Cool News
WATCHMEN!! Trailer #2 Is Smacking Our Minds Now!
Hey folks, Harry here - Fucking tremendous trailer - we have it embedded below - or just Click here to go directly to Yahoo's WATCHMEN page!
Merrick here...
Yahoo Movies has announced that a new WATCHMEN trailer will debut at 5pm PST today. You'll find it...
HERE!!!
Now word on how much new material will be incorporated in the new trailer.
HERE!!!
-
+ Expand All
-
Not enough.
-
about 68% new material will be included, still no blue dong though.
-
Accept no imitations. Squid Rules.
-
The last one being a teaser I'm thinking this'll be your typical 2 min trailer giving you a basic plot outline.
-
as in like GMT time?
-
You mean to tell me that there is no link to a leaked Trek trailer yet?
-
it's a 'who is killing off the superheroes' trailer
-
....remember when there was a time when they refused to post anything on The Dark Knight? Watchmen internet hype = Snakes On A Plane. -
no text!
-
For those who can't be bothered to do the math.
-
they say Pacific timezone on Yahoo.
-
(ø≈≈
-
Maybe we'll get to see a glimpse of squiddy on this one.
-
Star Trek is the only movie to see next summer!!!!
-
high expectations can be a dangerous thing...better to go into a movie with no opinion or not expecting much. The "no squid" revelation is making me a little nervous but I still have high hopes...looking for a Sin City-esque fun time at the theatre. I watched the first trailer about 20 times. Hope this one is fun as well..
-
Or so it says at the Yahoo site.
-
Didn't Snyder recently confirm that there's no squid?
-
according to Yahoo...three extra hours to wait...blast.
-
More watchmen! more! more! more!
-
Nov 13, 2008 2:20:00 PM CST
How convenient - today's posts drop off the bad Trek buzz posts
by gruntybear
Did I not say AICN was in the midst of a full-court press with combatting the bad geek buzz on Dawson's Trek? This coincidence of "news" today, pushing the bad Trek talkbacks off the front page is fairly fortuitous for JJ, no?
-
Sweet nectar!
-
My hopes for this project waned the moment Zach confirmed there would be no squid. I just can't be bothered anymore
-
I'm afraid so.Snyder also relayed this charming comment in reference to the change:"The fans, god love 'em, they're all up in arms about the squid. What they should be up in arms about are things like shooting the pregnant woman, 'God is real and he's American', whether THAT's in the movie. That's my point of view, maybe I'm crazy."And this is why Snyder doesn't get it: he's taking style and details over substance. He can't understand why keeping the manufactured Lovecraftian Horror (or at least a sensible alien-threat in its proxy) is infinitely more important than keeping the line "God is real and he's American" in the film. (ø‹›≈≈
-
You know, the one that is supposed to calm the Squid Fans?Just asking...
-
Because really, who gives a shit about angry Squid Fans. The average movie-goer will do nothing but point and laugh at others who are outraged that a giant squid was removed from the climax of the movie.
-
It's about the fact that Snyder seems bent on keeping all of these little touches whilst letting the CLIMAX OF THE FUCKING WATCHMEN be changed beyond recognition. It's no different than if Jackson had decided to utterly change the climactic moments of LOTR in disdain of Tolkien's story.
-
the best thing to come out in 2009
-
Damn You Michael Bay
-
At what time does it play here, anyone please???????
-
Sorry. I just want this post to be relevant in a few hours as I'll be asleep by the time the trailer makes its appearance.
-
I do not give a shit about angry Squid Fans. Then again, I'm someone who never really had an interest in WATCHMEN.But the whole thing is curious because I'm not sure how much of an appeal the marketing campaign has had on the regular movie-goer vs. the comic book/internet movie website person. Hence the "damage control".
-
The average moviegoer won't see this because they don't know who the fuck these characters are.
-
Pull my finger.
-
That is, something that MOST movie-goers would laugh at. And that's not what they should be doing at that point in The Watchmen, right?
-
I'm sorry the god is real line is the meat. The squid is the skin on the chicken. You can take off the skin and still eat the chicken underneath. You've gotta be pretty superficial to just WANT to see a damn squid over hearing some of the most important lines from the comic.
-
...and ruined the books amazing cliff hanger ending. Didn't mess with the books my ass.
-
Nothing else would shock him.
-
...they went from mini skirt to no skirt on Silk spectre deux
-
It reminds me of that terrible Batman and Robin movie!!! Enough of the Pumpkins, pull that song already!!!!!
-
Don't blame a great song on a bad movie. Both cuts of that song were kick ass. Its not the pumpkins fault the movie sucked ass.
-
After the director's recent comments about willfully changing the ending and how we fans don't get it. Zack did so well courting the fans all along the way up until now, when he pulls a bait and switch. I think because of this (and his comments) he's already changed what was shaping up to be a 'dark knight' level home run into something more like 'doomsday', and the longer this drags on the worse it will get.
-
you couldn´t be more right
-
I suspect that the changes Jackson made to LOTR will VASTLY out weigh the changes Snyder makes to Watchmen. There was so much altered in those movies its ridiculous. The entire Two Towers movie is at least 60% new or heavily altered material.
-
While I was looking forward to seeing the squid on film, I can see the arguement against including it. The average film watcher would probably check out the second a giant squid appeared (although they'd oddly enough follow a glowing naked blue man through a whole movie and find it believable). I'm just not all that into painting Manhattan as the villain instead of the squid.
-
It doesn´t mean... it was a bad film, let´s hope the same thing happens here
-
You mean today? This week? What time precisely?
-
..of how you CAN make changes and still stay true to the original work. I think LOTR will stand as a testament to the art of adapating well known works. And lets not pretend everyone was on board the LOTR train before FOTR was released. Everyone had their doubts about Elijah Wood and Peter Jackson. Snyder is facing those same criticisms.
-
Nov 13, 2008 2:55:35 PM CST
Flames on Bat-Nips on Squid has a beer and CHEETS on his wife!
by squashua
Telling ya; movie needs more mind-squid.
-
So is this new trailer going to play in front of Quantum of Solace this weekend? The Star Trek trailer is supposed to premiere with QoS. Hopefully we can get the new Watchmen trailer too.
-
This the movie, not the graphic novel. I hate it when people want it to be EXACTLY the same. I for one am looking forward to whatever they choose to replace the squid (which I've heard some rumblings). A) because it is not the novel, I would just read the fantastic book again if I wanted it to all be the same and B) I get that it kind of makes fun of the ridiculousness of things but I think as long as world unity is the apparent effect then I don't care what they use. I just want an entertaining, good VERSION of the novel. Version is the keyword there. It is not the same, it is a version. Like all movies based on anything other then original scripts are, it is a version of something. It very well could be a terrible movie, but to call it bad on lack of the squid is ridiculous. Here's hoping.
-
One more fucking time.Cutting out the Squid is NOT like cutting out Tom Bombadil from LOTR. The Squid's horrific appearance is the climax of WATCHMEN--what the whole story has been moving towards throughout the chapters. Cutting out the Squid is equal to cutting out the Ring's destruction in the fires of Mount Doom.
*SPOILER WARNING*
And, no, the Squid is not just a symbol. A completely non-anthropomorphic horror from another dimension does not equal Manhattan-atom bombs going off all over the world. An unexpected, completely mysterious threat from Beyond is the only viable way that the world will come together and stay together for any length of time. Doc Manhattan is an American and an attack by him would be considered an attack by America against the whole world.
Even if you buy into the idea that the Squid is simply a symbol that can be substituted by a like event, the "solution" WATCHMEN movie creators came up with doesn't work. They would've had to go with a conventional alien invasion (which would have its own problems but at least would've made some sense). The Doc Manhattan mini-nukes solution is a COMPLETE departure from the book's climax.
Honestly, it would be like substituting the Ring's destruction in the bowels of Mount Doom with Frodo figuring out how to trick the Nazgul into collectively destroying the Ring with heat vision (or something equally absurd and non-canonical).
In short, Tom Bombadil is a minor character that bears no association with LOTR's climax. The Squid IS the WATCHMEN's climax, and its exclusion from the film is a huge, shitty change on Snyder & Co's part.And, incidentally, I never said Jackson didn't cut out and change a lot. He did, and some of those changes really sucked (don't get me started on Denethor and his death). But the climax of the LOTR WAS more or less intact.And ANY Lovecraftian, alien horror could be used in the Squid's place with the same result. It doesn't need to look precisely like the comic squid, for fuck's sake. Nobody's arguing that. -
comes from a success (300) whereas PJ had done the frighteners prior to LOTR, who would have guessed??
-
People like giant monsters now.
-
The book will always be there. Nobody is erasing the squid from the book. Nobody. But until you see the changes in the context of the actual movie, you can scream to the high heavens all you want and it's not going to change anything. It's entirely possible the changes will be BENEFICIAL to the overall story. To dismiss the movie outright because of a MEANS to an END and not the end itself to me seems a little bit extreme. Love the book all you want. This movie will not change it. On top of that the percentage of movie going public who has even READ the book is low. Then only a percentage of that small number even cares about the squid. To me, the image of people dead in the streets everywhere overwhelmed the audacity of a squid. And let's not discount society just yet. Just because "we" understand the movie and the book and what the trailers are all about doesn't mean "they" won't. Let's give the marketing people a chance to actually work their stuff before we start calling this movie unappealing to moviegoers.
-
...but it should at least be an ALIEN threat. That said, keep in mind that there was probably a legion of producers and studio execs saying "Does Dr. Manhattan HAVE to be blue? We've found red tests better with 18-24 year old males" and "Can we make Ozymandius sassy and gay? We're thinking Chris Tucker could play him" and "We'd like you to set the action scene to that new song by Pink" and that Snyder had to make SOME compromises or they'd can his ass in favor of some pushover yes-man.
-
in the meantime I'll watch my new Futurama dvd.
-
DannyGlover and I have mentioned this before...and we're in agreement yet again on it. The Watchmen will NOT be an epic nor huge money at the box office...while interesting and with a loyal cult following, it has the same appeal as Sin City - there isn't enough awareness of the original work to generate enthusiasm...and the very nature of the comic itself downplayed the 'epic' nature of these 'costumed adventurers'...you could ask 1,000 people who Nite Owl is and 999 would probably think it was some kind of sleeping pill. This simply doesn't have wide appeal...in fact, the 'buzz' has genuinely been lowkey except on fanboy sites...EW and Empire Online's forums have been noticably quiet even after the trailer went live. This will likely be a cool flick but will do moderate box office and then probably sell a decent amount of DVD's (I'm betting on Chronicles of Riddick level box office).
-
on Watchmen (including the up coming trailer) I want to stay fresh for the initial viewing.
(ive already seen waaaayyyy to much of Term.4 (aka Transfomatrix)
There is such a thing as overkill. And it all just steals away the discovery/excitement from the movie's first watch.
-
I don't know why LOTR keeps getting brought up, but those movies were boring. Well made? Sure. Entertaining? I didn't think so. The Hobbit cartoon was amazing. I don't even think they should make the new Hobbit movie. Leave it alone, it's fine being a great cartoon. You can whole heartedly disagree with me though, because I've never read ANY of the books they're based on. I did read The Silmirillian for an english class though......meh.
-
Watching'em TM
-
War in Afghanistan and growing tensions with Russia, commemoration of 60th anniversary of kristallnacht a few days ago, remake of the "The Day the Earth Stood Still" soon out in theaters... except for the squid, today's world nevertheless displays an eery resonance with pages 2 + 3 of ch. 12.
-
Snyder very well have himself a fucking fantastic film with a flawed, shitty climax. I don't expect all aspects of the film to be EXACTLY the same as the source material. That would, in fact, suck. No one's arguing that point. I know the film will be different, and I can appreciate that these changes must be made. But *SPOILER* Veidt's plan is THE crux of the story on which the whole thing hinges, and if it is changed, it needs to be carefully replaced with an event that is symbolically equal to it. Even the fucking death ray from earlier screenplay attempts would be better than what they decided on. The whole event has been altered beyond recognition and doesn't even intrinsically MEAN what it did in the comic. And when you're fucking with an author's basic meaning, that's as bad as it gets. And, yeah--I don't like it.
-
...but Snyder should've left it in, or maybe replaced it with something equally as horrific. I don't think his substitution - and those of you who've read the spoilers know what I'm talking about - is as starkly terrible as the squid.
-
Snyder hasn't made a film that good.
-
Good points, I agree. If everyone thought it was Doc Manhattan going rogue or something, it would still be ww3 all over the place considering he would be thought of as an American asset, no matter what he does. Squiddie is the only way to go.
And besides, if you go through enough effort to print out fake newspaper clippings for background shots and pay meticulous detail to every aspect of the comic, it stands to reason you'd do the squid justice, and not replace it with some zany other deus ex machina. -
I want to see more Watchmen
-
They could've at least made it *SPOILER* an alien attack of SOME kind. The point is this--it CANNOT be a terrestrial attack of any kind. And Doc Manhattan is an actual American citizen, godlike powers or no, who has acted for DECADES as an American tool. There's a reason Moore didn't go for this easy, uncreative and rather boring solution. I for one was blown away and entirely shocked by the story's actual climax which was NOTHING I could have POSSIBLY anticipated.
-
touché
-
I think if Dr. M is portrayed as ruthless and human-less as possible and destroys so many places on Earth at once (seemingly) it could work. I understand, essentially he's American and it will be a blame game leading to WW3. It doesn't bother me to have to defy the logic of the Dr. M route as much as the logic of the huge telepathic induced squids route. It could very well falter, but I doubt it will ruin the movie or spit all over Alan Moore's reasoning (even though the fact there is a movie already is)
-
*SPOILER* I know it's not actually Dr. M doing the damage, but Veidt's plan to make it seem as so.
-
Alan Moore himself doesn't even care about the movie.
-
Ya, The squid i don't think would go over well in a movie.
8 minutes and counting... i'm actually going to stay at work past 5 to watch lol.. -
Guys, it's released @ 8 PM EST, 5 PM PT.
-
You thought The Hobbit cartoon was amazing but that The Silmarillion was meh? Okaaaaayyyyyyyyyy...
-
Darn.
-
But as we see in the comic book, he is on MARS of all places! All Ozy would need is some kind of proof of that and POOF, everyone thinks Dr. M is an alien. So stretching it without the squid really doesn't matter. It's the FERVOR that is created that is important.
-
gripes
-
well, you know the rest.
-
"God is real and he's American"The basic, inescapable fact is this: Doc M, despite his godlike powers, is an *American citizen*. He is more than that: an American tool--the ultimate weapon of the US government. There's not one leader in the world who would believe that America wasn't in on the attack. The world would be lucky if the Soviets (or the USA) didn't push the button immediately. In any case, it would not bring the world together. It would drive them even further apart (and would destroy the global economy to boot). The attack CANNOT be terrestrial for the world-changing epiphany to work. Veidt knew this. The Doc M frame attack is an incredibly flawed idea. Even if the world at large thought that Doc M's actions were not condoned by the US government, they would still BLAME the US for Doc M's actions (which would be understandable, since he had been the ultimate US weapon for decades). There's no escaping the fact that in the course of the story Doc M is a well known, terrestrial threat who has been used for decades by the US as a government tool. In order for the world to come together, the threat MUST be an unknown one that has NOTHING to do with the planet or its people. Sorry, the Doc M frame-job just doesn't work for me.And twenty years plus of satisfied WATCHMEN readers and critics would indicate that Moore's Squid solution worked just fine.
-
... Title of this thread to PT! Not EST.
Wake up Merrick! -
hated the damn squid anyway....
-
dammit.
-
well said...that's my basic feeling about it. I'd rather it be some other seemingly extraterrestrial threat. But I haven't seen the film yet, so can't definitively conclude that they fucked up the ending.
-
PT, not ET... damn damn damn..
hmmm do I have to be in class tonight?
sadly yes.. damn all time zones
-
It's an ALIEN threat that scares to world into coming together. Doc M is to close to the USA.
He's it's weapon.
It doesn't have to be a squid. Just something alien. -
the squid is the worst part of the comic. its still a great comic. it will hopefully be a great film. stop bitching about the crapy squid.
-
Hey Dead_Geek are you stupid. you just ruined the plot for anyone who hasn't read it.
-
You just know he does - in his heart. HE'S the one doing the damage control - and it's being done with every single one of his quotes that is trying to downplay it.
I have an inkling in my mind that Warner wants the squid out - or they don't want to pay to make it look legitimately good looking - so Snyder can't have it. -
and all those early screenings used an alternate ending. Hey one can hope right?
-
you didn't happen to read...oh I don't know...damn near ANYONE else's posts in this talkback that clearly talk about the ending of Watchmen, did you? Because this whole shebang would ruin it for any sorry soul who hasn't read Watchmen yet.
-
...The book was out in 1987. Do some catch up reading. :)
-
What you guys are over looking is that since the first trailer the WATCHMEN graphic novel has been generating record sales at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Borders, Books Plus, etc...look it up. I agree that this WILL NOT make anywhere near Batman money, but interest in the property is being generated by non-fans or casual fans.
-
Yahoo.com comes out with an article sometime before the Watchmen film comes out about the controversy of killing a pregnant woman in cold blood.
Their articles are laugh-inducing in how much they try to latch on to controversy. And the titles are always really vague, so they make you want to click on them. And then when you actually read the article, half of the time the title turned out to be really misleading. Yahoo! sucks. -
Which means she's gonna be a big star. I know it's weird but big headed people become stars. It's a fact.
-
The creature from Frankenstein dies in the end.
Sorry.
Spoiler -
New York still gets destroyed. Lots of American cities get blown up. Add in there some lines about Manhattan turning his back on humanity and this IS an existential threat.Look, I fucking LOVE the ending. I love the squid. And for those saying they didn't like him...you didn't GET the book.However, for a mainstream audience, can you image the "HUH?" moment when a large beaked squid pops up in New York at the end of the movie? Plus you'd HAVE to have all the backstory with the artists and the island....it's too much for a 2.5 hour movie.
-
... is Luke's father.
-
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/11/13/votd-100-movie-spoilers-in-4-minutes/
-
from both sides. For fuck's sake, we've all discussed the squid to death. Read the past few Watchmen talkbacks and you'll see exaclty the same posts from the same people - even the LOTR comparisons (for and against) are here again. There is so much more to the graphic novel than the squid. It's incredibly dense, why is this the only thing that gets talked about? This is such a massive film for geeks like us and there should be so much to discuss. Hopefully the new trailer will remind everyone of that.I'm not saying the ending isn't a big deal, I'm just saying we don't have to turn every Watchmen talkback into a facsimile of the last.
-
Good points. But that doesn't change the fact that the threat must be extraterrestrial in nature for it to work for reasons I and others have laid out above. Even the ridiculous, mysterious death ray that one draft used would've been preferable to Doc M being framed for destroying cities around the world. That's immensely lame. Doc M's apparent involvement in the attack blows the logic of the whole plan completely. THAT's the problem--not whether the squid is literally in or out.
-
Nov 13, 2008 4:45:50 PM CST
You're such a liar there's no new tra...oh wait you're right
by orionsangels
-
That Alan Moore was right, this won't work as a movie. They look ridiculous in their costumes. I predict this will do ok business but it will be torn apart by the critics so the regular filmgoer will stay away. By the way, I wish they kept the squid. Just so I could see how freaky it could be.
-
Maybe because it's the climax of the whole fucking story that's being completely replaced beyond recognition. It changes the ultimate point of the whole story. The logic which held WATCHMEN together is twisted. We're not talking about whether Rorschach's wearing elevator boots or not for fuck's sake. The ending IS a big fucking deal, and it's worth bitching about for quite some time. And where better to bitch than with us bitches in an AICN TB?
-
It does since I just laid out why the threat DOESN'T have to be extraterrestrial (the way YOU mean) in nature. We're talking about basically the end of a character arc...Doctor Manhattan's complete separation from humanity. He is the extraterrestrial threat. Again, I think the squid works perfectly in the graphic novel when you have all the time in the world. I STRONGLY disagree that the Death Sun Ray idea would've been better than makin' it seem that Dr. M has decided humanity isn't worth living. It's not an attack from America to the rest of the world. It's an attack from Dr. M on humanity.
-
I agree - if there was anywhere to bitch it would be here. That's why I come here and read all these posts. And I agree it's a big deal. It's just no-one's bitching anything new.
-
...when people predict at these stages the exact dollar amount a movie will make.
-
I though it was meant to be like 50mins ago... 10gmt time? no?
-
and he does not seem to be able to comprehend the "God is real and he's American" is meant to be horrifying, arrogant, and ironic.
-
...your screen name fucking rocks. Laughin my ass off.
-
Look, Snyder is obviously getting a lot right. Most of the designs--costume (save Ozy), sets, effects--are absolutely amazing. I'm not worried about them not getting the look. It's a done deal. I think the filmmakers will get more right than they get wrong, and that's a tremendous achievement if they do. But one thing you don't fuck with is that moment in WATHCMEN when the totally brilliant, horrible plan is revealed in all its inescapably and bloody apt glory. I know some people are hung up on the fucking squid beastie looking "dumb," but for fuck's sake--there are PLENTY of movie monster designs that worked just swell (think JC's THE THING). Why the fuck fix what never was broken? Or if you're fiddling with it, why change it so utterly from something damned cool and creative and unexpected to something so fucking boring AND illogical? It kills me that the screenwriters didn't even come close to nailing what the squid symbolizes.
-
I get the feeling he DOES get that. Which is why he's saying it's important it's in the film because he recognises the impact of that claim. Why do you think he doesn't get it? Apart from the fact you don't like 300.
-
i shall eat your first born
-
Funny thing is I thought 300 was both homophobic AND homoerotic.
-
"he does not seem to be able to comprehend the "God is real and he's American" is meant to be horrifying, arrogant, and ironic."
Because we have already seen the context in which he films that line, right? Give me a break - there's no indication of whether he "gets" it or not. -
...to the general viewing audience. Unfortunately, films with blockbuster budgets are not allowed to be entirely cerebral; even the currently-beloved "Dark Knight" had to include silly technology and over-the-top effects to appeal to the masses. The "inter-dimensional psychic monstrosity bent on the destruction of humanity" may be a bit too surrealistic for the average seat filler. It takes too much effort to reason out the importance of the threat being bizarre and other-worldly.
Perhaps Moore was right; maybe this film shouldn't have been made. -
You seem very passionate about the ending of Watchmen and rightfully so. As far as I'm concerned it's absolute literary genius.IF this was a Cable Miniseries, I'd be right next to you sounding the horn (what horn? I dunno. THE horn).I can absolutely, from a screenwriter's POV, understand the change. I don't see the huge lapses in logic that you do in this climax. In alot of ways it makes Dr. Manhattan that much more a tragic character.
-
this screen name. Glad it pleases. Not surprisingly, it probably is an unconscious riff off of--you probably guessed it considering YOUR screen name--Bigus Dickus from THE LIFE OF BRIAN.And the last word here, and I'll shut up: Doc M's drift from humanity is a compelling subplot but would not be understood by the world's masses. They see him simply as an ultimate US weapon, and that is what he has been for decades. There's no reason to believe that the populace at large would ever separate him from the US government in their minds. I just don't buy it. And--again--why fuck up something that works so well. Incidentally, I think the death ray was also fucking stupid, but it at least resembles the squid solution in spirit and symbol. The Doc M solution does not.
-
...the success of movies like "Cloverfield" should not be used as an indicator that the uninitiated movie-goers (read: most of the people who see this movie) will accept the "big reveal" of the creature. Folks knew that they were going to see a giant monster in "Cloverfield," but the "squid" comes straight out of let field in the graphic novel.
-
The USA nation wide default for time synchronization is set to Eastern time. EASTERN! not PACIFIC you fucks! Learn that or go back where you came from! and if you actually come from the west coast, just kill yourselves now.
-
I'm with you on the idea that the world views Doc M as an American weapon. I'm still optimistic. Gonna have to agree to disagree until I see this baby play out. I can see it working, I just hope the revelation of the changed ending won't keep some one that seems to love the comic so much away from seeing the movie.
-
Its 5:09pm. I'm trying to figure out how to watch this on my iPhone. . It's 8pm. Pacific or Eastern standard? The pieces are all falling in place. . It's 5:17. I'm on my laptop, disappointed in my iPhone. I'm not seeing a squid. . It's 6:09. I'm considering changing my handle to Dr. Brooklyn. Its July 2009. The Watchmen DVD is on the shelf. "Alternate Directors Cut Ending!". I walk by, glad I never changed my handle.
-
...but THAT was brilliant.
-
...Watchmen ain't topping $100 million domestic. Just sayin'.
-
Prime has flames/Spidey has organic webshooters/Batman KILLS people/X-Men don't wear yellow outfits/raped my childhood/ruined FOREVER/blah blah blah
-
Let's face it. These trailer editors need to get on their game and learn how to cut story.
Any hack with Final Cut Pro can slap Smashing Pumpkins on a bunch of pretty shots and call it a trailer. -
...yeah. It will. People loved 300. People that don't know ANYTHING about comics dug the hell out of that flick. I thought it was "alright". Lots of people will go see this movie.
-
that i´m readimg watchmen on a downloaded pdf file?
-
He's allergic to squid. Breaks out in hives. Can't even stand to look at the stuff.
So he had it written out. -
I hate that Batman and Robin song!!!
-
... that a Directors Cut of this adaptation will eventually be released?? If studio interference WAS the reason for the changes at the end, it's possible Zach will change it back to the squid in the Directors Cut. Or possibly include it as an alternative ending.
-
Okay, I didn't read the book and most of the sources I've looked at are nebulous at best. Could someone help a brother out and briefly explain the squid thing?sigh, yes, in this case my username is apt
-
Wait, isn't Bad Mr Wonka a Wino? Oh well, power to the people!
\
I won't DL watchmen if there is no Squid, ain't gettin my bandwith fucking Snyder!!!! -
...I don't care if it's EXACTLY like the novel. As long as I'm entertained and it is a GOOD movie, I'll be happy. Unlike rumblings about a certain other DC property that are gratuitously hip and A-listy.
And didn't Speed Racer teach us that being Just Like The Cartoon/Comic doesn't necessarily work? You gotta think realistically. -
...well, Iron Man wasn't the most popular Marvel hero either.
-
In the same way porn stars have to get HIV tests before they are allowed onto set, TalkBackers should get Watchmen tests before they are allowed onto AintItCool.
-
Is the Watchmen comic really that great? I know the overwhelming answer I will hear will be “yes” probably followed by a series of insults directed at me. But my question is legitimate. I mean, since it was written so much has changed from that era and so much of the comic has been proven wrong. The Reaganism and Thatcherism, which he was criticizing, didn’t end the world or lead us into a major war, but actually might be responsible for helping end the Cold War whether some of us like to admit it or not (and this coming from a man who is not a Reagan or Thatcher fan at all). And the anti-heroism theme and Moore’s deconstruction of heroes, showing heroes as not having any noble purpose but instead doing it for ego, vanity, profit, anger and a million other reasons save for virtue. Well after 9-11, we did see men sacrifice themselves to help others trapped in a burning building, merely for the fact that it was their duty and the right thing to do. And since than, we have seen other acts of heroism (as well as villainy). Are their motives not so pure after all, or is Moore’s theme that we are better off without heroes still valid? Like I said before, I am not trying to put down the Watchmen, but I am curious if it really holds up as the best comic ever. And I am open to either side of the argument.
-
Where the hell did all this "GOD is real and he's American" stuff come from ????
The quote I have from watchmen says nothing about God. It's "the SUPERMAN exists and he's American". The closest I can remember it coming to God is Janey telling Manhattan "they say you're like God now." to which Manhattan replies "I don't think there is a God Janey. If there is I'm not him."
Does it matter ? In the context of the story, Yes it does. The point being this is now a world in which SUPERMAN exists not just in a comic book but in reality. So all that flows from that revelation including public perception flows from an awareness that the Comic book world has just become reality. And from this Ozymandias creates his "solution". **SPOILER** That is to say, he solves the problem of an impending holocaust in a world in which a comic book superman is real with a comic book supervillian creature. (squiddy) So in that world, if you have a Giant Blue Demi-God striding across Vietnam and solving America's foreign Policy then it really isn't such a huge leap to be confronted with a Massive abomination from Dimension X teleporting in and ****SPOILER** destroying half of New York.
Would I have preferred the original ending ? Yep. but we ain't getting that in the Movie. (We MIGHT get it in a special edition DVD perhaps..)
Would I have preferred a FAR better and more accurate Ozy ? Yep.
Would I prefer it if Snyder DOESN'T overuse the fast/slo-mo thus reducing it to a Movie "gimmick" and not a nice framing device for iconic panels used SPARINGLY. Yep.
Am I going to boycott the Movie and curse Snyders name to hell because of all this and BEFORE I see the Movie ? Nope.
I'll see how it turns out. It will still have all the Rorschach and Manhattan Gold and a great deal more than that even without the original ending and Snyders "eccentric" Ozy.
For the record I thought The Dark Knight lost much of it's earlier pace and focus at the Movies Climax but I still enjoyed it. -
Even though there will definitely be a director's cut on DVD, I am SURE there will be no squid in it. Think about how expensive it would be to film, IN ADDITION to whatever ending they are using for the theatrical release. In this economy, even on a film of this size, the studio would never bankroll it. You can forget about the squid. You'll never see it on film.
-
...maybe some imitation crab meat....
with cocktail sauce. -
The director's cut is more about abridgment than anything. the theatrical cut will not have to time to adapt every single panel ever onto the screen. But the director's cut will. That's why he's also making the Black freighter, so he can eventually chop it up and work it into the film, so the director's cut is literally like reading the book, with every jot and tittle in place.
-
I love how you compared the removing of the squid to changing the Ring's destruction in Mount Doom. Because Return of the King DID diverge quite far in movie form in the whole scene inside Mount Doom. But the end result was the same, it was just arrived at differently.
-
The one with the scientist talking about Doc Manhattan he says he never really said "Superman is real and he's an american" but that his REAL quote was "God is real and he's an american". DO NOT SKIP OVER THOSE TEXT SECTIONS PEOPLE!!!! That one is called SUPER POWER AND THE SUPER POWERS
-
Harry Knowles ate it whilst he was doing a report on the set. Snyder couldn't afford to buy another one hence the sad, sorry situation we're in today.
-
Next.
-
Too bad he doesn't get a nickel for every white person he accuses of racism, or he could afford to move out of that bullet-ridden crackhouse he squats in.
-
watchmen had nothing to do with reaganism or thatcherism..nor was moore really commenting on america in watchmen...he was deconstructing the american comic book hero, while making observations on american culture...but as you are a wingnut pinhead, and have apparently chosen not to even read the comic (as all of you are want to do when you choose to criticize anything) you can go fuck yourself...or havent you noticed...thanks to reaganomics and thatcherfacism, the world is totally falling apart...you fuckwad, you asshat, you dickless son of a motherless whore
-
Let's try another scenario: lets say the screening reports flubbed it and instead of a world wide simultaneous attack, it was made to seem Doc Manhattan attacked the US exclusively, with a hand full of survivors have a psychic impression that when he was done with the US, the rest of the world was next, and the US had to get word out to warn everyone else. Still not quite where the original was at, but it might mitigate the "blame the US" sentiment and unite the world? maybe?
I have to say this though: adaptions are tricky and are different beasts entirely that need to stand on there own merits. Based on a couple of descriptions from dipshit screeners, we are dropping the new ending into the comic, where it doesn't work. But, when it all plays out, it just might. we'll see. -
He even reads the text sections. Heed his warning and aspire to become as knowledgable in the ways of Watchmen as Brians Life.
-
And I NEVER skipped the text sections but assumed that the quote came from the main body of the Comic like most of the Movie will.
And it saddens me to hear Snyder will not attempt the original ending but to be fair he'd have to do a hell of a lot of pickups and reshooting because Squiddy doesn't just appear from nowhere he's foreshadowed heavily and set up with the Island and a few other scenes.
Of course if the alternate ending turned out to be BETTER than Snyders version then that might not exactly say much for Snyders judgement. -
the world will end soon...i dont wanna die without seeing the squid
-
Is it entirely because of the nerd factor? I mean, why not comparisons with say... No Country for Old Men? that had some of the most interesting adaptation discussion i've seen. For the record, no Squid is nowhere near as bad as not having the Anton-returns-the-money scene.
-
the theatrical cut of Watchmen will drop on DVD July or august 09, but the director's cut won't drop until the following November, and then it will be a blu ray exclusive, with the dvd edition of the director's cut not until the following February when it will contain some new bonus materials that neither previous edition did. After all, why make the audience by the movie once when they can buy it 3 times?
-
I have nothing more to add.
-
figure out the plot? by osmosis?
-
And I ain't talking about Malin Ackerman's bubastises.
-
They just created this fuzz so the movie gets a great fanboy celebration in its openning.
free great publicity: $$$$ -
Your interpretation of Watchmen is incorrect.
-
not merely because it destroys large parts of New York and is non-anthropomorphic. The importance of the climax is that the squid is not a physical threat. Look at the opening pages of Watchmen #12 and what do you see? Almost no damage to buildings and cars. Pretty much the only destruction is where squiddy actually teleported into occupied spaces. The carnage is MENTAL. When it "died," the squid broadcast such powerful and bizarre images that it killed everyone within miles and drove hundreds of thousands further away into mental collapse. One woman was overwhelmed by images of her fetus eating its way out of the womb and aborted her pregnancy. Others were expected to never be released from hospitals. Many would be psychically damaged for life on less serious levels.
The emotional and cognitive murder and crippling of millions of people is supposed to kick into everyone's heads the fragility of our lives. The people of the world and their governments are supposed to realize that this could have happened anywhere dimensional research was happening and possibly anywhere at all, and beyond such issues that we're all just people, dammit. It doesn't matter if it had been in NYC or Chicago or LA, but it had to be somewhere Veidt could have research facilities as a beard for the squid's appearance; NYC was handy because that's his North American base of operations. What matters is that as a contained event the squid's appearance draws aid from the world. It must draw aid from the USSR because the USSR must learn the importance of working with the USA for world peace. Without that, with nuclear explosions or death rays shooting from the clouds across the world, there is no drawing-in of the great angry powers to aid the USA and the learning that Veidt will steer into a post-squid world of international cooperation.
Here endeth the lesson. -
No Squid, No DL snyder! That's right, I won't pirate Watchmen without the Squid. Think of all the pop ups and banners I won't click on, your hurting the intraweb economy Snyder!!!!!
AICn may need a billion dolaar bail out. -
Get a boost from this movie? I think so!!!!!!!!!!!
Wino! -
Nov 13, 2008 6:06:52 PM CST
I dunno, I at least see where contientalo is coming from
by greenstyle92
He shit the bed of his credibility with his false assertion that the "God is real" line wasn't in the comic, but I do agree that reaganism and thatcherism were in part discussed in Watchmen. Yes, ofcourse it was primarily deconstruction of the comic book superhero, but the book certainly has a lot to say about the cold war and fears that Reagan's sabre rattling was just gonna start the nuclear war. And it is fair to say that it didn't, but it's also fair to say there were long term problems too. Al Queida came out of Reagan. failed economic and foreign policies came out of Reagan. And hey, it turns out the Russian threat may not be as over as we thought it was. It's funny, this seems the perfect time for Watchmen to resurface.
This is one thing that's interested me. Watchmen the comic is a contemporary 80s work and part of that era's synchronicity, but Watchmen the movie is a period piece. it changes the perspective. -
I'm still not sure how Snyder will put this into the Movie as the Superpowers text section makes clear that the SUPERMAN exists quote was repeated again and again and again all over the Media and the Scientist was indeed deliberately "misquoted" to make it more palatable to an already fearful public.
Also if I remember right the Superpowers section tells us that Manhattan DOES have some limitations and why he couldn't prevent a complete Holocaust even with his powers.
So Brians Life is quite correct the text sections are pretty crucial to a complete understanding of the Comic.
Things like the fate and identity of Hooded justice, the tales and fates of the first generation of the Superheroes in Under the Hood and more Rorschach backstory to name just a few of the text pieces revelations. -
Whatever threat appears at the climax, it has to be extra-terrestrial to force the Earth's nations to band together against this 'outside' threat. If the movie has changed such a pivotal concept then it's just WINO.
-
mi amigo WINO
-
Get a big bottle of marina sauce. He's in it!
-
where's the goddamn trailer..?
-
i c no squid WINO
-
But it IS news. ;-)
-
...is the name of the outer limits episode where Moore copped his ending (well the whole plor eally). I always loved the ending and it kinda sucks its not being used, it coulda been awesome. this new framing Dr. M bit sounds kinda lame (first I heard of it too, Thanks!).
-
Transformers all the way baby! you know that with Arcee in there there's gonna be sweet TF porn!
-
Alan Moore himself has pointed out the anti-Reaganism in the Watchmen, saying that he wasn’t trying be “not anti-Americanism, [but] anti-Reaganism.” As for the anti-heroism angle, Ian Thomson wrote about this in his essay “Deconstructing the Hero”, saying that Moore wrote the story so it “develops its heroes precisely in order to ask us if we would not in fact be better off without heroes.” In all fairness, other people have said that Moore didn’t deconstruct the hero but instead did a revisionist story. By the way, kudos to bacci40 for such a well thought out rebuttal. :)
-
I am a fan of the comic. My only question is if the comic has been proven wrong like many alarmist tales have over the years, or if it still resonates and if it does why? By the way, kudos to bacci40 for such a well thought out rebuttal. ☺
-
It could be anything at the end, that scares the world into uniting in peace. Any kind of Nuclear metaphor. Whatever makes the movie work best. It may not be a squid, but as long as it's something in the squids place, the ending will still be intact. Maybe a giant Admiral Ackbar or something.
-
1979?
-
And then the trailer came up and featured the same MUSIC! HOLY FUCK! Sorry! Very weird.
-
1) I always imagined Dr Manhattan would have a very monotone, dispassionate, logical, dehumanized voice and 2) Ozymandias looks like a complete poof.
-
??!?!?!?!!?!
-
Haven't watched it yet, got the 720p version downloading so I can see it nice and big. :^)
-
And I just KNEW Rorschach would sound like Madonna's "No Face" character in Dick Tracy...
-
Not a fan of the Rorschach voice (too Dark Knight), but very cool otherwise.
-
Way cool trailer. But a bit confusing if you don't already know the story.
-
Can't wait to see it on the big screen
-
in the trailer. oh and it did look like superman buring. perhaps its a comment on superman returns
anyway good trailer... i know already this will make my bluray collection :) -
http:// movies.yahoo.com/ feature/ watchmen.html?showVideo=1Take out the spaces, you know the drill.
-
Oohh, it's sweet! Billy Crudup! Billy Crudup!
-
should have sounded like martian manhunters from the justice league cartoon. Authoritive but unemotional.
-
A friend of mine pointed this out to me the other day. I recall the Comedian asking if he was enjoying beating on him.
-
Sound EXACTLY like Batman?
-
I FUCKING DIDN'T EITHER
-
Just hope it holds at least a 10 watt bulb to the comics.
-
Sounds a little fruity pie to me.
-
I read the comic this summer, and thought it was interesting. But I can see why the squid would have to go. You know, to keep it real, sort of.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to it. -
UH-MAZE_ING!!
-
it still looks good.
-
damn...wtf...I have just lost about 50% of my enthusiasm for this film. I agree that Manhattan's voice should not just be Crudup's...it should have had some kind of effect on it...just doesn't work. The rest of it is just unimpressive and I don't remember the superheroes being referred to as the "Watchmen" in the graphic novel...that is a huge change or maybe I missed something.
-
ha ha ha, kick ass voice though
-
If you knew Watchmen you'd know how appropriate it is. And yes I know Night Owl is the closest to Batman in terms of look and gadgets and so on in case anyone tries to point that out, but there's no denying Rorschach is a comment on uncompromising noirish vigilantes of the sort Batman falls into.
-
I don't see why Synder can't include an alternate ending with the Squid for his Ultimate Directors Cut DVD that he is putting out. Didn't he say there is a 3 1/2 hour version in the works. Couldn't he incorporate the squid ending then? Just swap out that blue explosion for a creature?
-
i think it is pretty shitty... music choice is also lame... it was muse if im not mistaken... sound of rorschach also felt like a bit overkill...
-
That trailer looks awesome. I can't wait for this movie.
-
Lol....Lots of good. Lots of slo mo...like lots. Rorschach's voice is a little too dark nighty. Isnt he supposed to be monotone? Veidt's accent?? Lame...sounds like a fruit. And was that the end explosion I saw there?
-
nice
-
Dr. M, Spectre, Owl, Ozy, Rorschach, and The Comedian never formed a group, did they? Weren't they about too but Comedian pissed on the idea and they all bailed?
-
I'm impressed. Can't wait for this movie. And no squid is no big deal. Shit still gets fucked up. Points still proven. Get over it. (I'm a huge fan of the comc by the way)
-
Not really a nitpick, because I figured he had a weird ass voice from the get to, but after the other flick, it's like stuck in my head, man.
-
Suck it haters, this is obviously gonna be amazing.
-
is a great music choice. Their stuff would sound good on any movie preview
-
We get it - Manhattan has blue balls and Robert Downey Junior takes the big plunge out a window. And the guy with the Charlie Brown dressed as a ghost mask likes fire and skipping up walls. Now, show me a Gunga Diner elephant or a live action shot of Gugino as Silk Spectre!
-
It's really familiar but I can't remember what it is!
-
Muse "Take a Bow"
-
and even sounded like Phillip Glass in the beginning. I wonder if I can get that remix anywhere?
Either way, it worked great in the trailer.. -
Not as thrilling as first trailer, but not bad either. Overall, I'd say this is looking to a three star affair.
-
that's the way I remember it. But I've only read the comic 3 times and not in the last 9 months.
-
You heard it here first.
-
From his score of the Qatsi movies.
-
Chill out, he just didn't read. We all know your right
-
When I saw the group shot of those guys in the trailer, I tried to remember when that took place in the GN. Read it for the first time last month. Looks pretty dope. And for the record, sans squid makes the movie better.
-
The intro with the Glass Qatsi score was such a great opener. Still disappointed about Squiddy since it's obviously confirmed in this trailer that McSquids has been replaced with a nuke blast, but what r'ya gonna do in this work-a-day world?
-
I do like that they have aged characters. Malin and Wilson and Morgan all looked older.
-
"watchmen are over"...wtf...they were never called the watchmen...please zach, dont tell me you fucked up...rorshach sounds good tho
-
...I don't like the moving towards the nuclear thing. It SHOULD be something horrific and alien - if not the squid, than something.
-
that they take the same day Comedian and Silk Spectre have their, ahem, falling out. Only, it's with the folks who were supposed to become the "new" Minutemen. I think. Ah crap, now I need to go watch it again.
-
but it still feels like a total letdown... and no that roster never did form a team...
-
The music they keep putting on these trailers is horrible!!! Give me some Nine Inch Nails or A Perfect Circle!!!
-
Read the comic for the first time 2 months ago. Could not put it down. I thought it was truly amazing, but I actually laughed outloud at the big squis reveal. I had a wtf moment. Could they really think of nothing better than a giant squid. I could only imagine your average movie goers reaction to the big payoff as a squid. And whoever posted that the details of the book are not as important as the squid, you missed the whole postmodern send up that comic pulled off. Shooting the lady and God is on Americas side are what make the comic so fucking outstanding. I will miss the whole evil ship subplot, but Blue Ray will make up for that.
-
I wasn't bein' mean!
-
bale stole the rorshach voice for dk...how does one make a monotone gravely voice sound any different...but ya, a little too much emotion in it
-
not garbage but nothing great either...
and now I guess there will be even MORE whining about the lack of squid? Will any of you ever get the fuck over it? It's pretty much been made official now that there wont be a fucking squid in the movie. And even if there was, do you all seriously think that they would show it in the goddamn trailer 6 MONTHS BEFORE THE FUCKING MOVIE COMES OUT????
please shut the fuck up about the squid people, at least until the movie hits theatree... -
Okay. Now, I'm willing to admit that I MAY be wrong...but I don't think that I am.The term WATCHMEN is NEVER used as a name for the team of which they were all a part of. Now, this is one of those things I almost expected them to change, but when I heard Rorscach say "Watchmen." referring to the team I IMMEDIATELY thought "Zack Snyder DOESN'T get it."
-
It's not going to be about just Dr. M taking the hit for world destruction, it's going to be about all the heroes taking the fall. The line will be "Those hero guys were dangerous and untrustworthy, that's why we out lawed them, but Dr. M was still in cahoots with these guys!" Dr. M not as US tool, but as the most powerful of a dangerous group of people bent on power! and it wouldn't even be that far off!!! It's veidt taking the anti-hero sentiment to it's logical conclusion and using the destruction of the Superhero trust as a rallying point for the rest of the world! IT WORKS!!! GODDAMN IT, IT WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRKS!
Now squid okay after all, Snyder smarter than we thought, (and smarter than all talk backers!!!) -
I mean. Not really.
-
and that is bothersome
-
Agreed with the trailer being "meh". Its the first somewhat mediocre thing I've seen from this project. A little disappointing.
-
"The music they keep putting on these trailers is horrible!!! Give me some Nine Inch Nails or A Perfect Circle!!!" I think you just contradicted yourself.....
-
Rorchach sounded too young, like a young guy was trying to sound older? Now I know an older actor is playing him but still, it sounded a bit off from how I imagined him. They should at least place some kind of a sound effect on his voice to make him sound more impressive, perhaps even lowering his pitch some???
-
I got chills 3 times... Rorschach and his changing face... amazing.
-
Seriously! I am sure that some exec was like "no one's gonna get it."
-
The question of whether Watchmen is a great piece of art is different than whether Alan Moore was correct. Alan's a bit of an extremist, and his views about politics are pretty much as daft as any college freshman. But that doesn't take away from the intricate craft that went into construction of the book.
The worst thing about Watchmen is that it screwed up comics for decades, as lesser talents tried to emulate Moore, and copied managed to wipe all fun and idealism out of comics, while simultaneously making them even more juvenile. -
this has been discussed before...but guys like the jla fought a giant starfish(staros)..if you are gonna deconstruct comic books, you gotta go to the absurdities in them
-
It's a really, really bad edit of it - it jumps from line to line. Maybe it's because I know the song so well but I found it really noticeable. But that's not a moan about the trailer's content itself, it just stuck out to me. As for the footage itself - it looks great, the trailer just feels a bit too plot-explanatory. I get it, it's setting the story for the casual viewer - but it means I prefer the first trailer.
-
...But there was no way you could ever convince a Hollywood executive of that, no matter how much "Post-Modernism" you point out to him. And especially when his rebuttal would be to just point at the budget. Hollywood does not like to gamble or do anything risky, and will balk at anything they think the audience couldn’t handle (just look at Spider-Man: “You want the Green Goblin to drop Spider-Man’s girl to her death? Are you nuts?”). So it is better to let it go and move on.
-
I have MPC but everytime I click on the HD resolution options, it asks me if I want to download a QTI file or something like that. Never had that problem before.
-
"Imagine", A Perfect Circle's remake of the John Lennon song, would have been, ironically, perfect for this trailer. And "Dirt" by NIN would have fit just as perfectly!!!
-
is that the comic has been selling like hotcakes...so alot of new fans are gonna scratch their heads at rorshach's line....i also cant believe they are continuing to use the line "the world will look up...." in conjunction with the trailer, where it appears that rorshach does care about saving the world, it doesnt make sense...but it does if you put back in the original text...sure hope this stuff is all dubbed
-
Hopefully Zack pulls this off. fingers crossed
-
good point, just not a big fan of those bands. I prefer Tool and NIN's new stuff has turned me off of them forever
-
That is an answer I can except and respect. And you didn't even call me a heretic for bringing up the question.
-
...the time Rorschach says it, sounds like it's taken out of context or even specially recorded for the trailer. I don't think it's actually part of a section of dialogue that goes 'Watchmen: one of us died tonight...' the way the trailer has it. Actually the time Dan (?) says it sounds funny as well, as though it's the end of a longer sentence, eg. "The days of nobody 'watching the watchmen' are over" referring to the Keane act, just as an example. I think you're making unwarranted assumptions about the 'heroes' being referred to as 'the Watchmen' in the film.
-
Someone said this up there already. I'm not goign to debate the squid, but merely reiterate the question that if there's no squid things, then there's no island where Comedian catches a glimpse of this "master plan" and then why would "you know who" need to off Comedian? I'm not sayin gyou can't still have those thigns happen without the squid, but Snyder must have concoctyed SOMETHING else for Comedian to accidentally have seen which costs him his life.
-
He's the quintessential "grim and gritty scary badass". Of course, he's gonna have that intimidating gravel voice. Bale's voice is more annoying because it's sooooo over the top and has an absurd redneck twang in some parts. "Where ur thu druuuugs goin'!!!!" Don't pin that on Rorschach, it's not his fault.
-
...the Rorshach line don't make sense either. I can think of a million better line's they could've used. That WATCHMEN thing really gets me though...I remember reading an early draft and the opening line of it was a cop saying "It's the God Damn Watchmen" and I cringed.It may seem nitpicky, but that was a big deal for me. That and Manhattan's final line to Ozymandias.
-
Look no further:
http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?sid=75031206&sdm=web&pt=rd
copy n paste,right click/save as :) -
the times it was used sounded awkward, like they'd been edited to fit the trailer. It happens a hell of a lot with trailers, I wouldnt' take it as a sign that that sentence will be used in the film.
-
Nov 13, 2008 7:29:19 PM CST
I feel bad for all you hard-core fans who haven't gotten your ha
by adrock303
It would calm a lot of you down.
-
Nov 13, 2008 7:29:28 PM CST
comedian, we wanted Rorschach to sound like Jeffry Combs
by greenstyle92
as in the voice he used for The Question in JLU. That's the voice I plug in for Question in my head whenever I read the comic...
-
The main book didn't directly address it, but IIRC one of the text portions afterwards made mention of Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis being lovers on the down low.
-
They may be assumptions, but I think you need to look up the word unwarranted. I really hope you're right about it being cut that way for the trailer.
-
I've been thinking this since the early pictures and now I'm pretty sure that the guy playing The Comedian is wearing a fake muscle suit, not the costume but the actual skin underneath - a la Vinnie Jones in X3 but not as extreme. Check out the group shot in the trailer. I'm sure the arm bands are serving to hide the fact (can't remember if he wears them in the comic.)
Also I saw the actor on Comic Con footage and his arms weren't that big at all.
I know it's not important...just frustrates me for some reason. Especially after the regime Snyder had the actors in 300 go through.
AWESOME trailer though. -
I agree with above's choice on NIN or APC.
-
I thought it was pretty obvious in the comic book that we are supposed to connect the dots that he was the gay euro muscleman that is found dead.
-
They use shots that aren't in the movie. Lines are manipulated to mean something else. But it would be VERY disappointing if they were called Watchmen throughout the film.
-
It's that he was a Sado-Masochist. He beat up the bad guys because he got off on it. That's what Blake meant.
-
I see no problem with making the term "Watchmen" a group name. someone make a logical argument why that would be detrimental besides "It wasn't in the comic." you all came up with good explanations why no squid is bad. explain this.
-
I thought it was clear that Captain Metropolis and Hooded Justice was a "tag team" of sorts... although the S&M thing makes me wonder...
-
...being inferred as that Muscleman that was found dead. Der! A friend of mine was like "Oh and Hooded Justice was gay." and this was last week and I haven't looked at the book to check and I don't recall there being implicit reference to him being gay other than Blake's insinuation.
-
I say unwarranted because there's been nothing in any of the other promotional material ever referring to 'the Watchmen' as characters, nor has Snyder ever referred to the characters in that way in interviews, behind the scenes clips and such, coupled with the fact that the lines sound heavily edited in the trailer and the general frequency with which trailers are misleading or even include material not present in the eventual films they advertise. You may be sceptical of his ability to do the story justice, but I think you should give Snyder a little more credit than you are.
-
I haven't read the novel, going to before I see the movie for sure, but, this trailer blew me away! I hated all the stuff leading up to 300 but thought the movie was decent. Loved the styling, thought another straight forward period epic would be boring. Looks like the same styling here but in a superhero movie, which fits perfectly.. I have watched it twice, and loved it.. Why, if at all, should I be worried????
-
I love Watchemen, love Muse, but that trailer didn't do much for me. I'm preparing for the worst.
-
Well, I'm going to adapt another film version of Hamlet. Only this time Hamlet is being setup by Claudius for his father's murder, and he's on the run with Horatio through Denmark. It'll be like a buddy cop movie. Hamlet will be played by Jackie Chan, and Horatio will be played by Chris Tucker.
-
there's just something about it that doesn't have the right tone, if you catch my drift.
-
Squid. Hurm as Rorschach would say. The truth is...my problem with Snyder (and Rodriguez) is the slavish need to make it look EXACTLY like the comic. Boring. The problem there becomes a lifelessness. Id rather see a director's interpertation of the material a la the Dark Knight or Blade. Snyder's actors look stranded and awkward. If he didn't do the squid, fine. I'm curious to see what the difference is. Either way...no pumped. Haha. Squidgate scandal continues.
-
It's been a while since I've read it, but I thought there were enough clues that Hooded Justice like more than just beating up on men. The thing about him and another Minuteman being together at some point rings a bell, too, but I just can't remember specifically.
-
... I didn't like it. :-I
-
You have to join the dots between bits of 'Under the Hood' and Silk Spectre I's magazine interview and stuff but it's spelled out that Captain Metropolis and Hooded Justice were lovers, and HJ was 'dating' Silk Spectre for appearances' sake even though the rest of the team knew about it (which made them cutting off Silhouette when she was outed really cold). The S&M fetish is revealed by Blake after the rape attempt.
-
is the character design the took liberties with, Ozy, is roundly hated! Goes to show, you can't win for changing it, but more gallingly you can't win for keeping it the same either.
-
His music lends the perfect off-kilter majesty and other-worldliness. PERFECT opening music for the trailer. We can only hope he's hired for the film!
-
To answer your question, there is this little thing called subtlety. What if Nolan had changed the name of Bruce Wayne to Deuce Gains?
-
Good argument. Also, I actually DO have quite a bit of faith in Snyder's ability and when I heard those line's it was a shock 'cause I didn't expect them. however, and this is the last I'll say about it, having two characters in the trailer use the term Watchmen in ref. to the team I think WARRANTS the possibility that they will be called Watchmen in the movie.and again, check my past posts, before this trailer I have been a die hard supporter of the movie. Still am. It just got to me.
-
First of all, I'm not a "no squid is bad" guy.It's the reasoning behind making that decision that grinds my gears. Here we have a graphic novel called WATCHMEN with no direct reference within the book to an ACTUAL group called The Watchmen. A rarity in the comic book world and, IMO, a tad more intellectual.Now we have a movie that comes along feels the need to make the title have relevance beyond the metaphorical.Having the team branded WATCHMEN is less subtle. It takes the poetry out of the title merely being a reference to the grafitti markings all over the city.
-
sorry. explain it to me as though I were really, jaw droppoingly stupid, (which I suppose I am.)
-
As an adaptation, so-so. I, for one, am looking forward to the film. I can read to book or watch the motion comics any time.My only complaint is that I hope that they remove all the slow-mo.
-
Give me a world without a Watchmen adaptation over a world with a mediocre, dumbed down, high gloss derivation posing as one... It was clear the ball had been well and truly dropped the minute Rorschach refers to the Masks under the collective name "Watchmen"... In one utterance it becomes clear this film is designed to make idiots feel like they're not being left out.... What's that purple thing your holding Snyder... Please... keep it away from my adolescence!
-
And I didn't mean to say you were pro-squiddy or anti-anti-squid, I was just being general. And I appreciate the point, but... my rebuttal is that in adapting "books" to "movies," sometimes things have to be made more explicit to make the point. But that's probably a stupid argument.
-
I can't think why you wouldn't enjoy the movie. I do thin kyou'll be in the minority of the public, though. Most of the mindless masses will see this and either 1) be confused because they think it's another superhero movie copying Dark Knight or Xmen but odd that they don't know who anyof them are or 2) be uninterested because they don't know who they are and aren't excited by a trailer like this because the movie plays so heavily on the actual visual style of the comic. Which, I like, but then, I know and like the comic. My advice is to stop by you local mega-bookstore this weekend and spend some time flipping through Watchmen for free. If you like it, buy it (or, heck, my public library has two copies. Check yours.) and read it before seeing the movie. The comic is the masterpiece. The movie should be fun,. but if you really want to get into what Watchmen is, like that asshole form the 1980's Time-Life commercial said: Read the book. It's worth it and wil probably just get you more geared up for the film.
-
And usually it's only statutory any way.
-
... Philip Glass would be a great choice to score this thing. Still don't have much faith in this project though, and changing the squid seems like a stupid move also. Kinda changes the meaning of the ending...
-
Just a made up name to illustrate how making those "small" changes do more damage than the "big" ones. No squid=Could still work. Calling themselves Watchmen=LAME.
-
In the book, the main characters never form a team AT ALL (it's proposed that they do under then name 'Crimebusters', but it's a fairly important plot point that that falls through, and how), so it's not just the use of that specific name, as much as that there is a name for them at all, given that they aren't actually a team.And more importantly, even if they were, the 'Watchmen' title is supposed to be sinister and worrying in it's implications about superheroes and their role and effect on society, not a positive thing they would use to name themselves. It derives from the quote 'Who watches the watchmen?', which has obvious overtones of distrust for those with authority or power. It's the title of the book to give a thematic sense of what the story is about, rather than to be a snazzy name for a group of heroes. *If* indeed it was used in the film in that way it *would* tend to imply first of all that Snyder didn't 'get it', which I don't believe, and also wouldn't make sense for the characters unless they were suspicious of their own role and motives! Hitler didn't name his party the 'Racist Power-mad Fascist' party now did he?
-
good recall on HJ. It's starting to come back to me now.
-
Yeah... okay. The group was called the Crimebusters, not Watchmen, and there would be no reason to say Watchmen (Crimebusters) was over long ago because at their first ever meeting Comedian mocked them so severely that they never met again. There was nothing to be over. I know that movies can change things and whatever, but, no squid, Rorschach and Nite Owl talking about Watchmen, and each time they mention it they are careful not o use the word THE in front just sounds lame and stupid, but I am obviously a fan of the book. Maybe it won't matter to others. Le Vicous Fishus, it's good to see you fighting the good fight on the squid front, saves me a lot of time. (ø‹›≈≈ (ø‹›≈≈ (ø‹›≈≈ (ø‹›≈≈
-
I agree with your point which is why I am absolutely fine with no squid, as I explained earlier...way up there. However, the change to making the team Watchmen is a change that I think caters to the lowest common denominator AND a wholly unnecessary change. There's no reasoning really behind "We GOTTA call 'em Watchmen" other than a condescending view that people won't understand why the film is titled that.
-
There was no group called Watchmen. It's becoming more clear with each sound-byte and bit of video that Snyder is fucking CLUE-less about this story. I've never gone from this hyped about something to not gonna watch it before. Well done Snyder.
-
Good night all, getting late here in the UK and I've got work in the morning.
-
"Who are the watchmen? are these guys the watchmen? are those guys the watchmen? Is the blue guy a watchman? I don't get it." Yeah, it's sorta pandering, but I suppose I'm of the personality type that a couple of references to a group name wouldn't bother me if the story was right. which is why I'm still worried about the "no sqid" angle. (Though, if you check one of my above posts, I think I know what Snyder is up to and if it's right it might be pretty clever)
-
I'd say that's not a bad trailer. Patrick Wilson is good (though Matthew Goode is bad). Neither Crudup's nor Haley's voices seems quite right. And the dialogue is off. I'd say this looks like a decent B-movie, along the lines of Wanted. Unfortunately, it's Watchmen, so the failure - even low-level, still failure - continues to grow.
-
the theme twisted it self and almost went into the candyman theme. Hey not as much slow mo bullet time in this trailer. So I like it a tad bit more. Still I'm a big Philip Glass fan so I hate seeing his music used for the temp track. It's not like they will use it in the film and if they did all I'd be thinking about is why the fuck are they using Koyaanisqatsi's music!!!! Sure I'm not in the 99.9999999999999 percent of the world who wont know what the fuck that song is. but still. It would ruin it for me. I hate temp tracks!
-
watching this trailer. You're going to bump over a lot of things - voices... referring to themselves AS The Watchment... and it will make for, perhaps, rough viewing. But once that's out of the way maybe it rolls a bit better as a film? Here's what you should know and accept: whatever it is - it's not what's in your head.
-
good points, I have read it, and do know they were gonna be the crime busters but it failed, I forgot about that when I posted. So, yeah, that does make the watchmen as term odd. so maybe watchmen isn't there group name but a derisive collective term for all costumed heroes. Or maybe it's just a trailer thing, as someone suggested. or maybe they changed the "crimebusters first meeting" scene so that they do half heartedly form a group called watchmen. If the latter is true, then yes, I would cry foul.
-
they thought crimebusters sounded silly, so they changed that teams name to watchmen, also to signify the title to the general public. thats all. not really that big a change.
-
Yeah, I was willing to go along with story changes, but when Rorschach mentioned the name "Watchmen" a little piece of me died inside. There's NO WAY they would call themselves that. "Watchmen" is a BAD thing. I really wanted to get behind this movie, and yeah, I'll still see it. But this was the trailer that killed my enthusiasm for it. Snyder gets the STYLE, he understands the LOOK, but he doesn't understand the MEANING.
-
as other posters smarter than my pointed out, that's a problem because they NEVER FORMED A GROUP AT ALL. But, wait, Nite Owl and Comedian did work together later. That's uh, hmm...
-
Well, it is unique... I've never seen an entire movie filmed in slow motion before.
-
Trying way too hard. Let's hope the audio was cut just for the trailer. Dr. M sounds too... human. Normal. More reverb! He needs to sound more hollow, I guess. can't quite figure it out. Just off from human. Yeah. There you go. Looks alright, elsewise.
-
That is all.
-
... Watchmen is not an action-packed book. And the film shouldn't be either.
If it is, then please stop calling it Watchmen, because Watchmen is not about blowing shit up... -
win. that is all.
-
I thought the trailer was a little better. I still think the MTV video style is dated. We'll see where this film goes.
-
It's not that none of us GET why they made the change...it's the change and the lame reasoning behind it. It makes the movie more palatable for stupid people
-
Who was going to lead them? McGruff the Crime Dog?
-
The Glass song, "Pruit Igoe" if I'm not mistaken, was used in the 1st GTAIV trailer and is played on one of the in-game radio stations, "The Journey".So it's possible a few more people are aware of the song now.;)
-
...a potentially great film spoiled to death by stupid, pointless slo-mo. Good lord, just the trailer is promising but so damn frustrating to watch because Snyder can't curb his idiotic obsession with slo-mo, overly stylized bullshit. Just let it play out naturally retard, we don't need this artificial heft added to it. It smacks of trying too hard to make the audience feel an impact when the impact should be organic and already a part of the material. Are you listening, Snyder? You're a gifted director, so stop with the amateur gimmicks!
-
...who really does not like Rorschach's voice. I don't know how the Jeffrey Combs discussion above originated; I can't even conjure an audio image of Combs' voice at the moment, so I don't know if that works. But what they've done is over-the-top relative to what I imagined while reading Watchmen. Is this voice choice one of those meta comments? Given how straight it looks like they're playing a lot of this (no squid) - granted, I'm basing that on the trailers and there might be much subtext yet unrevealed - Rorschach's voice veering into caricature seems annoying, especially given all the discussion about Batman's voice this past summer and whether or not it was ridiculous/distracting.
-
Yeah, you could be write about the intended effect of the voice. I'll reserve judgment. I just found it grating in this trailer.As for Crimebusters, I was just making a joke. I get your point.
-
Aw HELL Naw: Muse, Referring to themselves as Watchmen, Muse, all the slo-mo, Ozymandias' banned-by-prop-8 mask, Muse, total lack of any goosebumps, Muse, Lack of the reason why people should see this story (there's a major reason why the comic book is an important peice of literature that should be taught in schools and none of these trailers convey that).
Umm... ok: No Squid (honestly the one part of the book I'd change myself), Silk Spectre, R's voice.
FUCK YES: "LEAVE ME ALONE!", Manhattan in general, Dan looks wimpy, all the superhero apathy on display, The Comedian.
Over all, I'm still excited, but I don't think this was a good trailer at all. -
... anybody who says otherwise has no idea what directors actually do. His movies have style, but by definition his movies are all crap so far. Cardboard characters, thin plots, no subtext what so ever etc. I won't even mention the slow-mo stuff...
-
Although this may sound provocative, my point is that the squid represents the sort of event that somehow unveils, to those willing to see, even if momentarily, the underlying reality shrouded by our acquiescence to ignorance when taking for granted the fact that our standards of living – namely our wealth and freedoms – come at a price (and that goes for everyone, not only the U.S.). The idea of the squid as an external threat is not as original as it sounds, since political leaders have always felt the need to demonize strategic opponents by characterizing them as enemies (the so-called ‘Other’) in advance of legitimizing any form of public support. However, I believe that the squid is meant to represent this ‘other’ on two levels.
First of all, and with regards to my reference to 9-11, I mention it in order to draw attention to how it was co-opted (as Dr. Manhattan was by the U.S. through a sense of patriotism, and then by Veidt through a sense of humanism) not only to legitimize the ‘war on Terror’, but more fundamentally as a means to 'end history' by taking advantage of the global solidarity that these attacks had provoked.
By the 'end of history' I refer to the phrase reappropriated by Fukuyama (supporter of the Iraq war at the time and co-signatory to the 1998 PNAC letter to Clinton urging him to remove Hussein by military means; http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm) which suggested that human historical process -- the primary concern of Enlightenment thought – had ultimately rejected communism and embraced liberal democracy as the highest, and thus final (i.e. best alternative under the circumstances), form of political and social order.
Unfortunately, this reading obscures the real challenges that was at play in Hegel’s original concept of history, and subsequently what Nietzsche, Marx, and Kojève struggled with, though all in their individual and highly distinctive ways. Therefore putting Hegel’s thought aside, it was the continuing problem of the best political order (desire for utopia) that troubled thinkers in the wake of WWII (particularly many of the French thinkers influenced by Kojève’s lectures on Hegel in the late 30’s). Having lost faith in the Enlightenment project of modern, rational, and enlightened people governing in peace - free from ideologies and moral dogmas – there came a pronounced aversion (particularly among the intellectual class) to all grand ‘narratives’ about the human spirit, seeing that these could easily be used as ideological propaganda on the ignorant masses by the tyrannical few (hence their anti-humanist critique).
Unfortunately, as many critics of postmodernism have observed, particularly those usually referred to as neo-conservatives (many of whom were originally Trotskyists, but quickly lost faith and instead adopted an anti-communist and anti-progressivist - or what they called bourgeois liberalism - defense of liberalism), this rejection of any claims to Truth or meaning – often associated with dogmatic theology or scientism – produced a culture of irony and relativism. The political dilemma was that modern western democracies, having lost faith in the universal validity of their fundamental principles (and caught up in internal debates about how to actualize so-called ‘rights’ to freedom and equality without making them seem too reliant on any universalist claims), were increasingly less prepared to intervene militarily in order to secure its national interests.
Of course, it was the U.S. that most exemplified this dilemma, having assumed its position as superpower after WWII (cf. the article “Dr. Manhattan: Super-Powers and the Superpowers”), and even more so after the fall of the Berlin Wall. As most political leaders - whose claim to power is sanctioned by collective approval - know, a nation’s foreign policy is always constrained by the moral or ideological sentiments of the public, despite the fact that the public is not always aware (and in many cases cannot be made aware) of the dangers that it faces. It is this precisely this dilemma that many in the White House sought to override by making use of 9-11 and implement the Bush doctrine of pre-emption without international approval (it merits mentioning that the Bush doctrine actually expresses a fundamental principle of power that any nation will adopt under given circumstances in order to retain control over its security interests, though none more than the dominant power, who has no choice but to attempt to maintain order and not jeopardize both its interests and the dominance upon which those interests in turn depend).
The squid – being both grotesque and ridiculous, and a remnant of the fears as they were expressed in those b-movies of the 50’s and 60’s whose posters are depicted throughout the comic (off the top of my head: ‘This Island Earth’ [ch.3, p.11] and ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still’) – is meant not only to represent the external threat that Veidt believed would bring the world together, but I think that it is also meant to draw our (i.e. the reader’s) attention to the ‘monsters’ – war, social decadence, alienation, etc. – that our culture produces (but also the graphic novel we, like the black kid sitting on the curb, are holding in our hands), and which continues to hurt us all (look not only at the ending of the novel, but the ending of the novel-within-the novel ‘Marooned’). For this reason, I think that the squid is meant to feel ‘out of place’ within the context of the story (just as Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan, like Vietnam in the novel, all feel out of place in comparison to the rhetoric of idealism, as well as respect for human rights and the rule of law).
In other words, it is meant to provoke a ‘wtf?’ reaction from the reader; as if to make us realize how contrived not only this solution is (and thus anti-climatic), but also to juxtapose our desire for some form of resolution with the other desires depicted throughout the story, namely: The comedian’s ironic and nihilistic cynicism, and how it depends on perpetual conflict, which is why it was the absence of conflict - the actualization of utopia itself, not the means by which Veidt planned to bring this about - that scared him the most; The U.S. desire to achieve and maintain global supremacy, albeit for purposes of international order, which ended up escalating global tension and anti-Americanism by those unwilling to acquiesce to their dominance; Veidt’s desire for global peace and stability, based on a misunderstanding of the paradox of human wisdom, which in fact represents the next step to this tyrannical desire for ‘good’, while Dr. Manhattan’s ultimate indifference likewise embodies the moral emptiness (i.e. inhuman, mechanical, watchlike) of reason when it sees itself as separate from the very human predicament – no matter how imperfect – that produced it (in his case, scientific intellectual curiosity).
And then there’s the ‘general’ public depicted in the book, which just wants to be entertained, consumes products that satiate their various desires, such as security (during the golden era of heroes the U.S. is at the height of its popularity), freedom (when heroes are seen as vigilantes, and tensions grow inside the U.S. due to Vietnam and the Cold war, and fears about the significance of Dr. Manhattan as a god that judges unscrupulously), comfort and individualistic narcissism (Veidt’s ‘Nostalgia’ perfumes; Veidt method), consumerism (Ozymandias action figure line and cartoons), escapism (sci-fi b-movies), hope in technological utopia (“Millenium” line), but most importantly our fascination with horror and ‘metaphysical terrors’ (see the end of ch. 5, part. ‘p. 61’on ‘Tales of the Black Freighter’ and the ‘Marooned’ story that is interspersed throughout the novel) and the ease with which our egos identify themselves with depictions of heroism notions about ‘saving the earth and mankind.’
Finally, precisely because it is these fears and desires that ‘Watchmen’ is, at its core, meant to depict, and regardless of whether the squid is used or not, I think that the movie will have failed if it does not incite some form of cognitive dissonance from the viewer (similar to what Fight Club was intended to do as well). Hence, to the question “who watches the Watchmen?,” the answer, both metaphorically and literally, should be: we do. With our books, our movies, our songs.. we watch the unfolding of mankind.
The Watchmen… that is us. And we’re responsible for what we do.
-
Definitely sounds like they're calling themselves the Watchmen. Where are the big "W" belt buckles? I think the vietnam scenes look bad. Like no better than Fisher's play from Rushmore. Snyder's slow-mo into regular-mo & vice versa technique blows. Other than all that, I'm psyched big time. Definitely on the screw-the-squid bandwagon.
-
DAMN! AWESOME. THIS WILL HAPPEN!
-
Please...no, come on. Tyler Bates is scoring the movie. Not the best choice but he's Synder's house composer. Christopher Young would have done a kick ass score. Brian Tyler, maybe. Alan Silvestri, grand, gothic when needed...ah well. And no squid please. It didn't work in the comic and would have been laughed off screen.
-
No. Not even in the face of Hollywood. Never compromise.
-
I was surprised how good Nite Owl looked out of uniform. However, Ozymandius still looks the weakest... I like him even less now.
-
This is what the most beloved graphic novel of all time has been reduced to? Really? Zach Snyder should be booed off the face of the planet. My expectations have been utterly obliterated now. Just more slow motion stupid shyte.
-
is supposed to be a monotonous whisper. He's an affectless sociopath who only shows emotion when he's involved in violence. Even when he speaks to Dreiberg about Blake's death, he's flat. To me, that's a lot scarier than the fourteenth-generation Dirty Harry ripoff we've been handed via Haley's voice as heard here. Imagine John Malkovich mumbling without inflection. That's what Rorschach sounds like, to me.
-
That's a great brake-down of the ideas in the book, although I don't agree with some points. And I don't see why people consider the squid silly in a world that supports a man that can bend time/space with powers that are godlike. In my opinion an attack by "squid from alternate dimension" would push the world in global unity much easier than anything from this world (including Dr. Manhattan).
-
....transformed into mediocre visual spectacle devoid of everything that makes the comic great. Absolute shit. Underwhelming. Visual effects for no reason. Fucking amateur night. I hope the Star Trek trailer is better.
-
Actually that is a bit of lie, it doesn't have to look like a squid but it needs to be a monster and it needs to be frikkin huge.
A lot of people are posting on here that it doesn't matter that Doc M is presented as the bad guy at the end.....I'm sorry to say guys that if you believe this then;
1 - You haven't read the book
2 - You have read it but have forgotton most of it.
3 - You have read it but didn't get it.
I bet many of you that are willing to put up with a changed ending were up in arms a while ago when it was thought that the Black Freighter story wasn't going to be filmed at all.
If you remove the squid (or large beastie alien type thing) then you remove the island and if you remove the island then you have to change the reason why The Comedian is killed, and this my friends, changes the story of The Watchmen.
You cannot herald Watchmen as "The most celebrated graphic novel of all time" in the trailer to the movie adaptation that sees fit to change the fucking ending. -
God damn I'm so upset I didn't think of that reference first. DAMN YOU!!!!
-
Ran way from video games shortly after my release day xbox died- not long after halo 2 came out. Havent looked back since. I have a life to live when I'm not mulling about in here.
-
This movie looks fantastic, but both songs they used for both trailers really suck ass.
-
The trailer is very cool but it didn't have the same effect as the initial teaser had on me. Maybe it was Dr.Manhattan's voice, (I was at first put of a little cuz he sounded nothing like how I imagined he would, but I quickly got over this minor aspect) and even the inclusion of Muse's Take A Bow wasn't enough for me (I love Muse, my favorite band). Maybe I have seen too many images of Watchmen already and I just want to savor what I haven't seen and really enjoy myself when I first see this film. I guess I've already lowered my expectations now that it seems highly likely that there is no Squid. I'm hoping that this is a big joke Snyder is pulling on the fan boys of the graphic novel. But this hope gets bleaker especially with the reported comment he supposedly made about the fan boys not understanding his vision. Thing is, he is tackling something that is the holy grail of graphic novels and he's just going to completely defile it, so yeah, there is going to be a backlash. How are you going to start this project claiming to now the fans and doing it for them and then make a completely asinine statement like that?! The Squid is very important to the novel, at least the representation of an otherworldly threat that all can be united against because it is not of this world. Manhattan is of this world, or at least was. I understand that Hollywood is a business so they can't just appeal to the fan boys but a wide array of people. I admit that the Squid in the novel looks a little comical at first but, for me, the first sight of it prompted so many emotions. There was the initial "what the fuck", but then there was "oh. my God," and then there was awe and shock, then there was, ah, yes, I understand now. I was really effective. If they didn't want to have a comical effect, they could have change the look of the alien into something less comical and still keep the integrity of the climax in the novel. I wasn't completely into Watchmen until the teaser trailer. After seeing the awesome visuals, and the Pumpkins' song really gave it an extra jolt, I went out and brought the book and it was the best thing I have ever done. So, even if the movie is not what I expected, I have the original source material, and that's really all that matters. So, I going to go and watch this movie not as a duplicate of something that I already love, but as a live action version of it and just be entertained. Then when I'm done being entertained, I'll go home to the real WATCHMEN, my first love. Whatever the end result is, fans of the novel should pay no attention to what could have been, but simply celebrate Watchmen by letting go all cares and worries and be entertained by this movie. If it's not good, it's not good, we still have the novel.
-
... then you'd LOVE the hanging log of shit that comes out of my asshole when I sit down on the toilet. Because that's the same damn thing as this new trailer. Utter crap.
-
If you think these minor changes and deviations are really so catastrophic to the overall story such that you will not be able to sit through or enjoy the film, then by all means for once speak up with your wallets and refuse to see this in the theaters and refuse to rent/buy the DVD, oh wait, that's right you're fan boys and no matter how much you bitch, no matter how much you complain that someone’s costume is the wrong shade of purple or that someone’s voice is in the wrong octave you’re still going to pay to have your collective asses in the seats of the theaters on opening weekend so you can run back afterwards to your computers and bless the world with your brilliant analysis of all the things that are wrong with the film. So come on you message board critics, show Warner and Snyder they should start seriously listening to the fanboys and show them that just because its based on a comic doesn’t mean they have your hard earned ticket money….but sadly you won’t be able to do it, will you? Alan Moore is so disappointed in you.
These shots look gorgeous and the film is ambitious to say the least, you critics all need to shut up and acknowledge that at the very least you are curious to see what Warner and Snyder have done.
-
You're a moron.
The squid was an unnecessary plot device. Frankly, Manhattan being framed makes a lot more sense and makes the entire plot tighter. Getting up in arms about the squid is the exact same as getting upset about a black Kingpin, flames on Optimus, Hulk not saying "Hulk smash!", or organic webshooters. It's silly surface shit, and missing the point. "Getting" the book means that you understand that the squid itself is not all-important, it's what it represents. That is to say, a legitimate threat to both superpowers. Alan Moore wrote a fantastic book, but it's not perfect. The squid is out, and the story is better for it. The constant slow-motion, however... -
...if you watch with the sound off.
I'm digging the aesthetics, but this trailer is making me feel a bit skeptical about the actual content. -
That's right, it's impossible to have valid opinions unless we fit inside your neat little box.I've read the book. I'm a writer and I keep a copy of full of post its and scribbles on my desk. I probably read it about once every two months. I get it. I know I get it because you claim to get it and I'm clearly smarter than you are.Okay, that was my one smart ass post for the night....but you brought me there.
-
why cant people accept that this could be awsome?...seems to look pretty legit and true to the book. same with star trek...why cant you just be excited? so fuck the fanboys that only say negative shit. let yourselves be excited for once you fuckin rat shit assholes
-
Wino! Wino no squid NNOOO SQUIAD
-
The Squid was the worst part of the Novel. It works... only because it's asks you to completely suspend reality. But... in movie form it simply wouldn't work. I don't know if you realize this... but the movie is not made just for the fan boy. Dont' get me wrong i understand the squid... but it doesn't translate to film.
I've read the Script... and I really have to say that the script works... and it works really well. It stays to the point of the novel, but does change a few things here and there in order for it to correctly translate it's self. It stays true to the theme and point, but strays in it's portrayal of those themes. I just hope people can see past the content changes and realize that the theme and the points have remained the same.
Cheers ^ ^ -
I can't believe that reference hadn't been made yet, either. I really wish Snyder had been as intent on being as faithful to the STORY as he was to the visuals, but I guess that wasn't a priority. Which is why this trailer and the (seemingly confirmed) rumors of a drastic change to the plot of the comics is such a damn let-down, because it's the STORY, not the visuals, (no offense to Gibbons) that is the real reason Watchmen was so amazing and is still so revered. Framing Doc is such a half-assed, story changing cop out that I have honestly lost the motivation to pay money to see this. I guess Snyder proved Gilliam was right.
-
Oh well, ten points for trying Snyder.
-
I agree that the movie COULD work with out the Squid ending, but going as far as saying that it sucked in the book or that it was the worst part....now I'm agreeing with Toolomey. I have my reasons why the Doc Manhattan angle could work in the movie...but if you REALLY think the squid didn't work in the book than you DIDN'T get the book.
-
and notice the Dr. Manhattan's cod piece is ridiculously oversized. Jesus, is this a Watchmen gay porno? I need to wash my eyes out with the eye soap.
-
whoa. thats all i got. and maybe a holy shit.
-
Moriarty said that shit, and he got that from another AIC guy "Capone?" who claims to be a fan of Koya. "Prophecies" is the tracks real name!!!
-
As long as the philosophical reasons behind the whole story is there it doesn't matter.
-
The fanboys really seem to be turning hard on this one. I'm hearing nothing but negativity from them everywhere. However, normals seem to think it looks pretty cool. So that counts for something.
-
It's the first trailer! First vid was a teaser.
-
im sexy
-
And after seeing this stuff I truly believe that Snyder does not get the book.
-
For the General Public Only!
You know "Thinking" it's a bad thing. We shouldn't make them do that... It might fuck something up. -
Why?
Cause these fucking trailers promise them an action flick! And Watchmen is not an action peace. -
Who do you spot?
-
I love the choice of philip glass' music from Koyaanisqatsi used in the trailer but am not liking the vocals they added over it toward the end. Otherwise it looks great.
-
As an effigy. On fire. I think.
-
Oh, fuck off, I and many other geeks are entirely capable of NOT seeing a movie we-- get this-- AREN'T INTERESTED IN SEEING. This past year, I went to a theater to see Iron Man, Dark Knight, and Pineapple Express. There were others that might have been worth a theater viewing, but I had other shit to do. Maybe you don't, but don't assume everyone's life is similarly empty. Unless I hear good reasons to see this from people whose taste in movies I trust, I'm saving that $10 for something I have a reasonable expectation of enjoying.
-
I'm as diehard a Watchmen fan, hell a comic fan, as anybody. I'm invested, okay?
Having said that, I think it's okay for a FILM ADAPTATION to be tweaked here and there for the sake of making a coherent story. The squid, for all intents and purposes, was a bit of a subplot, that worked its way into the main thread. Snyder, even in an almost three hour movie, couldn't possibly be able to put all that in, hence the nixing of Black Freighter. So, his alternative will probably be something the same in tone, but, something that's trimmed to fit the time frame and not alienate and confuse the non-fans.
I trust Snyder to do the right thing, and if the main theme is intact, which to me is "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts ablsolutely". What happens when the people who have incredible power to protect us, go off wing. Where's the balance. What happens when people who have all this power are as batshit crazy as the rest of us. I think that, and the dystopia, and impending doom feeling are what the Watchmen are all about.
You don't need a squid to tell that. -
Who gives a shit if they call themselves "Watchmen"? Here's a quote from ThomasServo, above: "Yeah, I was willing to go along with story changes, but when Rorschach mentioned the name "Watchmen" a little piece of me died inside. There's NO WAY they would call themselves that."
Really? But they would call themselves "Crimebusters"? That sounds like little boy crap. Does Watchmen really sound that much different than "Minutemen"? No. Find something else to cry about, like how all the colors are muted, thereby robbing the images of their power. -
I think one of the reasons that people like myself are being so vocal about the lack of squid is because during the last several months we have had Zack Snyder's grinning mug on our computer screens telling us how he has poured over every detail of the novel and is bringing a faithful and true version of it to the screen. Now, as the movie is near completion and the screening process has begun we find out that the end of the film (and therefore several other plot points) have been changed. Why harp on about how you are making on accurate adaptation to only reveal several months down the line (after whipping up fans of the book into a frenzy) that you have changed the story. It seems like a bit of a dirty trick to me.
Then again it's probably my fault for being nieve and believing that Watchmen could work as a movie in the first place. -
1) Dr. Manhattan's voice sounds wrong- either dub over it, or alter it digitally to be either lower, less "earthly," or both.
2) Rorschach's voice does sound like a Batman knock-off, and not a good one. It didn't need the "raspy" thing... I think the wavy lines in the book are far more suggestive of a kind of creepy, quiet whisper.
3) The "alien" could have been fashioned to look like something other than the "squid," and it would probably have been more effective towards putting genuine fear in the world of a serious threat, as well as validating Ozy's elaborate scheme. Putting a face to the threat in terms of the "known," ie Dr. M, lessens the genuine terror that is the UNknown. If a real alien landed in New York right now and killed a million or so people, the planet earth would INDEED collectively shit its pants.
4) This trailer, as much as I had very high hopes for this film, is definitely underwhelming. I loved the first trailer, but this one has me worried. -
You're also a moron. The ending isn't even being re-written dramatically. The squid is a means to an end, which is to destroy New York in such a way that neither superpower can be blamed for it. The same effect is being achieved, without having to explain why the hell this otherwise gritty movie has a giant squid being Manhattan-transferred into the city at the end.
-
It's Watchmen. They can take out the squid, but that aspect of Earth uniting because of an otherworldly threat needs to be present. It's up to the people behind the camera to come up with creative ideas to bring in a massive audience and not alienating the true fans by keeping true to that concept. Watchmen is not about pointing fingers on what corrupts who, but about the ideals for world unity and how those ideals shape our views and plans.
-
Yeah, I tend to prefer the matinees myself, but that guy's point was that TB geeks can't resist an opening night seat, and honestly, I can count on an unsuccessful bomb technician's hand how many times I've gone to an opening weekend evening showing of a new release. Between the armies of gibbering ADHD demon spawn and the insane prices for tickets and concessions and the lack of actual good movies, I really have no idea how theater chains manage to stay in business.
-
I have faith in you, Zack. This trailer isn't nearly as transforming or kick-ass as the original teaser, but it's still very cool. Hopefully the new trailer coming in January will rock everyone's world.
Still my #1 movie for 2009.
-
Octaveaeon has a lot of intelligent shit to say. Besides that, Snyder has lost my money, no doubt, until he fixes this trainwreck. You fucking hearing me, Snyder? I'll organize massive fucking boycotts, I've got nothing better to do you, lying piece of shit.
-
Forgive me, but I have not read the graphic novel but I plan on buying it. Before I do, can someone explain why the characters look like cheap knockoffs of other superheroes? Like the photo of them together looks like Silver Surfer, Wolverine, Princess Leia, maybe even the Invisible Man. Is this part of the plot? Are they superhero rejects?
-
What do you think? Is Harry gonna have Watchmen for his birthday?
-
The costumes are representative of all that has gone before in 30's - 80's comic books. They are indeed meant to be very campy.
Good luck with that boycott, boyalien, I for one will watch this film, possibly multiple times. -
I hope this never gets adapted in to a film. When I think about it, I had the same hopes for watchmen... Too bad Alan Moore does not own the rights to it.
-
Look at the New York "Explosion". It is the SAME effect Manhattan has for his teleport. With the horizontal expanding ring of blue (that takes out the windows of the buildings) and the expanding sphere which is centred on the teleport. Now does this mean Squiddy is DEFINITELY in after all and Snyder is pulling a fst one on everyone ? No, BUT *****SPOILER***** unless the "alternative" ending ALSO uses Ozy tleporting something into the centre of New York it's a bit of a coincidence.
Rorschach's voice is modelled on ALAN MOORE who has done previously done readings from Rorschach's journal in Rorschach's "voice". It has fuck all to do with Batman. Try again.
"Watchmen". It does jar. Watchmen means ALL the Superheroes first and second generation but it won't kill the film.
Manhattan's voice. Perfect in the LEAVE ME ALONE! Perhaps too emotional on Mars with Silk Spectre.. too little to judge yet. -
If, and it is a big if, this movie does well then in 2012 we will be getting the Watchmen prequel
Watchmen: Rise Of Moloch
Or, God forbid, the sequel
Watchmen: Revenge Of Bubastis -
I've seen that a lot of you folks on here keep writing that "the squid comes outta left field in the graphic novel" and that's okay because it's "within the confines of a comic book." But if you you've really ever paid attention to the book WATCHMEN, you'll have noticed that three things occur that hint greatly at what leads up to Ozymandias saying *******SPOILER******* "'Do it?' I DID IT thirty-five minutes ago."************
1) Moloch tells Rorschach about Edward Blake's state and what he said to him the night he showed up in Jacobi/Moloch's apartment (i.e.~ the punchline, the horrible thing they have on the island, if only he hadn't looked out the window)
2)The pirate comic book writer and the Indian Artist talking about what they and several Scientists helped design for what they though was a huge budget sci-fi movie ("I heard that they actually cloned a human brain for some of the effects.") on the island that was mentioned by Blake, as the artist is sketching some weird looking monster on her drawing board. The writer's "disappearance" could also be easily explained by a well-placed article("POPULAR COMIC BOOK WRITER MISSING') in one of the many newspapers we see at the stand which a crazy red-headed homeless guy *WINK* buys his copies of The New Frontiersman.
3)When the ship with the aforementioned Writer and Artist, as well as the Scientists, leaves the island (and everyone on board believes they are going home richer than they ever could have imagined). The Writer and Artist are about to bang each other in some sort of cargo area, when the Writer sees the huge amount of explosives rigged to blow the ship to smithereens. The last thing we see from the explosion is the slightly singed (sp?) yet still wholly intelligible full picture of the strange looking beaked creature that the Artist had been drawing previously.
I think, as BOTH a movie fan and comic book fan, people are smart enough to accept the way the novel ended in a movie, especially if there are subtle clues to it, just as Alan Moore had layered them in his story. -
Thanks for clarifying. I hope the graphic novel is as good as you guys hype it up to be. I will read it over the upcoming holiday. No boycotting this film.
-
are you me?
i agree wholeheartedly with everything you just said. -
the koyaanisqatsi music does not fit at all.
-
This is getting better with each viewing. High hopes indeed and I suspect they will be exceeded.
-
there's a pretty cool watchmen ticker that i found on www.thejonnyfilm.com sick trailer
-
...it's the idea that framing Dr. Manhattan is no different than faking an alien attack, that's the problem. I'd PREFER a squid, since Snyder's been SOOO fucking chipper about his insistence on being faithful to the comics, but ANY kind of faked alien attack would be fine... shit, have it be a giant Shia LeBoof head, or maybe just Keanu Reeves, I don't really care... but FRAMING DR. MANHATTAN for the attack is a half-assed solution to a non-existant problem. Le Vishus Fishes summed up the reasons much better in his posts, but substituting Doc M for this unspecified alien alters the story in subtle but important ways. Isn't Doc M already framed by Veidt for the cancer scare? It's just unnecessary and lazy and, in a story which is in no small part about one man's refusal to compromise even in the face of armageddon, it's a ridiculous abdication of responsibility on the part of the director to claim to fight for the integrity of the original comics and then roll over completely to the bland demands of studio suits when it comes to the absolute climax of the entire fucking story. This movie is going to be a commentary on the current state of superhero movies, for sure, just not in the way that Snyder ham-handedly intended it to be.
-
Every time I see one of the trailers, and they cut to a shot of Ozymandias, my brain starts to think it's "Sheldon" from "Big Bang Theory". Here's an example.
http://backseatcuddler dot com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ewwatchmen21 dot jpg
(make the edits to the URL, etc.)
Has this happened to anyone else? -
For getting so many people reading the novel. It really is a masterpiece and it's cool to see so many people picking it up for the first time.
I envy all you guys and gals reading it fresh but one of the best things about the book is re-reading it and seeing all the subtle little touches that Moore wove into the story. -
the fact that 300 was a piece of fucking shit.
-
Yeah, you're right, I won't argue that. That theme is very prevelant, and and I kick myself for not mentioning it in my original post.
I think we want the same thing. An event or alternative that the need to stop, but, ultimately brings people together. The moral ambiguity. I'm sure the director and producers and everybody really tried to come up with a proper solution. -
My t-shirt will be for all of the fanboys who want to wear something obscure. Yes it will be obscure, and they will be secretly satisfied that they are confounding the general public. They will also be cleverly criticizing the artistic choices of the filmmaker. But, once in a great while, they will have the satisfaction of receiving a knowing wink or nod from someone passing them in the other direction. My t-shirt will simply say...I Get The Squid.
-
Nov 13, 2008 9:58:38 PM CST
I agree about the good thing being people reading the novel...
by lordrando
I work at a bookstore and you would think Oprah recommended that bitch when the Dark Knight was out. Every saturday and sunday we sold like 50 copies while the trailer was out there. But the movie stil looks poopy.
-
yeah, I'm sure they did to the best of their creative abilities. I'm open to taking out the squid but to take it out and hear from other fans and the people behind the camera that the squid is not an important aspect just bothers me. What the squid represented needs to be there, that's all I'm saying. I guess we'll have to wait and see how well that concept was presented. But like I said before, need not worry, we should all just celebrate Watchmen.
-
Have I missed the thoughts of any of Ain't It Cool's editorial staff on the absence of the squid from the end of the film? It's clear from Snyder's recent comments that from the scripting phase on he never had any intention to include the squid, so it's definitely not turning up in the film. But where are Harry, Moriarty, etc. on this matter? The silence is deafening. Or are they just jockeying to get it at Butt Numb and a fearful that speaking critically will ruin their chances. Stand up and be heard, gentleman.
-
8===D ≈≈‹›ø)
YOU SEE THAT! I FUCKED THE SQUID!
Nerdy fanboys always, ALWAYS need something to get riled up about! Be glad the movie's been made to begin with! This is like fuckin Nipples on the batsuit! Nipple Gate....meet Squid Gate! Obama help us! -
leaves me feeling "Meh." The first one had me pumped, but this in kinda bland. All the voices seem wrong. Dan looks spot on without the costume. All the visuals look good. But the sound isn't matching up.
-
I would like to hear what Harry, Moriarty, Beaks etc have to say about no squid
-
I really don't like the look of this, it's too stylized. Watchmen doesn't take place in some fantastical world, it's set in gritty new york, not gotham city, not metropolis.
I knew when I first read the graphic novel 10 years ago that if it was ever made into a movie, the squid was out, and I understand that. The one thing I thought they would do, but really hoped they wouldn't, was actually call the team "Watchmen." I cringed during this trailer when that happened.
Overall, I never had high hopes for this. I'll see it as a companion piece to the book, but won't put too much stock in it. -
Gotta get me one of those Tees. You mind if I have the franchise rights for the UK?
-
Someone get this man a Lactaid.
-
I liked the first trailer, but this just isn't very good.
-
talkbacks and, to my immediate recollection, NO ONE has mentioned that Blake has NO SCAR ON HIS FACE. Watch the trailer again (no pun intended).
Sorry I was tardy to the party... -
I'm a fan, and I anticipate a mindblowing experience. I try to resist Watchmen-related talkbacks. I kinda wait and see how things turn out when it's a project I especially care about. T'hell with the haters. I dunno, I'm weird that way. Of all the things people would bitch about, I honestly wasn't expecting the squid uproar. Wow. Seriously, the most annoying tards are the ones gibbering "Nobody knows who these characters are...[drool]" What kind of point are they trying to make? I'm pretty sure at some point no one knew who the folks from Star Wars were, dig?
-
I'm a comic book fan and ex-comic book store owner that read the original Watchmen series when it was first published. While I did enjoy it tremendously, people must remember that the basic plot is highly derivative of an Outer Limits episode entitled "Architects of Fear." In that episode, a group of scientists try to avert a potential nuclear war by transforming a human into an alien monster to unify the peoples of earth by having them believe that they are being invaded by an alien threat. Sound vaguely familiar? In Sam Hamm's screenplay of the Watchmen, the original ending is changed as well. He also chose to eliminate the "squid." In fact, rather than trying to create a world-wide panic, Ozymandias created a time bubble which he was going to use to kill Jon Osterman before the accident which led to his transformation as Dr. Manhattan (believing him to be the cause for the current state of the world). When Dr. Manhattan arrives at Ozy's artic fortress, he sees himself in the time-bubble about to be trapped in the chamber. He immediately understands what it is that Ozy was attempting to do, and he plunges through the hole in time to save his former self (Jon Osterman) by enveloping and shielding him from the blast. Dr. Manhattan is destroyed in the process, but Jon Osterman is saved. It is actually quite a beautifully written scene in the script. I'm guessing from Zack Snyder's comments that Dr. Manhattan will probably make a similar sacrifice much as Batman does at the end of The Dark Knight when he tells Commisioner Gordon to let everyone think that he killed Harvey Dent. I have no problem with altering the ending if it still manages to capture the essence of the book. I compare it to listening to an album and then going to see the band live. Does anyone really want to hear a note-for-note recreation of the album?
-
You completely contradicted yourself. Snyder IS taking substance over style. The substance is the MESSAGE, which he's telling you is still there. The STYLE is the goddamn squid. Fuck, get a brain already, dumbass.
-
Octaveaeon...Keep it going!
-
While I have accepted the fact that the squid will not be in the movie, and I understand why they had to make that choice, I do think the filmmakers are making a big mistake not including it, or facsimile. Snyder and them have failed to grasp that the absurdity and outrageousness is what makes it so necessary. It is Hitler’s Big Lie Theory: the more outrageous the lie, the more likely it was to be believed. And I can think of no more outrageous lie than earth being invaded by a giant, alien squid-like monster.
-
it still *sounds* like the shitty bale batman voice, so who cares what the influence is? it fucking sucks regardless.
-
Not to derail too badly, but commenting on filmmakers changing endings,Peter Jackson almost mangled the ending to LOTR. As it stands it's still pretty screwed up in my opinion. the earth opening up to selectively swallow Every Single Orc at the black gate but no good guys was screwy and bizarre, and don't even get me started on PJ almost having Frodo push Gollum into the crack of doom, but the hasty re-editing of the scene we saw in theaters was obvious and redundant.
-
Nov 13, 2008 10:21:46 PM CST
And the pretentious assholes who critique the trailer's style.
by devil'sown
How would you have done it, ya Hitchcock wannabes?
-
I'll buy in bulk and pass them out at the theatres I visit so I can loudly shout out the ending of the film to all the people waiting in line to get in. Oh, and ebonic_plague, you are so fucking dead-on it's scary.
-
DON'T RAPE THIS BOOK
-
if they get 80% correct I'll be satisfied.....So far I am very happy with what I've seen
-
Fingers crossed the film works, I think the look is spot on.
-
This trailer is really growing on me. Snyder really pulled it off. It's watchmen right off the page.
-
Nov 13, 2008 10:26:10 PM CST
Oh, and the fucking losers who predict box office results.
by devil'sown
The first step to overcoming a problem is admitting you have one.
-
I don't think there'll be a squid, which is a shame because the whole intensity of the story WAS a fear of nuclear war. Then 'POP': they're other, unworldly things to be afraid of, kiddies, let's join together against them.
Now, if they make it look like an attack from Dr. M, well, it just confirms all the fears everyone was building towards and diminishes the impact.
That said, all around, this looks as close as a movie could get: that's why it's called an adaptation. Sure, there's disappointments in the trailer, but also things to like. I'll go see it and cheer to those latter moments, even if disappointed by the lack of a more unconventional mcguffin.
What confounds me are the people who are vehemently decrying this whole thing a piece of shit -- when do we get to see YOUR movie, children, hmmm? -
It is a good thing that this movie is generating interest in the comics. I will give props to the filmakers for that. Here's hoping Zack made a pretty decent adaptation, but I'm not expecting a masterpiece at this point.
-
But it was definitely the most overly-complicated. It took so long for Ozy to explain what he did and how he did it that the story ground to a halt just when it should have been getting to its climax. A movie needs something that can be easily explained without going into the whole backstory with the kidnapped artists and cloning and dead psychic's brains.
-
Found the quote from a darkhorizons interview "“The fans, god love ‘em, they’re all up in arms about the squid,” said Snyder. “What they should be up in arms about are things like shooting the pregnant woman, ‘God is real and he’s American’, whether THAT’S in the movie. That’s my point of view, maybe I’m crazy.”
That's exactly what's wrong if you ask me. Snyder seems to think that the "moral imperative" of Watchmen is nothing but dark cynicism. He's utterly missed the point. Watchmen is not slow motion or shocking violence that seems extreme for a comic book. It's a novel, like Gravity's Rainbow or War and Peace, in which here is never clear cut good or bad, only the moral complexity of the universe itself.
Alan Moore was right all along. -
...we don't know what he replaced it with. You guys really do make sure you have all the facts before bitching.
-
any time someone finds a good piece of music it gets jammed into every movie trailer until no one ever wants to hear it again, lazy people find your own orchestral/oprahchoras song
-
Look at 00:00:17 in the trailer, it's a bit dark, but The Comedian's face looks scarred to me.
-
I would've done it by letting Paul Greengrass do it, someone who's actually handled moral complexity and even the morass of history such as Bloody Sunday with a skill and versimilitude that most directors envy like you wouldn't believe. He may have planned a Watchmen that might not have looked anything like this but would've have explored or felt the same dimensionality as the original work.
Reading about the credits sequence with the Watchmen / Forrest Gump stuff just furthers this for me... It sounds like a commercials director took Watchmen and replicated cool beats visually without any sense of a coherent whole. I don't need to see Ozy hanging with David Bowie photorealistically, for fuck's sake.
And the fact that he blames this on the script drafts he read not having the squid is just a total pussy cop out excuse. -
So let me get this straight you're not going to waste your "precious" time to go see this in the theaters because your not interested in the movie, but you've wasted over an hour of your life on a talk back about a movie you're not interested in seeing??? Huh?? I call B.S. you're ass will be in the seat opening weekend.
-
they would be three of the worst films ever made.
-
Full disclosure: I haven't finished the novel, but knew of The Squid long beforehand.
1) Never been a fan of a Hollywood when they take TOO many liberties with the source material. Alan Moore is quite justified with being pissed.
2) Shitty video game tie-ins are nothing more than a money grab, and devalues the film even more. Why oh why is there going to be a "Watchmen" video game!?
3) It's sad when Hollywood THINKS they have a conscience when they are afraid to include questionable material. Of course, they couldn't even get the Prop. 8 vote right. So why would I think they would get this project just right?
4) Maybe Snyder is fucking with us and The Squid will be in the film in some matter. I can understand keeping it a secret if the source material wasn't already known.
5) As for the movie itself, the question that should be asked is will it be a good or decent movie with a piss poor adaptation or a good movie with a good or great adaptation, or be absolute horse shit? I believe it will be a good or decent movie with a piss poor adaptation. If you look at films based on Moore's work, can you even think of one that came close to matching the source material ("From Hell", "V for Vendetta", "Constantine", etc.)? Does Hollywood even try? I remember how shocked I was with the hatchet job of "V for Vendetta". Did I like the movie? Very much so. Did I like the adaptation from the source material? FUCK NO!!!! It was an absolute insult to Alan Moore and any fan of the novel! Still a good movie. But every time I watch it these days, I can't help but to think how much better it would have been if they had taken a chance with being closer to the novel. -
if you've read and believe the portland reviews, then yes, we pretty much do know what he replaced it with. Count that along with that bit in the DH interview where he says this:
"I won't say exactly but... Dr. Manhattan has a certain energy signature, it's clearly his thing...so you know."
That's enough for me to bitch. So fuck you, and fuck Snyder, and fuck EVERYBODY who thinks that this is in any way okay, BECAUSE IT FUCKING ISN'T OKAY. -
Come March, the weekend Watchmen comes out, having seen this trailer and read Snyder's statements, as someone who has bought the book six times in my life (various editions, moves, gifts, and the absolute watchmen edition)... I am going to tell my friends not to bother, and stay home that weekend and play probably an Xbox 360 game or a PS3 game or watch something on BluRay. And then I'll watch Watchmen six months later on BluRay thanks to Netflix, on a pristine screen with no projector problems or people txting each other while I watch it. And then I'll probably just go "meh, nice try, looked good" and stick it in the envelope and carry on with my life, eventually making some snarky comment on how they didn't get it right on AICN. On the other hand, I will totally admit that I will go see Up, Transformers 2, and Harry Potter 6 in theaters.
-
Chin up, princess, you've just got sand in your vagina. Nothing a quick douche won't remedy.
-
I think the voice over of Rorschach referring to the team as the "Watchmen" is one of the small differences between the film and its' trailers that Snyder mentioned in his most recent interview. He pointed out the censorship of Doctor Manhattans penis for example, but noted that there were multiple alterations in the new trailer. The term Watchmen might be something we only see prior to March 6th. Most likely they will still be the "Crime Busters" in the actual film.
-
Nov 13, 2008 11:06:15 PM CST
Liked it, except for the music and Manhattan's voice
by theghostwholurks
Loved the music from Trailer #1 and Dr. Manhattan's voice is too normal. It completely takes away from the feeling that he's separated from humanity... even though he's a glowing, radioactive, sky-blue nudist. But maybe that's the point.
-
For me, it always seems to me to come back to the question of "If it's so fucking good that it needs to be adapted, why fucking change it?" and, in this case, "Does the writer of The Scorpion King really think he can out-climax the original author?".
Any uncultured wank out here on the untamed asshole farm that is the internet who thinks that "the squid" (ah, so simply put, li'l tardbabies) is unnecessary to the story (1) probably didn't finish "reading" it (just looking at the pictures while seated in a Barnes & Noble easychair DOES NOT count) until five minutes ago, if ever, (2) probably didn't adequately comprehend or even care about 50-75% of the book, and (3) vocally supports the sort of 'hack & slash' approach to adaptation that has ruined, violated and shat upon so many promising properties before this one.
You bastards raped Christ and killed someone's childhood.
And fuck the Smashing Pumpkins a full decade ago. What fucking timewarp-for-douches did you people just fall out of? -
fuck you man. youre not a true believer. support the effort at least you fuckin bum. go see you heros on the screen if not for the sheer reason that you owe it to youreself. you let yourself get all negative about it because theres a few differences when you should be psyched that its gunna be a movie...at least its a GOOD comic thats a movie. maybe try being positive about it instead of automatically hating it liek every other rediculous fanboy.
-
I loved the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen when I read the comics, and sat around here dissecting all the info when AICN ran those stories before it came out... I still haven't bothered to watch more than 20 minutes of that movie. So kiss my ass with "you're" bullshit. And the weekend Watchmen comes out is my birthday, actually. I may not have jack shit to do tonight, but I promise you I'll have better things to do than suffer through a theater of people like, well, yourself, just to see some onscreen CGI cosplay in yet another underwhelming Hollywood bastardization of an otherwise enjoyable Alan Moore scripted comic book. I might see it after that, who knows, but rarely do I even see a movie anymore in enough time to actually talkback about it afterward here. That obsessive opening night shit is a young fanboy's game. Dark Knight was the exception.
-
The Comedian's scar has been so downplayed. In the book, it completely screwed up his face, making him hard to look at. You can barely see it in the clips shown. He should have a creepy half-smile carved into the right side of his face from mouth to eye.But, heck, they've got Rorschach down pat, a pretty dead-on Nite Owl and a hot Silk Spectre, so I should count my blessings. :)
-
That's not Smashing Pumpkins in the trailer. It's Muse.
-
...until I've seen it. - - - - - - - WOW - - - it feels good to get that off my chest!!!
-
the premature reincarnation of Stan Lee?
-
I'm glad he kept the Koyanisqatsi jams.
-
... but we will be getting the full 20 minute narrated sequence of Doc Manhattan pondering time. Awesome.
And I think the shots of Patrick Wilson out of costume at least should allay earlier fears that he's not schlub enough. Actually, I think all the characters look great (except Ozy, natch). -
why should we as an audience go and see a movie just to "support the effort"? Surely this would be sending out the message to the studios that we'll go and see any old shit on the screen because hey at least they tried. Not me sir, I will not settle for mediocrity, in fact, I'm with drturing, except I'll just bit torrent the fucker when the dvd rip is avaliable.
-
I saw them last summer. absolutely incredible show. obviously some of there stuff is terrible and down right unlistenable. but what about the gold? bullet with butterfly wings? zero? so lets take it easy on poor billy corgan.
-
Thanks but I wasn't speaking of this new trailer but the 1st, and the discussion of Corgan's Abortions that was taking place earlier in this TB.
-
how could you not go see a movie liek this? i feel that if you really grew up loving comics especially this one, youd give it a chance. at least support the comic book movies...or at least comics. what REALLY looks so bad about it? i feel liek everyone is so ready to just hate on everything that comes out just because they feel smarter picking out flaws than letting themselves enjoy it
-
so does this trailer, squiddites be damned.
-
I'd say writing off a movie as mediocre before you've seen it is just as lame as going to see a movie just to "support the effort", wouldn't you?
-
Nov 13, 2008 11:24:58 PM CST
here is the problem with no squid- it changes the story
by the_one_man_gang
the comedians story hinges on the squid. if i am interpreting the book correctly, blake was killed by viedt because of his knowledge of viedts master plan. Blakes storyline hinges on this- his crying at the end of molochs bed... moloch telling this to rorschach (sp)...which leads rorschach to different clues, to which he ultimately unravels the mystery. blake knowing what he knew gets him murdered.
the story changes dramatically if there is no gathering of scientist and artists to create the squid, therefore blake never sees the truth behind veidts plan- meaning there is no reason for his murder- i dont think anyone has thought of this? -
The sequence is that Blake saw the island on which Veidt is preparing his plan. Him building the Manhattan machine on this island serves the same purpose.
-
I agree with you 100%! People need to stop whining.
-
lets be honest: the best thing this guy's directed is a smashing pumpkins video based on Watchmen. Dude should prolly stick to videos, none of that talky dialog or those bothersome "storylines" to worry about. He can't even make a version of a GRAPHIC novel look good. Dave Gibbons has basically walked him through the whole thing, and dude churns out garish colors, shitty cgi, & zero atmosphere. I shouldn't really care, it's just that because of this movie, we'll be lucky if a proper adaptation ever gets made in our lifetimes. It's endearing that you guys protectively cling to squiddies and crimebusters like you can save them. Let it all go. give up on this movie. i did about 5 minutes ago and god do i feel better. i have 16 whole weeks free of impotent tantrums and nerdy late-night internet rants to look forward to! It's like I just went on vacation. see ya in march, amigos!
-
I've watched it about five times now... what I'm seeing is scene after scene that looks as if it was taken straight from the comic (oh, excuse me... GRAPHIC NOVEL). So there are some costume updates, but it's basically all there. Give it a chance before you shit on it, haters.
-
Just because the master plan doesn't involve the squid, does not mean that the Comedian still doesn't discover the plan and get killed for it. The plan could be anything without changing that aspect of the story.
Would I like to see the squid? Yes. Can I live without the squid? Also, yes. -
Did we see the same trailer? No atmosphere? Is your contrast or brightness too low or something?
-
thats why...im just totally down with giving it a shot. for the experience of seeing the effort of bringing a great comic to the big screen. im just pumped to see at least a good try or at least some awsome charactors in a new way...im not ready to slam it until ive givin it a shot...have SOME hope true believers
-
I like that attitude, and i agree.
-
Long live the movies!!!
-
i'm happy there is an element to the movie that we wont know of ahead of time.
-
Alot of people forget that WATCHMEN was released in single issues. I have NO ISSUE with it being called a comic book.
-
Nov 13, 2008 11:36:57 PM CST
the music in this trailer is a biliion times better than the fir
by wash
no, make that 192,398,793,281,724 billion.
-
thats what im talking about. why cant people just let themselves get excited? totally agree about the squid...doesnt really change the story line too drastically...think of the poor cgi we dodged
-
Do you think that a comic book fan should see any comic book movie simply because they enjoyed the comic? If so, I couldn't disagree more. Oh, I'll see Watchmen. I'm quite optimistic for it and I enjoyed 300 and the DoTD remake. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think you should treat comic movies THAT much differently than any others.When I was a kid I LOVED Fantastic Four comics. I saw the first one in the theater, and I thought it was terrible. And even though the Silver Surfer is one of my fav characters, I skipped the sequel. Ditto to Daredevil. Ghost Rider. Electra. Etc.
-
I will admit that the movie "looks" cool. Snyder and his production design team have captured the look of the book perfectly. I was over the moon when I saw the first pictures of the set and excited when I saw Silk Spectre etc for the first time.
The reason why I won't go to see it is because they have changed what made Watchmen so great in the first place and that is the story. Going to the theatre would be a waste of my money and time because the whole time that the movie is playing I will know that ending has been fucked with and I'll end up dissapointed and ever so slightly poorer. Meanwhile the studio will get ever so slightly richer and think to themselves that they can change whatever they like about our beloved books, comics, games etc., because they know that you will go and see it because it looks like what you love, when in fact it has all the charm of an ATM. -
...I know... my own private joke. I was corrected (wrongly) by a guy at work once that it's the FIRST graphic novel. He argued about it for an hour. Wouldn't shut up.
-
Seriously, I'm chafed and irritated and pissed and depressed and I need to go see a doctor. All thanks to Zack fucking Snyder, that piece of shit who lied to me at two successive Comic-Cons.
-
The guy would NOT accept that I knew more about Watchmen then him. It was like I destroyed his world.
-
fuck studio bullshit, I WILL NOT go see this movie or buy a dvd if the ending is changed this dramatically. count my money out, I'm a TRUE BELIEVER and that doesn't mean being an idiot or a sheep.
-
next time you look at watchmen, read the "word" in the "bubbles" and on the margins that contain "text". You may notice some differences.
-
Visually it looks great but I still don't think they can do it. By the way is anyone else pissed that they made a video game "prequel?"
-
there's no accounting for taste, or sensibilities for that matter. Enjoy!
-
i can definately see what you mean. i think i might jsut be more geeked about it than most. but to me...that squid at the end...does not really chance the story all that much. i feel like as long as there is something to fill the void. it can still be the same overall story. im not happy that the squid isnt there. im not happy about don fuckin cheadle either. im definately all about keeping movies legit. but i did not like a single movie you mentioned above and i didnt see them in theater. but that was because the traliers and actors were all wrong. in the watchmen movie, i feel they are much more in the ball park. i hope we can at least agree on something.
-
Really, they should've just stuck with Phillip Glass, b/c I was loving the trailer 'till that crappy "rock" music kicked in. If you're gonna go with that electronic, dreamlike rockish sound, at least go with Radiohead over this tripe. But really, just stick with Glass next time.
-
just because some asshole could convince the suits he could adapt Ulysses doesn't mean it would be any good. c'mon man, you know better.
-
Look, most of us have been urging our friends who would never give time of day to a comic book that Watchmen is one of the great novels of the 20th century, not just graphic novels. This is something we tell them with a straight face, insisting that there is a work of art within its pages that is on a par with anything Don DeLillo or Kurt Vonnegut. We've been saying this for years, as they've always gently thought "yeah, he's all right, but he's way into those childish comic books. I mean, I liked Dark Knight but it was no Tolstoy.
If this movie is their first exposure to the work and it has no depth, then the general public is going to think that all of us who have been urging that the graphic novel format deserves respect just as much as any other form of literature will were right, and it will continue to be a marginalized, looked down upon artform that you have to love defensively. -
Next time you want to be a smartass to me.... realize that I don't give a shit about what you think you know about me.
-
haha "I WILL NOT go see this movie or buy a dvd if the ending is changed this dramatically." this dramatically? yeah its not too big champ. get over yourself.
-
OOOHHHH.... I have to taste. OUCH!!!! THE BURNNNNN!!!!! Dumbass.
-
I don't like the cars that I've seen in the trailer/production photos.
In the book the cars look very distinctive (kind of egg-like) and use those electric hydrants.
I swear I saw a fucking Camaro in that trailer. -
Dr. Manhattan's voice. They need to be deeper and more resonent. Also, RELEASE THE KRAKEN SNYDER!
-
I just looked up the video game; Watchmen: The End Is Nigh and I think a little piece of me just died.
-
What part do you think he'll play as a cameo? The cranky newsletter editor?
(Yeah, I'm just pullin' your leg, true believers.) -
Thanks
-
It's got some pretty visuals but that's about it. The marketing for this film has been disappointing.
-
You're assuming that because there is no squid, the entire message of the movie and all it's nuances are lost....
I'm going to make a bet that you haven't seen this film. So how the fuck would you KNOW if the work "has no depth"? -
HURM. Rorschach is supposed to sound disconnected. I mean, THAT has been stated. All my above nitpicks aside, ALOT of it looks great. I love Blake's line in the beginning. I hope it's not super obvious to the crowd that it's Ozy.
-
Nov 14, 2008 12:08:44 AM CST
veritasses: "It's got some pretty visuals but that's about it."
by playkins
Of course, man
They have to sell this movie to shitheaded fratboys who just want to see a "hawt" chick in a skimpy outfit and superheroes running around for 2 hours. Do you think they'd be interested in a movie if the trailer made the film LOOK like a weighty drama?
WHY can't people seem to make this distinction? -
I take this poster and the cinema marquee to be a direct reference to the whole notion of "external (alien) threats uniting nations for a common purpose." The point of the squid (i.e. what it represents, not the actual squid itself), and the book in general, is that externalizing our fears only momentarily suspends the inevitable (much like the current financial crisis). The problem is that whenever we reach stability, we tend to forget what it took to produce (war), nor much less what is necessary to sustain it (hence the vulnerability of any democracy, which was well understood by the Greeks), since this entails confronting those abrupt moments when the frailty of our way of life and ideals are made manifest. Consider how at the end of the book a newspaper article reads "NY Survivors Reveal Nightmare Under Hypnosis", and a tag on the wall warns to "watch the skies" ... as if collective amnesia has started to dissipate the sense of urgency and apocalyptic horror (Apokálypsis is Greek for "lifting of the veil," or revelation) to a low-level awareness of threats residing outside the planet (and thus out of our control... what a relief, eh?). At least with the nuclear threat, and the watchmen, the danger, albeit externalized as 'other' enemies, was at least recognized to be a threat inherent to humans in general. However, the semblance of hope -- the revelation of the true nature of their so-called peace -- lies within a book... Rorsach's diary (and maybe in art in general, since a sign promoting a 'Tarkovsky' season implies the importance of art, in this case a more mature and complex form of sci-fi, as the mirror of the human soul; Stalker, for example, which takes place in a post-apocalyptic world, is about the essence of our desires, but also of the desire to control, if not destroy, these desires out of fear of what they may unleash - a squid perhaps?) The notion of the book, in this case the graphic novel, as a means of apocalyptic revelation is best demonstrated in Moore's 'Promethea', which literally ends in an Apokálypsis.
-
hah i feel like its a lost cause at this point. some people are just idiots. cough tolomy cough drturing.how can people already be saying "the film has no depth"? and how many people dont like spider-man comics because of spider-man 3? im excited for it. most people are idiots here. screw these morons dude...theyre so quick to hate.
-
Look, if this was gonna be a cable miniseries I'd be right there with all of you yelling that no squid means no go. Beyond the reality of making it all fit in a 2.5 hour movie, one of the biggest complaints about there being no squid is that the squid is an alien and therefore existential threat to the world. And, furthermore, that Doc Manhattan as an American cannot accomplish the goal of "the world coming together" in the wake of an attack by him.I see it more as the conclusion of a character arc for Doc. The ending of his absolute separation from humanity.Keeping in mind that ALOT of US cities get destroyed as well, it would appear (probably esp after his talk show appearance) that Doc has turned his back on humanity as a whole. HE IS THE ALIEN. He has become the existential threat that mankind is willing to toss aside it's difference for.I think, in alot of ways, it makes him a much more tragic character. He comes back to Earth, wanting to help and...just like in the comic..he's unable to.I've got more, but let's see where that gets you. It's plenty of depth.I'm sorry, I just can't imagine how sloppy all that exposition with the Island, the Artist, etc would've been on such a short time table.
-
dude, i wasn't trying to "burn" you. You're parsing something that wasn't there. The film looks totally uninspired to me, and you love it. cheers to both of us ffs, we have opinions.
-
I'm done with this talkback. Depressing.
-
yes sir. right on.
-
I read that like "My taste is obviously better than yours, and you have none." Peace.
-
...They always try to change the ending of screenplays from the source material. Why? Because if you've just seen Watchmen and your talking to another Alan Moore fan, he's going to ask, "Is it just like the book?"
If you answer "Yes," then he might shrug and wait for the DVD...why pay top dollar for a foregone conclusion. If you say "Almost, but the ending's a LITTLE different, but I won't ruin it for you," you just sold a ticket on behalf of the movie studio.
Then he gets out of it, and goes crying to another friend about his beloved squid that's MIA. Now that guy goes to see it just because of the fuss.
And so on. -
The whole movie seems kind of too slick for me. The comic is about washed up has beens past their prime, and their prime wasn't even that great.
-
but doesn't rorschach's voice sound like a dead on double for a certain billionare dark knight's?
-
actually did the voice for dark knight AND rorschach. fact. :)
-
A trailer isn't just about showing how pretty the movie is. Story gets people into the theaters. People want to spend $10 to be entertained by a good story. To that end, a trailer needs to inform, pique interest, and excite as many people as possible, all while keeping it simple. If they're just marketing "the greatest graphic novel ever made" to shithead fratboys then they're not doing their job.
-
Nov 14, 2008 12:29:41 AM CST
ror is too short, ror's voice is too shit, manhattans voice is f
by stengah
big cons. this movie better have some fucking rape or im not seeing it.
-
Nov 14, 2008 12:32:07 AM CST
Who cares when AVATAR is fucking our eyeballs in 2009?
by motoko kusanagi
nobody
-
what fantasy are you living in dude? they already know what people are informed and difinately gunna go and that these people already know the story. they wanna grab as much morons to buy tickets too... so the trailer is just there to look pretty and get the extra idiots to buy tickets. welcome to hollywood.
-
Wow, someone understands what marketing is all about.
-
I'll wait for it on video. Also, the Absolute edition is back in print if you'd like to get a nice hardcover copy.
-
who thinks this trailer was very underwhelming. Nice choice to use some Muse music but a very disappointing trailer. Rorschach didn't sounded too great. When Doc screams leave me alone, that just looked awkward.
-
Nov 14, 2008 12:45:40 AM CST
IT PUTS THE BANANA HAMMOCK ON OR ELSE IT GETS BLUE BALLS AGAIN
by ryanmurray
IT PUTS THE BANANA HAMMOCK ON OR ELSE IT GETS BLUE BALLS AGAIN
-
You're not wrong in remembering that....I had a volley with a bunch of morons earlier tonight about that.Some are claiming the audio sounds off and that it's not gonna be that way in the movie....I was SUPER confident until I heard that. Once I heard "Watchmen" I immediately thought..."Oh shit! I was totally wrong and Snyder doesn't get it!"
-
Good grief... You must be from the marketing department.
-
1) That trailer looked absolutely 100% amazing! Now let's just hope the actual movie can back it up. But the trailer is a very promising sign. 2) I can't stand all the haters who love a movie when it's out and then go back and try and act as if the movie was butt or something. The LOTR movies were absolute modern day classics. All of us were loving them during their run. For cats to take pot shots now just cracks me up. I'm thankful for those movies and every cool movie that comes out because you know what? Nothing's promised- we didn't have to have them. So, it's always easy to nitpick but I'm just thankful for great movies. Stop hating and put a smile on your face. Peace.
-
WATCHMEN is a movie for US. It's the geek film NOBODY ever thought would ever get made. It's the movie almost every one of us have talked about at one time or another and concluded, "nah... it will never happen."
Well, someone listed for once and it GOT MADE.
Now, because there's NO SQUID, it seems like most of the "big fans" are complaining and saying they WON'T go see this film. They say they won't see the film they've been wanting to see but never thought would happen.
So, guess what happens: They stop making movies based on graphic novels. No "Maus", no, "Astro City", no "Love & Rockets". The studios won't see "Watchmen" doing shitty as a result of there being NO SQUID. They'll see it as lesser-known properties not being worth the risk.
The best thing to happen would be for "Watchmen" to do well- but not as good as say, "Dark Knight". This might make the studio ask why it DIDN'T do as well, and they might figure out that people want more respect given to the source.
Said my peace, done. -
Not crazy about him saying "I knew you would come", or whatever badass shit he says. He's not supposed to be cool in that scene. He's BROKEN. He spent his evening sobbing in front of Molochs bed due to the weight of the worlds horror crushing down on him. We're sacrificing character to look cool there.
-
...Why do people think the average moviegoer needs to know about characters before hand, in order for a film to be successful?
No one new who ET was.
or who jaws was.
or what Star wars was.
really, this sounds like a new phenomenon. -
Bunch of whiny, stuck up, think-they-know-it-all children whose only pleasure in life is to bitch and moan about things they could never possibly achieve themselves! I'd laugh if I wasn't so goddamn suicidal about the fact that you arrogant little shits are the future of my species!First of all, there has not been a single adaptation of anything, from one medium to another, that has not changed something. The reason for that is quite simple: different mediums have different rules. If you want to know a character's inner thoughts, for example, in a written medium (comic/novel etc) you can just write those thoughts down. In a visual medium such as film, though, you have to communicate these thoughts by using actors' performances, music and other cinematic techniques such as shot composition and editing.The same applies to plot points, as certain ideas will work in one medium but not another. A classic example is the whole Scouring of the Shire sequence from LOTR. In the book, it is the ultimate demonstration of the cost of the war and TOLKIEN HIMSELF called it the most essential part of the story. In a cinematic version, though, the climax of the story is clearly the events on Mount Doom, so, while you can have a demouement after this, you cannot have a second, lesser (cinematically speaking) climax.Whatever it is that you like, whether it is Watchmen, Star Trek or ABBA musicals, if it is adapted to another medium then some things that you love about the original will be lost. Equally, some things you love about the original will survive, just as various things you hate about the original will be both left in and taken out.None of this matters, though, because the real question is "is the adaptation any good in its own right?" In the case of Watchmen, the question can be put even more specifically as follows:"Is Watchmen a good movie when compared to OTHER MOVIES rather than the graphic novel from whence it came?"Now, I may be alone and unique in this respect, but if I want to answer whether I think a movie is good or not, then WATCHING it features pretty fucking high on my list of tests to carry out. NOBODY - NOT ONE SINGLE GODDAMN PERSON - is in that position, because the damn thing isn't out yet! People are basing their opinions on nothing. Any shit film can be made to look good in a trailer, just as a great film can have a crappy trailer (Fight Club's soap commercial trailers, anyone?). Similarly, single scenes (which have been seen by some) can look as good or as bad as you want them to be when taken out of context. Until someone comes on this, or another, site and says they've seen the entire movie, played out from beginning to end, with fully finished edit, effects, sound and music, thenEVERYSINGLEOPINIONis meaningless!Even then, when there are reviews plastered all over the place, I will still go and see this movie myself, because I want to form my own opinion on it. The graphic novel is a great graphic novel (although in my opinion both Preacher and James O'Barr's Crow are better), but I want to judge the film as a film. I may like it, I may not, but that's up to me to decide ONCE I HAVE SEEN IT. Anyone (and there are plenty on these boards) who have already decided what their opinion is going to be without ever watching the film are IDIOTS, plain and simple.Finally, I would like to direct a comment at DAVEORAMA 17. Quite a simple comment really.FUCK YOU, YOU ARROGANT CUNT!!!Who the fuck do you think you are making some stupid statement about how you will refuse to download Watchmen if the Squid isn't in it, then saying "ain't getting my badwidth, Snyder" like that vindicates you?! I'm sure plenty of people on this talkback download movies - I am one of them - but to actually get on your fucking high horse and claim that you won't ILLEGALLY download a $100 million plus movie FOR FREE like you're fucking Ghandhi staging a peace rally is possibly the most ignorant and selfish thing I have ever read on any message board across the entire internet! In fact, possibly the most ignorant and selfish thing I have personally ever heard another human being utter!! Fuck you and your fucking bandwidth!Sorry, guys, but that really did annoy me!Rant over!
-
I'm sorry but the one thing I really didn't care for in the hole graphic novel was that ridiculously retarded fucking squid. I'm glad its gone.
I do agree that the voices aren't my favorite but hopefully I'll get used to them as the film goes on. Although to be honest I don't think this trailer will help the film as a hole as it appeals to the readers of the novel but probably doesn't look as titillating to the mainstream movie goer. In fact some shit probably looks down right goofy. -
Even if the story is done correctly (which we know from the squid it isn't), the style is WAY off. It should look like Taxi Driver, You shouldn't see a Watchmen trailer and think it's cool to be a superhero. Watchmen Superheroes get fat, get impotent, get raped and stop baithing.
-
Fucking AMEN, BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!
-
As long as Snyder replaces the squid with something that believably unites the world then it's fine.
-
1. Upon repeated viewing, this isn't as bad as my first impression, but there is no question that the trailer is VERY poorly put together and that there is a somewhat "B-Movie" vibe here that is very troubling. They better polish this fucker like a diamond over these last few months.
2) I would quickly pull this trailer and replace it with a better edited one before the bad buzz spreads too far.
3) The Comedian's scar being downplayed is clearly a decision based on fear that it would look too much like a "Joker" rip-off. I agree with that, BUT it could have been more substantial and just higher up and not connected to the mouth. 4) "The Watchmen" as a "team name" sounds horrible... I hope that's trailer-only. 5) I'm still kind of mystified by the voices, although I'm adjusting somewhat. Isn't it obvious that Dr. M should have sounded kind of like Spock? I'll try to give this the benefit of the doubt for now. I really do want to love it. -
Yes, I am you. I am all of you. For when you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes back through you.
;) Just kidding man. I'm totally not you. That would be super effed up. -
i guess theres just no hope for some people. theyll continue to lead lives where there are faults with every movie and cant have fun watching a single one. i for one refuse. im gunna go see it, and im gunna have a great time. i hope everyone has fun wallowing in negativity.
-
Ok, I'm sold. I'm totally in love with this movie based on two sub-par trailers, simply because it capitalizes on a comic book I read a few times.
Nevermind that the writers are changing shit up and probably screwing with the overall story. (ho hum, it always happens, right?)
Nevermind that the director has exhibited that he's more aptly suited to directing really eye-catching automobile commercials than great movies.
Nevermind all of that, I'll definitely go see Sack Znyder's Watchmen movie and buy the inevitable horrible videogame adaptation (thanks, tolomey), all because, as GENIUS SAGE OF OUR TIME PLAYKINS put it, if I don't Hollywood'll never EVER make another comic book adaptation again.
Gosh, I'm glad I had this miraculous conversion. -
I MAYBE agree with downplaying the Comedian's scar. But considering that everything in this movie references back to comics anyway, I don't know that the link to the Joker would have necessarily been a problem Have to think on that one. I'll get back to you all, because I know you are all deeply vested in my opinion on this matter.
:) -
http://www.powersquid.com/surge3000-calamari-edition-surge-protector-p-186.html
-
I am now worried! The only way this can be salvaged if somehow they frame Manhattan for be co-responsible for teleporting/creating a squid/monster/alien creature or something but all the same it's all fucked up. THe only other way this can be salvaged if if Snyder makes even more changes to everything like nuclear war and Comedian and Adrian's motives, which means a whole smorgasboard of changes so it can all come together and make sense as a movie, but that also means it'll be very different from the book. In which case all this pandering to keeping shit faithful and exact is bullshit, but at least we'd get a redeeming movie... Plus I'm starting to worry about the slo mo and as a tip when putting comic panels to screen, fans don't care for a frame by frame shot for shot approach. Just the key scenes would look cool for example like Comedian flying through the window or Manhattan appearing in the cafateria, but we don't require ever fucking panel translated on screen...
-
It's worth it for that last shot of Ror.
-
With major gortage. http://tinyurl.com/59s5me
-
....but I prefer plain 'ole "Playkins".
-
Unfortunately it's not enough to claim the talkbackers aren't reproducing.What about all the trailer park crack whores producing litters of them in the first place?Ok, now I'm just getting childish. Still fun, though :)
-
1. The "alien" threat works because it's unknown, scary, and as far as the populace knows at that time, DOC IS NOT AROUND TO PROTECT EVERYONE ANYMORE, and it's up to regular humans to band together and prepare a defense against the squiddies.
2. So doc acted as a nuclear deterrent for all those years, the Russians never thinking to launch an assault because doc would zap most of their ICBMs and rain death on them if they tried anything, yes?
Having him be the big bad scapegoat at the end just doesn't make any sense. A united USA/RUSSIA would be just as powerless against doc as the Russians were by themselves. The idea of banding together to fight doc is just silly, if he wanted to he'd kill everyone on the planet in about 5 minutes, there is no defense. Epic Fail.
3. Good point about the need to change the reason for the comedian's death without the island, but I suppose Ozy can be building those zero energy machines on the island just as well as he was the squiddy.
4. It's been said, and I'll say it again, why be so goddamn meticulous about every little detail of the movie and then change the ending? That's silly. Make it an intergalactic space-chicken for all I care, but it cannot be Doc.
5. Everyone looks great save for Ozy, no offense to the actor playing him, he's just a bit skinny and young.
6. Rorch doesn't sound all that different from Alan Moore's narration.
7. Doc does sound a little too human to me, like others have said I would have prefered a more disaffected, etheral voice.
8. Nit-picking is fun, and you like it to or you wouldn't have been reading all of these talkbacks. -
The world is turning into a sewer.
-
We're learning to love the smell of shit.
-
mine wouldve contained a lot of words like "cunts" & "knobheads" and be completely unreadable, well done in saying exactly what i feel about the arseholes that a: judge a movie without seeing it and b: cant accept that comics/books/movies are completely different mediums thus leading to slightly different experiences, you really would think these talkbacks were populated with baboons
-
As far as "stuck up, think-they-know-it-all" types go, you're gonna be hard to best after that fucking novel up there.
Also, "Preacher and James O'Barr's Crow are better" than Watchmen?
I enjoyed all of the above, but I think that statement tellingly nails where you're coming from with regard to style VS substance, so kindly fuck off.
-
The other kicks you in the dick.
Oh fickle TB.
-
...the fanboy community is just made up of spoiled, whiny babies like yourself that can't see how good they really have it and insist on looking back at 20-year old cinema through rose-colored glasses.
So what's the encore, are you going to complain about how shitty CG is next?
Now this is an example here... but I remember... REMEMBER... way back in '97(?) when everyone was bitching on THIS SITE about how bad "Starship Troopers" was.....
About a month ago "Troopers" came up in talkback and about SEVENTY-FIVE percent of the people were talking about, "oh, that was a classic.... a mistunderstood masterpiece.... wonderful satirical cinema...." blahblahblah. I nearly laughed myself silly.
People (like you) refuse to accept that the movies you cherish from your past are significant TO YOU. THAT is why you remember them so fondly. They were no better (in most cases). It is all about what they mean to your life.
I'll bet money that you are the kind of person that gripes about how MUCH BETTER the music from your childhood was, right? Well, it wasn't. There was tripe, vacant bubblegum pop and one-hit-wonders then, too.
Get off your fucking soap-box and stop complaining, you pompous toerag.
Fuck off. -
What an assuming twat.
I'm sure that you know everybody and the way they are, right?
Keep swearing your rightness, one of us will be proven wrong. I'll gladly admit it if I am, will you?
For the record, and at risk of totally going off the rails, Starship Troopers sucked ass then and still does. -
if you could prove it was the same people abusing Starship Troopers that are praising it today but because you can't and they probably are not your point is completely worthless.
-
always imagined it a bit more resonanant.
-
"In my movie, Superman doesn't care about humanity, Batman can't get it up, and the bad guy wants world peace."
-
It doesn't need to be the same people. The point is that a box-office flop that was nearly universally panned like "Troopers can come to be regarded as a classic by many in less than ten years. Looking back on anything can make it seem like a whole lot better than it was.
Nostalgia. -
And even though Alan Moore can come off as a douche sometimes I completely respect him for hiding from this schlock.
-
I wonder if all the bitchers and whiners here, sniping at Snyder, are willing to back their vitriol up with action?If you don't like what you're seeing then don't pay the money to see this film, don't download illegal copies, in fact ignore the film completely and simply re-read your copy of Moore's original. That never changes: that will never let you down.Either shit or get off the toilet but don't sit by your computers assuming the moral high ground and then go grovelling like the little whiney bitches you are to the IMAX premiere.Of course, you'll say that you are allowed to criticise and then watch the film, but that's what pussies always say. They bleat, simper and stamp their little feet then go blithely wandering into the cinema and support that which they stood against.How can I write this? Well, Lucas got none of my cash for the last three Star Wars movies because I knew they would be a compromise for me and if you can't be true to yourself then who the hell are you?I have lower expectations about The Watchmen so I'll be there, not minding the lack of calamari. Grow some balls, all you carpers.
-
incredible music. Great voice over and visuals that are going to absolutely blow our minds on the big screen.
I love the book as much as anybody. I collected it on original release in single issue form, but seriously, the squid would be ridiculous in a movie.
It looks like it's going to have style and substance.
I simply don't understand the hate so far.
-
Still too much of that slowed down/speeded up bollocks for my liking, Crudup's voice is...well, Crudup's voice and what's with them referring to each other as 'watchmen', eh? They called each other as 'masks' in the book...
-
Who the fuck said anything about looking back at anything?
If you're trying to make some misguided point about the relative worth of Watchmen being decided in retrospect, either comic or movie, you should probably try to clarify.
Or not. You could always just keep making asinine presumptuous statements unencumbered by minor annoyances like facts or even an informed opinion. -
The first trailer's Pumpkins song was haunting and powerful and suited the images - this one is just whiny, Emo bollocks...
-
Nov 14, 2008 3:19:45 AM CST
WB HAS NO IDEA HOW TO MARKET THIS FILM!
by i_am_not_the_droid_you_are_looking_for
That was a terrible fucking trailer. It made NO SENSE. If you're a Watchmen fanboy, maybe it did, but to "average cinema goer" it will be a random selection of images that in no way captures the imagination. I bet if they played this trailer together with the 2012 one, 90% of "average cinema goer" will want to see 2012. This film is going to tank.
-
Are they going to be used in the movie as product placement?
-
Squids or no squids, now is the time for the world to come together ...
... and just watch The Dark Knight again (on Blu-Ray™). -
Generally, no. This song, yes.
-
...the better, more apt Muse track?
-
I'd like to see (but am too lazy to look up) numbers on sales of the Watchmen TPB. I'd assume they're up, as it seems a lot of people have recently become experts.
If there's one unadulteratedly good thing about this movie, in my opinion, it would have to be that hope, that even more readers have sought out the source material and enjoyed it as much as I did. -
stilted and disjointed like a sociopath savant. And Doc Manhattan sounds like Stuart Smalley from SNL instead of a demi-god who has lost his humanity irreversibly. Ozy looks like he belong on a lost Saved by the Bell halloween episode. Without the squid the island loses it's subtext of "life imitating art" and takes the conspiracy from artful and sophisticated to bland and basic. This movie will be fun for stoners to synch up to Darkside of the Moon but will ultimately be a half-assed adaptation of Watchmen.
-
Glad to see more footage from the film. Looks and feels exactly like the graphic novel. I guess I can live with stupid small changes like "costumed heroes"/"masks" and "Crimebusters"/"Watchmen". I can't wait to see the film.
-
The ending's defaced.
-
Nov 14, 2008 4:24:53 AM CST
"Average Cinema goer" watches Movie bout man dessed as bat shock
by g100
This film is goin to b... SHUT THE FUCK UP! Nobody KNOWS for sure what this film will do and I for one am getting pretty fucking tired of the same idiot pocket Nostradamuses (Notradami?) telling us how things WILL DEFINITELY be with this film every watchmen talkback.
Those who wish for some very amusing entertainment should look in the AICN search box for "The Dark Knight". Now go look at one of those talkbacks preceding the Movie. The further back the better. Read the exact same style of prophecies of CERTAIN fucking Doom.
Am I saying this will be another Dark Knight ? Nope. But we simply DON'T fucking know yet. So the hysteria on both sides is a bit much.
Could the ending and Ozy and the excecssive slo/fast-mo totally fuck this Movie up ? YES. Yes it COULD.
Has it ? We simply don't know yet.
But so far even with those obvious misgivings it still looks far better than many thought it ever would. And until I see the actual whole Movie I'm not gonna be satisfied or arrogant or 100% CERTAIN based solely on trailers and rumour thanks very much. -
Sounds like Cristian Bale in DK.
-
When he did the Rorschach voice in a few readings of the Rorschach journal ?
Yes, yes they fucking have.
And though I'd like it to be slightly more monotone than we have yet heard the Rorschach voice is going to be all over this Movie and so far it certainly isn't as forced as Bales voicing was to my ears.(which again hardly killed TDK to be fair)
That voice also has some absolutely SUPERB dialogue to speak. So whether it is the precise pitch or decibell some would like won't seem quite so crucial if those lines are delivered well.
The actors in this film still have to act so they need some room to move behind Rorschach's and Manhattans voice.
And if Manhattan can deliver "I am disappointed viedt. VERY disappointed" and the speech that follows as well as it should be then job fucking done. -
"Who the fuck said anything about looking back at anything?"
Uh, gosh.... let me see here.... it couldn't have YOU, now, could it?
"The Bad News: The world is turning into a sewer." "The good news: We're learning to love the smell of shit."
You were talking about films, right? Being that this is primarily a FILM site? Or... were you "totally going off the rails"? God I hope you aren't one of those pessimistic douchebags that goes on about how crappy everything is nowadays.
And don't tell me about being presumptuous... go back and read your first post.
"Any uncultured wank out here on the untamed asshole farm that is the internet who thinks that "the squid" (ah, so simply put, li'l tardbabies) is unnecessary to the story"
If you really want to know (or if it even matters you ELITIST ASS)- I bought the copy of Watchmen that I'm staring at right now in 1992. It was highly recommended by the owner of the comic shop I frequented in high school. The corner of the book was chewed by my dog, there are loose pages, I wrote notes in the margins when I did a paper on it in college, and it's been read at least 20 times. -
Nov 14, 2008 4:44:57 AM CST
"Average Cinema Goer" knows who the fuck Batman is shock
by i_am_not_the_droid_you_are_looking_for
They have no idea who the fuck a Watchman is. Every piece of marketing for this film has failed to explain to them who the fuck these characters are, and why they should give a shit. It’s ALL been a series of random images, and Rorschach’s incomprehensible (without the context) voiceover. This film could be good, and I hope it is, but my comment regards WB's handling of the education of "average cinema goer". And this is a one-time affair for WB. Batman Begins didn’t do HUGE numbers. It laid the foundation for The Dark Knight. Watchmen has no sequel to replicate TDK phenom. The only reason all this matters is that if this is a big hit, then other, slightly obscure comics or books will have a greater chance of getting made, instead of yet another remake or sequel. That is all.
-
Jesus christ. Grow up. "WAAAAAH, THEY NEVER CALLED THEMSELVES WATCHMEN IN THE COMIC, WAAAAAAAH" Fucking hell, and this doesn't sound so much like reading a funny book as doing homework "WAAAAAAAAAAAAH, You're not a real fan unless you read all 9,324 text extracts as well as the comic, and you don;t understand unless you've researched" "WAAAAAH, SNYDER JUST DOESN'T GET IT, WAAAAAAAH, HE'S CLEARLY NOT READ ALL 9,321 ESSAYS ON THE SUBJECT" You should be more concerned that the main villain looks like a candidate for prison rape ("That's a real purty mouth you've got there Ozy") than the fact that the vagina faced appetizer isn't in it.
-
...because I'm not allowed Javascript etc on my work computer - but I'm pretty amazed how many fags here are harping on about prospective box office, rather than giving me the nine-one-one on what the fuck happens in the trailer. I don't give a flying fuck how many sequels the studio wants, or how many more graphic novels could be adapted if this movie does well....
I just want to know the what to what to expect from this trailer. Is there any special FX stuff done to Cruddup's voice at all? What are Rorshach's lines? Throw me a bone, people! -
1) Warren Beatys 'Dick Tracy' movie
2) That episode of 'South Park' where Steven Spielberg and George Lucas rape Indiana Jones
3) My terrible impression of Batmans voice in 'The Dark Knight'
4) How lame it is to have almost every action scene in slow motion
5) Just how much more talented Paul Greengrass, Terry Gilliam and Darren Arnofsky are -
Batman Begins had to overcome the hurdle of the pile of stinking shit that was Batman and Robin. And Begins wasn't as good as TDK. If TDK was first it would still have made huge box office because it's a far better film.
The point also stands that you don't NEED to know EVERYTHING and every characters backstory in a Movie before watching it to want to watch it.
As has been said "average cinema goers" didn't have a clue what the fuck Star Wars was or more recently Lord of the Rings huge cast. (again those are examples of "brand" I'm NOT saying Watchmen is going to replicate either of those)
Do I think WB is doin the best job possible for watchmen ? Probably not. But they ARE getting it out there and talked about which is a start.
And rest assured the Hollywood moneymen noticed TDK's gigantic boxoffice so Watchmen certainly won't be the last comic book adaptation regardless of how well it is realised or indeed, not.
At the end of the day the comic is still going to be there whatever happens as well. So to repeat what others have said for raising awareness of the original comic alone this Movie is a good thing.
(even if it does ultimately disappoint or EVEN, who knows ? turns out to be good.) -
So you'd prefer to know if they used special effects on an actors voice in a trailer? Here's your bone... You, sir, are the saddest fag on this TB.
-
Manhattan's voice is going to be that? Cruddup's own voice, unchanged? And why is Rorschach voice so lamed down than the first trailer?
And what's with that overusage of the word WATCHMEN?
I know i'm being overannoying, but at least they should keep the MINUTEMAN name. It has the hole thing with the meaning of the word WATCHMEN... -
What Snyder and Hollywood appear to be doing in THIS "Watchmen" movie seems to me the antithesis of what Moore was doing with HIS "Watchmen." After reading the comic series recently, I think Moore did indeed create a "deconstruction" of the typical super-hero comic book. There were long sequences of dialogue, philosophizing and self-analyzing, instead of the usual action and suspense. The panels had a static quality to them, contrast to the dynamic flowing style you might find in another comic story, even Moore's Swamp Thing books. It seemed Moore truly was questioning the idea of heroes like Superman, and Batman and Wonder Woman(who I think were anti-symbolized by the anti-heroes in Watchmen). It was like Moore created a world of Bizarro-Heroes living and breathing in our everyday world. Moore's "Watchmen" seems to me to question the very existence of traditional American comic books.
So, then we have Snyder and Hollywood's "Watchmen", which FROM VIEWING THE TRAILER, Philip Glass music aside, looks like a typical super hero action movie, complete with slow motion cinematography and pretty composition. I know I should hold off until I see the movie in whole, but, especially since I'm aware there won't really be any Philip Glass music in the film and also being aware of the kind of movie Snyder made in "300", I'm expecting a different yet typical super-hero movie, which is not, in my mind, what Alan Moore created back in 1985. -
First, Playkins, what I was doing is what is known as a non-sequitur. It was not an initiation into a discussion on whether or not any movie is any better than any other, from now or twenty years ago.
My having referred to users of the nomenclature "the squid" as tardbabies speaks more to those who use it derisively, never even having read the damned thing, in some cases, as opposed to those who actually coined use of the term affectionately.
Now, Jarv, I don't actually give a shit whether they call themselves Watchmen, although it does for some reason remind me of the old Upright Citizens Brigade 'titular line' sketch. I care slightly more about squiddy, and most about whether or not the source is given some respect. Unfortunately, I gave up caring about the fact that Veidt looks gay as hell months ago, when that first batch of images hit.
My sandy vag is largely due to the fact that I think Zack Snyder is a ill-suited choice for directing anything but car advertisements and/or some really futuristic-looking porno. If you guys don't mind him, fine whatever, but I thought his DotD remake was a derivative piece of shit that totally missed the point, and 300 didn't do a whole lot for me either, and I'm just bummed that assembly-line filmmaking won out over some reasoned arguments, by arguably more talented artists, as to why this should or shouldn't be done.
If Snyder pulls off what to me would appear as a coup and makes a great movie, I will henceforth and forever STFU about it.
But seriously all, if AICN TB is not the place for potentially inlammatory, mindlessly indulgent geek rhetoric - where, then, is? -
...I'll take you're one of the posters who's greatest concern is whether WB execs will be able to continue rubbing themselves all over with cash, then.
-
The LAST thing the "From Hell" book was about was an exploitative gory whodunnit. Yet the From Hell Movie is the exact antithesis of what Moore decried in his book.
The book is a study of the entire society NOT a determined detective POV hunt with the "thrills" of Jack the Ripper horror.
Likewise I understand the point you make about Watchmen and the fact that some of the action sequences have clearly been expanded, points to a more action oriented Movie.
But it will STILL (unless it is a complete fuckup) have some of the superb scenes and dialogue that made Watchmen not just a dry dissertation on the contradictions and commonalities and philosophies of the Superhero myths BUT (as with most of Moores best work) it manages to still BE a great example of the very thing he is scrutinizing.
So the watchmen comic HAS some solid comic book action in it. It has some truly memorable characters and it has a fascinating and complex story. Just taken as a "standard" comic book adventure watchmen works and works beautifully. Even without all the layers of subtext and irnoic reflection.
I think some of that action and story and character IS probably going to translate into rock solid Movie entertainment. I certainly don't know how much but we will at least see some of these characters and scenes brought to life and that could and should be quite a sight. *IF* it's not a complete disaster. -
I'm still not convinced. nothing seems to jump out from the screen, it just lacks vitality or energy. it's way too solemn, too heavy, no lightness of touch. the same problems that affected 300. I've read watchmen and it is serious stuff but so was the Dark Knight but Nolan achieved a perfect balance, serious subject matter, perfect tone and imbuing it with a certain freshness. At least there isn't much shouting and there's no mention of the word sparta, thanks be to fuck
-
Going from a secret island of missing artist and scientist who must convey an alien attack to simple blue bomb attack that seems like the blue guy did it is a serious conspiracy downgrade. One is worthy of the Watchmen's place in literary history the other is not.
-
The problem with what Zach Snyder did really has little to do with squid, so much as the material clearly had a definite, powerful aim , and he RENEGED on it. Which is that this was a critique of the superpower - specifically AMERICAN POWER - that is more than willing to resort to doomsday weapons to achieve ' world peace ' - and how the concept of superhero is symptomatic of its 20th century politics. Sure its about an endgame, but it's THIS endgame : if it was right to bomb Hiroshima, in the face of a Japan hellbent on escalating World War, wouldn't it be acceptable to obliterate New York as well, given a similarly determined United States of America ? ( What isn't 9-11 about that ?!? ). The squid, or death ray for the matter, would only be means with which to bring on that point. BLOWING UP SEVERAL OTHER CITIES IN THE WORLD DOES NOT MAKE THIS POINT. It dilutes it. It completely misrepresents the story's purpose during its time, and for all time; and reduces the cast from solid geopolitical metaphors into kewl, hip buncha happy murderers. Which says that Snyder doesn't just get it, HE DOESN'T WANT TO. He's clearly evading what this graphic novel and Alan Moore was unapologetically at - coz it implicates America. It implicates his stupid fucker neo-con kind, and he doesn't even have the PURE DECENCY to tell it as it is; sacrificing the artistic integrity of material that's clearly superior to him, for his off-putting assholery. The distinct pro-Iran War bent of 300 looks his doing in these eyes ! What makes Alan Moore's work immortal was that it was largely a political tract - one that can stand against the best of the novels and literature, and what they can come up with ; the mere fact that he dares sustain this level of sophisticated discussion on printed material about capes and cowls, and stood partially vindicated . Its what later writers took and ran with, and advanced the medium since. Not so much the Batman not being getting an erection, or graphic violent uber sexual FLUFF. It's not just the line ' God exist and he is American ' , but what the hell that is suppose to MEAN. Someone taking on this material should have at least understood.
-
I was in the bar scene, in the back, and when Rorschach and Nite Owl came in, I said "I'm just so tired of all these Watchmen".
It's not on the video release. -
If they are actually going to stick with ' the world went to doomsday due to Dr. Manhattan's alternative fuels ( what Snyder terms as ' energy signature ); doesn't that defeat the stratagem of Ozymandias, given that they'd know the threat is definitely Manhattan. And a darn lazy way of tying things up to an atomic theme : Dr. Manhattan is the nuclear power guy - why not just make him EXPLODE. Lame.
-
Nov 14, 2008 6:09:30 AM CST
Ha! That’s one way to put it, Ghostball...
by i_am_not_the_droid_you_are_looking_for
More accurately, my opinion was concerning how poorly WB are marketing the film to general audiences. If you haven’t read the comic, you have no idea what the film's about. The trailers and posters are not clarifying anything. Thus far, it’s been a collection of random, “cool-looking” images and unrelated soundbites. But it appears my concern for the film doing well enough to encourage other similarly difficult adaptations getting made pales in comparison to the concern over Billy Crudup’s voice, because taking a look through other talkbackers opinions, it seems to be the most important issue. Mental note, i must focus less on the big picture and more on Ozy's suit, or Rorschachs hat.
-
Was it was a legitimate political tract - one that can stand against the best of the novels and literature, and what they can come up with ; the mere fact that he dares sustain this level of sophisticated discussion on printed material about capes and cowls, is what later writers took and ran, and advanced the medium with since. Not so much the Batman not being getting an erection, or graphic violent uber sexual FLUFF. It's not just the line ' God exist and he is American ' , but what the hell that is suppose to MEAN. Someone taking on this material should have at least a basic understood of this important legacy.
-
...because audiences will go in expecting an action-packed superhero movie and get a philosophical treatise / murder mystery instead.
-
Then you go and change the ending distorting the entire conspiracy that overshadows the entire story beginning to end. DUMB. It's like topping a deluxe sundae with a dingleberry instead of a cherry.
-
I didn't think they could improve on the orginal trailer, I was wrong.
-
is that everyone seems to be forgetting that (a)who cares if the movie sucks? There's still this amazing graphic novel out there called Watchmen that you can pick up whenever you can and read it; (b)artistic licence being taken in movies based on literature shouldn't piss anyone off unless they do it like they did in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. One of the biggest complaints about The Dark Knight was people saying "Oh, that's not the Joker. They messed up, they messed up, all hope is gone, there is no balm in Gilead!" When in actuality, yes that was the Joker. It was a different version of him, but it wasn't the Penguin, that's for sure. What I'm saying is a director or writer can change the "facts" about something while leaving the "truth" of it intact. The Lord of the Rings films are prime examples. Do you know how much stuff they changed from the books? Almost EVERYTHING. And yet, when I watch it, I know I'm watching Lord of the Rings. And they're good films. And I don't care what they changed because I've read the books. I know the difference.
So they friggin' changed the Minutemen to The Watchemen, so what? Trivial detail. I wouldn't care if they made Doctor Manhattan lavender-colored as long as he acted like Doc Manhattan.
Please everyone, stop all this bickering.
But of course I could be wrong. And I'm sure that someone will point that out with more colorful language than I used. -
The mastermind presents the public with a terrifying disaster that forces the various countries and armed factions of the world to put aside their differences and work together to defeat a common enemy. NOTHING IS LOST IN THE NARRATIVE IF THAT ENEMY ISN'T AN EXTRA-DIMENSIONAL SQUID MONSTER.
-
And the biggest problem with your above argument is that (b) totally contradicts (a)! you're saying that (a) doesn't matter if said movie is shit because you still have the GN, then (b) but it matters if they fuck the movie up LOEG style.
INCOMPATIBLE! DOES NOT COMPUTE! -
Nov 14, 2008 6:54:30 AM CST
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
by fathermcgruderkicksassforthelord
is almost certainly guaranteed to live on in perpetuity as the worst Moore adaptation ever. Snyder's definitely got that going for him.
-
...I was only wondering whether they did anything with the voice - it's no big deal if they haven't, just would be a nice touch to have him talk like that computer out of the Space Sentinels or something...
suppose if Rorshach was wearing a tiara instead of a fedora, that would would just wash over you, as long as the marketing was good? Just kidding, I see your point - it's just that I have no interest whether the wider world, its dog and her mother ever go and see the movie -as long as it gives us a solid, captivating, standalone experience... or at least doesn't make us cringe too much. -
There's no argument to be made here: if you've read WATCHMEN, and more importantly FUCKING UNDERSTOOD IT, you'll know precisely WHY the squid climax is so important: it's an EXTERNAL THREAT, a gigantic alien that could be the first of millions, that could overwhlelm the Earth without breaking a sweat (at least, that's the impression its creators were hoping for). In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan famously said in a Presidential speech that the only thing that could unite the world completely in peace and unity would be an ALIEN INVASION. Even that dumb bastard understood this. Getting an atomic man-god who everyone KONWS works for the US government to blow up a few cities would NOT unite the world in peace and equanimity against a common enemy - it would unite the entire world AGAINST THE US FOR CREATING MANHATTAN IN THE FUCKING FIRST PLACE!!!
Which means: OZY'S PLAN DOES NOT WORK.
Getting rid of the squid = invalidating the entire underlying premise of what WATCHMEN is about, and what Ozy's plan was all along. It's not about it being a fucking squid - it's about faking an ALIEN INVASION THAT UNITES HUMANITY AGAINST A COMMON ENEMY! Which this shitty fucking new ending DOES NOT DO!!!
Jesus. I thought people understood this novel! And conspiracy theorists have lived on Reagan's comments about an alien invasion for YEARS... -
Squid = Earth uniting against common enemy. Peace and equanimity while they try to find a way to prevent squid event ever happening again - ensuring peace. For now. Ozy's plan WORKS.
Manhattan frame-up = Entire world gangs up on US for (a) creating Manhattan in the first place, and (b) for not preventing him doing what he supposedly did. Probably the world then nukes America in retribution.
I'd say in the Manhattan frame-up ending, Ozy's plan pretty much doesn't fucking work - unless his plan was to unite the entire world against the US! Is Ozy actually Dubya in disguise?!?!? -
Wrong Laserhead. You make the island and the Comedian's discovery of the island completely obsolete shifting the entire conspiracy and any subtext found within. You distort much of the narrative which happens to unfold the conspiracy that accumulates into the psychic squid.
-
"Watchmen II: Who's Watchin' the Watchmen, Now?" or in the reboot, "The Incredible Watchmen."
-
...I know, pal, I know - but we're banging our heads against a brick wall now. Best we can do is hope the movie as whole still makes some kind of sense, and isn't another piece of irretrievably fascistic turd like, oh I don't know, 300...
-
is it March YET!?
-
The biggest pisser about how terrible that movie was, hands down, is the fact that I will, in all likelihood, never get to see Hyde break Hawley Griffin's leg and then rape him to death on the silver screen.
Reboot! -
Personally, i'd love for Rorschach to be wearing an Urban Sombrero. ;)
-
that should have read:
... and then rape him to death IN IMAX. -
People who are convinced Snyder's going to fuck up Watchmen - change things too much, miss the point, whatever - who ALSO bring up problems with 300, are being ridiculous. 300, like it or not, was an absolutely spot-on brilliant adaptation of the comic. ANY problems you have with it can almost certainly be laid at Frank Miller's door, not Snyder's. He added an additional subplot, slightly restructured the narrative in order since it was one film and not five issues, and made one or two slight tweaks and ommissions. The themes, major characters, plot points, visual style, narration and dialogue were all EXACTLY as they were in the book. If you hate it, fine, you probably would have hated the book. But I can only really understand 300 being brought into the discussion of Watchmen as an argument for why Snyder is probably genuinely doing his best to make a faithful and good adaptation of Watchmen, even if he doesn't succeed for whatever reason.
-
Nov 14, 2008 7:29:56 AM CST
I GET the squid, but I still think it was wise to keep it out
by leopold scotch
I know why the squid was meant to be an EXTERNAL threat (hell, that's the only rationale for it existing at all). But anyone could turn the argument around and say that the squid lovers don't GET Manhattan. The removal of his intrinsic field made him just as alien as the squid. The fact that he doesn't feel any attachment whatsoever to humanity in a physical, intellectual or moral sense makes him just as alien. Basically, when you use Manhattan as an external threat, you're effectively killing two birds, since all this alienation that Manhattan is feeling is set up throughout the whole film, whereas the squid is hinted at in about one single frame in the middle of the story before it pretty much comes out of nowhere at the end. It makes sense to make Manhattan's isolation more integral to the plot while removing something that is pulled out of nowhere with hardly any clue of its existence prior to its reveal.And I know that everyone knows that the US created Manhattan but the fact that (as far as the wolrd is concerned) he destroys a significant part of the US makes just as much sense to me when they've just spend two and a half hours setting up how cut off from the world he has become.
-
would be like police referring to themselves as "pigs".
-
Something else could have been going on on that island besides the genetic engineering of a giant exploding squid. "Any subtext found within" What the fuck is the subtext of a giant squid? There isn't one. "You distort much of the narrative which happens to unfold the conspiracy that accumulates into the psychic squid." Er... no, you don't distort the narrative, which was my point. And that was one awkward fucking sentence.
-
Or what? I see alot of bitching but zero facts on the actual film.
-
This taken from Empire Magazine online, confirmed by Dave Gibbons. Read and/or weep:"Zack Snyder was in London today with his travelling Watchmen show, and as well as screening almost 30 minutes of footage for us (one word: AWESOME), he also told us a little bit more about the current state of the film.First, and spoiler-free, he talked running time. "It's a little over two-and-a-half hours right now," which is unlikely to change a whole heck of a lot. That said, "There is a three hour cut" which may appear on the DVD, and "if you include the Black Freighter, that's three-and-a-half hours".Secondly, and more spoilerifically, there has been a change to the book's "squid ending", as one questioner put it. Snyder was asked what he has against squid, and had this to say: "Well, I had a horrible calamari incident as a child."But seriously, folks. "I have nothing against it. But the squid represents something that would have had to have been illuminated through extra story. We would have had to sacrifice character to story and character is more important to me."What they've come up with, said Watchmen co-creator Dave Gibbons, is something that is true to "the tone, the moral ambiguity of the book". Just not involving, y'know, big squidy-looking things. And in any case Gibbons says, "It's not a squid; it's a fifth-dimensional cephalopod". So there.In other news, Snyder also talked a little about Under The Hood, another DVD extra chronicling 1940s costumed adventurers The Minutemen. "Eric Matthews did that; it's a mock documentary. The complicated thing is that it's done as a 1985 [when the film is set] TV retrospective looking back at the publication of a book that's supposed to have come out in 1972. That's very cool."Snyder also talked more generally about Watchmen. "They offered it to me on the phone, and they were talking about setting it in the present day and changing the ending. I thought, well, if I don't do this, someone else will, and they'll mess it up and it'll be my fault. So I might as well do it and try to do it right, and if I mess it up it'll still be my fault but at least it'll be my fault on purpose."And does he think the world is ready for this? "Pop culture's ready to have their shit shaken up a little bit. Watchmen hopefully will get under the comic-book movie mythology a little bit. I mean, my mum now knows that Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider; she has no business knowing that! So I think the knowledge is mainstream enough to get this."
-
Come on they are going to wonder why its called WATCHMEN. Snyder had to throw them a damn bone.
-
Just stay the fuck home in your basement. The rest of us will go check out the movie. I myself am glad they got rid of the fifth-dimensional cephalopod, as that thing would HAVE to look fucking ridiculous on screen; I don't care how many dead bodies you stack around it, it would look retarded.
-
Nov 14, 2008 7:47:14 AM CST
Remember when Schwarzenegger was going to play Manhattan?
by rev_skarekroe
Think about that next time you're tempted to start bitching.
-
talentless bunch of hacks ("One Word: AWESOME"). They'll give this 59 million stars and die in a collective sperm eruption.
-
Nov 14, 2008 7:57:23 AM CST
This talkback...is why you people are talking about films...
by knowthyself
...and not making them. Snyder knew that to get what he wanted he had to make concessions. The original costumes. The period setting. Naked Manhattan. R rating. Violence. Blood. Keep the original plot. If the squid is the price to pay for ALL of that then I would gladly pay the forfeit.
-
I'm also kind of sceptical about Empire - would it bite the hand that feeds it? I suppose that depends on whether you feel it is fed by its readers or by the exclusives supplied by the movie industry.But is there a superior mainstream film magazine out there?
-
sadly, no there isn't. However, Empire is basically hello! magazine with a few dismally over-rating reviews in it. It isn't good and being the least shit isn't an excuse.
-
The island had artist who create memories of the squid for the psychic fallout thereby convincing survivors of an alien attack. While subtext is up for interpretation one could see how a fake psychic blast conveyed by artist is similar to using art to deceive or mislead the public into thinking the wrong thing. The squid is an elaborate work of art just like the book Watchmen or arguably the Bible. Both have wide reaching "psychic" after effects that reach the public in their own ways. This is just a single interpretation of what artist unwittingly creating lie that feeds into the general perception could mean. But yes you lose subtext by changing the psychic squid into a lifeless bomb that is not a work of art and does not have psychic abilities that misuse art for nefarious purposes.
-
It's not about the squid. It's about changing the ultimate point of the whole goddamned story (from alien to terrestrial threat). The change simply doesn't work and is a complete departure from Moore's classic story. I don't need to see the film to know that. I'm not even mad about the squid itself not being in. But I am pissed that the substitution climax doesn't even resemble the fucking point of the squid solution. If you don't understand this point, fine. Maybe a reread of the source material is in order for you. Meanwhile, your petulant whining and lame cliches and stereotypes are I daresay more annoying than on topic complaints about the climax of this film. The fact is this: some WATCHMEN readers (including me) are legitimately pissed about this quintessential thematic change to the plot. And if you can't bitch and moan about shit like this on an AICN TB, where can you do it?
-
One could argue that a nuclear weapon, in its construction, is a highly intricate creation, a symbol of one part of man's dominion over nature.In its detonation it is destruction as inverted creation, taken to the extremes of the giant squid...Then again, I'm also talking a lot of shit. Maybe.
-
I was on the fence on the squid issue, you brought it back. Forgot about the ET part of it. That is huge and very integral to the story. Excellent, sir.
-
I think the movie will be fine without out it. The shit is 2.5 hours long already. It's not Lord Of Them Thangs long. Dr. M isn't a midget ring holding douche. Let's reel this epic in, right?
-
Rorschach's voice sucked. Otherwise it looked great.
-
..that these heroes are real fucked up. That they can't be trusted. They need to pick up on the Paranoia of the Bush administration. What happens when those in charge aren't being watched? What if they made a decision that compromised everything humanity stood for? Who really knows whats best for everyone? They need to communicate that your not SUPPOSED to think these guys are cool (they sure as hell don't look cool). They are flawed version of popular heroes. This trailer is fine but I think it appeals most to readers of the comic and not mainstream audiences.
-
A bomb is just a bomb. Go watch Terminator 3 for that shit rather than change the ending.
-
The problem is not the squid here, but what it means. Hell, it doesn't have to be a squid at all, just make it look like an attack from another world. Although, the squid itself has a symbolic meaning and I'd prefer if they used the exact same ending that was used in the book. Anyway, if you radically change the ending (like they are) then the whole theme of the peace changes and you delete a vital sub-plot to the story (missing artist + island). Also, the squid and Ozy's plan are foreshadowed through the whole book, and anyone who says that the squid comes completely left-field needs to reread the damn book.
-
Are they calling the super-team Watchmen? Because nobody in the whole book is called that. Stupid, stupid.
-
While I agree, I think, with much of what you say, I don't find that to be the subtext, but more like the surface text; as in, it's not implied meaning, but obvious meaning. You CAN have the same textual meanings-- having artists unwittingly create something used to terrify people --WITHOUT it being a goddamned inter-dimensional squid. And you can have an extra-terrestrial threat that ISN'T a goddamn inter-dimensional squid. So, say, instead of a giant squid, it's a giant spaceship or something else extra-terrestrial, but less ridiculous than the cephalopod.
-
If audiences see a giant alien squid, most of them will not go "Whoa, what a powerful layer of subtext!" No, they'll just do what most of us did back in the '80s when we read WATCHMEN for the first time and go "That was it? That's Ozymandias' big fucking plan?"
-
I think most moviewatchers are going to be baffeled by the movie, and it doesn't help that the marketing department really, really, really wants people to think its going to be another Dark Knight. It'll have a nerd led good weekend, then it will tank, and then execs will be kiboshing any other super-hero projects (kiss Super Max goodbye) on the grounds that people don't want to see super-hero movies anymore.
-
Why do you find the squid ridiculous? A blue emotionless god is just as ridiculous IMO. Isn't that one of the points of the book?
-
Maybe the squid is going to be replaced with hedge funds and banks bringing about the end of the world unless everybody bands together, and God isn't an American but British and Doc Manhattan is Gordon Brown?
-
..,the cephalopod ISN'T ridiculous, but can anyone explain to me why they continue to think it is, but Doc Manhattan isn't? Squid exist. Telepathy is debatable, but by no means improbably given non-local physics. Dimensions beyond the four of the spacetime continuum exist. Extra terrestrial life is probable. Veidt's plan was (literally) outlandish, but not so much that the Watchmen Earth couldn't get their heads around the idea. Sure, if somebody tried planting an alien in the real world most would expect a hoax, but if the evidence was sufficient for scientific institutions to accept it, we'd all have to accept it.
-
... you could probably fit a lot more of the story in if the fucking thing weren't half in slo-mo. P.S. Visionary director my fucking left nut.
-
I for one do think the squid could work on film, and there would be a way to make it look incredibly horrific. HOWEVER, my beef with the change doesn't have to do literally with the squid. As m_reporter rightly stated, it's what the squid represents that is important. *SPOILER*Snyder & Co. are going with a Doc M frame job and Doc M signature explosions around the world. This change (from extraterrestrial to terrestrial threat) does not work on any level. The meaning and the logic BEHIND the squid attack is utterly lost.So... I would happily accept the change you suggest to the ending.
-
...from this movie is that studio bosses don't greendlight anymore superhero movies, I'm pretty sure the world will survive. And we'll still have a Watchmen film - flawed, but hopefully still, erm -watchable.
If it does great numbers, then superhero fans will also continue to get more of what they want at the movies.
Hate to use this corporate term, but to me it looks like win-win either way. -
... he'd cut that seminal slo-mo shot in Seven Samurai (guy falling over after getting sliced, kicking up dust) if it meant withholding that option from 21st century "visionaries" like Snyder.
-
It could be a giant psychic arachnid or a giant psychic hermit crab. But it does have to appear alien, be capable of a psychic blast, and be terrifying physically to look at as a visual representation of the horrific scheme. So you might as well just keep the ending intact as to avoid losing the intricate island conspiracy subplot and keep the "alien is really an elaborate art piece used to misguide the population" aspect. Why change the ending arbitrarily? If a giant squid was in the trailer it would hardly standout from all the other weird shit. Making the movie 90 percent accurate then changing the psychic squid to a lifeless bomb is like running a marathon only to take a huge dump right before crossing the finish line.
-
...but maybe there will be more to these 'explosions' than we think? Have you read the shooting script?
-
It's only contradictory (and I was completely aware of what I was writing when I did, I just didn't have the time to clarify) if we're talking about movies being the ultimate experience. I don't know of any movie surpasing the novel on which it was based. My points made on both accounts were that if you have a problem, even if they screw it up on the level they did LOEG, read the book and be satisfied that it, at least, exists and is good. If not, enjoy the movie on it's own merits (if any). And that's any movie, adaptation or not.
I'm completely failing to see how my (b) "totally" (your word, not mine) contradicted (a). It didn't contradict, but compliment the original point made, in that you could exlude either one and a valid point could be made. Which is, when in doubt of an adaptation, read or enjoy the original. Again, if not, if they mess it up so bad, complain about it, yes, but ultimately, turn it off. There are far more important things in life than bitching. -
I'd rather have a shitty Watchmen film than a mediocre one (like Snyder's will probably end up being). If it's a shitty adaptation (like LXG for example) I'd just shun it off as garbage, but this looks to have potential, and if it's just a mediocre film then I'll just fume over all the missed opportunities, both adaptation-wise and from the filmmaking standpoint.
-
Such as?
-
I've read the same damn explanations of why the squid IS and IS NOT vital to the story about 900 times. And that's just in THIS talk-back alone. I hate to be a nit-picky tool, but can everybody please read the damn talk-backs before posting?
-
You mean you'd rather eat a shit sandwich than a pretty bland chicken masala meal, because with the latter you'd lament what could have been?
-
A squid armistice? Excellent idea. Let's move on, people.
-
I never saw LXG in theaters, waited for it to be on TV, watched 20 mins or so and changed the station. No big deal. On the other hand, Fom Hell and V for Vendetta, both got similar attention that Watchmen are getting now (at least from the "geek community"). Went saw them, both where rather mediocre (From Hell was crap actually), and didn't follow the books much. Now when I look back at those viewings, the LXG was the most pleasant one. It was never a "could-have-been", it was garbage, while V was a huge disappointment full of missed opportunities.
-
I think you guys are shutting out what could be a great character moment. Would I have loved the squid? Absolutely, IF the movie could be 5 hours long and have all the necessary backstory. As it is, seeing the change as Manhattans final separation from humanity. He basically BECOMES alien in the eyes of the world.I see it working, and I see it making a tragic character all the more.Explain to me why I'm wrong? Other than "it's not in the comic".
-
I'm catering to the jackasses that don't read any of the posts before posting...which one should never do.
-
But my god, the new trailer is fascinating! It looks, and sounds exactly like the GN. And I think Snyder has actually captured the sprite of the GN as well. I'm also going crazy with the fact that some of my favorite dialogue from the GN, is being put onto the big screen.
P.S: I feel bad that "Transformers" fans didn't get this type of treatment last year. -
Think about it. a. ) anti-miscegenation - Dawn of the Dead. In one crucial scene, the zombified Arab-looking pregnant lady gives birth to her and her black hubby's baby, who's also a zombie. Black guy ( Mekhi Pfiffer ) looks on to a redneck old hag with the shotgun and implores something like ' Would you really murder this kid ? '; b.) pro-War on Iran/ War on Islam xenophobia - 300. The BLEEDINGLY OBVIOUS tirades against civil diplomats ( a.k.a. on payroll of faggot Middle Eastern terrorists ), which WEREN'T EVEN IN THE ALREADY FASCIST COMIC ! Rubbing it in, I say !; c.) anti-alternative fuel resources - Watchmen. If this bullshit holds, then we would be seing this dumbass fuckwit sacrificing the integrity and elegance of the Alan Moore novel for this fuck you against alternative resources that is petty, un-intelligible and sad. Plus the fact that ' Watchmen ' is a critique against American Power, ( i.e. what U.S. did to Hiroshima ), it's POLITICAL, and its something Mr. Snyder's apparently NOT willing to recognize. The guy is several ways neo-con, why won't he admit it ?
-
He BECOMES alien, and an AMERICAN one.
-
...made something truly horrifying. After all, Del Toro had a sqid in Hellboy 2 that looked cool as shit! But noooo... Snyder just changed the whole structure of the story and dissed all the fans, instead. Plus, the trailer... everything looks lame! I'll be staying home, sorry!
-
Totally agree with you Evangelion, facts are the story and subtext etc will be dumbed down for a mainstream audience that I don't think will go and see this anyway... The book is one of the biggest selling Graphic Novels ever, why not have some balls, aim high and give the real fans what they'd love to see which is s Big Fucking Squid Thing! So what if it'd take 5 hours to do it, just make 2 movies! Christ, if they let Tarantino turn the turdburgler Kill Bill into 2 movies why not his one? Not to mention PlanetTerror/DeathProof.... Snyder says he has a 3 and a half hour cut with the freighter, all he has to do is steal some Octopus Close-Ups from some old Jacques Cousteau movies, splice them in and Bob's Your Man-From-Uncle!
-
Yeah, I get that's what you all THINK. If you're referring to his initial origin, I wouldn't ever say he becomes "alien" nor should you.I'm talking about after the revelation that he's killing everyone around him and what (in the movie) Ozy is framing him for. Everyone keeps pointing out that there's no way the world would unite because they'd view as attack by Doc M as an attack by America....what I'M saying is that since he obviously attacks the US as well (or Ozy makes it seem so) than he will be viewed as having turned his back on ALL of humanity....ie becoming the external alien threat you are all drooling over. I know it's fun to type in capitals, but it's gotta make sense.
-
To Squid or Not To Squid?
Damn DT shakes....
-
on the fans with his 'God love 'em tirade'... but he's not that articulate a speaker - it's pretty painful to hear him get interviewed. There's playing your cards close to your chest, and then there's not being to string a basic coherent sentence together - with excruciatingly long gaps that lead to... nothing much. We should be thankful the movie's still looking interesting.
-
They're making that ' David Hayter ' Death Ray thing look better and better by the minute. Why won't we just name Silk Specter ' Slingshot ' and be glad about this recession ?
-
the fact that everyone speaking agaisnt my point is making the assumptions that "well, there's no way the world would do that" further illustrates the lack of logic behind your arguments.I'd love to have the original ending in tact, but it's not. And I can understand why. That said, I am a whiney bitch when it comes to them calling themselves "WATCHMEN"
-
How quickly the tide turns!Trailer seemed a little uneven and (dare I say) gives the impression of a dull film. I don't know...as someone who has never really been interested in WATCHMEN, I'm still indifferent.
-
Right there with you on that one Brians Life; calling themselves WATCHMEN is a fucking terrible and really unnecessary .....urge to kill..rising....
-
Right there with you on that one Brians Life; calling themselves WATCHMEN is fucking terrible and really unnecessary .....urge to kill..rising....
-
China would be blamed for a worldwide Manhattan attack. The exile to Mars would be a non-issue because it would just seem like media spin to spare China blame.
-
Why does Rorschach's mask move? Makes no sense.
-
then yeah, I don't agree with the change. Although I support the replacement of the squid, it should be with something else extraterrestrial, like a big-ass spaceship that's the size of New York or something.
-
Based on interviews no squid scenes were filmed at all which begs the question "why not?". It seems like a relatively cheap way to double dip on dvd sales AND please the purist at the same time.
-
But he is an AMERICAN creation. Who do you think the world would vent their anger FIRST TOWARDS when he goes off ? ( or his ' energy signatures ' , whatever smarty pants craptitude that's suppose to imply ). The top European political leaders aren't much forgiving towards America with this current Financial Crisis, EITHER . I'll put it this way : IF BUSH WAS KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN BEHIND THE 9-11 ATTACKS, DO YOU THINK THAT THE WORLD WILL IN SOLIDARY BEHIND U.S.A.?!?!? But that's beside the point, ennit ...... The closest man-made approximation to an actual God. Downgraded into a one-man worldwide Chernobyl disaster. How the mightiest of PLOTS have FUCKING FALLEN. Oh and it's ' PTSDPete '. You're welcome.
-
Man...I just cannot get over the Billy Crudup "there are some things money can't buy, for everything else there's Watchmen" vibe.
Still looks awesome, though not nearly as epic as that first trailer. -
I think they honestly might have pulled off the correct tone of the film, but I do have some minor criticisms. All the characters look and feel right, although I'm a little concerned about Dr. Manhattan's voice, it's feeling like a rehearsal at a script reading. On the flip, Rorschach is over the top Dark Knight death metal voice kinda of grates on me... but maybe it will be ok in small doses. As long as he doesn't narrate the whole friggin' film like that.
My biggest critique would be that it's simply too early in the game to be deconstructing super hero teams in the minds of the movie going public. I mean the only super hero team movie that has really existed in the mainstream until this point is X-men and Fantastic Four (and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and some other minor league teams). If Justice League and The Avengers have come out already and had several movies each than fine. As it stands there is not a strong history of super hero teams in film. The whole essence of why the Watchmen works is because of the familiarity of archetype/classic super heros and super hero teams. So it works in the medium of comics because there is history in the comic reading audience reaching back to the 30's and 40's. Deconstructing and striping down nostalgia and then giving it a dirty scramble will be lost on the regular movie going audience because they don't have a big enough foundation to be taken apart. Basically all the power and strength of a Watchmen movie will be missing for the mainstream, all squids aside. If this came out 5 years later it would probably have a greater impact. That being said, I'm stoked to see how it actually turned out. This trailer has eased some of my initial concerns, and actually got me excited about the project.
-
The more I think about it the worese it gets... Making the Doc the Enemy of the World instead of an Alien Threat is a terrible terrible idea..... If I try to forget ever reading the book and just take the movie for what it is/will be maybe it'll hold but Snyder is asking a lot! He had better supply cake at the screenings to sweeten the deal...
-
Visionary = one remake and two adaptations of graphic novels where the fucking thing's been storyboarded for you in advance.
-
I'm not gonna jump on that 9/11 comment. It doesn't really fit. I agree that there have to be OTHER changes in order to solidify the idea of Manhattan vs. Humanity. You're doing what everyone else is doing.I'm giving you a character driven and logical reason why this would work and you're saying "That won't work."Think of the context. It's just been revealed on live TV that Doc M is unstable. He leaves for Mars, effectively ending his ties with humanity (maybe in the movie it's more ominous too). Suddenly several atomic explosions seemingly due to Doctor Manhattan devastate the world, including some US cities. There is worldwide destruction due to an element that, while once American, has gone rogue and is now as existential threat to all of humanity.
-
..before bitching. How many fanboys are going to eat crow when the awesomeness of this film shuts them up? How many complained about LEDGER as Joker until he shut them up? Same here. Nerds and geeks have no vision. This is why you don't create art you just sit back and criticize it.
-
That guy's gonna have a buncha interesting things to say in a few months time, I figure. He he. Misguided as he was about ' V for Vendetta ' ( which is the only film actually resembling a work he's written, now ). ' Project Anonymous ' must have made him reassess a bit.
-
Nov 14, 2008 11:32:13 AM CST
I don't think it's going to be completely dumb downed.
by evangelion217
But just enough, so that newbies can enjoy it almost as much as the fans. Snyder changed a couple of things, but I do feel that he is going to stay faithful to the spirite of the GN, and hit home with the audience.
The trailers look fantastic, and I have high hopes for this. :)
P.S: Why would a studio get some balls, when they are spending 100 million dollars on a comic-book adaption that not alot of people know about?? The film is also rated R. So the studios, and Snyder will dumb it down just enough, to make alot of money. Can't really hate them for that. -
... or "right", anyway. Too slick, too set-y. I think some naturalism is in order for this story, but there is none to be found here. If this movie works it'll be in spite of its look.
-
I think what people loved so much about the first two acts of Iron Man and the entire Dark Knight was this naturalism that your talking about but considering Watchmen is a commentary on comic books I don't know how "natural" it should look. Ozymandias suit is purposefully a send up of the batman forever nipple suits. Never once when I read watchmen did I think any of it felt like the real world. The suits were corny. The characters were stupid send ups of popular heroes. It would almost be a satire if it was't so violent and gloomy. In a sense watchmen must do what most comic book films avoid...and thats to look and feel like a comic book film.
-
Needed more slo-mo. In fact, I wish the whole movie was filmed in slo-mo.
-
You're an idiot. Move to L.A. and start working in the industry and you'll see just how many "nerds and geeks" are creating.
-
The squid would look completely retarded on the big screen. Some things should stay within it's own medium. The squid is badass in the GN. But people would walk out of the theater, if they saw that shit on the big screen.
-
I think the Squid may be a reference to the original Justice League nemesis Starro, a reference that may be lost on average movie-goers not in the know, but was something that may have resonated subconcsiously with knowledgable comic readers at the time, whether they picked up on the possible Starro reference or not. In this case w/the movie, the Squid probably wouldn't have the same impact as it did in 1985. Even with comic readers today, it would probably be like, "Who's Starro?"
-
Superhero film. You whiners are soooo short sighted. Don't be fooled by the slick trailer. Yeah, it's all slomo to reel in the general public and all the people who saw 300 20 times. But the cold hard fact is the WB probably WANTS a dark morally ambiguous deconstructionist film since THE BIGGEST BOX OFFICE HIT IN THE HISTORY OF THEIR STUDIO (and probably the superhero movie genre for now)was just that. Studio executives are unoriginal. Watchmen will obviously be their litmus test to see if they can copy Dark Knight's success. If everyone who saw Dark Knight and 300 goes to see this film and it conveys similar themes it will be a huge success. "The general public isn't ready for a deconstructionist superhero film"..uh where were you this past summer?!? Dark Knight wasn't even an R. It was PG-13. An R-Rated superhero film is something the general public is going to eat up. Now of course, if the film just pretentious, sophmoric, "dark just for the sake of being dark" with no real substance that it will suck but I hope that doesn't end up being the case.
-
Rorschach's mask moves because it moves in the comic book, it's two liquids of different viscosity suspended between latex, which move according to heat and pressure. He made it out of a dress. However, I've still yet to hear a reason he can see out of it.
-
Just when it appeared so promising, this whole project is starting to look badly compromised. But I really, really, really hope I'm wrong. And it's not just because I count myself amongst those who would have liked to see a truly horrific nightmare of a creature at the end, it's that (a) the replacement climax, from what I hear, simply doesn't fit, and (b) the change affects too much of the buildup, both in plot and theme. It could still be a decent if forgettable popcorn flick, though.
-
There. I said it. Also, it looked like an OCTOPUS, do you morons have any idea what a squid looks like? But squid, octopus or Manhattan, this movie just looks terrible. It confirmed my suspicions as soon as the Jackie Earle Bale Batman VO started. This just looks very dumb, or should I say SOUNDS dumb because the dialogue and delivery is piss-poor. This looked awesome as a music video with no lines in the first teaser, but oh man, this one? This is the cinematic equivalent of a supermodel, looks great, but watch out when she starts talking.
-
The notion of Dr. Manhattan becoming the "alien menace" really can play, so long as the film is able to depict Doc as being a wild-card type, with no allegience to any country, faith, or organization. If you can do that, then in my opinion, it isn't that hard of a stretch for the rest of the world to view Manhattan as an outsider, an alien. This whole argument reminds me of the scouring of the shire debate that had been raging around here for years. The answer then is much the same as it is now, too. Frodo embodied the notion that war changes everything and that there was no going back, and, for the sake of brevity, it wasn't that much of a leap in combining the sentiments of scouring of the shire with the emotional scars of Frodo. Here, in Snyder's Watchmen, it isn't that much of a stretch to combine Manhattan's severing of all ties to humanity with that of the alien menace. It really can work, gents, and is logical, so long as you are willing to have an open mind.
-
By dropping the squid you can drop a few of the connected characters like the lady artist, grizzled writer, and the whole "cloning a psychic brain" subplot. Changing it to nuclear bombs or whatever instead has gotta be more relatable to the millions who have not or ever will read the damn book.
There are many reasons this story has been considered unfilmable, a genetically engineered giant alien squid who releases a deadly psychic shockwave upon its death by teleportation into New York City has gotta be one of them. -
That is a goddamned great trailer. I've rewatched it about a half-dozen times, now.
-
At the climax of the novel, as the characters are trying to understand what has happened, a reporter on one of the televisions states that experts believe this was a freak occurrence related to the dimensional research going on in the building where the squid appeared. It's not an attack, the squid probably wasn't even intelligent. It's just the worst experimental accident of all time. So mankind isn't looking up at the skies for invading squids. Countries aren't uniting to protect the world against invading squids. The eastern bloc powers are coming to the aid of the USA because they're stunned by the enormity of the carnage and the horror, especially as it seems to be random. It's that close work between the USA and the USSR that is supposed to inspire the world to work for larger peace. It has nothing to do with outside aggression by squids. It's about relearning that no matter where you live and what your form of government, we're just people dealing with the daily challenges of the world.
What's so tough to understand about that? -
the Rorschach voice is a concern. it feels a little... forced. maybe this actor is not quite up to snuff and is pushing too hard on the drama when a quiet, calm Ror would work better.
visually, some of the stuff looks brilliant and fun.
i don't expect perfection, so therefore i think it will be quite enjoyable. -
You say that like it's a BAD thing.
-
Repalcing the squid with a Doc Manhattan frame up is lame because the Doc Manhattan frame up is already there as a subplot anyhow. If there's no squid there should at least be some other fake alien threat concocted by Ozy. The world already hates and fears Dr. Manhattan as is. Framing him as the villain is a big whoopdie-freekin'-Lah! especially after a 2 and a half our movie. I may seem like I'm talking out of both sides of my ass after my previous posts but if this chalks up to a "near miss" part of me will be disappointed but I think what we're going to be is an entertaining, though provoking "adaptation". Overall though, comic book fans are fucking spoiled when it comes to their source material being adapted. Regular books are very rarely adapted so literally and those adaptations often make great movies. We all just need to take a deep breath and deal with Watchmen the comic and this forthcoming film as two seperate entities and move on. Malin Akerman is one sexy-assed bobblehead doll though.
-
Haley is a fine actor, so I suspect the voice treatment came as much from Snyder as anywhere. My take on Rorschach's monotone is that he sounds like he feels - empty. He has no connection to people, only to events. His soul died when he dealt with the kidnapper in '75, so he has no inflection. That's why he's so scary. Even when he's not calm, he sounds calm. Even as he breaks a man's fingers one by one, he sounds calm. Even when he urges revenge, he sounds calm. *shudder*
-
[multiple spoilers, of course]...some of you, those who've read the GN anyway, seem to forget that to replace the "squid" you need to replace the buildup to the squid as well. Perhaps it's been a while since you read the Watchmen GN but it's not like it's just a few pages of the book or even a single chapter. There's a whole buildup subplot that will be removed (the world's geniuses disappearing to the island, etc, which isn't so much of a deal-breaker and could be trimmed or even cut and just referenced) but then to replace the original ending with Manhattan being the threat? Even if people don't see Manhattan as an "American" threat, I still don't see how it would unite the entire planet like the psychic death-scream-throes of an monstrous alien entity teleporting right into NYC would.Even with Orsen Wells 's radio broadcast of "War of the Worlds' actually had people on the verge of suicide. Aliens invade we go bugnuts. All of us! No question. To change the threat to Manhattan changes so much subplot that it will take a lot more than just saying "Oh, yeah...this Doc Manhattan guy is gonna kill us all. We need to unite to stop the American, man-made God (accident or not) from killing us all!" or having him working with Ozymandias to create this "enforced peace". You guys seem to think it's stupid to harp on this oversight but will you admit to the failure of the third act of Watchmen when it occurs? Ok...if it occurs?And can someone explain to me how a squid as pictured in the GN would be stupid on screen? How, after a giant ape beating a giant rattan wall to get to his blonde human girlfriend...or how giant alien tripods incinerate people, running down the street, into ashes versus laying waste to the entire town with a wider death ray or how a giant albino bat-like creature pulverizes NYC or how Hellboy regretfully fights of a giant plant (elemental) but yet ending the Watchmen movie like the GN is somehow stupid? Why, exactly? And please try to answer without Nostradomusing people saying "People will laugh at the screen!!" um...and you know this how exactly? Telekinesis? Or just bullshit conjecture? I would argue that if Snyder does it right, NO one would laugh at it so why don't you say this: "Because this guy Snyder is not capable of doing the original ending without it being stupid" because otherwise, it occurs to me you're actually lambasting the end of the GN itself. I think a few people might disagree with the ending of the Watchmen GN as being stupid. But that's just me.
-
And I'll say,"No."
-
Russian #1: "Boss, we've got doc Manhattan-style blasts going off all over the damn place."
Russian #2: "Someone set us up the bomb." or rather "Looks like the US is doing a pre-emptive strike on us using their boy doc. Nuke the bastards!"
20 minutes later, end of world. Epic Fail.
There would be no time for the russians/whoever to check around with other countries and see if they got hit, too. All they would know is doc-manhattan explosions were going off inside their borders, and that means the U.S. was attacking.
I understand how him being the fall-guy could work character-wise, but it just doesn't pass the logic test as to how anyone would actually react.
-
you know what, all the shit you guys are bitching about is completely lost on me:
the Snyder quote on the squid is him saying "look, we may have lost the squid but at least we didn't have to castrate the material for fear of controversy."
Rorshach and Manhattan sound just fine to me.
i'll give Snyder the benefit of the doubt on the squid, as it would be a very tough call from a screenwriter/director standpoint, and more importantly i'll give Hayter's highly praised drafts the benefit of the doubt here, as they never contained the squids either.
as for them being called "Watchmen," SNYDER IS FUCKING WITH YOU FOR THE SQUID BACKLASH YOU GODDAMNED MORONS. you just got trolled by the director of 300, and lo it was epic.
but you know what i noticed, what jumped out at me right off the bat? that second to last shot of Rory is him kicking down the door of a certain german shepherd loving individual, which means we get to see the whole psychoanalysis of Rorshach. and on those grounds alone, this trailer is fucking awesome. -
I think you just actually helped the No Squid case by pointing out that all these characters and backstory would have to fit in a 2.5 hour movie.Free your mind.
-
I don't think the squid will look that stupid on the screen, but I do think it is just as easy to morph the GN version of Dr. Manhattan and the squid into a film version of the Doc, in which he is an alien thing without humanity that eventually reasons that humanity should be attacked. As for the ominous theme of an impending attack that runs throughout the GN, again, just change it to the ominous theme of an impending attack by something from Mars, ony to reveal, in the end, that it is in fact Dr. Manhattan. Again, this isn't really that hard to condense the squid and GN Manhattan into one character.
-
that trailer is awesome. I love the GN and there is no way it will be like the first time I read it, but this movie looks good. I am pleased thus far. And I'm also kind of happy that I'm one of the people who don't totally care about the squid. I think I'll enjoy the movie a little more if it is really good. We have yet to see it, so it could very well be terrible. But if it's good, which it looks, then I won't be hindered by the squidlessness (<--because I can write whatever I want)
-
I know what you mean - I can even agree in principle: Yes it makes sense for the movie to look like other comic book movies. On the other hand, the comic book didn't exactly ape typical superhero comics. And really - not all comic book movies look the same, anyway. I just feel like I'd rather have something that seems aesthetically correct than theoretically correct. By the looks of the trailer, Watchmen doesn't feel lived-in enough to carry the requisite weight of the commentary - be it the political commentary or the superheroes-in-the-real-world thing ... I mean the X Men movie were slick as hell but they seemed a lot more organic. I'll give Watchmen a shot, but I'm not too enthused by what I'm seeing.
-
Food. Oxygen. Reading. Doing things that make you happy and are productive. Breakdancing. Chrono Trigger.
-
The way I see it, Dr. Manhattan is, more than anything, the apotheosis of western rationalism, which has elevated itself to the status of universal divinity, at least in the absence of an absolute God. He starts as a scientist, but even as a demi-god he still embodies distant and methodical scientism, hence his depiction as a watchmaker when in Mars. Unfortunately, and as he himself admits, these extreme form of rationalism alienates him from his human origins, which is why he is unable to foresee what is clearly an irrational - yet fundamental - aspect of human beings: our capacity (if not desire) to defy expectations. Veidt demonstrates this by his use of Tachyons in order to disturb Dr. Manhattan's logical deductions. It is also the reason why, tired by the insoluble complexity of the human spirit, he decides to depart for another galaxy. Still, retaining his interest in human life, he admits considering the idea of creating "some", i.e. humans. The obvious question is: what would these 'humans' turn out to be like, and how would they experience their life, having such a Watchmaker as a god? (René Descartes was one of the first philosophers to posit that thesis - an element of his strict dualistic view of the distinction between mind and body - though its influence also made more apparent the growing divergence between scientific positivism and genuine philosophical enquiry.) Would it just let people kill themselves indicriminately? Obviously, this possibility is meant to make us question our own theological and philsophical questions, but the point is that, in the character of Dr. Manhattan, we have a clear warning of not allowing delusions of scientific objectivity cloud our view of humanity, otherwise we too may be tempted to distance ourselves from that which makes us distinctly human.
-
i hear you. in my mind Ror's voice is much more detached than what we actually hear in the trailer. i don't know the actor at all. i'm hoping i'm wrong. like i said, the trailer voice sounds 'forced' to me. we shall see!
-
If Bruce Banner wasn't making a military weapon for the govt., or if he doesn't stand as a monster of the Military-Industrial Complex / WMD himself, then it's NOT THE HULK,DAMMET, and it's definitely NOT THE HULK MOVIE. Much as it would maintain the basic elements and aesthetics ( Hulk=Green, Betty Ross, military chasing down ), absent the actual context that ties them, it ISN'T the thing. Ang Lee et al BLATANTLY PUSSIED OUT into sacrificing the material in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. They had to blame the whole Hulk dilenma on Bruce's father, turned the bastard Thunderbolt Ross into a sweet, cuddly coot, and had Hulk NOT taking it out on American soldiers, or ANYTHING outside inanimate objects and buildings. ( Fuck, that Eric Bana loser became the Jolly Green Giant through GENETICS ! ). And made the Hulk solely a walking personal anger issue. Just so they can erase any slightest culpability the military had on his creation, and EVADE the undeniable ' anti-war ', ' anti-military ' aspect of the comic ( perhaps to not offend the Bushies in the face of a freshly launched Iraq war ). And look where that fucking thing went ! So, it's Dr. ' Emo ' Manhattan's fault now ?!? I don't understand it. If these people could not commit to the material's politics, then why take them on in the first place ? If you won't really subscribe to it, at least maintain the basic framework of it . THAT's where the plot is at, after all. Or, better yet, LEAVE. Ah, well, they're probably gonna remake this anyway. Directed by Louise Leiterrier.
-
i want to seeeeeeeee. want to touch so bad
-
Remember if Snyder is sticking to Hayter's last draft there is plenty more to bitch about. Like Dan killing Veidt in revenge for Rorschach, and Dan typing his ridiculous message to the world using the Beatles - the love we make is equal to the love we make - which made me toss the script across the room. Hey Zack, YOU SIMPLY DO NOT FUCK WITH A MASTERPIECE.
-
...only the problems YOU had with it. Ang's Hulk was bigger than just a mediocre WMD gone loose, but the power of the natural universe unleashed, like a modern Prometheus. And as I remember, the original Stan Lee Hulk origin had nothing to do with the Super Soldier Serum, unlike Leterrier's mediocre Hulk, which I assume you obviously favor...
-
I hope Snyder's friends make fun of him for that. I would. Few directors are VISIONARY and while I've liked most of his work on a "it's pretty good" scale, Zack Snyder ain't one of em. He's got some style, but I think it's a stretch even call him a GOOD director.As some one said before his biggest flicks so far have been a remake, and two movies were the composition was done for him decades earlier.
-
Frank Miller and him were all talking up their love of Victor Davis Hanson while doing the press for 300. The very same Victor Davis Hanson who believes Obama associates with terrorists, was definitely going to lose the election, who believes that Arabs and Muslims are corrupting our Eurocentric purity.
Without even knowing that Alan Moore agreed telling EW that 300 was racist, homophobic, and stupid.
To me, someone who appreciates Frank Miller's Ayn Randian masturbatory political ideas and Victor Davis Hanson adapting Watchmen is, frankly, like the people behind Fox News adapting The Audacity of Hope into a movie. -
Interesting.
-
GODDAMMIT!! YOU KIDS SETTLE DOWN, OR I'LL TURN THIS TALKBACK AROUND AND WE'LL GO HOME! Sweet Jesus Christ on a Krispy-Kreme doughnut! I try to be mindful of the fact that a wonderful cross-section of Geekdom comes here, Cinephiles, Literate Stoners, Goths, and whathaveyou. Folks from all around the world with their own lives and issues. And, as I mature, I try to distance myself from the beloved icons of my early years (Conan, Batman, Star Wars, X-Men, etc.) so as not to come off as a fanboy extremist when someone makes an inflammatory statement. Nevertheless, some things frustrate me. When I heard Snyder was directing this project which so many thought for so long would be unfilmable, I felt it was in good hands. He is easily up there with Raimi, Singer, and Nolan as a director who can do a comic-themed movie right. What's with all the hatred for 300? I'm secure enough in my masculinity and to say it was a thoroughly enjoyable movie. Those of you finding fascist/racist overtones are trying too hard. Yeah, I know ya got a fire in yer belly cuz N. America's Satan 'n shit, and I don't pretend to know Snyder's politics, but seeking an agenda in a film based on a historical comic book? Man, that's sad. That's what's wrong with the world today. Everybody's supposed to be "politically correct", but those who percieve themselves as persecuted can say whatever whackass shit they want. Yeah, that's justice. Btw, PTSDPete, I thought the pregnant chick in Dawn of the Dead was Russian, not Arabic. This movie has the potential to be great. Notice I didn't "shall be", it's too soon to judge. The footage I've seen is incredible, and I can't wait. Snyder said in an interview that if the movie just turns out to be a 2-hour commercial for the graphic novel, he'll be happy. It would be a bitter irony if a movie based on the comic book that became literature had negative critical reception.
-
The very own words of Zack Snyder:
"Snyder says he did not intend to make a political statement with the film. “Honestly, I didn’t mean for the movie to be interpreted that way,” he tells me. “When I look at the reviews, the thing that is interesting to me, [for example], is when someone mentions neocon in the review. Then, I feel like they’ve brought their politics to the review. That’s cool, I guess. It’s interesting to me, because you ask, ‘Is that what was intended?’"
"The bad reviews are so fun. Stuff they say, like, 'Zack Snyder has made homoeroticism safe for homophobes,' is priceless. As soon as I hear 'neocon' or 'homophobic' in the review, I laugh to myself and say, 'OK, this person has lost their inner child somewhere along the way, too much time in film school.' "
4. He really didn't mean to make a political statement.
"I'm pretty obvious. It's not like: 'Zack Snyder weaves his web so subtly. He's the most subtle filmmaker of our time.' I mean, come on! The Watchmen will be political!"
Zack Snyder: “In the Making Of book there’s a guy named Victor Davis Hanson who is a…”
Frank Miller: “We’re his fan club.”
Zack Snyder: “He’s a frickin genius.
The genius of VDH himself, hater of multiculturalism:
"Instead, multiculturalism insisted that Western culture was the culprit for global inequality and the cosmic unhappiness of the individual. We all are to embrace distinct and different cultures, none of them inferior to any other, all meriting equal consideration and worth. No one dare suggest a foreign practice inferior, another country less successful than our own—especially given our supposed history of assorted sins."
That's right, a man who believes that Western civilization can do wrong is considered a genius by Zack Snyder. That's the thinking behind this Watchmen adaptation. -
V for Vendetta and Sin City both did well, both released around the same time of year that this one will be. Vendetta had very little action until the end, some very dark themes, and was far less popular a comic than Watchmen. However, it won't be a huge hit.
-
Zach Snyder responds to the claims of 300 being homophobic and xenophobic....from an interview with www.comicbookresources.com --------------
Oh, it's awesome! [laughs] Best thing ever! [laughs] When someone says I'm a "homophobic neocon," I think to myself and think, "Oh My God! How awesome is it that they care that much!" That's a lot of caring! [laughs] -
VDH is horrible because he does not subscribe to the notion that ideological practices are all equal...and you, Turing then feel that Snyder's film is bad because he is displaying what you percieve to be an inferior ideology. Okay...
-
anyone who wants to make something that he considers to have no political ideas (despite praising an extreme ideologue, indeed, getting that person to write the introduction to the making of book of 300) finding anything that would resonate in Alan Moore's writing.
It's really genuinely puzzling to me. Moore's work is completely anti authoritarian and attacks all the institutions of Western civilization on every possible angle. It cares VERY much about the power of storytelling - in fact, believes that it can actually create a psychic schism between reader author and the wider world.
I mean, look, I don't give a flying fuck if Snyder watches Sean Hannity, I really don't. More power to him. I just still can't conceive, and going back and finding these quotes, what it would be about Watchmen that would resonate with someone with attitudes like that.... Especially when they start mucking about the adpatation. -
If Zach Snyder had Dr. Manhattan obliterating New York, AND ONLY NEW YORK, then this might just remotely be the ' Watchmen ' we all know. Quite. Something like THAT would jolt both a raging Soviet Union and the rest of the planet into throwing their grudges and joining hands in solidarity for America. The superhero collapsing onto them like that would be a humbling ' Tower of Babel ' - like episode for the rest of mankind; a precautionary case against attempts to approximate their ' God ' to scare them with into standing down. Makes sense to me. And the reason that ain't possible is : a. ) Entertainment Weekly's report on Alex Tse incorporating the ' timely alternative fuel resources ' issue; b. ) Zach Snyder and his stupid ' energy signatures ' bullshit; and c.) him mentioning in a previous CHUD interview the casualty rate of 15 million people. There are probably less than 15 million people in the New York city of 1985. Yep. What a pussy. " And it's David Banner's fault that Bruce Banner got mutated mutation, and that gamma experiment was not a bomb , and Thunderbolt Ross is the quiet victim ..... "
-
..and now he's a blue one? His voice is weirdly perfect for Dr.M-I didnt anticipate that, much as I like the guy as an actor! Anywho, enough of this squid fuss, and people debating whether itll make so much at the box office-as a fan, I just want to check it out when it hits. film based on a really realy good graphic novel, that may or not be just as good-worth checking out at least no? I mean theres things I dont like in the transfer, but hey, Im not gonna miss out...
-
...always is of course and I'd hate to be the guy who decides which portion of the story can stay and which is expendable for the sake of something like time. All of that is just the necessary "evil" of translating any literature form into film. But then I hear that certain scenes are left fully intact when they could be trimmed up or cut completely and just alluded too without any damage to the storyline (like the supposedly long scene busting Rorshach out of jail, etc).If you remove the original climax due to time constraints, then I'm thinking your priorities are a bit off. Instead of skipping daily $10 lunches and going with homemade sandwiches, you instead stop using electricity in your house/apartment, as a cheesy analogy. Sacrifice something major in lieu of a bunch of minor sacrifices?In all honesty, I'd love for the absence of the 'squid' to make no difference to the quality of the movie/story. I'm not looking to watch only what Moore approves of nor do I care about this whole 'squid' argument nor anything else other than simply enjoying the story. My concern is, with the specific change to the climax and the buildup changes necessary to predicate it, is it not reasonable to question Snyder and team's process? Is he capable of coming up with the original filler remotely on par with Moore's work? I think the answer is obvious and since it's a done deal basically, I'll just hope I'm wrong!
-
Thank you. I fucking knew it, and NO ONE WOULD BELIEVE ME HERE ! So, I'm slightly vindicated, then. And the Watchmen movie is irreperably DOOMED ?!?!? So, to recap our little Asshole-O-List for this prick, we see that he's : a. ) anti-miscegenation ( ' Dawn of the Dead ' - the Arab and Black couple , and their zombie baby deserving of death ), b. ) neo-con, xenophobic, Nazi, KKK, warmongering lying faggot prick ( ' 300 ' ), and c. ) hates alternative fuel resources ( a.k.a. the harbringer of apocalypse in his bullshit looming rendition of ' Watchmen ' ). Oh, and if we are gonna go by this wonderful insight our dear friend ' drturing ' has enlightened us with, a bastard of Western Imperialist exceptionalism. Which is probably the reason why he decides that the doomsday device blows up on SEVERAL CITIES AROUND THE WORLD, instead of ONLY AMERICA, as Alan Moore's means of lambasting this superpower for their nuclear bomb, and bombing Hiroshima, and their kooky rationalization behind it ( when firebombing would have worked the same ). Oh, but isn't Ozymandias ( a.k.a. so-called bad guy, like Spartans a.ka. so-called freedom fighters, and Persians a.k.a. so-called NOT Iranians ), gonna end up ' saving the world ' , and is a Nazi faggot, too ? I couldn't wait for the endgame justification : we have the power, we should be IN CHARGE, and the only way to quiet a hateful, condescending world is to BOMB IT TO SMITHEREENS !!! Then we shall have ' peace ' and there ain't nuthin' any of us ' plebes ' can do about this SHIT. Excellent ! SIEG HEIL ! ( p.s. I would not discount the fact that Rorsharch, a Nihilistic Randian Radical Right Wing figure, is the actual PROTAGONIST, and Mr. Snyder seems to be obsessed with killing Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward in his ' Watchmen video game ' ). So, THAT'S how he's gonna ruin Watchmen !!!!
-
with headphones. I guess I got used to it. Fingers crossed.
-
I'm mostly conservative and I absolutely adore Watchmen. It speaks volumes about the dangers of elitism, fascism, zeal, and the notion that humanity is worth saving. Those views are not inherent to one side of the aisle, you know. Remember that line about God being alive and American? That sort of ignorant zeal applies to more than one form of authoritarianism.
-
Snyder, that. Why won't he come out clean he's a fascist moron dimwit ? Makes Sarah Palin and Fox News look HONEST, by comparison. Bet he wasn't happy Barack Obama won, either, eh ? But THAT is for his next CG kiddie flick....
-
Dude, help Frank Miller and Zach Snyder see the light.
-
Nov 14, 2008 2:09:17 PM CST
Reagan & why the squid (or something like it) is important
by a2thamizzo
It's that quote of Reagan's, that (I believe) was one inspiring idea for the story: "Cannot swords be turned to plowshares? Can we and all nations not live in peace? In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world." You need something that accomplishes this, squid or not, for that portion of the book to be, at least, symbolically faithful. Oh, and if the characters actually refer to themselves as 'The Watchmen', I will be pissed. It's like in V for Vendetta when they changed details unnecessarily, like "the trains don't work anymore", or all the stupid f-ing V-masks at the end.
-
Try telling that to comicdom. And the critics. Ang Lee's Hulk may, as you say, be ' bigger than a mediocre WMD gone loose ', but he's NOT THE HULK. ( And no he ain't bigger. He's a useless green gumbo with pansy problems. That. ) It doesn't change the fact he is a wimp, and so is this Snyder fella....
-
90% of you people really are assholes.
-
accepted, yes, its one dimensional of me to believe that only liberals would like watchmen - which isn't really what i'm saying at all. i don't think extreme liberals or extreme conservative idelogues on either side would find much in the thematic ideas of alan moore's work. and yes it is a brilliantly crafted story on a level that can be appreciated that simply.
but the alan moore who picks on nixon and our involvement in vietnam and the insanity of nuclear superpowers and by god look at the most American of all the heroes - the Comedian - raping and shooting pregnant women in the stomach while storming around the world doing the will unquestionably of the US govt. Furthermore, V for Vendetta contains the most unsubtle depictions of the horror of a society that is racist and homophobic to such an extreme as to send those people to death camps.
I mean, I don't know, I tend to think of that as not the ideas of those who believed the Iraq war was justified and proper. -
"So, guess what happens: They stop making movies based on graphic novels. No "Maus", no, "Astro City", no "Love & Rockets". The studios won't see "Watchmen" doing shitty as a result of there being NO SQUID. They'll see it as lesser-known properties not being worth the risk."
FUCKING GREAT! AWESOME! I WISH THEY WOULD STOP RAPING AWESOME SOURCE MATERIAL. IF ANYONE EVER TRIES TO MAKE MAUS INTO A MOVIE, I'LL FUCKING KILL THEM THE SAME WAY I'M PLANNING ON MURDERING ZACK SNYDER. -
It's your choice, you piece of shit. Squid or Die.
-
OK, I'm not thrilled about the explicit "Watchmen" references, but its nothing to flip about -- less blown away by this trailer than the last, but still good
-
FUCKING ATROCIOUS
-
I'm going to give it a chance. It looks either great or horrid depending on how I turn the visuals over in my head.
I thought 300 was beautifully rendered and translated to screen, but ultimately a whole lot of nothing. I thought the Dawn remake was mediocre, notable only because it was one of very few "classic horror" remakes that did not totally suck. Like 300, it also had no substance, however. If Snyder fouls this he gets nothing else from me. We'll have to see. -
Not an ' inferior ' ideology, but an absurd, arrogant, plain wrongheaded, malicious, unsubstantiated, and un-scientific one. Such as ' intelligent design '. I guess we can ALL rally around that one right ? We are also quite sure that global warming is largely manmade, right ? Or that tobacco causes lung cancer ? Or there is no such thing as an inferior race ? And the idea that stealing or lying, or cheating is ,for example, immoral ? So when someone THAT DUMB could go on worshipping a bigoted son of a bitch such as this VDH fella ( Veneral Disease Herpes ? ); AND go on messing with the work of a guy who is intellectually superior to him, then that's a point of concern. We might as well hand Palin the presidency, then. And flush all our literature down the toilet.
-
Nov 14, 2008 2:34:58 PM CST
Wait until the movie hits before bitching by Doctor Manhattan
by krushjudgement
Agreed. That is sort of the fatal flaw of aintitcool. All opinions are made before the finished product is seen. IF you based your entire opinion off of the concept art of the original star wars- and it's first trailer (ie George Lucasy main hero and the worst teaser ever) you might say "man this movie is going to suck". But you'd be wrong.
-
Nov 14, 2008 2:36:20 PM CST
Fuck this because it doesn't come out for a million years.
by damien chowder
-
One of the best rants ever. (applause)
-
Forget seeing through the latex mask? How does he breathe through it?
-
Many people, myself included, who are conservatives find complete justification in Moore's ideas about Nixon, Vietnam, Nuclear superpowers, etc. What you have to understand is that from my perspective, authoritarianism can arrise from ALL ideological perspectives. Also, you have to be prepared for the idea that none of those subjects you listed are as simple as you make it. Our involvement in Vietnam was brought about by LBJ, JFK, and Ike. Hardly a partisan effort, wo
-
..starring most people in this talkback.
-
Then tell the site administrators to stop wetting their pants over trailers.
-
I can't wait for this, cahnges and all. BTW, another site posted a bit of a quote from Snyder saying that The Minutemen are indeed called just that in the film, and "Watchmen" is used in a much looser "symbolic" sense, not as the name of the team known as The Crimebusters in the book.
-
Explain how complaining about other people complaining is any less bitchy. In fact one could argue it's even bitchier because it's further remover from the topic at hand which just happens to be the Watchmen trailer and all emerging details related. This talkback is dedicated to the Watchmen trailer and why we do or don't like it. Anyone who bitches about talkbackers debating about a Watchmen trailer and how it relates to the Watchmen book on a Watchmen talkback comes off as a bigger bitch you fucking hypocrite.
-
I have major respect for The Watchmen and I am very very eager to see it on the big screen in all it's rawful splendour. It will be wonderful. But that trailer was weak. Said nothing, teased nothing and the audio track - WTF?
-
re vietnam: i wasn't even born yet, but don't for a moment insist that conservatives were opposed to the notion of spreading american democracy by any means necessary, even in opposition to the desire of the people for self rule. and don't forget that the republicans lost the black vote for the next 50 years in those 60s when it came to civil rights. rosa parks sat on a bus only 50 odd years ago. hell, you could argue that the american progressive left as hated by conservatives was born out of all the social upheaval of that period, in reaction to instutionalized acceptance of war in all insitutions of power at the time, which would include the democrats.
I understand and consider LBJ to be a failed president and some of JFKs foreign policy interventions thank God didn't wipe us off the face of the planet... But by no means can you say that all that turmoil was the fault of the liberal left alone.
I would ask you though as a conservative what your stance on immigration, terrorism, homosexual civil rights, drug legalization, religion and state, etc are... And I'd say that they are pretty much the opposite of Alan Moore's. -
... ALL ideological perspectives." Ain't that the truth.
-
And in any case Gibbons says, "It's not a squid; it's a fifth-dimensional cephalopod"I love it :)
-
http://www.couragecampaign.org/prop8repeal
-
I love the novel. I will love this movie.
Movies are fun to watch.
Remember?
Lighten up, nerds. -
Snyder, you got deese taste.
-
sorry about that last post's confusion. I hit the "post button" the exact same time my computer's internet connection went south. Let me clarify, k?What I was trying to say was that Vietnam was hardly a PARTISAN effort. Both sides of the political fence made monumental errors. As for Nuclear power, it was FDR who approved of the manhattan project and Truman who dropped the bomb. As for Nixon...well, everybody hates Nixon ;)Now, I am not trying to say that the problems you brought up are democrat/liberal problems. What I AM saying is that there is pretty much equal involvment in Nuclear warfare, the Vietnam fiasco, and the like. I could just as easily bring up a slew of republican/conservative missteps and blunders but I really don't have that kind of time. I'm simply saying, again, that none of those issues are as simple as Democrat v. Republican, Conservative v. Liberal, or even Western society v. everybody else. In a nutshell, authoritarianism can be born from ANY idealogy.
-
fuck, i was afraid of that.
for those still whining about the explicit use of the title in dialogue, basically they're using it as a catch-all term for ALL the vigilantes. reflecting upon this, if they were to say, extrapolate this phrase from a statement of one of the Minutemen, then have that be subverted into the quote in the sixties...
i doubt that this will happen, but it would be an interesting way to get the title into the movie and make the execs happy. you can call a Batman movie "The Dark Knight" for the same reason you don't have to have a title in the opening to B:TAS, everybody knows who the fuck Batman is, the same does not apply to Watchmen, at least not in the eyes of the suits. -
...yeah...now. But sometimes these fan bugnut fests can change the course of a film. I'm sure there are some astute TB'ers who can reference potentials over the years. Maybe, just maybe, a studio rep played the rumor of Zombie getting Conan and the resultant apeshit-fest changed their minds? We may not be representative of the movie going audience at large nor the geek universe in total but I think we actually do have influence as a highly vocal, somewhat obnoxious film-fan community. Shit, just the fact that Moriarty is (or was) banned from Skywalker Ranch tells us quite a bit about certain bigwig views on AICN (If AICN were a part of town and Lucas got a flat tire, he'd have a small group of jackasses dressed in robes protecting him from the rabid masses of furious TB'ers! It'd be quite the battle royale! Even if over quicker than mice fucking).Everybody always assume it comes from hate...it doesn't. It comes from perhaps a slightly obsessive love of these stories...some of them we've grown up with over decades and to see arbitrary approaches to the creative content can be annoying. To an extent, we sometimes feel the material "belongs" to us, not in the Lucas way, "It's MY movie asshole! Not the fans!" but in the sense of identification with the story and the characters. People like Zakk Snyder and his political views are meaningless in the larger context. Moore only gets a break cause he created this particular world. But if it's about too long a movie or too many subplots, that's one thing. But we're talking about changing the climax of the entire story and most of you guys are busy equivocating it away and justifying why it doesn't matter. Why it's stupid to put it on screen in the first place. Why? And try not to simply profess opinion. Cause if what we're talking about is Snyder's opinion, than fuck him and his 'opinions' when it comes to properties he should be HONORED to bring to the screen...not get testy or defensive about the changes. Or act detached and psuedo-critical of people's reactions to the big changes when he thinks they should be concerned about the little ones.Again, I'm referring not so much to the change itself but to the defenders of it and their insistence that to follow the GN as written is somehow a bad thing? And, I think it's going to be an excellent movie and I hope their manufactured and contrived ending works but to me, it won't be the same cause it ISN'T the same. Therefore, it's not a true translation. Why not call Manhattan Atomo-Man then? Why not have them all have actual superpowers instead of just one of them? Why have it in the alternate 80's universe? Why bother having the mini-story within the story? Why bother being remotely true to the original material at all? We may as well get Bay and Emerich to do it eh?
-
And props to you for explaining why so many of us get so rabid over our beloved properties. We're like Lions protecting our beloved little cubs, you dig?And, yes, I understand why you feel it is important to have the squid. I also agree that if Snyder is simply changing it for change's sake, then yes, he deserves to rot in Hell, but it could also be that he really feels the story needs to be condensed and that from his perspective, the squid is a weak link. Dunno, really, but since he is the director, it is ultimately his call. If it works for most, then its a good call. If not, well, he better start to change his address. We won't know till we see the finished product, though, will we?
-
Well said.
-
...that's where you lost me. (see my above posts)
-
It all boils down to one query: Is this movie being made for the fanboys or for the general (Dark Knight-loving paying public?Because if it's the latter, then based on that trailer, no-one unfamiliar with Watchmen is going to be stoked into a frenzy of wanting to go see it. It's too vague, too 'weird' for Joe Shmoe to buy into.If the movie was made solely for the fanboys, however...well, again, it falls down because we all know now that the ending is a meaningless, irrelevant (and irreverant) compromise which fans of the book will utterly despise.So the question you really need to be asking yourself, Zach, is "Who, if anyone - will actually BE watching the Watchmen?"Sad, but I think we're talking 'Speed Racer' box-office come March...Biggus out.
-
poop.
-
"I myself am glad they got rid of the fifth-dimensional cephalopod, as that thing would HAVE to look fucking ridiculous on screen; I don't care how many dead bodies you stack around it, it would look retarded."
Whew, glad we cleared that up. 'Cos obviously no-one on earth is capable of making a movie where a giant fucking alien beast can be strange to look at and yet still terrifying.
Have you watched ANY genre movies in the last decade? Are you even aware of what they can do these days with SFX?
**shakes head in disbelief** -
As long as I like it, it was all worth it.
-
As Roscach says in the novel, "No. Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."
This encapsulates EVERYTHING that is great about Watchmen the GN. IT DOESN'T FUCKING COMPROMISE. NEVER! Not fucking once. That story works on its own terms because Alan Moore doesn't give a fuck what you think. It's HIS vision and HIS story and HIS fucking masterpiece.
What seems to have happened here, with former darling-of-the-geek-fraternity Zach "Sell-out" Snyder here, is that after getting acclaim regarding his first two movies - both of which I liked (though 300 is the gayest straight movie since TOP GUN) - he's sold out on arguably the greatest graphic novel ever written - in order to keep his place at the table. This should have been the point where NO-ONE got to interfere - Zach does it all Moore's way or not at all. But hey, if he has to compromise in order to make the inevitable fuck-up HIS fuck-up, then whatever.
Those of you who agree with compromising this unique and fucking flawless vision - not only have you fundamentally missed the entire premise of the fucking graphic novel, you're buying into the idea that compromise is GOOD - that compromise between the GN and the movie can be a good thing. Compromise, in this case, means fucking up the entire point of the graphic novel - meaning Zach just doesn't get it. I mean, fundamentally doesn't GET IT.
And if that's where compromise on this project leads you - WHAT'S THE FUCKING POINT AT ALL?
Hey, enjoy your new LXG, peeps. I'm making like Moore and giving this shit a wiiiiiiiiiide berth. 100% or nothing at all - that's what this project deserved. It got 90%, and that's just not good enough. -
Alan Moore is an anarchist which means he would probably have issues with liberals and conservatives, that being said, that graphic novel makes direct references (i think, its been awhile since i've read them) to both reagan, thatcher and nixon putting the spotlight on conservatives and their values.
-
Doomed.
-
Comic book nerds...seriously, there have been so few comic book properties that got the nerd stamp of approval and yet went on to do huge box office. I still remember the "OMG the X-Men outfits are black leather WTF" posts on here and funnily enough, that movie did okay...because, you see, you represent a very tiny fraction of the film's target viewership. If people who read the graphic novel and worshiped it as a materpiece were the target audience, they could count on making back about 1% of the film's budget. Get real.
-
I always pictured a voice that was completely shot and rough, basically Tom Waits after a bender.
-
i don't know anything about the guy, but i just read his quote about being offered the movie. I don't believe in compromise when it comes to adapting comic books to movies, but Snyder said that when they contacted him he felt they were going to screw up the movie with or without him and he decided to attach himself to the movie to save as much of the graphic novel as he could. My guess is this typical Hollywood b.s., but it could be true.
-
If we don't complain then how will Hollywood know what we don't like?
-
Yeah absolutely catlettuse4. If you can find Moore reading from Rorschachs journal as Rorschach do so. It's what the voice is based on. Inject an American accent and you have it. Still there's not REALLY enough dialogue to tell yet and it won't kill the Movie as (to me anyway) it's nowhere near as "forced" as Bale sounds doing TDK.
One things for sure whether there is enough interest in the general Moviegoing public about watchmen yet, there clearly is here. ;-) -
It's a man-made creation. It isn't a fucking alien.So is it such a massive let down that they use another man-made creation - the bomb - in its stead?So the artists got together and had their indivual plans corrupted to form the pretence of an alien invasion. And they made a fucking squid. The greatest artist in the world get together and they formulate...A GIANT FUCKING SQUID?Let's put the greatest writers, poets, sculptors, dramatists and whoever the fuck else can hold a pen and think outside the box together in a room and leave them alone for a while.(Waits a week.)"Whaddya got boys and girls?"(Embarassed Pause) "Ermmm...it's a squid."A fucking what?""A squid.""I'm sorry, I thought you said it was a squid.""Ummm...well, it's a celaphopod, to be precise. And it's really big. And it's thoughts can kill.""Oh thank god for that because for a moment I thought you'd said you came up with a mental octopus.It dies on contact...some fucking 'invasion'."Oh shit! Oh shit! It's a giant fucking telepathy octopus and it's coming this way! And it's coming this...oh...no it isn't. The fucker's dead."Whoooo...that's a brillaint invasion plan. Let's die when we get there.Why don't we have the most powerful man on the planet 'turn' against its people ("Yeah!" scream the executives, "We've been trying to make a Superman movie like that for years!")Even if he is being framed that's just as fucking plausible as a giant squid, all things being equal.
-
Cheers, WavingFlagsInSpace! I'm having that as the name of any future rock band I put together!
-
Some things are sacred. Watchmen is one of those things. Snyder took out the squid. Now we have "The Watchmen" mentioned. What else did this guy change?If you make a movie about the Bible, you have Jesus Christ crucified. You don't have him shot to death and then pop up later as a genie from a bottle.I'm not comparing Watchmen to the Bible but they're both sacred items that you don't fuck around with if you're using them as source material. This is the best graphic novel EVER. And they've changed it!You wait all these years for it to reach the big screen and they've fucked it up! THAT's why people are saying they will boycott this movie.Fucking hell. Did I really have to explain it to some of you, simpletons?
-
but i don't agree with though...i think the squid matters.
-
If people want to see what compromise gets you, go rent "From Hell, "V for Vendetta," and "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen." Three of the best comic books the medium has to offer, reduced to three of the most thoroughly average movies of the past decade, thanks to the magical process of Hollywood storytelling "compromise."
-
Frankly the points about WHY the original ending works have been made again and again and again now. Let's just try this.
Does the original ending work in the Comic ? Yes, yes it does.
Does Snyders alternate ending work in the Movie ? WE. DON'T. FUCKING. KNOW. YET. clear ?
But before some people attempt to trash the originals ending for fear that Snyders ending may turn out to be shit, at least understand that there are REASONS for the original ending and it wasn't pulled out of thin air.
Firstly, "It's a squid!" Nooooo. It's from another fucking demension, is enormous and ***SPOILER*** teleports into the centre of New York killing hundreds of thousands of people in unimaginably bloody carnage.
Don't THINK there will be too many who survive that will say "fuck me! it were only a squid. Doh!"
It has tentacles and RESEMBLES a gigantic single eyed sea creature with a beak BUT it ain't no fucking squid it's ALIEN it clearly LOOKS fucking Alien (what with the GIGANTIC bizzarrely colored tentacles and single eye and teleporting into SOLID buildings and ground)
Other problem is framing Manhattan. Simply put if you read the comic you are under no doubt that Manhattan's greatest weakness was ALWAYS (even when he was Osterman) that he was a PASSIVE observer. He was pushed into his job by his father, Janey took the riegns of the relationship and later Manhattan looks on as *SPOILER** the Comedian shoots his pregnant Vietnamese squeeze.
The famous "GOD HELP US ALL!" line is BECAUSE the Comedian can see how completely out of touch and uncaring about humanity Manhattan is getting. But "supposedly" Snyder turns him into a Vengefull antagonist ???? Sorry but that is the complete OPPOSITE of what Manhattan is. He simply doesn't care. Laurie brings him back a little but ultimately not enough for him to actually ***SPOILER** stay on earth.
Having said all this we'll have to see how Snyders "version" fares. But don't pretend the original ending was throwaway. It's foreshadowed and is consistant with the characters actions.
Snyders problem is he is changing more than just one scene but a fairly crucial setpiece that was what it was for a reason. Who knows ? Perhaps he'll succeed and it will make sense and seem O.K. in the context of his version of the story. We'll see.
But don't try to fucking trash Moores ending pre-emptively out of fear of how Snyders ending will fare because Moores ending WORKS. And it is what it is for GOOD reasons. -
why the squid is more than just a squid to the people who don't care that it's meaning has been totally changed because they never got Watchmen in the first place, and aren't capable of getting it. Also, there is no more reason to complain about it because it's the fuckwitted 20 somethings who DON'T understand that this movie was made for. See? This movie wasn't made for people who have read the book 20-30 times including all the between chapter stuff it was made for people who don't want to read the book.
-
Neither is the Bible, though.
-
to Dave Gibbons. I guess he didn't "get" Watchmen in the first place either?
-
But I hope she can act.
Also, I hope the rumored 2 1/2 hour runtime isn't due to slo-mo abuse. I know I'm not saying anything new here, but damn, that gets old quick. -
He didn't.
Here's what he ACTUALLY said recently.
Can you tell us anything about the movie's supposedly changed ending? The version they screened a couple of weeks ago didn't have a squid…
I saw an early cut of the movie, and there was a nondisclosure agreement involved. I have read on the Internet that people suspect that there are multiple endings that they're going to market test, and that they have an ending with the squid and an ending without it. I certainly feel that if all you want to do is a literal adaptation of the book, then I guess you must have the squid. But I do think it's possible to have the same message as the book and have basically the same ending without the squid. So, that's something that I don't have insider knowledge about, but it's something that frankly isn't of huge concern to me.
*And brilliant as Gibbons is he was the ILLUSTRATOR not the driving force behind the story. So if the story called for and he wanted to simply draw a fucking squid (and NOT a genetically engineered creature from another dimension) something tells me as an extremely accomplished illustrator he could have managed it.
The creature is NEVER named. People just refer to is as squid or squiddy as shorthand after the fact. Instead of the generic "engineered monster" or "creature". It obviously doesn't mean it IS a squid FFS. -
It was a good read. Glad I didn't pay for it, though. Wasn't the end all be all so many try to make it out as. Also, of course the average Joe movie goer would think the 'squid' is silly. It was silly in the book. Oh yeah, a giant genitically altered squid thingy with a cloned psychic brain suddenly appears in New York City and kills everyone...yup noone will be thrown by that. When I read it, I was like, that was good, but that is it? From the things I had heard (mostly on this site) I was expecting some life altering experience...nope just an entertaining read.
-
That's all.
-
... it's much more. It's an octopus. Think about.
-
I know this has been brought up many, many times already but the ratio of point to counterpoint on this is about 5:1 so I think it's worth me restating this counterpoint: The fact that the graphic novel is full of scenes explaining how the squid came about or that Blake dies because he knows about it doesn't make the it any less replaceable. It's easy to imagine the bumpf about the artists and scientists being excised completely without it remotely affecting the main storyline. As for the Comedian, all he has to do is discover the plot and it doesn't really matter what this plot is, so far as I recall, as long as it horrifies him. Which it will by definition anyway given its purpose and providence. And you could still conceivably have scientists (but perhaps not artists) working on whatever this new Manhattan related scheme is, couldn't you? It's no more ridiculous than the necessity of hiring a comicbook artist and a poet to create an extraterrestrial being and it's brainwaves, which, I've got to say, notwithstanding the Black Freighter connection, struck me as a slightly self-indulgent touch in the novel (the TBer who said Moore's work might be more important for it's artistic value, than it's philosophical weight, was spot on IMO).I also don't get Brians Life's argument about how having Dr Manhattan set off explosions around the world/wherever remotely fits in which his character arc. Isn't his arc that he turns his back on humanity and then realises humans have intrinsic value after all? How does him being perceived as, but not actually being, a murderous threat relate to this in any way? Also, I assume that in the film he ends up accepting this villain role for the 'greater good' meaning, once again, the theme of him having turned against humanity would be an erroneous perception on the part of the fictional populace rather than an actual, real theme. Finally, there is a difference between turning your back on humanity and becoming hellbent on destroying it and I think Brians Life may have picked up on this somewhere in a post where he wrote, if I'm not mistaken, that the Doc has 'reasoned' that humanity must be destroyed. The ongoing 'frame-up' involving Manhattan had him *involuntarily* inducing cancer in people who were exposed to him. It posited him as dangerous but indifferent rather than actively wicked. Now, fair enough the one (alienation) can lead to the other (destructive impulses) but I think that the progression (the ‘reasoning’) or, more relevantly, why the public would come to believe that Manhattan had come to this conclusion, would have to be put onscreen at some point (along with some resolution involving, presumably, his destruction). The ‘Terrorist Manhattan’ plot is going to end up having more dimensions (I believe another TBer has pointed out that Earth would effectively have to resolve to take up arms against a god), and ramifications than the squid plot and I don't believe that this is a good thing *precisely* because I don't think that the squid's role is all that important. The nature of the catastrophic event being worked towards is, IMO, one of the least important aspects of the whole story (I don’t think that ‘Big Ideas’ are Moore’s strong suite, as I’ve said).I thought that the squid thing was pretty dumb in the graphic novel nevertheless I have misgiving about this change simply because of what the squid has been replaced with. The squid was dumb but it was also a discrete idea which didn’t really impact on what I perceive to be the actual arcs/journeys of the characters. And I can’t really see what would have been so difficult about creating the effect or why one might consider it too ‘out there’ to film—- one needn’t devote more than a minute of screentime to the damn thing. I’ve come to appreciate the graphic novel enormously and that appreciation has zero to do with the squid which I accepted because the buildup and everything else around it was so brilliant. I find the reveals of most film noir type stories to be pretty random and utterly ridiculous and it’s obviously the getting there which is most important thing as far as some stories are concerned. I guess what I’m trying to say is by replacing the squid with the Dr Manhattan the makers of this new movie have conceivably turned what I would almost consider a Maguffin into a weighty plot point.And why sell it as a superhero movie? That’s a mistake. I see this more as an ‘LA Confidential’ type murder mystery and I think that the public will be more appreciative to it in the end if that was how it was being sold. Also, since this story is set in a post Cold War world what is Ozymandias’ imperative now? What is the Doomsday clock ticking down to, in this movie…?
-
Why is no one harping on the other changes, evident even in this trailer...like the dialogue between Dr. Manhattan and what's her bucket. I don't recall anything like that exchange in their talk on Mars.
-
I've been saying that, before I saw the trailer. The GN is easily one of the top 5 greatest works of art ever created. But it can be made into a film, since it's kinda built like a storyboard.
The only comic-books that can never be made into a film, is "The Sandman Chronicles." That is impossible to turn into a live action film. -
What you saw in the trailer, did take place between Dr. Manhattan and Lauren in the GN. I doubt that you have even read the GN, since you called "Lauren" a what's her bucket. You don't know the name of one of the most fascinating characters in the entire GN?? Get a clue.
-
And "approving" the ending (after he was a consultant on the Movie) certainly doesn't mean he is now shitting on the original and it's ending because he DOESN'T. Nowhere does Gibbons EVER say "the squid is just a squid" or criticize retrospectively that aspect on the comic. He's clearly happy with what he did with Moore.
As a Movie he seems happy with what Snyder has done but that certainly doesn't mean he thinks it's BETTER than the original comics ending. It means it's different and until I see how it's handled myself I'm not going to be definitive. nor am I going to take Gibbons approval as 100% "proof" Snyders ending has worked. -
But the squid just wouldn't work on the big screen. It was fantastic in the GN, but I just can't see how devastating it would be in a live action film. It's kinda like how Raimi changed Spiderman's web abilities. It simply worked better for cinema. If Raimi decided to make Peter Parker make web cartridges, people would of laughed out loud.
-
This is pandering to the masses...to the stupid who need everything explained to them. If this is what this movie is about, it is a bad sign for anyone with a brain.
-
I believe it fits with his arc justly as a rather tragic character. After his realization that human beings do have value he has decided he will stop the coming apocalypse, only to become a pawn in it.I also agree that the indifference of Manhattan would have to be depicted and the fictional public's knowledge of this indifference depicted as well.I posted this several times to serve those that don't read posts (which one should never do I suppose) so my point may have gotten a bit muddled. Further thoughts welcomed please...Question, what makes you think the movie is set in a POST Cold War world?
-
the web cartridges were a cop out and, for me at least, the squid could work. In fact, i think it would be cool.
-
Moore knows his Comics. Watchmen is a study of the Superhero TEAM. What is perhaps the most iconic superhero TEAM ? The Justice League of America. (which has most of the characters Moore puts a sly spin on.) What is on the cover of the FIRST Justice League teamup comic ?
A Giant tentacled/many limbed, one eyed, Alien/sea creature with Telepathic powers called Starro the Conqueror.
THAT'S a bit of a fucking co-incidence isn't it ? No it ain't. Moore knows exactly what he is doing.
The fact that Starro and many, MANY of these "Supervillain" entities the Superhero Teams go up against are pretty fucking silly is not lost on Moore.
**SPOILERS** So he embraces this and TELLS the reader "look, something this wierd we'd have to invent" which is exactly what Ozy and his team of Artists does. The creature is impossibly strange and Alien because it was MADE that way.
****SPOILERS**** It's accepted for two big reasons. Firstly, because Manhattan is accepted in that world. So the conceptual leap isn't that huge from having Manhattan as a god-LIKE Superhero striding about the world to then having a classic Comic book antagonist appearing. A supremely strange and evil Alien creature that threatens the entire world.
Secondly. The DEAD. The death and mutilation and bloody corpses and hundreds of thousands killed by squiddy is an instant and incredibly effective counterpoint to any inherent ridiculousness we feel about squiddy. That's crucial. Without all the blood and carnage and subsequent shocked reaction by Laurie Squiddy would topple under the weight of it's strangeness into merely the absurd. But the World sees the death and destruction and so do we. It "roots" squiddy into being something far more sinister and deadly. -
Is Watchmen as a story perfect? No, it has some flaws. I remember reading the part about the genetically engineered mind-squid thing and thinking "C'mon!" And I was a diehard comic book fan. That's a failure on my part to suspend disbelief. It's just that Moore went to so much effort to establish a universe grounded in reality, it came as a bit jarring to me. Makes you wonder how the neophyte viewer would take it. But people who say it's not that great simply do not view it in the context of what it did for the comics medium. A lotta people seem preoccupied with how this tale is being marketed. I believe it's a big mistake to compare this to films like Iron Man and the Dark Knight. Hey, that's a good way for the unitiated to go into this- if you've ever watched a superhero movie and said "C'mon!", then this is the movie for you! I know some of us have been waiting to see Daniel, Rorschach, Adrian, Laurie, and the rest for a while. At the least, I hope to be entertained. At best, it'd be great if it makes you think about what you've seen.
-
Hope this don't detract from what I said!
-
even in the story itself...no squid, no island....no island, no comedian discovering plot...no comedian discovering plot, no story...there will be a huge plot hole if the only 2 involved in the entire plot are ozy and the unknowing doc...it doesnt work...sorry
-
With the things they can do in movies nowadays,Neil Gaiman's The Sandman is not impossible to make into a live action film.
-
Anybody know what the song was in this trailer. I know it wasn't the end is the beginning is the end or whatever by Smashing Pumpkins but it sounded like another Pumpkins song. If anybody knows what it is, please post it. Thanks.
-
But you're talking about the GN, not the film. It would not work on the big screen. People would just walk out of the theater. It was devastating to see in the GN, and the aftermath was even more frightening. On film, it would just look laughable.
Just because they took out the squid, doesn't mean that it won't have the same impact. And it doesn't change the entire ending, the characters, or plot. -
The song is Prophecies by Philip Glass at the beginning, which transitions into Take a Bow by Muse after the Comedian is thrown out of the window.
-
"The Sandman Chronicles" can never be made into a live action film. It's damn near impossible. You take out one chapter, or one character, then you fuck up the entire thing. Plain and simple.
-
http://io9.com/5088091/first-glimpse-of-the-star-trek-trailer?autoplay=true
-
I know other people said octopus, my friend. I was riffing off of this silly specificity, you see.I never said Gibbons shitted upon anything - brobdingnag said "Theres no point in trying to explain why the squid is more than just a squid to the people who don't care that it's meaning has been totally changed because they never got Watchmen in the first place, and aren't capable of getting it."So I said "Explain why the squid is more than a squid to Dave Gibbons. I guess he didn't "get" Watchmen in the first place either?"No, that doesn't mean he's literally saying it's just a squid - but close enough. He said the ending works, that's the point, and I have this suspicion that he understands the comic. The idea here is that just cause someone is okay with replacing the squid doesn't mean they don't understand the goddamn thing.And everyone should quit calling it a graphic novel. It's a mini series comic book.
-
Hurm, I´m canceling all the new comic editions, toys and movie books orders. Whatta letdown, man...
Joking, Zack & co, heh.
(But I) Wasn´t too crazy about some stuff.
Calling themselves "Watchmen". Yep, sorry. I know, is for the masses. But we´re talking about an RATED-R MOVIE FOR ADULTS. "I loooved the movie, but why Watchmen?", "Something to do with all those wall graffitis, but hey, who cares? The movie was great!" The crimebusters photo shot with everyone smiling. And a shorty-like-a-puppy Ror, rar rar. The "Watchmen is over" voice over...over a hot-&-sexy chick? How about something more...properly right? The climax of the Muse song is a scene we know wasn´t that super-duper important in the novel (the rescue from the fire). Should have been the last frames of Bernie and the comic book kid (also called Bernie) embracing together before the very end. Or something dramatic like that. Ozzy´s german accent. This gonna be...weird. A nazi villain triumphing at the end, "I zaved ze worrrld!!" Even the last cinematic Red Skull was a italian...
(And) Loved some stuff. The shadowy mannequin-like-Veidt entry...with a real mannequin at his side. Ror going up with the Blade-Runnerian whatever-craft above the building. Old Laurie´s voice. You can see she´s a mature doll just by the way she talks. Finally, a great water effects on Archie´s rising from the river shot. Nice to be patient. Ror running through the corridor. Can´t wait for the after shots. "Hey, this ugly little zero is the terror of the underworld!?" And Doc shouting "Leave me alone!!" Imagine this screaming with...sound effects. So wrong, man. No human drama at all.
(And there were some) Middle stuff. Hated at first the Night Owl´s voice. But, on a second though. He sounded like a nerd. Just like one of us nerds, heh. About Rorschach, still don´t like his horse-like-face (sorry, twenty years of rounded-face Ror). But he´s dead on perfect. And sometimes, he reminds me of...Inspector Clouseau! A psycho little runt Clouseau, heh. The kicking in the door at the end? "Bang! Well Cato, I´m back on the case...Ah-ha!!"
(And last but not the least) The glimpse of the new end. The New York bombing reminded me of what the end of Season One of Heroes (from Tim "Never heard of Watchmen before cough cough" Kring) was supposed to be. Now this is what I call a f****** irony!
But, I know, I know. Some of the best stuff is still in the can. Waiting for us. Except the squid. No Squid for Old Geeks, heh.
-
As I've said before, I really liked the IDEA of the island, particularly implicating artists in the whole kind of fascistic endeavor - because that is a point not often made by artists about artists, that historically they have been complicit in some fucked up shit. However I think the execution of the squid's arrival itself was a bit clumsy. I think they could do it in a movie, but there's far too much subplot that goes into it, and if the payoff doesn't work, it's really not worth it. Because the payoff in the comic was clumsy I can see why they'd shy away from it in the film. On the other hand, I can imagine a really great and terrifying image there. Anyway in the end the Comedian can still run across the secret plot - for that purpose it doesn't matter what the plot is really. And yes you are losing something by changing it, but you are also gaining something, and that something is concision ... If this were a mini series on HBO or something - which I think they should have done really - it would make sense; they could keep the island and the squid (personally I think the island is the most important part, not what they come up with. Because it's really the best and the brightest that perpetrate this horror on the world). But even then, honestly, what Moore says is correct - that Watchmen is very comic-booky, and a film could never replicate it in total. So things will be left out, no matter how you slice it. Watchmen has a lot of great stuff in it, overrated though it is, and if Snyder and co are concentrating on the character aspect of it, then I think that's probably a wise choice, since the characters are pretty effective.
-
why are you assuming that that MUST be the series of events. I can think of any number of ways that the Comedian could discover the plot and still be shaken to the bone by it's scope and brutality.
-
Not only does losing the squid miss the point of Veidt's plot--if mankind were threatened by an alien menace we'd all see ourselves as humans first, nationalities second--but replacing it with a frame-job on Dr. Manhattan turns this movie into a glorified remake of "How Do You Stop An Exploding Man" with a bigger budget and masks. I can't believe with CGI so advanced that they couldn't have made the "phony alien" aspect of the story work.
How about this: A capsule of seemingly extraterrestrial origin appears in the skies over New York. As it hovers, the curious an foolish gather around it while the military mobilizes too slowly. The hatch opens. From the opening bursts a hideous creature with a thousand mouths, instantly turning the crowd into so much meat. The carnage, shown worldwide on news channels, is sickening. The military strikes. Unlike every science fiction cliche movie ever made, they succeed in blasting the thing to bits, but in doing so, set off a nuclear explosion that levels a third of the city. No evidence. But everyone saw we were under attack from the skies, and if there is to be a second attack, we'd better be ready to face it together.
And that's how you lose the squid but keep the integrity of the idea intact.
I know how they're going to do this, mark my words. All of the cities attacked will be American, and the world will sympathize that our own weapon turned on us. Like the days following 9/11, the rest of the globe will rally round us, and Dr. Manhattan will choose to disappear and let people think him evil rather than ruin the world's best chance at peace. Yes, that works, but at what cost? AT WHAT COST? -
Nov 15, 2008 1:20:40 AM CST
But if no ther's squid, then how can Black Freighter work?
by blindambition238
Znyder was making a big deal about an ultimate edition of the movie with the Black Freighter animated and uncut... which would be pointless to the story as a whole if they didnt include some kind of 'psychic' attack.
-
the Watchmen movie comes out in what, 5 months? Are you all really gonna keep this insane level of bitching up for the next 5 months, or most likely, the level of bitching will increase exponentially the closer we get to the release date and/or every time new details are revealed? And then, when you all finally see the movie, the bitching will be adjusted to what you actually saw IN the movie?
And I thought the madness you nerds expressed before and after the Dark Knight was bad... All of you need to go fucking HIBERNATE until March, and let the rest of us have a peaceful winter.... -
...that united mankind in the fucking book, people! Hell, they even say that the Institute the thing landed on was responsible for bringing it here. It was the untold carnage on American soil that make the US/Russians start to work together. Hmmm...can I think of any other historical event (maybe with a catchy moniker) that also DIDN'T involve aliens in which the World was (albeit temporarily) united behind the U.S.A.!?!?! Anyone!?!? Bueller?
-
I think the Squid is in!!!
-
The squid was never my favorite part of "Watchmen" and would be very difficult to convey onscreen or at least to explain. Jeffery Dean Morgan so far has captured Edward Blake perfectly. He's the one to watch.
-
It just looks like a two and a half hour long advertisement for the novel, really.
-
Is almost identical to the way Alan Moore read the lines when he was doing a Watchmen screening. So, I don't get the complaints. It's coming from the man himself. (If this was already mentioned, I apologize, I've only skimmed through some of these posts).
-
Watchmen READING.
-
I read the graphic novel in high school when all my friends were passing it around and I didn't love it. I liked idea enough but it never resonated with me in the same way it seems to with others. As someone who loves films though I do have to say the Squid would probably be an extraordinarily difficult sell to the uninitiated. Unlike Batman or Iron Man most people don't know any of the characters in Watchmen. They don't know the story as would be evidenced by anyone who saw The Dark Knight after opening weekend with the premiere of the Watchmen trailer. With a fanboy crowd it seems like Watchmen will be the biggest success in the world... but with a more middle america type crowd all you get are people muttering if anyone knows who the Watchmen are. I will see the film and I expect that it will be quite a spectacle at worst and an epic comic film at best. Saying all that Snyder made an excellent update with Dawn of the Dead and a great comic book adaptation already in 300. The guy makes entertaining and visually arresting films give him some trust I think the end result will be worth it.
-
Nov 15, 2008 3:45:39 AM CST
Trailer looks promising. Could give two shits about the Squid
by stalkeye
Sure a giant explosion would come off as contemporary,but dropping a giant squid smack in the city might look a bit silly on screen.Anyone who thinks this movie will be a direct translation of the GN is in for a rude ass awakening.And yes, TOTBF would be great for a bonus DVD or an HBO miniseries as there is no way in hell they can cram the story in a 2 and a half hour movie.
-
Did they say "the Watchmen Are over'? Shouldn't it me "The Minutemen are over"?
Please tell me they didn't change the name to make the title make sense to the idiots who never read it.
I realize it is a small gripe but it is portentous to me. -
Nov 15, 2008 7:56:18 AM CST
Wouldn't be the first time I was accused of that, evangelion.
by devil'sown
Never say never, and oh yeah, it's quite possible. What you're saying is symptomatic of what's wrong with so many of us fanfolk. It reminds me of the LotR talkbacks of days gone by. I loved the Professor's epic work as much as the next geek, but I'm a realist; I wasn't expecting the work entire to be commited to celluloid. I thought the movie trilogy was outstanding as it was. Purists (of which you are apparently one) border on the psychotic. How literal a translation do you want? Have you seen adaptations of pre-existing source material? In order for a movie's narrative structure to work, some details have to be sacrificed. It's a necessary evil. I want to see The Black Freighter included with the main story of Watchmen, but the creators involved deem that not doable. That's what DVD special features are for. I guess the point "radicals" like you try to make is no story worth reading should be filmed in the first place. Good luck with that. To include every situation, every character from a writer's work, especially a long and complex one? That, my friend, is impossible. Peace.
-
One day I'll invent a time machine, i'll travel back to when you're three weeks old and I'll tattoo "DUMBASS" on your ugly little forehead with a blow torch and a set of rusting needles.
-
They've replaced the squid with the lion from Cloverfield!
-
Funny you should mention that. My wife just admitted to me that, all the time Denny (his character) on Grey's Anatomy was there she thought he WAS Robert Downey Junior. She thought it was just another "Ally McBeal" guest star gig.
-
Nov 15, 2008 9:51:47 AM CST
Anti-thinky stuff *or* typical test-market bullshit
by fathermcgruderkicksassforthelord
"DAAAAAARRR squidders maek me all angry, gimme sum kikass 'splosions eny ol' day!"
VS.
"Sorry geeks, cephalopods don't test well with the 18-25! Please suck a fat dick, and we'll see you in the spring!"
Either way, I do concede that the argument grows tedious really fucking fast. Arguing with Philistines usually does. -
This fil would be half an hour shorter if you played all the slo-mo at full speed.
-
Yeah I'm sure they tested most concepts in the comic to see how they would go over. I guess they'll have this rated PG-13 and have Miley Cyrus in it too. I mean it's obvious Watchmen has "corporate swill" written all over it.Seriously, agree or disagree, I think it's pretty clear they changed the squid out so they could streamline the story and that's pretty much it.
-
God, this looks like more Emo-superhero shit. I'll pass, thanks.
-
Nov 15, 2008 12:26:49 PM CST
Can't remember who said it, but the squid ties into Starro
by wookie1972
and the first "modern" superteam, the JLA. Moore never did anything for no reason. But I would side with those who say that it's not so much the loss of the squid as the loss of an alien attack. It doesn't make any sense that Ozymandias would be smart enough to do all this and yet stupid enough to think he could emotionally blackmail a godlike being. Everything I've seen shows me that Snyder gets the surface level of the book (his comments about the details like the pregnant woman say as much) but doesn't have a whit of a clue hwhat the book is actually about. (Snyder probably would have left in Tom Bombadil, but made the climax a sword fight between Gandalf and Sauron in full armor).
-
... SHOULD be the first thing to go when making a film adaptation of something so "literary".
-
Happens twice in this trailer. That was never a formal name for the group of heroes. The title comes from the Roman poet Juvenal. It's supposed to be a thought-provoking title for the story -- not the name of a superhero club. In the book the anti-vigilante proestors use the term in their slogan. But none of the main characters would use the term as a self-reference. In the book, there were the Minute Men of the 1940s and the aborted group called "The Crime Busters." Hopefully they've edited these audio clips together just for the trailer and we won't hear them in the actual movie.
-
You're 100% correct and good to see others who acknowledge that Moore pretty much sabotaged his own story with the idiotic squid. It was a laughable turn and once it popped up the remainder of the story, I just didn't care. It was a bad move and didn't work in the comics, so it won't work onscreen. Damn and people still think Frank Miller is a good writer, too.
-
Patrick Wilson even stated at comic-con, that the name Crimebusters was changed to "Watchmen", for the film adaptation.
This change is pretty annoying. But then again, making changes for a film might end up being a good thing. "Blade Runner" is completely different from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep." And the film still turned out to be a masterpiece. Not saying that Snyder is creating a masterpiece, but it could end up being a great film.
One thing is for sure, Kevin Smith was right. This will not be as great as "TDK." -
It makes sense to change it. It's kind of weird to name it something that sounds like a superhero group name, but no that's not the name of the group. In the comic I guess it makes more sense as there's plenty of time to read over stuff and think about it a it's happening.
-
This movie just can't possibly suck. Someone compared the images from the trailers and they are nearly identical with the book, dialogue is nearly entirely taken straight from the book. The movie is R rated, and 2hr 30 min long (3hr DirCut)
Snyder obviously packed everything he could in there, but liberties HAD TO BE TAKEN, so the movie makes money, and convinces the studios that R rated movies can make a profit, that it DOES matter if you put behind the camera someone like Ratner, or someone with at least a bit of comic book knowledge, filmmaking skills and care for the material.
Face the facts. Zodiac was a great movie back in the day, but it was too long and so obviously non-commercial, to not make enough money back and be snubbed at the Oscars.
Things like Manhattan's voice, calling them Watchmen in the movie, or the squid are really minor quibbles that in my opinion do not decide if the movie will suck or not. At the very least this movie will deserve a 7/10 score. But, even with the liberties taken, this can still very much bomb at the BO. Without these liberties, making the movies a bit more accessible to the casual viewer, the risk is even bigger. -
See your last post for proof. Take a class or reread the book. Sorry to be one of those guys that says this, but you didn't get it.
-
...that the blood on Comedian's badge is supposed to resemble a clock hand. The fact that the director missed the meaning behind the novel's most iconic image doesn't bode well. Not that this venture ever had a chance of artistic integrity in the first place. And not that I'm anything less than chomping to see it.
-
Brian's Life, congratulations on being "that guy". So... what have we learned in this most exasperrating talkback? Well, this movie provokes strong reactions from the geek community. Some people make an appeal to grotesque ignorance, swearing the production will tank due to lack of "familiarity" (conveniently forgetting that every movie is someone's introduction to characters and situations), while others delude themselves into believing they're taking the intellectual high road nitpicking footage, insulting those who don't agree with them, and questioning the credentials of those who say they've read the book. I swear to Christ, it's like dogs agressively sniffing each others' butts. Y'all cats are just too cerebral for me. Glad it's a graphic novel and not some religeous text! Der... We (those who read the story) get it!! The "squid" is an important centerpiece of the climax, yadda, yadda, yadda. I can't speak for everyone else, but I simply don't see enough to get my drawers in an uproar! I guess I'm just not discriminating as some of you, and damn glad of it. Cuz right now you sound like smug little people. When March rolls around, I will see this movie, and if it has a fraction of the source material's depth and complexity, it'll confirm my suspicion that a lot of you are just posers, all blow an' no show.
-
http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/09/19/kevin-smith-the-dark-knight-is-better-than-watchmen-and-star-trek/
That's it. If a hack like Kevin Smith thinks Watchmen is "awesome and perfect" but not as good as The Dark Knight, then we're done here. Watchmen done right would be better than The Dark Knight.
-
Funny
-
His opinion isn't worth any more than anyone else's who posts on here, for chrissakes.
-
Ok, I liked the trailer too, but I still want whatever he's on. Does he give a bad review of anything anymore?
-
looks good to me, and i loved the philip glass scoring. what surprises me most is how many people are judging the final product on a couple of 2 minute trailers. of course all of the scenes are taken out of context and the dialogue is inserted in different places than it is in the movie. have you ever seen a movie trailer? they are ALL like that. and as for comparing it to TDK or LOTR...well that's just silly. all movies are different and can't be compared to each other. either you like it or you don't. that's where comparisons start and end.
and just because we can get all the inside news on movies as they are being made, doesn't mean that the news is accurate. or that just because certain scenes are in the trailer means they will definitely be in the movie. some could be deleted scenes. some could be on the cutting room floor. and until the actual movie comes out, who really cares?
have some goddam patience. all of you and your ilk are the reason that movies are coming out so fast and feel incomplete; its because the studios are trying to get your money as fast as they can. so the movies are released as soon as possible, never mind if they are really "finished" with them. you don't want the director to take time and craft a masterpiece; you want daily updates and shots from the set and behind the scenes news RIGHT FUCKING NOW. this is why the comic book movies and movies in general are starting to decline in quality; because no one has the patience to wait. every one needs it RIGHT FUCKING NOW like a goddam drug.
so if you don't like the movie, you only have your selves to blame. -
every one is an expert on writing/moviemaking these days.
so if you know so goddam much about what makes a good movie, why aren't you out there creating them? at least writing a script...maybe with an original idea or a new take on an old one. i share the blame because i haven't been writing as much as i should. but remember my handle, you'll see it "out there" soon enough. -
Nov 15, 2008 7:05:40 PM CST
I think it's perfectly valid to call some one an idiot...
by brians life
...that claims that the squid at the ending of the comic was a dumb idea.
-
The first one was much better. Philip Glass doesn't fit the trailer at all (even though his score was awesome), and then it just randomly goes into some Muse song.
It felt fanmade. And also Rorschach is not supposed to sound like that. He should be monotone and dry, not like Bale's Batman. Fuck this shit movie, Snyder sucks balls. Avatar will fuck our eyeballs 2009. Everything else doesn't matter. -
That IS how he's supposed to sound. Or, at least, that's how Alan Moore reads him.
-
Nov 16, 2008 5:28:20 AM CST
Ahh-I think it's gonna kick ass-music and voices are pitch perfe
by mr.lordbronco
you wanks are bitching about who's better-Phillip Glass or Muse or Smashing Pumpkins.
Short answer-they are all good.
I am a Squddite, but what I really hope to see is a long slow pan across *millions* of dead people all across the world slowly revealed in a reveal at the end of the movie that makes all the regular theater goers say WTF?!?
I thought this was Batman and Robin!!!
I can't quite understand how the script could remove squid/blame Dr. Manhattan elegantly...
But I will say that it does need to end very very nasty.
Final word, that's only as a fictional piece-I wish you and yours and everybody the very best.
-MLB
-
You posted this comment in reply to me a couple of days ago. I ignored it at first, but it's been eating away at me so I feel the need to respond before this talkback dies."Also, "Preacher and James O'Barr's Crow are better" than Watchmen?I enjoyed all of the above, but I think that statement tellingly nails where you're coming from with regard to style VS substance, so kindly fuck off."So by your reasoning, Preacher and Crow are all about style, whereas Watchmen is all about substance. Let's examine that, shall we?The Crow is possibly the most "substantial" comic/gn ever created, because it was born out of incredibly personal (to the author) circumstances, when James O'Barr's fiance was killed by a drunk driver. Now, maybe you're a dumb little kid who's never experienced love, or maybe you're a fat, 35 year old, computer-bound geek who's never found love, but speaking as someone who HAS been in love, I could not imagine something more soul-shattering than the death of the woman I loved. O'Barr wrote The Crow as a (ultimately failed) catharsis for himself, so that, while the lead character does take the revenge that was denied O'Barr in real life, he also writes reams of poems honouring the woman he has lost. Don't get confused by the fact that Hollywood has managed to make this story into a series of ever-shitter films and TV shows, you can't get more substantial.As for Preacher, there is so much substance there that I could talk for hours (responsibility for your actions, the moral and spiritual repercussions of murder and betrayal by those you consider close to you for starters), but I'll just focus on one aspect. Going back to the topic of "love" again, the relationship between Jesse and Tulip is possibly the most well-defined and realistic portrayal of love ever put down in comic book form. Their relationship is sometimes comical, sometimes tragic, sometimes tender, sometimes aggressive. They make mistakes, they keep secrets from each other, they lie to each other, but underneath all that is this very real and palpable love for each other that ultimately wins through - not just at the end of the story, but at every step of the way. Even sex is used correctly, not as fanboy wank material, but as the most intimate and complete way of expressing their love for each other.Watchmen, on the other hand, while still a masterpiece by anyone's standards (including mine - don't forget that!), is still at its heart a deconstruction of the superhero comic book legacy. Therefore the core of the story is not love, or loss, or anything truly human and tangible, but an almost academical appraisal of a literary sub-genre. While it has fun reshaping the heroes of old into more recognisable, realistic figures I would put it to you that only Rorsharch, and possibly Dan, emerge from this process as fully realised human beings. The rest of them are simply characters, just the same as what was supposedly being deconstructed.The Comedian is a cynic inclined to violence, yet with none of the depth and backstory to actually explain these characteristics (say as in with the Punisher). Oxymandias is the classic "genius criminal" converted into a "genius good guy who turns bad for good reasons", yet never really does or says anything to actually portray genius (notoriously difficult in any medium - unless dealing with real people, of course). Finally Jon, while poetically written no doubt, never really convinces as a genuinely believeable portrayal of how a real person would react to suddenly having superpowers, although this is more due to the fact that we meet the man formerly known as Jon Osterman only once, in flashback form, which leads me to believe that the "super" character was created first, then the "real" character hastily cobbled together.People might want to scream "subtext" at me, which believe me I get, but I'll scream back "text" to you, as in what is actually on the page, as opposed to what blanks you fill in with your own mind. Reading The Crow is akin to peering into the very soul of the author, as he put so much of it into this one character. Preacher can make even such fantasical characters as a gun-toting, sexy female assassin and an Irish vampire leap out of the page as fully realised PEOPLE (ok, even I'll admit Arseface is a stretch!). Watchmen, on the other hand, struggles to make even a character as mundane as a daughter living in her mother's shadow (Laurie) seem truly real.Let's put it even more simply. In the movie world, Watchmen is being directed by Zak Snyder, whereas Preacher is being directed by Sam Mendes. They have got the directors the RIGHT WAY ROUND.
-
You're really bringing out that old chestnut? Oldest, least effective argument ever. No offense.
-
BrilliantYes, I agree that Snyder would have left Bombadil in LOTR and replaced Mt. Doom with a swordfight between Gandalf and Sauron. Excellent thinking.
-
We deserve those wedgies and being made fun of. We really do. When talkbacks like this exist. Its obvious why no one takes us seriously and girls don't want to fuck us.
-
"They are not just fighting over 'Watchmen,' " entertainment attorney Mel Avanzado, who is not involved in the litigation, said of the duel between Fox and Warners. "They are also fighting over sequel rights. Whoever controls the franchise probably controls quite a bit.""
From the LA Times today on the fight between fox and warners. -
1) The connection to Starro ties in with what Moore was trying to do, which was point out the bizarreness of the whole idea of superheroes. Of course, Moore didn't want it really to be filmable, anyway.
2) They don't change The Minutemen to Watchmen, they create a nonexistent superteam called the Watchmen. That literalizes (quite ineptly, IMHO) something that was meant to be metaphorical. Actually, it's a lot like Blade Runner, which while it looked amazing had some dunderheaded moments, including literalizing the idea that Deckard "was" a replicant, rather than merely a dehumanized human which was closer to Dick's original point. -
1)The difference between Watchmen and Preacher is that Preacher had more than 12 issues to make its point. Watchmen is a novel, and with the exception of maximalist novelists (Victor Hugo in regular fiction, Dave Sim in graphic fiction), a single novel can only say so much.
2)I missed out on the forum about Preacher, but Sam Mendes is the dullest excuse for a director alive. Road To Perdition was one of the slowest movies I've ever seen, to the point where (to paraphrase Michael J Nelson) I still think I'm watching it. Mendes has fooled people into thinking that long pauses can be seen as "subtle grace notes," just as Snyder has fooled people into thinking that slo-mo makes action more, not less exciting. -
While I don't think I necessarily fall into the group that's convinced this is going to be great, what's really annoying is how fan boys seems to have this built in skepticism about any adaptation of their beloved comic book. And they're ridiculously picky about EVERY little detail. It's almost as if they're just looking for any excuse they can to justify their immediate hate for the movie. They complain about the voices as if they know EXACTLY how they're supposed to sound (which is funny, since it's a COMIC BOOK, and numerous people complaining about Rorschach's voice have failed to realize that it sounds exactly the way Alan Moore reads it). This is just more evidence that they want the movie to be exactly like what they see in their heads, which is impossible. And if they don't get it, they resort to that "In Name Only" crap, which is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your hears and humming loudly to illustrate your dissaproval. If they don't get exactly what they want, they piss and moan and try to pretend it doesn't exist.
I'm not exactly sure how the movie's gonna turn out. But from the looks of the trailers, it looks great. It looks like Snyder MIGHT have pulled it off. It looks like Watchmen to me. And I'm interested in seeing how Snyder interprets the material, and I'm EXCITED to see the changes that were made and how they play out. Watchmen may be the greatest comic ever written, but it's definitely not some sacred thing that should never be adapted or explored or interpreted in any other way or medium. Instead of focusing on all the cool stuff, all the stuff they've gotten right, they just nitpick and complain so they can continue hating on a movie they haven't seen. And that's fucking stupid.
-
Preach on it, brother! Although in this case, Coyote's point (which you seem to miss entirely)is getting your panties in a wad nitpicking about details in a trailer. No one's expecting your pristine ass to accept shit. Stupid is stupid no matter how much you analyze it.
-
...Well, I won't say an Idiot, because I have some pretty strange preferences too, but your definately standing on the other side of the fence. Preacher is a goofy little road trip. It's got alot of funny, cool and bizare ideas, but no, its not substantial in any real way.
The Crow is an emo wankfest. It's about as deep and interesting as a My Chemical Romance album.
Condfused about the directors statement though. Mendes is 100 per cent style over substance, except for his debut picture. Not alot different from Snyder, only in that Snyder has successfully translated two titles to the screen, rather than making a flat, heartless mess of two of them. -
Or that anyone else should accept it without question. Personally, I think the trailer looks awesome. That's just me. But some of the complaints are just ridiculous. "Just listen to Manhattan's voice. I knew it. This is going to be shit." I mean, are you SERIOUS? Nitpicking every little minor detail cause it's not EXACTLY like you pictured it isn't going to justify passing judgement on the movie four months before it's even released.
-
I, too, hold comics in high regard. And Watchmen is one of my all-time favorites. I wasn't trying to sarcastically denigrate comics at all. If you read it that way, I apologize... When it comes to adaptations (or films of any sort), I always want them to be good. I'm always hoping that I'm going to go into the theater and see a great film. So I shouldn't have said skepticism. I should have said cynicism. I agree with you 100 percent that Watchmen is worthy of both analysis and criticism. I've read the book countless times and have done precisely that. And I plan on doing the exact same thing when I see the film in March. It just feels like a lot of people have already decided they hate the film based on analysis of a movie trailer, and based on small changes made that no one has any idea of how it might affect the film. Analysis is fine, thinking about the film and it's progress is great, but that "built-in cynicism" makes it easier for them to focus on what they got WRONG, because it agrees with their premature verdict, and ignore all the stuff they got right.
-
I understand the connection to Starro. It's just not something that is important to the FILM version of this story. I don't know what you mean about creating a non-existent team. I read the comic pretty recently and I thought there was a superhero team there. I guess the Minutemen were the 40s team, but whatever.As for Blade Runner, the original few versions of it didn't have Rick Deckard as a replicant and if anything's true in this world it's that I do and always will reject the amended version(s) for reasons along the lines of yours.
-
OFCOURSE you would view skepticism as a good thing, weathered and world-weary cynic that you are. I got no problem with skepticism myself. It's sounding like a prissy little smartass that chafes me. And dude, don't even think about preaching comics to me. I'm a missionary myself. Don't flatter yourself. By pristine ass, I meant you seem to think you're too good for something. That's it. Hell yeah I'm an expert on ass, son! I've seen more tail than a vetenarian, just ask ya moms. Jealous much? Are y'all attemptin' t'characterize me as some ignorant redneck? I'm not the smartest chimp in the jungle, so I won't say you'd drown in the vast ocean of my intellect, but I do all right. I don't feel especially challenged by you. Same old argument. You can bitch an' whine all you want, but HOW DARE somebody say they like something! Glad you're hellbent on condemning a movie you haven't seen, and know fuckall about. To clarify, y'seem t'think awful highly of yerself an' yer critical thinking. Your trying to contrast and compare stupidity, ferchristsake. How am I in the wrong? Just because I disagree with you doesn't make my point any less valid. Clear it up for you there, Sparky?
-
Has anyone here ever worked in a large art museum? Cause if you have, you are one of God's Little Angels.
-
So that counts for something, right? No wait, let me guess. You're "dumbing it down" for me? Why Binks, I'm starting to get the impression, in my slow way, that you don't think very highly of me! Gosh. Pwn? Ooooh, so you're one of those people! It all makes sense now. Well, good for you! Sorry, I don't play games like that. If my "blind, undying love" ,as you call it, is what's putting sand in your vagina, relax. Like many people, I just want the movie to be good, what I've seen so far is exciting, and I think (yeah, I do that!) some people get too damned carried away.
-
Absolutely no argument that Preacher had more issues in which to tell its story than Watchmen (66 to 12 is a pretty big difference!), however I would counter that by saying that Preacher had a lot more story to tell (numerous diversions and sub-plots, whereas Watchmen is quite beautifully streamlined plot-wise).My point about characters, however, does not have any real link to length or number of pages. You can fill 1000 pages with cliched, unimaginitive characters, or you can have a beautifully realised character pop up for just a few pages. My point was that the characters in Preacher felt more real and more well written than those in Watchmen.Remember in all these posts that I STILL love Watchmen and consider it a great work of art. However I don't think that ANYTHING is the best example of its genre (comic, film, music etc) just because other people say it is. I make my own opinions, which are inevitably based on my own taste.I am not a great comic book reader, so a deconstruction of comic book history does not hold as much interest for me as it would for others. Similarly I have little interest in politics (I share Bill Hicks' cynicism on the subject), so political subtext doesn't get me excited. However, I am very interested in philosophy and religion (despite not being religious myself), as well as fundamental human themes such as love, friendship and betrayal, so Preacher has more in it that interests me. Sure, it has flaws and I could list several dozen if I really wanted to, but what form of entertainment is without flaw?NONE, before anyone gets smart...
-
Ya know, I disagree with this notion that Rorschach sounds like Alan Moore reading his journal. Moore does much more of a disconnected whisper than the GROWL we hear in the trailer.I am having a hard time picturing the voice in the trailer ever saying HURM or having that brilliant conversation with the Psychologist.
-
"leave my fucking life alone"
-
Thank you for not calling me an idiot, although you plainly wanted to. I might say that anyone who calls someone else an idiot because of their taste or opinion might want to say that into the mirror (although there are some fundamentals that break that exception - Chris Tucker fans might be a good example!).Just because someone is on "the other side of the fence" to the majority does not make them wrong. As Penn & Teller remarked "Candle in the Wind by Elton John is the biggest selling record of all time. Popular sure doesn't mean right!". Again I reiterate that I consider Watchmen to be a great work of art, but that does not put it above criticism and that also does not preclude me from liking other material over it.I think one of the reasons why Watchmen is so loved is that it is quite an intellectual work. Geeks (aren't we all, after all?) tend to be a pretty smart bunch and you need to have a brain to really "get" Watchmen, so it gives us a well-earned sense of satisfaction knowing that we - and we alone - appreciate this great work of art.Preacher is not nearly as smart or intelligent, but instead is a more emotional and spiritual story (even with the crazy and bizarre ideas). You can read it at face value without these aspects and it will seem a really cool story, but to truly get it you don't need a brain so much as you need a soul.The same is true of The Crow and I take offence with your "emo wankfest" tag. First of all, it pre-dates the whole emo scene (which I hate with a passion) by about two decades and dates from a time when being miserable simply wasn't cool, whatever the genre. Secondly, someone like My Chemical Romance, who I hate just as much as you, don't have any real pain in their lives beyond the self-obsessed histrionics of puberty, so their pathetic attempts at making us believe that rich, middle-class white boys are feeling genuine pain are rightfully dismissed as pretentious crap.O'Barr, on the other hand, DID have real pain in his life (losing a loved one to a sudden and violent death tends to do that - believe me, I KNOW!!!) and The Crow was his attempt at rationalising, catharsising and ultimately dealing with that pain. I don't appreciate it because I think being miserable is cool. I appreciate it because I have genuinely known that type of pain in my life and therefore empathise with the author. In many ways, you should feel lucky you're NOT able to empathise, so please think before you chuck out simple insults, ok?
-
If you are not a fan of Sam Mendes that's your perogative (right spelling? Bah! Don't' care!). He is certainly not to everyone's tastes, but then neither is Snyder. Personally I like both directors' films to date (maybe not Jarhead so much), but at least Mendes has some idea of how important emotional underpinning is to a story and is willing to give his audience enough credit to be able to think for themselves. Also, American Beauty would be a masterpiece on ANY director's CV, so for that to be his debut is pretty damn impressive.Let's put it this way. If I had a cherished work of art (comic, novel, whatever) that was being adapted into a film, one which relied heavily on intelligent and thought-provoking scenes and emotional exchanges between fully realised characters as opposed to a series of cool action set pieces, I know which director I would prefer out of the two...
-
and proud. It weirded me out in the book. The "weirding out" factor is crucial when it comes to Alan Moore. But squid or no squid, this is arguably going to be the most faithful Alan Moore adaptation of all frikking time (if you ignore the squid thing). But the SQUID in Watchmen is the weirdness incarnate version of ROSEBUD and thus shouldn't be messed with.
-
i dont know if this has been mentioned above, but one more cool thing about the squid is that...****SPOILERSSSS*****
it's made up by a bunch of writers, musicians, painters. so essentially our bad guy is saving the world through ART.
that cool concept had gone past snyder's head obviously, hence he chose the most hollywood and boring way to climax the movie... by way of explosions. how original. -
Is that really such a good idea? Graphic novels and motion pictures are so dissimilar that I wonder if a straight remake is going to look camp or corny.
-
I wasn't "attacking" anyone. I never said anyone should accept hype. Just elaborating my opinion same as anyone else here. You, on the other hand, have had a hardon for me ever since I made the mistake of addressing you in a previous post. You've got balls, but not a lot of sense, insulting someone's intelligence. Do y'get it now, dipshit? I wasn't the one trying to pass myself off as a, heh, intellectual badass. Bottom line? I give less than a damn what some punkass cunt who got a high score on Halo thinks. Fuck off, pissant.
-
Okay...I've read your tale of James O'Barr's personal woes giving him some kind of superhuman elan to create the 'masterpiece' that is 'The Crow' a few times, and I felt like I should give a differing viewpoint. In short, I disagree with your take.The long version follows. The Crow's flaws are the same as Nine Inch Nails 'Pretty Hate Machine'. The fact is that both are extremely personal thrashing pieces of art created by artists in personal pain, seen as vanguards of a certain genre, but wear out their welcome and show their wrinkles more as time goes by. They are personal love letters to inner angst, and beyond a picture of catharsis in still life aren't particularly 'intelligent' or 'evolving' works.Pretty Hate Machine is clever. It is catchy, and it is clearly the work of someone growing as an artist. Whereas 'The Crow' had its stark black and white imagery, and lust for revenge are the singular work of a guy who was hurt once. They're both as subtle and intellectually satisfying as a metaphysical kick to the nuts.Watchmen is a novel. The facts you list as detriments to the book, I'm going to refute in the second post, but for now, I'm going to talk about 'The Crow' in terms that will seem unfair.James O'Barr had a few issues to tell the story of 'The Crow', and managed to stretch the story of Guy Dies and Gets Revenge for Horrible Crimes out for more than one issue of Tales of the Unexpected or Tales From The Crypt, and in a new/artistic way. But nothing in it is in and of itself more than the clever workings of a mediocre writer and artist who could only afford to do things one way.Hackneyed sloppy writing, things like 'Jesus Christ walks into an inn...'... dialogue that rings as true as a lead duck with herpes.To say that in any way James O'Barr is the writing equivalent to Alan Moore would then beggar the question: What the FUCK has James O'Barr done for us lately? I am one of the few people who could probably say, 'I sat down with him and Tim Bradstreet and had a long conversation about graphic novels, and about the way things are done.' After my conversation, which I wouldn't trade for anything for its usefulness to myself as an artist, I understood things about popular writing/art that most people don't: It's a mixture of luck and ambition that equals success. In O'Barr's case, I'd say it was a matter of being the newest version of an old thing at the precise moment it was most profitable.The original run of The Crow met with minor accolades, and like Lisner's The Darkness, only a couple guys could say they had it before it was big. (I didn't have either one...I was a bandwagon guy following seeing the movie 'The Crow') Only when it was optioned for a flick was it blown up all over the place. And then O'Barr could play the affected artist in public meetings. He's a nice guy, but not deep.
I'm a finagler. I sidle my way into conventions in the backstage areas (At least, I did before they became these corporate-run wankathons) and of all the conversations with 'famous' comic guys, my favorites and most useful were with Neil Gaiman and Bernie Wrightson and his wife.But, you're not reading this because of my bona fides, or probably at all, as this is pretty damned long already. I just wanted to say that I've met the guy, and after a long conversation, I have found him lacking in all of the things that masters of the form of writing have; and that is depth.Preacher is a great work of fiction. Garth Ennis' story was phenomenal and the run about the Family was so damned good, it was truly epic storytelling. James O'Barr doesn't have anything other than The Crow. OR even successful follow ups to The Crow that are just as good. Meanwhile both Ennis and Moore have other projects of equal quality and acclaim.O'Barr ain't JD Salinger, either. The Crow is not 'Catcher in the Rye' for crying out loud, so where is James O'Barr? What is he doing? I suspect drinking, and wishing it was still 1994.Watchmen is the superior product. -
That Watchmen is one of the "5 greatest works of art ever" is a fucking delusional, myopic, fan-boy idiot.
-
You said : Watchmen, on the other hand, while still a masterpiece by anyone's standards (including mine - don't forget that!), is still at its heart a deconstruction of the superhero comic book legacy.
The story IS a deconstruction of the modern comic hero myths. Although, it had to become a roman a clef because of the rights issues for the old characters Moore had wanted to use. So, on that level, it was legal buggery that forced Moore to create a parlor game of 'Guess the Hero' rather than tell a straightforward tale. The story functions as a deconstruction of the myth, but is intended as a story first and foremost. Just as The Dark Knight Returns is a story, but also serves the same purpose.
You said: Therefore the core of the story is not love, or loss, or anything truly human and tangible, but an almost academical appraisal of a literary sub-genre.
You may have missed the few points that totally debunk this view of 'Watchmen'. One, the story of Dan Freiberg and Sally Jupiter is a human story about human detritus in love. They fall in love as the world around them falls apart. The feeling of being left behind in a world moving forward towards destruction is heavy shit, played note perfect in the novel. And the reasons for Manhattan's sudden change has EVERYTHING to do with human emotion and what happens when you do not relate to humans on an emotional level because of a supreme force. It's a fantastic metaphor for God, and why people's expectation of God to give half a shit about them is truly wondrous. The story of the first Nite Owl, especially the anecdote about the guy who owned the mechanic's shop, was a well drawn character. Three dimensional. Finally, the story of Rorschach, his life and his history, is a story of psychological damage that results in a man becoming a serial killer, but of criminals rather than thrill killing.
You said: The Comedian is a cynic inclined to violence, yet with none of the depth and backstory to actually explain these characteristics (say as in with the Punisher). Real people are nihilistic for no reason, as well as cynical. Though, The Comedian does NOT have this flaw. He becomes cynical after fighting crime and seeing that he could fight crime on a local level, an international level, and nothing he does would EVER change man's nature to destroy itself. There's the joke to him, and that makes him a true bastard. Because he doesn't believe. In fact, the scene with Manhattan in the 60s, is the perfect metaphor for the cynic's view of God. God could intervene, but doesn't. What, then, is the point of 'being good'?
You said : Oxymandias is the classic "genius criminal" converted into a "genius good guy who turns bad for good reasons", yet never really does or says anything to actually portray genius (notoriously difficult in any medium - unless dealing with real people, of course). Things geniuses do, that Ozymandias does, are pretend to be less intelligent to remain anonymous and travel the world for knowledge outside the scope of their home. His views on the possibility of world peace by horrible violence by way of a Jungian creature that mind-rapes people is a plan that only a madman or a genius would attempt. In my opinion, Ozymandias is one of those mysterious characters that proves their intelligence through the plot devices they create by way of their actions. The whole story is a testament to the genius of Ozymandias. The villain is the man who wants to bring about world peace.
You said: Finally Jon, while poetically written no doubt, never really convinces as a genuinely believeable portrayal of how a real person would react to suddenly having superpowers, although this is more due to the fact that we meet the man formerly known as Jon Osterman only once, in flashback form, which leads me to believe that the "super" character was created first, then the "real" character hastily cobbled together.No. No. No. No. No. In Dr. Manhattan, the metaphor for God is perfection, in my opinion. Jon Ostermann is the son of a clock repairman, and is fascinated by the same mechanical workings. He is driven by things working together. Jon is pushed into physics by his father, and finds things there that fit with that desire to see things fit together. Which is why when he is scattered to billions of nanopieces, he can recreate himself with such perfection. It's over time that Jon becomes Dr. Manhattan. When he realizes that he is going to be powerful, young, and vital forever, and all of the people he sees are going to fade away, he begins to lose his connection to other people. It is a gradual change. His clothing is a great metaphor for how he relates to people, his clothing being shed says 'I do not see why I should try to blend in with these brief candles, when I am the sun itself.'. This stuff is there on the page.
People might want to scream "subtext" at me, which believe me I get, but I'll scream back "text" to you, as in what is actually on the page, as opposed to what blanks you fill in with your own mind. Reading The Crow is akin to peering into the very soul of the author, as he put so much of it into this one character.
Okay, let's stop screaming. :) What's The Crow's name? Where did he live? What was his favorite band? (I'd guess Pitch Shifter, but only because that and Sisters of Mercy are quoted in the liner notes). Other than painting his face like a mime because there was a Mardi Gras mask around when he died, there is NO character on the page. There's trite dialogue...'Mother is the name for God on the lips of all children'. Christ, I can smell the cloves and patchouli wafting off those words like the ass of Pepe LePew. But, aside from Shelly, who is The Crow? He's a one-note character, cleverly designed, and starkly portrayed. Complete style over substance. Other than revenge, being a ghost, what is The Crow's motivation? You said: Watchmen, on the other hand, struggles to make even a character as mundane as a daughter living in her mother's shadow (Laurie) seem truly real.The Jupiters are well written. I don't understand your problem with them. Maybe you didn't read the interview with the original Silk Spectre, or take a good look at the art in the panels, but the story is told both visually and textually.
You said: Let's put it even more simply. In the movie world, Watchmen is being directed by Zak Snyder, whereas Preacher is being directed by Sam Mendes. They have got the directors the RIGHT WAY ROUND.At last, we agree. I like Snyder's visual take on this property. If the story holds a candle to the original medium, that's a bonus. I've given up on comics being movies unless they're a superhero written for the screen specifically before the film. Some things work on the page, some work in film, and unfortunately only rarely shall ever the twain they meet. -
MicturatingBen...THAT was one of the most carefully thought out and respectful posts I have EVER seen on AICN. You CLEARLY don't belong here!*Donald Sutherland Invasion Scream*RRRRRROOOOOOAOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAR!!!Oh, and pOllk, you ever see that Twilight Zone episode "Beauty is Eye of the Beholder"?Oh, and I'm willing to be you don't know the definition of "myopic". HAH!
-
Uh, I regard 'Watchmen' as one of the ten best modern novels. And I think everyone who makes blanket statements about a section of the populace has tiny balls, a pecker the size of a cashew, and sits down to piss.And, I also believe that self-aware pricks like myself are inherently likeable.
-
check out your big brain.
I am the proud owner of one of the original pages of Moore and Sienkiewicz' failed Big Numbers. It sits right above my writing desk.
From Hell and Watchmen are not of the 5 greatest works of art, necessarily, but they are regardless of form or genre two of the greatest novels of the 20th century. And beyond deconstruction, one of the ways it resonates is by making for the first time superheroes psychologically real. Impotence, clumsy sexual fumblings, abusive childhoods, kinky fetishes, rampant egos. Watchmen is a masterpiece of characterization because it takes a trope, a cliche - the superhero - and depicts it with fine, recognizable multifaceted psychological nuance. As well as being a story well told.
they're selling this movie in trailers all wrong. the premise of watchmen is simple. what if there really were superheroes? I mean, really, in the world we occupy with Vietnam and child abuse and global superpowers nearly annhilating each other?
I already feel from all this footage that Snyder has utterly failed. It looks like he's preoccupied with rendering panels as opposed to understanding all that nuance. A proper adaptation of Watchmen wouldn't replicate the panels - the shot where the Comedian is in Nam is a perfect example - it looks like green screen, utterly bullshit nonsense. No tactile reality. -
Nah - everything LOOKS fantastic so far, but the dialogue delivery is looking... shaky. We'll have to wait and see.
-
Wow! An intelligent and well thought out response! In a AICN talkback! If we're not careful this talkback could turn out to be about something OTHER than the damn squid! That can't be allowed, surely...Seriously, you make some very good points. For once, I take pleasure in continuing a debate on a talkback (normally "debate" here equals "my opinion is better than yours, so fuck off!")On the subject of The Crow, I think your comparison to Pretty Hate Machine is very apt, being a NIN fan myself. It is definitely the work of a person using a medium of art (comics and music respectively) to make a very personal statement before he has truly mastered that art. I would not deny that The Crow is just as "rough around the edges" both artistically and story-wise as PHM is musically.The difference, as you so rightly put it (from one side of the coin anyway) is that at least Trent Reznor has subsequently gone on to master his medium, whereas O'Barr has not really done anything else of note.Is The Crow a great comic? No, probably not. Even as a rather infrequent comic book reader, I know enough to know that the artwork is fairly low down on the quality scale and the story, as you so rightly put, is fairly simplistic.Perhaps then I was wrong in my phrasing that I think The Crow is "better" than Watchmen. What would have been more true would be to say that I connected with The Crow on an extremely personal level when I read it, as at the time I was going through a very dark period of my life. Without getting all morbid with the details, a number of my friends and family had recently died and I was also helping council a close female friend through a rape (one of the reasons I detest people saying "he raped my childhood", although I don't think the word should be used lightly whatever the context), therefore I identfied in The Crow feelings that were very much what I was feeling at the time.It has been many years since I last read it (my copy was lost during a house move), so perhaps if I read it now my opinion of it would not be as high. However, in many ways I don't WANT to read it again. It was one of those rare times in life when a piece of art (whatever the medium) speaks to the particular state of mind you are in at the time. Perhaps the memory of that means more than any objective re-appraisal ever could.My experience of Watchmen was very different, as I was introduced to it by a friend who, like many on this board, is totally obsessed with it being Best Thing Ever, to the extent he seems to care about the little details more than the big picture (forget the Squid, he said he would boycott the film if the Comedian didn't wear the Smiley Face Badge!). I always have trouble with anything that you are told is "great" before you have experienced it yourself. Somebody says it is "good" and you think "well, that's just an opinion. I can make my own", but "great" seems to imply some objective, absolute notion that you are compelled to agree with, no matter what.I duly read it and honestly enjoyed it very much. There is no denying that it is a well drawn and well written graphic novel. However I tend to appraise all art, whatever the medium, on two very distinct levels. The first is purely objective: is it a good example of that medium? Does that painting accurately represent what is being depicted? Is that movie well shot and edited with a coherent plot? Is that piece of music well structured? The second level on which I judge art is a totally subjective emotional response, going far beyond mere enjoyment (which to me is part and parcel of the first criteria). Do I form a link with it? Does it appeal to me in a way that is almost impossible to put into words? This second criteria only really applies to a very small number of works of art, whatever the medium and tends to be how I judge my favourites.A great example of this would be the films of Michael Mann. I think he is arguably the best director currently working in Hollywood. Under the first criteria, I have thoroughly enjoyed all of his films. However, it is only Last of the Mohicans that truly appeals to me on the second level. It is hard to say why, as objectively I would not consider it to be Mann's best film by any stretch (that would be Heat), however there is something about it that simply affects me emotionally.The simple fact of the matter is that I did not make any sort of emotional connection with Watchmen at all. I appreciated it as a good story, but that is all. On the other hand, I DID make a very strong emotional connection with Preacher from just a single reading (I have read Watchmen perhaps 5-6 times).I have tried to rationalise this and perhaps my analysis was not as well written or thought out as it could have been. Certainly I am not going to refute your analysis of Watchmen. I certainly agree with your appraisal of the Hollis Mason character and consider Rorsharch to be almost perfection as a character, hence why neither of these were criticised by me. However, I simply did not feel as connected with any of these characters as I did to the characters in Preacher. Not so much Jesse, perhaps strangely, but more so Tulip and Cassidy (in certain moments at least), although this also applied to some of the lesser characters. I felt a strong bond with Amy, for example. I don't know whether this is merely a totally subjective reaction on my part or a true testament to Ennis's ability, but I like to think it's a little of both.All of this began from a simple comment of mine that I preferred Preacher and The Crow to Watchmen (I may have used the word "better" rather than "preferred", which in hindsight may have been a mistake). This was greeted with contempt by people far more narrow minded than either of us (lots of insults and "fuck off"s). You have picked up on my responses to these people and made some very astute and challenging observations about my analysis. I hope that this post has better explained exactly where I am coming from.Please respond, whether you agree with me or not. It is so rare to have genuine debate on ANY message board that I am loath to pass the opportunity up.
-
It seems like conventional wisdom dictates that Watchmen is a "deconstruction" of superheroes and/or superhero comics, but frankly, I don't buy it. The reason is, most of what it does is invert or subvert the genre in a perverse way. I think in some sense, this aspect of Watchmen, which gets a lot of attention, is actually pretty sophomoric. "Hey what is people found out such-and-such hero was actually a DICKHEAD?" is what it amounts to, and Alan Moore pretty plainly states this concept as the impetus for the project. I don't think it's really much of a deconstruction to play "opposite day" with a bunch of archetypes, really - and that includes taking larger than life figures and applying a quasi-reality to it. This is not to say Moore and Gibbons didn't do a good job of this, just that the term is probably inappropriate. It may be worth noting that "deconstruction" is a poorly-defined word, but I think, for instance, that the depiction of Batman in The Dark Knight Returns is a more deconstructive take on superheros in that it takes the archetype apart and puts it back together in a way where all the pieces are still represented, but shown from a different perspective. So on one hand you get, for example with Night Owl, "what if this powerful figure from your childhood was somehow impotent" vs "if you think about it, this powerful figure is kind of fascistic" (Batman AND Superman, in their ways) in the Dark Knight Returns. It's more a case of reworking or re-presenting what is already there with the character than adding a largely unsuggested underbelly.
-
Yup, that's me. Always humbling myself before people of lesser intelligence. And apparently you are as well if you can't take fuck off for an answer. You wouldn't know the truth if you paid it $50 in a back alley to kick you in the nuts. You're awful insistent on this inferiority complex thing. Driven by your need to feel superior over others, no doubt. Question: If I am so beneath you on the evolutionary scale, then why do you see fit to verbally spar with someone so obviously lacking in wit? My guess? This is how you GET OFF, y'love to get those zingers in and high-five your boyfriend, satisfied with your own "cleverness". I daresay a person of real intelligence, as you're purpoting yourself to be, wouldn't stoop to utilizing terms like "pwnd" and "served". That makes YOU sound like a retarded mofo, dude. As I said, I have a life, at least. And it includes my wife, children,friends, co-workers, and instructors who KNOW I am intelligewnt. Don't feel too special: You're not the only literate asshole out there.
-
Yup, that's me. Always humbling myself before people of lesser intelligence. And apparently you are as well if you can't take fuck off for an answer. You wouldn't know the truth if you paid it $50 in a back alley to kick you in the nuts. You're awful insistent on this inferiority complex thing. Driven by your need to feel superior over others, no doubt. Question: If I am so beneath you on the evolutionary scale, then why do you see fit to verbally spar with someone so obviously lacking in wit? My guess? This is how you GET OFF, y'love to get those zingers in and high-five your boyfriend, satisfied with your own "cleverness". I daresay a person of real intelligence, as you're purpoting yourself to be, wouldn't stoop to utilizing terms like "pwnd" and "served". That makes YOU sound like a retarded mofo, dude. As I said, I have a life, at least. And it includes my wife, children,friends, co-workers, and instructors who KNOW I am intelligewnt. Don't feel too special: You're not the only literate asshole out there.
-
Oh, lawd, what is I gon' DO? Who wins what, chuckles? Think about it. Glad a typo could provide your empty existence with so much joy. The freedom of being unknown, huh?Dude, what in your fevered and delirious imagination makes you think it's okay to say something like that? That's fucked up. And very telling about the quality of your character. You KNOW if we were having this conversation face to face, you would be singing a very different tune, bitch. You do realize your whole foundation here is built on, what? "You're stupid. You're a retard." Based on what? Your feeble attempts to dissect what I say while repeating the same weak phrases over and over. Whatever it takes to shoot your goo. That's about it. You are a bore. I said "GOOD DAY" to you, sir.
-
"a lack of foresight or discernment : a narrow view of something"...wha't the problem?Example: p0llk4t's hate for Watchmen is the very definition of myopic!
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 151 total posts 140 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 128 total posts 94 posts
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 92 total posts 91 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 474 total posts 70 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 64 total posts 64 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 51 total posts 51 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 116 total posts 41 posts
- Wanna smell like the Hulk? What about Cap? Consider yourself a Thunder God or a unisex God of Mischief? -- 71 total posts 40 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 35 total posts 34 posts