not trying to shoehorn something gigantic into only 2 to 2&1/2 hours. Otherwise, you have to fall back on the blender method of storytelling-throwing characters and plotlines into a food processor, so you can liquify them and swallow in one gulp.

  • March 28, 2006, 12:37 p.m. CST

    But what I would like from HBO.....

    by stereochad

    (besides more regular Sopranos episodes) would be a "PREACHER" series. How perfectly suited for HBO would this epic story be? Well besides a great narrative, it's got sex, murder, religious taboos, cursing, great characters, ocassional (very) special effects, sodomy, vampires, a great look about it (in my mind at least), etc.... (all the things HBO has shown they like to showcase). The lead character has the gravitas any good anti(?)hero should, and I want this !@#$% series made. In addition, IT IS EMINENTLY DOABLE. Please do so.

  • March 28, 2006, 12:41 p.m. CST

    whats the big deal here!?!?

    by FleshMachine

    v for vendetta was a good film with (to me) important themes. From Hell was a "cool" film with an intriquing story. LoEG i never saw. Ive never really read any of moores comics. i read the first 1/4 of watchmen was was generally unenthused..but id like to give it another try. so please someone, seriously: what's so GREAT about watchmen (or V or league) ? are they high art? important litterature? truely original stories? just asking.

  • March 28, 2006, 2:39 p.m. CST

    FleshMachine...the big deal...

    by Vynson

    Hi, FMachine. I would classify Watchmen as important literature. Many literature professors agree and teach it as such. There is a "deconstruction" of superhero comics that is highly entertaining for those with a history of comics reading, but there are many other elements that really make the book entertaining. One is the playful symbolism that is used especially in the scene transitions. Things like the Black Freighter prose going on about black sails against yellow skies while the panel shows a radioactive fallout shelter sign which is black against yellow and makes the Freighter as a symbol for death and damnation highly poignant. There are a lot of these blatant examples, but there are also many subltle, even subconsious image systems to be discovered on multiple readings. The density of this alternate reality is another charm. You can get a glimpse of the political backstory of this America with it's perpetual president and the entire Watergate crowd staying in power past any conceivable term limits. The backgrounds of the panels contain backstories, clues, and numerous entertaining details. I love the panel where Walter is digging in the trash in the background and the newsvendor says something like, "I'll bet there's all kinds of stuff going on that we don't even notice." Which is another charm of the book... the way dialogue connects and comments on scenes out of its original context. The ultimate example being the ad on the back of the Black Freighter comic... "I will give you bodies beyond your wildest imaginings." There is a wealth of detail to discover and it is absolutely awesome to imagine the talent necessary to construct this crystal which reflects back on itself with insight and illumination in a way that most linear storytellers cannot fathom. It is important to realize just how urgent Dave Gibbons' talent was to the success of this book. Moore's genius alone could not have provided this in the hands of a less capable artist. In my opinion, Gibbons is the most talented sequential art storyteller living. And John Higgins colors certainly makes the mood of the book everything it can possibly be. A perfect team and the peak of their powers. Watchmen cannot be read as if it's issue 507 of SuperActionMan or whatever. I hope you will open it back up and give it another chance. Enjoy.

  • March 28, 2006, 6:41 p.m. CST

    Granted Childe Roland...

    by lead_sharp

    Yeah I agree that the movies you mentioned are good and indeed Road to Perdition and From Hell and qiute a few others. I think part of my beef tho (as well as everything else granted) is why? It (and many others) is a comic. Nothing will ever detract from that granted (oh man I wish that word hadn't stuck in my head I need a thesaurus when I'm this tired) and yes creativity can be financially rewarding but just once I would like to think a comic like Watchmen can stand up with great examples of other media (like Citizen Kane) without a reader behind it saying... 'So much better than the film.' It might well be a good film, I hope it is but mainly because I would like to think it gets people reading the source material.

  • March 28, 2006, 7:47 p.m. CST


    by The_Comedian

    Tim Robbins for Nite Owl, he's got the stature of someone who could've been a superhero in his youth, and he's got the bookish look too. Think about it. And Bruce Campbell is born to play The Comedian, although I still kinda like the Ron Perlman rumor from last year. Rorschach has to be unknown, because it will ruin the suprise of his identity if he isn't. If a recongnizable actor like sean Penn played him, people would wonder why Sean Penn is in such a tiny little background role before his big reveal.

  • March 29, 2006, 6:20 a.m. CST

    Nice to see The Comedian posting!

    by dastickboy

    I agree, Silk Spectre was asking for it. (Sorry, bad taste joke) Kevin Spacey didn't get a mention on the Seven poster or intro credits so you could do the same for him.

  • March 29, 2006, 10:46 a.m. CST

    On the controversy...

    by hawaiianpunch

    I was just reading through some of the comments in this talkback and and it seems people here have some very strong opinions on this project. Personally, I think it would've been a great big-budget project for Paul Greengrass to take hold of and run with. The pinpoint clarity and intelligence with which he spoke of his take on the story was just what a project like the Watchmen needs and I'm still not quite sure that a relatively rookie director like Zach Snyder, whose only other film was, admittedly entertaining, but lightheaded, could pull off the complexity and depth of the characters and the story. I'd like to throw anoter name into the mix which will never, in a million years be true, but, I think Darren Aronofsky would also be a good choice for the director's chair. His brief filmography still shows a great command of visual style as well as a passion and seriousness to film as a viable medium for real storytelling that is rare among young hollywood directors nowadays. Most tend to choose style over substance and do the wink-wink-nudge-nudge to the audience so much you wonder why you paid your $10 in the first place. I also want to comment on the adaptation question that people are all riled up about. I tend to agree with Moriarty's larger point about there being a closemindedness among us geeks-at-large. I know because I've fallen into the trap of cynicism before in feeling that when another announcement of some studio grabbing at another comic property to make into a movie comes out my initial reaction to it is, "Oh my god! Not again!". Then I start thinking is thsi gonna be another Daredevil or another X-Men 2 (I still contend that the first one sucked, even knowing that it had to be because of the introduction of characters blah-blah-blah). I find myself thinking that some of these stories can't be done on the big screen because, realistically, a big studio doesn't normally have the balls to put what's on the page directly to the big screen. Which is why Robert Rodriguez gave up a lot and hustled and lied and cheated to get his and Frank Miller's orginal vision of Sin City up on there for us to see. I also think that I've been proven wrong many times and I am constantly reminded when I go to a theatre of what the medium of film can do: Make the impossible possible. So, yeah, we have reservations and it's cool to be hardcore when stating them. At the same time, I think we need to look outside of that and give these things a chance. I'm sure most of you out there have seen a show where you were like so against beforehand and never thought it could be good on the screen, but, leaving the theatre, you were surprised at how much you actually enjoyed yourself. It's hard to remember those things because we live in a society where we are geared to always criticize and scrutinize down to the most minute detail and never enjoy what's there. Sometimes you just gotta let the process happen and pick and choose your battles. On that note, I think the Watchmen can be distilled into at least a two-and-a-half-hour film and leave much of the message and plotpoints of the story intact. I think V for Vendetta did that expertly. I'll probably be the only one in here to say that I like this movie better than the original comic book. It knew it's audience and wasn't afraid to provoke something in their hearts and minds more than just their eyes and ears. I think that, as a movie, it needed to take out much of the secondary characters and backstories, in order to focus on the main message. Otherwise it would've been a rambling mess with a message that would've been lost on a large majority of moviegoers who, unfortunately, don't know who Alan Moore is (I know, heartbreaking). The important thing in this movie was the message and getting to that in an entertaining and poignant way that would grab the viewer from the getgo and not let go. I understand that if you know the book there are things that will throw you out of the movie altogether. Honestly, I think that goes back to Moriarty's original point. We can't be so closeminded that we will only accept a word-for-word transcription (not an adaptation) of a comic book or other property and nothing else and if other people don't get it, then "fuck them". Everything in context. The film version of the Watchmen will be an adaptation of the comic book. That's something we have to live with. What needs to be talked about and what the studio needs to hear is what is important to us about the story, about the characters, that is absolutely essential in adapting the book to the screen. What won't we tolerate (bad casting, set and costume design, watered-down scripts, etc.). Be more constructive in our criticisms and the studio will hear and writers like Moriarty won't feel so backed-against-a-wall and having to defend his "beliefs". And that's all I have to say about that.

  • March 29, 2006, 1:33 p.m. CST

    why must it be live action

    by dwam0

    Couldn't Watchment work as a "serious" animated movie? The cost of producing a CGI movie keeps coming down because there is so much non-proprietary CG technology out. And wouldn't it be a feather in the cap of Warner Bros. animation if they could pull this off and differentiate its product from kid friendly Disney-Pixar and DreamWorks Animation? And its not fair to dismiss the idea of a HBO series as fanboy whining. The Watchmen could draw in a wide demographic with all the generations that have read the book, maybe even lead to new subscribers. And the cost of the miniseries could easily be offset through distribution in international markets as either a shortened movie in theaters or a DVD.

  • March 31, 2006, 6:25 a.m. CST

    This has been one of the best talkbacks in a while....

    by Andsoitis

    Now I haven't been able to read every single one, so I may be restating something that has already been said. I saw V for Vendetta, the other night and I thought it was okay at best. I read the comic a long time ago, and it wasn't one of my favorites at the time. I think this was due to my lack of knowledge of the Thatcher Regime. But I digress. I don't think V for Vendetta had really any interest in being a faithful adaptation. I think the Super Matrix Bros, just wanted a clever way to disguise their attack on the current American administration, and they found it in Moore's story. I think they had the grand idea that folks will care about the message because there are plenty of explosions in it. Who knows? It might have even been tagged as something akin to "good night, good luck...but with explosions." That being said, I think Moore has it right with his notion that Books and the films that follow are two separate entities. Watchmen the film may suck, it may be okay at best, or it may be fantastic. But that shouldn't prevent someone from trying. I think that the internet has provided the movie industry with a "guilty until proven innocent," type medium. That being said, I'm totally for thinking something may suck until it proves me wrong. It's what internet buzz is all about. If that is so frightening to critics or the studios, then they really need to reevaluate. We have these freedoms and if the studios give us something good, we will be the first ones posting on how the movie "owned our asses." So carry on with both sides of the argument, and kudos for those of you who presented your arguments eloquently. This site would be really boring if everyone had the same views on everything. Frankly, most of the moviegoing population probably doesn't utilize this sight. Somebody must have liked Fantastic Four, and it certainly wasn't the folks on here.

  • April 1, 2006, 4:27 a.m. CST

    A little poll...

    by Milou

    ... on Watchmen directors. There :

  • April 2, 2006, 5:08 a.m. CST

    But if Zack Snyder is the director...

    by Blueberry

    ...then Gerard Butler will be Doctor Manhattan?

  • April 2, 2006, 5:31 a.m. CST

    Choosing Butler for 300 shows Snyder is Ass

    by chien_sale

    Such a great part and you give it to a b-movie action guy? Only guys like Crowe or Clive Owen could have pulled it off.

  • April 2, 2006, 9:32 a.m. CST

    More of my opinion-laden gas...

    by Vynson

    It could very well be that Crowe and Owen aren't standing in line to take the part. It could also be that Snyder has seen a side of Butler's talent that we haven't... and that WB has seen a side of Snyder's talent that we haven't. But I think that a director capable of giving us a great Watchmen movie needs to be a master of the medium at the peak of his powers and that takes experience. Perhaps Snyder has that experience in films that were never released or has mastered the medium on an unconventional path. But the information at hand lends itself to pessimism. As to an unknown/star for Walter Kovacs, if we see a star digging through trash in the background we'll know he is important and is therefore a main character and therefore has to be a previously unmasked man, meaning Rorscach. But if we don't recognize the guy at all, he remains a sign toting vagrant until the unmasking... which should come at the end, in the snow when Jon dusts him, rather than in the middle.