Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Moriarty

Who watches the Watchmen? by Fred4sure	May 9th, 2005 04:31:32 AM
I guess WE will in two or three years.
sign me up for a movie ticket, DVD, and merchandise as well by BilboFett	May 9th, 2005 04:47:37 AM
First.
I'd watch the Watchmen. by Frank Einstein	May 9th, 2005 04:51:06 AM
C'mon, Paramount. Grow some balls.
Perhaps Greengrass can make this work. Don't hold your breath th by Spacker Dave	May 9th, 2005 04:51:51 AM
Anyone who thinks this is an easy sell for studio excecs are kidding themselves. Watchmen may be the supposed holy grail of comics but it will never make Spider-man money, and that is what Paramount might just be banking on. Granted it could be a critical hit but it's all about arses in seats.
Yeah, I'm there... by ZeroCorpse	May 9th, 2005 04:52:08 AM
As long as it doesn't star Chris Rock and Jackie Chan, and as long as they don't alter it so much that it's Watchmen in name only. Remain close to the source material, don't deviate to add in more romance, or reduce the suspense, or get a PG rating. Shoot it straight, and accept whatever rating the MPAA gives it- I WILL buy several tickets even if it's NC-17, but I probably won't waste my time if it's PG and sanitized. I LOVE the idea of Rorschach being a complete unknown. GREAT IDEA! This movie could certainly be an amazing move for Paramount.
An unknown is a good idea. by MattCG	May 9th, 2005 04:53:35 AM
But, I do have hope and I'm not saying shit until I see a finished product. On the subject of Rorshach, I think the idea of an unknown would be brilliant. He's supposed to be anonymous and if they cast someone pretty, that would really suck. Everyone keeps mentioning Steve Buscemi, but no, please, let's not and say we did. That guy would turn the character into Steve Buscemi. I want someone I have no preconceptions about whatsoever. Also, someone kinda ugly would be nice. Somehow, I don't think we're gonna be seeing this movie any time soon. I don't think negotiations will go well and you're wrong, Moriarty. This is not a commercial film. It never was. It might do really well opening weekend, but the critics, the family groups and PC dickheads who run our society will rip it a new ass the following week. My prediction is that if it ever does get made, it'll do closer to what "Sin City" did.
hmm.... by oli	May 9th, 2005 04:54:06 AM
that'll be hilary swank as the comedian, ron perlman as Laurie, and Joaquin Phoenix as the leopard thingy. Hold on a minute... Want Jude Law as Oyzmandias, Nick Chinlund as Rorshach and Billy Crudup as Dr Manhattan and I'll be as happy as a pig in shit. Not that it'll get made or anything...
SECOND! by abysstare	May 9th, 2005 05:01:59 AM
Paramount, don't get wimp out Watchmen! This is THE movie comic freaks have been waiting for... don't bail on it, and don't get tight-wadded about it-- that way lies a compromised movie that will backfire! Movies like Hitchhiker's Guide and the Fantastic Four... you can practically feel the budgetary constraints in the trailers... don't get cheap. Done right, the film will be a MASSIVE blockbuster. Believe it.
Watchmen could be your Lord Of The Rings!!! by Duty	May 9th, 2005 05:02:22 AM
Yes it's that good. Give it the money it needs to make you money!!
Jason Flemyg as Rorshach? by Trevor Goodchild	May 9th, 2005 05:03:46 AM
Although an unknown is far better an idea. Liam Neeson for Dan.
P.S. by abysstare	May 9th, 2005 05:05:33 AM
"Duty" is dead-on. This movie must be grand in scope and vision. DO IT RIGHT!
ah, mori, you and your hints... by tommy5tone	May 9th, 2005 05:06:35 AM
perlman as the comedian? joaquin phoenix as the night owl? hilary swank as silk spectre? that's. fucking. sweet.
Law as Rorchach by IrishJoe	May 9th, 2005 05:07:30 AM
Jude Law, that is. He is apparently a big fan of the book. Sign me up for DVD, MOvie ticket, toys, tripledipping aswell.
C'mon Para, when people are begging you to make a movie, it mean by Splicer	May 9th, 2005 05:08:18 AM
Was anyone begging you to make 'Stepford Wives'? I don't think so. Watchmen could be the next Matrix if done right. Go for it.
Paramount, just greenlight it already! by Rindain	May 9th, 2005 05:11:50 AM
The entire crew is ready to go, previs complete with an acclaimed script, and you're still twiddling your thumbs over this? Look at the Watchment graphic novel sales numbers. It's been number 1 ever since it was released I believe. Oh yeah, and talk to Jude Law about Ozymandias! Heard he's dying to play the role.
Watchman analysis by Trevor Goodchild	May 9th, 2005 05:14:03 AM
Where can I go to read an indepth review of Watchman? Like to see it broken down and scrutinized.
Watchmen fans should e-mail Paramount by chien_sale	May 9th, 2005 05:14:40 AM
let`s save this thing!
Im with ya here. by Venardhi	May 9th, 2005 05:14:43 AM
I'd love to see the movie you're talking about here. It deserves to be made, before someone else can get their hands on the property and turn it into the Niteowl and Rorchach adventure hour or worse, try to do it with the limited budget of TV.
I absolutely trust Paul Greengrass. by Cash Bailey	May 9th, 2005 05:18:37 AM
Both BLOODY SUNDAY and BOURNE SUPREMACY are minor masterworks. Like Mori said, Greengrass makes intelligent adult-oriented entertainments with real integrity. In my opinion there's no more important criteria in selecting a director to make WATHCMEN. Greengrass is the man and he will deliver.
?? by RighteousBrother	May 9th, 2005 05:22:10 AM
"it
as someone who didn't want this film made.... by mansep	May 9th, 2005 06:00:05 AM
i can honestly say that, after reading Moriarty's article and learning who is making it and what they have done soo far, I now have a LOT of hope this adaptation could turn out to be an incredible film. If everyone on board is as serious and focused and dedicated as it seems, and if the approach is right, then The Watchmen film will be the comic-book film that re-writes the genre and blows everyone's mind. If you're looking for a film that gets everyone talking, then this is it. But Paramount need to be able to trust the film-makers and not interfere in a way that harms the vision. a bad Watchmen film will not only send a 'screw you' message to the fans, but will i believe seriously harm the whole comic-book-to-film genre. this is era defining film-making in it's earliest and most vulnerable stages.... it needs our support.
Make this movie. by Zool	May 9th, 2005 06:02:12 AM
A Watchmen movie done right will sell for decades, this could be the Citizen Kane of the superhero genre. Make this movie and make it right (with Greengrass and the Hayter Script) and you'll have a thing of value on your hands, commercial, critical and with the support of a large and vocal fanbase.
John Cusack for The Owl by SnowMann	May 9th, 2005 06:04:04 AM
Obviously. And yea, I want this movie and I want it now. And not some watered down studio version. There is a film here we all know can be amazing. Grow some balls and make it.
I vote to forget the whole thing... by kintar0	May 9th, 2005 06:10:17 AM
Fuck it. I'd rather there be no Watchmen movie. Some comics are cool because they're just comics. Like any Watchmen movie could live up to the comic! It's like saying you're going to make a Dark Knight Returns movie. I rather not have a film version than have a shitty or even mediocre version.
So... very... torn... by Cuban Pete	May 9th, 2005 06:35:38 AM
On the one hand, if they do it right, seeing Watchmen up on the big screen would be fantastic, but on the other hand if they fuck it up even in the slightest little way, I'll wish they hadn't bothered. And, let's face it, there's NO WAY the ending will remain intact. At all.
Watchmen? Feh. by DukeOfSpiders	May 9th, 2005 06:40:29 AM
Watchmen is nothing more than a bad rewrite of an old Outer Limits episode (Moore admits this) and little more than an overly-prosey, overhyped display of pure contempt for the superhero genre. Discuss.
For whatever it's worth... by Ginseng	May 9th, 2005 07:11:57 AM
...I will most definitely watch the Watchmen. This has been one of my favorite comics of all time, and I really want to see the film done correctly. If it's good, I'm sure I'll toss plenty of $$ towards it in pure appreciative glee. So if any Paramount peeps are listening...you've heard me.
Talkbackers by Ra Ra Rasputin	May 9th, 2005 07:14:44 AM
MAKE THE GODDAMN MOVIE...please. If only to see Dr Manhattans big blue todger.Great.(hope they include the castaway segment somehow.
FORGOT.. by Ra Ra Rasputin	May 9th, 2005 07:17:24 AM
). Blasted computers. SIMON PEGG should be in it.
i have an idea... by LHombreSiniestro	May 9th, 2005 07:45:01 AM
i wouldnt be suprised if they cast someone like John C. Reilly as Night Owl. Not my pick, but meh, it wouldnt be so bad when you think about it. Oscar winning actress to play Laurie? Hmmm, Jennifer Connelly maybe? Angelina Jolie is too big for Laurie. I could see Catherine Zeta-Jones...but, Michael Douglas kind of ruined her for me. I woudlnt be suprised if they cast BURT REYNOLDS as the Comedian. Actually, thatd be kinda cool. Maybe Tom Selleck? This movie's gonna rock, and I damn near worship the comics. There's no heavy sign it'll blow.
no more neo-gothic ripoffs by Dragon Man	May 9th, 2005 07:53:43 AM
I'm in complete agreement with you, Moriarty, on the fact that the whole Blade Runner/Tim Burton-esque gothic setting has been way-over done. Enough of that shit. I hope this does get made.
casting by snappy	May 9th, 2005 07:54:40 AM
So, Comedian may be Ron P., shame Reynolds has had too many facelifts. What about Hasselhoff? I'd love to see him thrown out a window for his Nick Fury. Silk Spectre = Kim Basinger. Sorry.
Sounds great by MTXX	May 9th, 2005 08:10:45 AM
This report has the same feel as that early Aint It Cool Q/A with Peter Jackson while he was getting ready to shoot The Lord of the Rings - it sounds like they're getting everything EXACTLY right. They'd be crazy not make this thing - yes, it could be the next Matrix, and at the very least it would have a long and happy afterlife on DVD like The Fight Club.
Comedian=Ian McShane by ChorleyFM	May 9th, 2005 08:37:10 AM
Joaquin Phoenix is a good actor, better than alot of the films he has been in, but he is too young for Dan, he should be quite a bit older than the Silk Spectre. Also this movie will make money, but only if it is very good. This is a film that will live or die by its critical acclaim, if reviews are great people will go to see it that haven't seen comic book films before, if not then it will be a major box office flop.
Actually, the story ends with world peace. by Splicer	May 9th, 2005 08:38:04 AM
What better ending could there be?
I don't think this film should be made. Not because it won't ma by rev_skarekroe	May 9th, 2005 08:44:46 AM
...but because not everything needs to be adapted. There's this attitude (especially in Hollywood) that film is the ONLY legitimate medium, and until something is adapted to the big-screen it might as well not exist. Screw that. Let it stay the way Moore and Gibbons intended it. That's why Gilliam ultimately decided it was a bad idea. Anyway, that's my line every time the subject comes up, so I'm a broken record at this point.
What better ending than world peace? by MattCG	May 9th, 2005 08:51:38 AM
An ending where the heroes manage to stop the villian from killing nearly everyone in New York City? It's a compromised ending, a horribly compromised ending and that's why it's so great. It's saying that the sacrifce of an entire city is worth the reward. It's about heroes who resign themselves to failure for the greater good. When I read this the first time it was like getting donkey-kicked in the nuts. General audiences (and remember, these are the fucker who thought enough of "The Pacifier" to pull it past $100 million.) WILL HATE THIS ENDING! They won't get it, it'll anger them and they will reject it. By the end of "Watchmen", there's not one sympathetic character to be had. Everyone is either got a ton of blood on their hands, given up and resigned themselves to what has happened, beomce so detatched from things that they've become something alien, or they're dead. That doesn't reek of blockbuster to me.
Why would audiences burn down theatres? by FluffyUnbound	May 9th, 2005 08:57:02 AM
Maybe 'cause they're angry that ALL of New York isn't destroyed? 2001 is a long time ago, dude. Tell me if you watched "Independence Day" right now you wouldn't laugh when the White House gets blown up. Come on - try to convince me. I know I would. // By the way, the old Outer Limits episode where they turn a man into a fake space monster to scare the world into uniting is a pretty good episode. Ripping it off was a darn good idea. // I agree that the film won't make money, though. Not because of the ending, and not because the characters don't fit your ideal of what superheroes should be, but just because the comic isn't well known enough. And talking about ongoing sales of the graphic novel means nothing. Spiderman didn't translate into a successful film because of the comic's recent sales figures. It was because the character was familiar to basically every American. Everyone knows who Spiderman is, whether they read comics or not. No one knows who the Watchmen are. No. One. Everyone who is a comic geek or a Hollywood creative type or a graphic novel fan knows who the Watchmen are, and when they sit around in their peer groups and talk about the subject they can sometimes forget that "regular" ticket-buying people have no idea. Seriously, sometimes watching you folks is like watching a bunch of philosophy students talking about how everyone knows who Heidegger is. You can't go by your peer group, you sillies.
Fuck those nay-sayers by BankyFan	May 9th, 2005 08:57:07 AM
This movie will be a damn masterpiece...if it's executed right. Pearlman for The Comedian is inspired.
support for watchmen by mvera	May 9th, 2005 09:00:44 AM
I would like to see Paul Greengrass's vision go up onscreen with David Hayter's script intact. I think the team to make it is assembled. All Paramount has to do is to give it a go. I will vote by watching the movie four times and I will definitely buy the DVD and OST on CD. So for the Paramount brass who read these posts online, if you want us to start making reservations, give me the link and I'll start reserving all these through credit card.
The key to Watchmen, in my opinion ... by New in NY	May 9th, 2005 09:16:19 AM
Watchment is a steady descent into hell. It's a suck punch to the gut that makes your stomach drop. You walk in with a glowing love of comic book characters and costumed superheroes looking after our best interest ... and by the end, the ground has dropped underneath your feet. Remember the first time you saw SE7EN? Remember the feeling you got when you realized what was in that package delivered to Brad Pitt by the killer? THAT'S the feeling that this movie needs to build up to. If done right, this movie will be the greatest mindfuck in the history of the superhero genre. Simple, well-intentioned, iconic superheroes ... become involved and sign-off on the greatest disaster in human history ... and (cue ultimate mindfuck) it's for our own good! GAH!!! Yes, this is unmakeable after 9/11 ... Yes, it will be gloriously offensive to many reasonable viewers ... Yes, it may have trouble making a buck ... THAT IS WHY THIS MUST GET MADE, AND GET MADE RIGHT!
Overrated by Jin-Roh	May 9th, 2005 09:21:33 AM
Although I was reading comics when Watchmen was originally on the stands, I didn't pick it up till last year. Maybe it's just that I was expecting too much, or maybe it's because my tastes have changed, but I though Watchmen was overrated. I thought the book was boring, the characters were hard to connect with, it was much longer than it needed to be, and the ending came from so far out of left field that I felt it ruined what little excitement it had built up. Who cares if they make a Watchmen movie. The whole comic book movie genre is a but dead, no more original than the terrible film adaptations of old TV shows. I have to say though, if this film must be made, make it there at Paramount with this group of artists. Don't let it go to another studio like Fox, where they'll give it to their resident hack Paul W.S. Anderson. See nay sayers, it could be worse.
I'm in too, buddy. by quantum_ken	May 9th, 2005 09:25:39 AM
Fingers crossed.
WATCHMEN will suck because..... by MrBadd	May 9th, 2005 09:29:39 AM
1) The story material is out of date, and 2) Doing it any way other than animated is a waste of time. A film version should have hit movie screens at least ten years ago.
For fucks sake, just greenlight the bloody thing!!! by Brundlefly	May 9th, 2005 09:31:43 AM
Greengrass will make this a towering classic. The amount of pure shit that gets greenlit is just mind boggling yet when a truly awesome comic is tapped for adaptation by a highly talented (and proven!!!)BAFTA winning filmmaker (and author: 'Spycatcher' anyone?)....the studio's shit themselves. What the fuck is going on with these studios??? Just greenlight the bloody thing!!!
By the way.... by Brundlefly	May 9th, 2005 09:33:06 AM
Jude Law for Ozymandius!
Sounds good! But I think audiences don't need the Eddie Blake w by FrankDrebin	May 9th, 2005 09:50:57 AM
Sin City, Batman, From Hell, there are few comics that AREN'T edgy these days. Heck, the WB even edgified Bugs & Daffy.
Think about it... by karmattack	May 9th, 2005 09:51:20 AM
Look, the fact of the matter is...everything is a gamble. If Fight Club had a 20 year life as the holy grail of novels before Fincher made a film out of it, there would be all this shit talking about its ending too. I mean, come on. The Watchmen story is awesome, and everything can translate if the translators speak the right languages. There are several things about Watchmen that will require care, the main thing being that it does NOT pull punches...so the movie shouldn't either; I pray for the R. Watchmen is one of those special stories that Mort pointed out is a critique on the rest of the genre. The movie can be a part of that. It has the opportunity to be a stand-out piece, and if handled properly, could have the marathon shelf life of movies like Bladerunner. If the studio looks to make a family friendly, record weekend blockbuster out of this though, they should just leave it alone. Universal has the chance to do something special. Sign me up for two tickets and the DVD if we keep Hayter's script, Greengrass, and the artistic impetus we seem to be hearing about here and at CHUD.
and another thing.... by Brundlefly	May 9th, 2005 09:51:30 AM
All this talk about the ending being a downer is pure shit. Hey, remember that film 'Titanic'? Yeah that had a REAL fucking happy ending. Didn't do much box office either. OK Wtachmen ain't Kate and Leo syrupy shit, but it's a bullshit judgement call to say that audiences don't want to have an ending that makes them 'think' or that they won't pay to see a film that on paper seems like a downer. It's the characters that'll make this a great movie. Sure characters in the Watchmen doubt themselves, have blood on their hands and pretty much give in - but it's the reasons WHY that make the story great and it's how Greengrass will handle it that'll make it accessible to audiences.
SPOILER! Walter Kovacs is Rorschach by Gus Nukem	May 9th, 2005 09:53:07 AM
and this comic series is better left untraslated to other media
Perlman and Phoenix are both wrong. Will Ferrell would be ideal by mansep	May 9th, 2005 09:57:04 AM
i hope i've misread Moriarty's hints but if that cast is true then the film already has shown a significant departure from the characters in the comic. Anyone who's seen Woody Allen's Melinda & Melinda will have seen that Will Ferrell could add a great pathos to the role of Dan, whilst still being big enough to convince as a strong crime-fighter. and if he's not available then maybe John Cusack but even Matthew Perry wouldn't be a bad choice if you think about it. Alec Baldwin would have been great but he's too old now (maybe play the original NiteOwl?). Jude Law would be great as Oz but so would the oft-suggested Cary Elwes. and The Comedian? Hasselhoff would be good, better than Perlman (remember that The Comedian is supposed to be attractive to women!!) perhaps also Billy Bob Thornton. Burt Reynolds is too old. What worries me about the names that Moriarty hints at is that they seem to be going for hot talent because they think it will be easier to sell the movie to Paramount with those names attached. But it's more important that the characters are right, because it's the STORY that will decide whether this film is a success or not. After all, when you watch The Incredibles you're not thinking about who the voice actors are.
Cuba Gooding Jr as Namor? by Calico Pete	May 9th, 2005 09:57:11 AM
Is that the adventurous choice the unnamed studio is afraid will be ravaged on the 'net? Come on Mori, what director, what comic book movie, and what actor are you talking about? As for Watchmen, if Paramount indeed has the option of making the Citizen Kane of comic book movies, and they don't take it, then they should get out of the movie biz. There are much safer and more boring ways for you to make money. But if Paramount takes the risk to try and make something good, something visionary, and something that will last, then my family, friends, and I will be there buying tickets. And I'd get the DVD too. I might draw the line at getting a ticket for the Broadway musical, but no, actually... Count me in for that too!
Paramount DOES need hits, that's why they WILL launch a new Star by FrankDrebin	May 9th, 2005 09:58:11 AM
I'm betting on StarFleet Academy, because it can be done cheap (no expensive alien planets or space battles) and it'll have teen-appeal. A sci-fi Hogwarts, or "The OC" in space.
I so hope to see this Watchmen get made by spider-ham	May 9th, 2005 10:02:38 AM
It sounds like the people running this project get it better than anyone else. I doubt it will get than chance again. I think one day a Watchmen movie will get made, somewhere some how. I rather see it made now by these people than some other idiot who will make major changes to put their style into the character.
What sells the story to me is superheroes shaping 'real' history by Splicer	May 9th, 2005 10:14:03 AM
That's the unique selling point of Watchmen to me. None of this Gotham/Metropolis/fictitious scenario stuff. We actually see a REAL world with superheroes living in it. So change the ending of you think it's too gory. The story still ends with the whole world at peace, which is hardly a downer. Sure, it needs re-working but it's a hell of an idea to end a movie on.
80s atmosphere? No. by Calico Pete	May 9th, 2005 10:14:16 AM
Read the interview w/Greengrass on chud.com (from sometime in March I think)... he talks about updating it: how he's planning to do it, and why it'll work. And ya know what? He makes an argument so convincing that afterwards I was skipping around, drawing little bloody smiley face countdown reminders in all the calendars around the house, and feeling fucking great that 1) we finally have a potentially GREAT superhero movie coming out w/full studio support (as opposed to the ones we've seen already... at best very good but usually 'meh') and 2) that David Lynch was apparently re-cutting Dune for DVD. When I found out that #2 was probably just a cruel lie and #1 was possibly up in smoke because the Paramount shakeup... well, I was not happy. It took a lot of work to put the bloody smiley faces in all my calendars, and it took a helluva lot more work to turn them all upside down.
JUST DO IT RIGHT! by Dmann	May 9th, 2005 10:21:29 AM
Do the movie right. Then sell it to adults. Worked for SIN CITY, didnt it? Worked for Constantine. Dont cast Jessica Alba, or the guy from ENTOURAGE. Cast it with who is best, and then MAKE that person a star, based on performance. Don't be a pussy, Paramount. Pussy ass LCD comic movies are for Fox. Have some balls, or ovaries.
As if... by Jar Jar 4 Prez	May 9th, 2005 10:34:25 AM
they actually listen to what people who care about comics think. They've never made a good Batman movie, we're about to get a totally shitty FF movie, and they gave Wonder Woman to that retarded Buffy guy... They just don't care. Watchmen should be left alone. Much like FROM HELL, it works BECAUSE IT'S A COMIC. Duh.
Uh... by karmattack	May 9th, 2005 10:37:52 AM
If you read this, Paramount, I'm sorry for calling you Universal... Me fail English? That's unpossible!
make this movie already by Hoke Mosley	May 9th, 2005 10:39:19 AM
Greengrass is an awesome director! Now, the TV version directed by Gilliam is laying aroun somewhere on Sandman's library of dreams, but if the new script is as good as Moriarty says, then who gives a shit? Now, if there really is someone listening (and I doubt it), please make this movie!! My two cents on the cast: unknown for Rorshach; Ron Perlman or Burt Reynolds for the comedian.
saw a trailer for this... by Warcraft	May 9th, 2005 10:46:07 AM
...infront of kung fu hustle. It looked pretty good.
Go for it by Rodan	May 9th, 2005 10:47:31 AM
I have no idea how they're gonna squeeze it into 2-3 hours - guess all that Tales of The Black Freighter stuff will be jettisoned, and along w/ a lot of other things. If they can make a high quality flick w/ a stellar cast AND market it properly, I think there is a lot of potential, regardless of the ending or how dated the comic may be. That is a lot to ask, of course, but it seems like the film is on the right track right now, from what I've read. I say go for it - better "Watchmen" than "Along Came a Spider 2", IMHO
Scratch my last post. by Warcraft	May 9th, 2005 10:55:02 AM
What I saw, was a trailer for Night Watch, at http://www.apple.com/trailers/ fox_searchlight/night_watch/la rge.html Any relation???
Watchmen not great? by Hoke Mosley	May 9th, 2005 10:55:58 AM
Give me Liberty better than Watchmen?? Are you fucking nuts?! Watchmen is a modern masterpiece, like Marvelman, Moore's run on the Swamp Thing and V For Vendeta.
Just a question - by FluffyUnbound	May 9th, 2005 10:58:29 AM
What did you guys not like about the ending? In terms of the comic, I mean. I can also see why it would be problematic as a movie ending. But in the comic itself, why did you hate it so much? To me it seemed to fit the story quite well.
The way to get more of an audience by The Heathen	May 9th, 2005 11:01:23 AM
First off, Watchmen isn't a summer movie. If release it around November or December you could have the chance to bring in more of an audience. Because if done right this film could garner Oscar buzz and pull in those curious average people who might not have considered seeing a "comic" movie. I'm afraid if released in the summer it would be forgotten in a week by Superman or X-Men 3 or anything else that is more easy to swallow. Give it some breathing room. Titanic and ROTS pretty much everyone knows how they wil end unless their "new." The average movie goer will see costumes and think "fun." And although I love Watchmen, it really isn't the most fun read. That said, Chapter 4 is probably the single best issue of a comic I can remember.
The owl ship by jimmy_009	May 9th, 2005 11:03:55 AM
is the silliest thing I've ever seen...good luck with that one
watch the signs by eddiekaay2000	May 9th, 2005 11:10:50 AM
I think he's talking about Spacey (K-Pax) for Dan -- if you look up Lloyd on IMDB. Perlman (excellent) and Swank (excellent) -- so far so good, though Ed Norton would kick ass as Rorschach. I also vote for Jack Black as the red-head kid in the magazine office.
I'll play Rorchach - God forbid a filmstar should do it. by The Reef	May 9th, 2005 11:21:32 AM
Although if you smack David Caruso in the face with somebody elses career he might just be able to screw this up. Hell I'm tall, ugly enough and physically up for it. I don't mind having my face hidden by a mask or being photographed with snot running down my face. Good luck casting this guy, it'll be a tough call.
Watchmen will make BIG $$$ by Ashlander	May 9th, 2005 11:25:19 AM
I personally think Watchmen will blow audiences away in a similar manner as the first Matrix movie (that movie did pretty well as I recall!). That's how the studio should think of and market this movie. I WILL go see it! (as long as they make the Hayter/Greengrass version) And I will bring all my amigos!
Spacey by The Heathen	May 9th, 2005 11:35:34 AM
He would be good as Dan, but having him as Luthor IF the movie is released summer 06 could be a studio/scheduling problem. Swank and Perlman would be great. And if we are really talking to Paramount because they listen to the internet - fucking get Jude Law to play Ozymandias. He wants to Paramount! Let him. He has a tatoo of Rorschach for christ sakes.
Finally, the mainstream is savvy enough to understand WATCHMEN a by Homer Sexual	May 9th, 2005 11:44:24 AM
I would so like to believe that quote is actually true, but I have my doubts. I agree that a movie of Watchmen, done well, would only do Sin City-esque box office. I can't imagine releasing this movie as an "R," it will inevitably be PG-13, will probably suck and will probably not be a big hit. I'm crossing my fingers because the potential casting sounds great and I trust Moriarty on the script, but the finished product will be ...?
My first post ever by Busky	May 9th, 2005 11:49:40 AM
I've read AICN for god knows how long but I never felt the need to post something here till I read this article. I'm a huge fan of Watchmen and I hope they actually do get to make a really good movie out of it.
Shakeycam by mr_alcatraz	May 9th, 2005 12:07:53 PM
Dear Watchmen producers. I will come and see the film on the condition that you tell your director to KEEP THE DAMN CAMERA STILL FOR FIVE FUCKING SECONDS. Strapping a camera to a floor buffer and 25 edits per second do not an action scene make. Pull the camera back and let the audience see the action. Film school over.
THIS FILM SHOULD BE MADE by PoliMan4	May 9th, 2005 12:14:35 PM
'cause I wanna see it. nuff said
Constantine has made $230million worldwide by ChorleyFM	May 9th, 2005 12:19:06 PM
with generally shitty reviews. Admittedly that has alot to do with Keanu, but if you get some oscar quality actors in there this would easily make its budget back.
Sounds promising by mortsleam	May 9th, 2005 12:25:03 PM
I was initially skeptical that Hayter and Greengrass had the ability to pull off such a monumental adaptation. In fact, I was in the
Nite Owl? by fabfunk	May 9th, 2005 12:27:06 PM
See, by the SIGNS rumor and the fact that Nite Owl is so prominent, I figured Mel Gibson (who would be a great Comedian). Joaquin Phoenix and Hilary Swank, however... boring actors. Still, Greengrass is probably smart enough to get past that. If he worked with Julia Stiles, he can work with anyone.
by karmattack	May 9th, 2005 12:46:29 PM
wolf at the door: "despite the fact that batman, superman and spiderman are household names, who can overlook the obvious commercial appeal of WATCHMEN? i hear burger king and taco bell are already fighting for the licensing rights. i mean, what kid wouldn't want a rorchach action doll?" --Let me be the first to say that you seem to have a very skewed vision of success, not to mention who Watchmen appeals to and why.
Good job Moriarty... I'm hyped! by Daddylonghead	May 9th, 2005 12:50:27 PM
In spite of my innate cynicism, it's hard not to get excited when you hear the specifics... and here's to casting REAL ACTORS rather than wrestlers or celebrities.
Great job Mori by Right Bastard	May 9th, 2005 12:53:05 PM
I really don't think the studios read these message boards, but for what it's worth, I will be there opening day. It sounds like Greengrass knows what he's doing, and won't screw things up!
Dearest Paramount: Make this movie!!! by Kielbasa	May 9th, 2005 12:53:51 PM
Spend some cash--get a good cast--people will come.
Night Watch VS Watchmen. by Warcraft	May 9th, 2005 12:55:12 PM
Is there a relation, or are these two completely different entities? The Night Watch trailer was cool btw.
Make the fucking thing, Paramount, unless.. by Negator76	May 9th, 2005 12:59:46 PM
the concept of truckloads of cash and film awards scares you. Dickless wonders.
Sounds like this film is in capable hands! by Hjermsted	May 9th, 2005 01:00:47 PM
Therefore I eagerly await it's release. Several of my friends keep asking me if I've heard anything about the Watchmen film. You see, we've been following this adaptation since Terry Gilliam was attached to it back in the early '90s. My friends and I want this film to get made and to be made well. Paramount please greenlight the Watchmen film! -Matt, Seattle
Kielbasa by karmattack	May 9th, 2005 01:01:03 PM
"Spend some cash--get a good cast--people will come." Spoken like a true porno visionary. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Make it, make it good by ABVH	May 9th, 2005 01:06:10 PM

Sounds like its good to go- Give it a shot Paramount by RenoNevada2000	May 9th, 2005 01:08:42 PM
Remember one of the last nearly abandoned projects Moriarty championed that went on to be made? I think it was called ANCHORMAN: THE LEGEND OF RON BURGUNDY...
How can such a deconstructionist story be considered the "Godfat by Movietool	May 9th, 2005 01:08:54 PM
The Watchmen is about tearing comic books apart, not about glorifying them. It's brilliant, to be sure, but as a comic book, it's hardly the end-all be-all of the genre. If anything, The Watchmen is responsible for an incredible amount of bad comics. It seems every schlock writer decided that what every major comic book character suddenly needed was that down-n-dirty "Watchmen" treatment. Where we get into the superheroes heads and see "what makes them tick." What unbelievable bullshit. As a result, we got a Green Lantern who became a mass murderer, an split-personality, abused as a child Bruce Banner, an alcoholic Tony Stark, etc., etc., and as we got all of that "realism," comics became less and less fun and less and less imaginitive until we come to today's comics, where major plotlines revolve around the rape and murder of superheroes (pick up the odious Identity Crisis if you don't believe me). Ugh. I'll be interested in seeing this, but if it's a success, I'm afraid it will only lead to another two decades of crap comics.
...actually, I agree. by scrivener	May 9th, 2005 01:24:51 PM
"And I
Much obliged Drebin. by Trevor Goodchild	May 9th, 2005 01:35:36 PM

Ron Perlman as the Comedian, Jaquen Phoenix (or is it Mel Gibson by brokentusk	May 9th, 2005 01:39:04 PM
Sounds like a solid cast right there. They're going for the right looks AND talent it seems.
I spelt 'Joaquin' wrong, then again, everyone spells it wrong, i by brokentusk	May 9th, 2005 01:41:46 PM

Oh and one last thing, I'll make you a promise new heads of Para by brokentusk	May 9th, 2005 01:48:57 PM
I will suck one dick for every million that you put into this film. I know it's not gonna be a pleasant time for me emotionally or psychologically, but I'm willing to endure it to see this done right. Hey, if you decide not to make the film or if you cut funding in half, it's not like you have any balls anyway.
this is the kind of movie... by adambalm	May 9th, 2005 01:51:39 PM
...that will have comic shops buying up full houses in theaters. If a studio is too afraid to make more money than god by sitting back and doing nothing while Greengrass and co do all the work, then they don't deserve this. Now, whether it's ultimately good or not, we'll have to wait and see. But I think we deserve that opportunity to wait and see it, by letting them make the movie.
Let Paul Greengrass do what he wants with this movie by Dragonfire	May 9th, 2005 01:52:27 PM
and I'll go see it, and I'll tell everyone I know to see it as well.
At the risk of appearing to be prematurely pessimistic... by Stan the Bat	May 9th, 2005 02:19:05 PM
...comic books are sufficiently low-profile, and the number of people required to produce them is sufficiently small, that genuinely subversive content can appear in a comic book without being filtered out in the production process. This is no longer true of movies, and this is why any Watchmen movie that gets made will be crap. They might cast people who look just right; they might make Watchmen happy meals; they might figure out a way to turn it into a Big Box Office property. But the real substance of it will be gone.
Analogies by Incrediburgible	May 9th, 2005 02:47:59 PM
What the Godfather was to the gangster genre... What 2001: A Space Odyssey was to the science fiction genre... What Unforgiven was to the western genre... What Moulin Rouge was to the musical genre... What Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind was to the romance genre... Watchmen could be the same kind of "answer" to the superhero genre, which by now, on film, has grown familiar and conventional (and tired)
While I would never hold up Sin City... by Childe Roland	May 9th, 2005 02:48:34 PM
...as a perfect film, it is a pretty good example of how a comic book movie can be done for a comic book audience. Rodriguez and friends weren't terribly concerned with making it commercially appealing. They labored instead to make it a worthy tribute to the comics. For the most part, they succeeded... and they made their money back. Watchmen needs to be approached like that (not made in the style of Sin City, mind you). It needs to be a labor of love for a director with the support and trust of a studio that isn't looking desperately for the next huge Hollywood hit. It needs to cast actors who believe in the director and the project (if Jude Law wants to play Ozymandius, let him take a pay cut). That's the only way Watchmen can be a great movie. Put too much pressure on it to be "commercially viable" and you'll be tempted to tinker too much with it (like Sin City, it's not a story that's terribly concerned with fitting any sort of standard, easily relatable mold), and then you might as well not bother with it at all.
in other words.... MAKE IT! MAKE IT NOW! by Incrediburgible	May 9th, 2005 02:48:56 PM

Mars by skeers	May 9th, 2005 03:11:45 PM
If they can get down that SlaughterHouse5 feeling of the Docs trip to Mars, I think we could have something special.
Giovani Ribisi as by MVPC3636	May 9th, 2005 03:19:55 PM
Roschach.
So much... nothing. by SalvatoreGravano	May 9th, 2005 03:21:50 PM
Not even a word of what it is. Who the hell are "Watchmen"? "What's it all about, then, oh my brothers?"
wolf at the door by adambalm	May 9th, 2005 03:34:15 PM
Well, certainly not the BEST mass delusion, if it is one. I've seen it before in my town, for Spider-Man and Sin City, and what not. Star Wars fans did it for Phantom Menace. Churches did it for the Passion (I'll leave any connection between that movie and mass delusion to you). Course that's just for opening weekend, then fanboys routinely forget. But then again, that's all movie studios care about these days, which is the whole reason they mine comics for their ready-made fanbases already.
Quis custodiet Ispsos Custodes by 800Bullets	May 9th, 2005 03:40:52 PM
i'm just sayin'.
All this "non-commercial" bullshit... by Z_B_Brox	May 9th, 2005 03:56:11 PM
...is, in fact, bullshit. As someone pointed out, Constantine made 217 million worldwide, what, because Keanu and Rachel Weisz are just that hot? And that movie didn't exactly have positive word of mouth on its side. As for "you can't blow up half of New York," you remember a little movie called "The Day After Tomorrow" that grossed more than half a billion world wide? So far Sin City has done, what, 80 million bucks in the US alone, released at the beginning of April, relatively small budget, a visual style that'll scare away half the public right from the start, and an extremely well-deserved R rating. This will have ten times the geek following right off the bat, it'll appeal to audiences as much as Constantine did, and a hell of a lot more than Sin City, if it gets an R, well, so did both of those flicks, but I don't think it needs one to stay true to the comic (hell, with the MPAA the way it is all you need to do to avoid an R is drop out all the "Fucks".) and if it's made right it could win all kinds of awards. It may be a dark movie, but people don't always shy away from dark. As for there being no likable characters, Dan and Laurie have a lot of potential to be likable if they're cast right. Saying "it'll look silly, it'll be depressing, and the ending sucks" is idiotic. Most of the story isn't Dan hopping around as NiteOwl, it's creepy-ass Rorscach, FX-heavy Manhattan, plain-clothes Dan and Laurie, and attractive and charismatic Veidt. You don't need to market this like Spider-Man with Niteowl shooting off one-liners while piloting the Owl-jet at 700 mph through the streets of New York, the biggest moneymaker in history wasn't a scifi spectacular it was a romance adventure with no really likable characters and a depressing ending. (Titanic or Gone With the Wind, take your pick.) Make sure the movie doesn't suck and make sure you cast Laurie, Dan, and Veidt to maximum likability/attractiveness and I'll guarantee a moneymaker. It'll beat the hell out of Cosntantine, anyway.
Adam West for Holis Mason! by Jack Gladney	May 9th, 2005 04:21:49 PM
Yeah, maybe he's not the best choice, but I've been a big fan of that suggestion ever since I saw it suggested years ago (it may have even been a talkback on this very site). Anyway, I would watch this movie. Paramount has nothing to lose by trying, anyway.
MAKE THIS MOVIE! by SamBluestone	May 9th, 2005 04:24:22 PM
If this movie is in as capable hands as Mori and Devin at chud.com claim, and if it is made as it is SUPPOSED to be made, I will be there opening night with as many of my friends that I can drag with me. Hell, I'll probably see it three times. But it has to be done right, and from the sounds of things these guys will make it right.
The Perfect Comedian... by Jack Potts	May 9th, 2005 04:26:08 PM
...would be Sylvester Stallone. Sylvester Stallone has spent considerable time attempting to distance himself from the iconic character of Rambo. In the role of The Comedian, for once, his age and cinematic baggage would be an asset. The first thing we learn about Edward Blake is that he's an older guy who's built like a weightlifter. That's Stallone. Also, for the moviegoer who is unfamiliar with the source material, the messy and violent death of Stallone ninety seconds into the film would be a clear sign that this is not the standard superhero movie. The Comedian was, in part, a commentary on the tough-guy, ultra-violent, ultra-jingoistic male ideal of the 1980s, which Rambo embodied. Casting Stallone in the role would add a tremendous resonance to the part. Since The Comedian's role in the book is a glorified cameo, but he is such a vital catalyst and connector of the events that occur, I think you need an actor with the stature and baggage that Stallone brings.
For everyone who says "it'll bomb because of the ending..." by SamBluestone	May 9th, 2005 04:28:24 PM
Uh, actually, no it won't, because if the book's NYC ending is made (and by all accounts it IS left intact, albeit in a less messy fashion from what I understand), it will likely be VERY controversial. And by your logic, people won't go see that movie if they find out about that. Dudes, where the hell have you been? THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS BAD PUBLICITY. In fact, making something so controversial will actually cause a stir and get MORE people interested in a movie that they otherwise might have just dismissed as "another superhero movie." Seriously, people, use your heads.
"Watchmen fails even this test..." by Z_B_Brox	May 9th, 2005 04:33:28 PM
Nah. Watchmen was the first Alan Moore I ever read, and was among the first comics I ever read, and I loved it. You don't need to be a comic book fan to appreciate a deconstruction of the superhero genre. You'll be hard-pressed to find someone who's never seen ANY of the Superman movies or TV shows, ANY of the Batman movies or TV shows, ANY of the Spider-Man movies or TV shows, ANY of the X-Men movies or TV shows... Hell, my brother's entire comic book repetoire consisted of some Preacher, Johnny the homicidal Maniac, and Ultimate Spider-Man I'd lent him and he "got" Watchmen. Even if you've enver seen a superhero movie, almost all of the riffing on superheroes can be applied to action heroes in general. James Bond and Indiana Jones are in their way as much superheroes as Batman. They have special skills, distinctive outfits, trademark names, and they perform seemingly superhuman feats in the name of a personal code, often saving the world at the same time, with distinctive and seemingly overpowering villains. We're not talking about say, Kingdom Come, where you really do need to know DC to understand what's happening, we're talking about a response to thematic elements that inhabit any story that has a distinct hero and a distinct villain. The ideas in Watchmen have as much appeal as those in The Matrix or in Star Wars. I wouldn't predict Watchmen will be as successful as those ventures, there's too much chance in that, but Watchmen will be perfectly well understood by anyone who's ever thought the world was getting out of hand and wished someone would come along and fix it. It may depress those people, but the sad truth is most of the best movies are depressing as hell, and that's never been antithetical to them making some money.
Mori's hints by Lujho	May 9th, 2005 04:57:22 PM
I actually took Mori's hint for the Comedian to be Jeffrey Tambor. Perlman is way more obvious but he didn't even occur to me. It probably WAS Perlman that Mori was referring to, and he'd be a great choice, but Tambor would be too IMO. Hillary Swany as Laurie? Uh, okay. Not really how I see her at all but whatever. Good actress and all that. Someone more, well voluptuous and full-faced would be my ideal. Charlize Theron would be great. And I definitely took the Dan thing to be Mel Gobson, not Phoenix. He's a tad old though, and I'm not sure I really like him much all that more. If they could find a guy who looked like a young Mel for the flashbacks (whom Mel could dub over) that could be really cool. I always saw Dan as Jeff Goldblum, myself, but he's too old too. But anyway, Paramoutn, PLEASE make this movie. With good actors (and I could definitely live with Permal, Swank and Gibson) and the right creative team (and this Greengrass certainly seems to know what he's doing) Watchmen could be REALLY special. Just let Paul do his thing.
Sounds like a great film is coming together. by ar42	May 9th, 2005 05:02:50 PM
Here's hoping this talented group of people are allowed to put their interpretation of this classic onscreen.
Casting by Z_B_Brox	May 9th, 2005 05:08:07 PM
I think John Cusack would be the perfect Dan, he's approximately the right age, he's not superhumanly good looking, but he's definitely likable, obviously intelligent, and a fantastic actor. I could deal with Gibson, but he seems a bit too old, a bit too tough. I don't think Dan should be a natural action star. Swank's not my choice for Laurie, either, but she's got the talent to do it. I'd be more inclined to go along the lines of Anna Paquin, though she's a bit young for it. But Laurie should be someone who you can see being a cute, innocent little kid even as she plays a more distressed, bitter part. Ron Perlman would be an awesome, awesome comedian, though I think the Stallone idea had obvious merits. Dr. Manhattan I'm fairly open-minded about. I think with him the performance itself matters more than the look or natural charisma of the actor, because he's essentially inhuman. One I'm really perplexed on is Veidt, though. I can't immediately call to mind someone who can give the impression of being vastly intelligent, considered, arrogant, educated, and superior while still being good looking and absolutely athletic. Not that dream-casting gets anyone anywhere, but after Sin City managed to hit a whole lotta nails right on the head, it somehow seems less unlikely.
Why not? by CoursinLarry	May 9th, 2005 05:36:51 PM
I don't know why people have such a hard time believing that studios might use the internet message boards as a tool to decide whether or not to go ahead on a movie. Especially when you consider the power an advanced screening and some comment cards have. I'm not saying that message boards are the beat all, end all, but when there's so much on the line, it makes sense to me that they'll want to see what people have to say. By the way, I would go see Watchmen.
on the relevance of 'watchmen' by ashhole	May 9th, 2005 05:52:18 PM
yes, it was steeped in 80s cold war culture. yes, the ending will cause discomfort because of the echoes of 911. these things only enhance the value of this property. if you seriously believe that what was an 80s feeling book can't be translated into a contemporary movie, you obviously don't remember the 80s OR the cold war and feeling of goverment-fanned paranoia that translates directly to our own issues of "homeland security" of taday. the transition is effortless for any writer worth a damn, and hayter is on top of his shit. the ending of the books was exactly what this world and this country need to be shown on a large scale. we need to know that there will always be a greater threat than the one we know, and sometimes it will come from an old ally such as bin laden, hussein, milosovic, quadaffi, etc. we create our own worst enemies. this story depicts that, and if done right, could be controversial enough to rake in mountains of cash at the box office. where comic movies fail, like fantastic four will, is that they take properties too old to really appeal to today's kids and make them happy shiny primary-colored crap that no one over 25 could ever care about, alienating all audiences except longtime fans who will go knowing they will be disappointed. these stories cannot be updated because they're just archetypes and costumes and gadgets and that's all they could ever be because their stories fail to speak to the real world, they are pure fantasy with no true emotions other than maybe the occasional pang of pathos. if they avoid that, and let this movie be the wakeup call it could be, mountains of cash are in the offing. all they really need is to have the religious right freak out and start demonstrating and everyone will see it. i metaphorically watch the watchmen every day, and so should you.
Don't Make Watchman... by Harker-Writes	May 9th, 2005 06:03:33 PM
...until Alan Moore agrees that the movie won't be a travesty of the comic. If the author doesn't think it can be made, then it probably can't.
so goes the game by adambalm	May 9th, 2005 06:05:48 PM
Yawn. It's always a little bit fascinating watching when talkbacks get like this. Seems to be a contest of who's more cynical. Fanboys more than anyone confusing jaded cynicism with acquired wisdom, hoping to distinguish themselves as being somehow less pathetic than the other individuals furiously arguing over movies that haven't been made, about people who don't even exist. The formula seems to go: Person A will imply a person is pathetic for posting about said random movie. Person B will then imply that person A is more pathetic, because what's more pathetic, bitching about movies or bitching about bitchers bitching about movies? (Recusion is only useful when coding) talkbackers are always hoping to prove that they are somehow a cut above the others. Mentioning someone living in their parents' basement scores you some points in this regard, mentioning Joss Whedon scores you even more. In any event, I never made the argument that it would turn out a large audience, but at the same time I don't expect that to stop you. So goes the game, as I said. Whether it will appeal to the mainstream remains to be seen. I think it would depend more on marketing than content, to be brutally honest. Most likely they'd market it as a special effects-laden superhero romp. And as I previously mentioned, movie studios make the bulk of their profits openning weekend (theater owners then taking a wider chunk of the box office take as each week progresses.) And now you can proceed to mention all the pussy you are getting, or all the pussy I (whom you have never met) am missing out on. I promise I will act interested and not bored.
"Dated"? Like hell. by Z_B_Brox	May 9th, 2005 06:37:56 PM
The story is called "Watchmen". It revolves around the phrase "Who watches the Watchmen?" It's not just about "mutually assure destruction", it's about what governments do when we're not looking, it's about people who are willing to resort to violence to do what they think is right, and it's about war and terror. What is the ending of the book if not a horrendous act of terrorism? If anything, the current world situation is the natural result of Watchmen: One of the prose pieces in the book tries to make the point that Russia may be crazy enough to kill themselves to strike at us. Now we know for sure those people are out there. They may need to play up some parts and play down others, but those choices get made in any adaptation and they don't make the adaptation any less genuine.
damon wayans as dr. manhattan! by DocMcCoy	May 9th, 2005 07:16:57 PM
jude law or viggo as MADMAN(for the madman movie that'll be made someday)
Who will watch The Watchmen? I will, if it's done right... by Zardoz	May 9th, 2005 07:24:01 PM
Paul Greengrass is a good choice for director, and I'll have to hope the script by Hayter is good, as well. As to the cast, I'll have to borrow some other people's choices for myself: Ian Mcshane as The Comedian. Jude Law as Ozymandias. John C. Reilly as Rorshach. Russell Crowe as Nite Owl. (or maybe Jack Black?) Catherine Zeta-Jones as Silk Spectre 2. Guy Pearce as Dr. Manhattan. Sean Connery as Hollis. Lynda Carter as Silk Spectre 1. As to the plot, it HAS to end like the comic: with the threat of Veidt's dastardly scheme being revealed by Rorshach's journal. (After NY is already destroyed) Note to Greengrass: less handheld, shakey-cam in the film. It's cool in small doses, but don't over do it...
Tom Selleck For Comedian! MAKE THIS MOVIE! by TheWatchman	May 9th, 2005 08:39:34 PM
-nt-
Can't wait for the toys! by Harrierthanthee	May 9th, 2005 08:50:36 PM

I mean, uhhum, action figures. by Harrierthanthee	May 9th, 2005 08:51:15 PM

The real reason behind this piece... by genro	May 9th, 2005 09:25:08 PM
First off, Congrats on the kid, Drew...now back to fantasy...consider this article a favor to Loyd Levin, the patron saint of all web-geeks who want to be apart of The Wood. He's the one pimping Meg for CHUD, he's behind at least one AICN project...he is the real door opener for Drew and company...so it would appear Watchmen is not tracking well within Paramount, possibly because the on-line response has been tepid...perhaps this piece is meant as a way to try and reverse course for this project...if this is not true, then why would Drew spend the first several paragraphs refuting every reason not to make this film? His broad sweeping "people will get it" notion is such an unfounded and half-ass argument, it's laughable...to translate a comic that was designed as a parable about comic archetypes into an espionage film negates the whole purpose of the mini-series...in other words, remove what made Watchmen unique and you're just doing a standard superhero story, which, in turn, becomes a parody of Watchmen, intentionally or not...this is probably beyond Drew so I'll stop now.
One more thing - Odds are Avi got a no-compete clause out of Bra by genro	May 9th, 2005 09:35:15 PM
Avi smashed a few non-Marvel superhero deals at Sony and don't think he was tickled pink about the greenlight they originally gave Hellboy...I doubt Grey is going to be willing to push the bible of comics now, considering it's a DC property...and to understand the Paramount/Marvel deal, you have to realize how tight the market is getting on superhero projects. WB is going to pump out one a year alongside Marvel properties...why would Avi want more properties in the marketplace, especially after he had to secure his own line of financing to produce his pics.
This is just flat out a bad idea by Bart of Darkness	May 9th, 2005 09:53:35 PM
The Watchmen film will lose so much of the detail present in the comic book it will be like watching phantoms of the characters we know so well. Not everything has to be made into a film y'know. Hollywood, try coming up with an original idea for a change (some hope!).
Adam Sandler for Nite Owl! by Rant Breath	May 9th, 2005 10:05:24 PM
I'm a genius!
As Usual, Inventing Facts Is Fun! by TheRealMoriarty	May 9th, 2005 10:20:30 PM
Lloyd Levin has nothing to do with either of Harry's film projects, or with anything I'm doing. Not a thing. I've never worked with Lloyd professionally. I've never even had a meeting with Lloyd about my own work. Your points about the new Marvel deal are actually good points, and I'll admit... I didn't consider Marvel once as I wrote this piece. I'm simply a fan of this project... this script... and I would love to see it happen. I know it's hard to comprehend writing something positive unless there's some sort of hidden benefit, but that's the difference between you and me, genro... I do it all the time.
Hollywood has contept for older fanboys... by Rant Breath	May 9th, 2005 10:22:27 PM
Look what they did to the League of Extraordinary Gentlement! Go watch Alien vs Predator. They hate us.
tales of the black freighter by whatyoufear	May 9th, 2005 10:31:19 PM
that's all i wanna see
Sorry guys, but this film will FAIL by cherrycola	May 9th, 2005 11:31:09 PM
And I'll tell you why. Because in this post 9-11 world where hollywood and the media dicate what we can and cannot SEE in a film...the end of the watchmen story will be GONE and changed. Only george lucas or mel gibson has the audacity and wealth necessary to depict such an event. Again, I'm sorry...but its going to suck in ways you people would'nt believe.
Here's My Cast by MrMotherFucker	May 10th, 2005 01:04:33 AM
John Cusack as Night Owl. Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie. Sly Stallone or Ron Pearlman would be fine as the Comedian, but part of me really wants to see Roddy Piper in that role. I always pictured either Denis Leary or Jason Statham as Rorsharch. Jeff Goldblum or Nicolas Cage as Ozymandias. Vin Diesel as Dr. Manhattan (i know I'm gonna get shit for this, but I'm serious)
Watch the Watchmen. by Saintv1	May 10th, 2005 02:36:18 AM
Well said, Moriarty. I'm going to be frank: since Greengrass took over, everything I've heard about WATCHMEN has me excited. This news from Moriarty, in particular, is absolutely spectacular. In addition to the incredible story Alan Moore created, there were also amazing visuals that I think some people over look. Great designs, like Rorschach and of course Dr. Manhattan. My number one concern was that they would ruin these concepts, but the what Moriarty has said has very nearly eliminated those concerns. Paramount needs to make this film.
As someone who's been following the development of this movie fr by Ribbons	May 10th, 2005 03:04:19 AM
And tamethecunt, you're wrong, but I will say that if the actress in consideration is who I think it is, I'm all for it. She'd make a good Laurie. Also, I'm thinking who they're thinking for The Comedian would make a hell of a good choice too, especially since my mind went there before I even got the clue.
. by entryid	May 10th, 2005 03:07:17 AM
I've only read one comic in the last ten years, it was Watchmen and it knocked me on my ass... I'm there.
wolf at the door... by Ribbons	May 10th, 2005 03:42:03 AM
...it's not necessary to need to know about Alan Moore or have a huge fanbase to make bank. While it certainly increases a movie's chances, it's not like everything ever made that made heaps of cash has had some sort of "following" before release.
WOW Paramount it soundlike Watchmen are in Good hands,,,,So it's by crossfox	May 10th, 2005 04:35:12 AM
You as in paramount have something very special,they just need to have faith,step aside and support this project. It'll be worth the gamble. IF your running a film studio then your in a high position too know how to gamble big inlife and this game we be worth in"money wise,and critial",lets get back the studio,and was bold in the seventies when Robert Evans was making bold films for paramounts time. These were the films of their days that change the way the world viewed cinema,films like Rosemaries baby,and Godfather,and such...best of luck to Paramount and to all involved on this project.... INDEPENDENT PRODUCER ROBERT ALLEN WAGNER
SORRY ABOUT THE MISSPELLING THE LAST POST!!!!!! MY BAD. by crossfox	May 10th, 2005 04:41:36 AM

Watchmen should be made...correctly... by Reactor 4	May 10th, 2005 05:13:40 AM
I had reservations (as any good fanboy should) about Watchmen being made into a big 'blockbuster' summer flick. But after reading Greengrass' interview at C.H.U.D., I have to say I became intrigued. He sounded passionate, he wanted Watchmen to mean something, to make a faithful adaptation but also a taut political piece which would explore the role of a 'superhero' in 'the real world' ;as opposed to some of the recent swill in the superhero genre coughhulkdaredevilpunisherco nstantinecough.) I started getting excited. I re-read Watchmen and once again, I was floored. I came to understand that not ALL of the subtler elements of the work needed to be in place to tell the story effective as a film. I noted plenty of superfluous elements that could be eliminated without compromising the integrity of the story. So I was excited again. Now this aticle has raised some concerns once more. The studio (if the film is still green-lit) is rushing the film into theatres as quickly as possible. Foreseeably, this could lead to a lack of quality control. The graphic novel was a labor of love I feel the film should be handled in the same manner, by folks who care genuinely about the project and aren't trying to force the next 'Batman and Robin' down our throats. Hopefully 'Watchmen' won't be the kind of flick parents would take their children to see on a Saturday afternoon. Handled correctly 'Watchmen' would be in line with 'Seven' or 'Insomnia', a gripping murder-mystery with VERY adult overtones. I would be crushed if this film was made into a 120 toy commercial,thats OK for Spider-Man or Batman; but this isn't the run of the mill "cape" flick. This is the big daddy, the most talked about, intelligent, and probably most important comic-book story ever set on the page and deserves to be treated with respect. Yet the fanboy in me knows that even if the movie is made and was panned, I know I would have to watch it. Good or bad, Paramount would have my $7.50.
sorry about typos in last, but its late and i'm tired. by Reactor 4	May 10th, 2005 05:17:46 AM
n/m
Ticket bought. by xavier masterson	May 10th, 2005 05:21:51 AM

To Paramount, if they're listening... by Trancer	May 10th, 2005 05:37:36 AM
Let this production team make this movie; stay out of the creative process; give them the budget they need to make it right; and you will make money. Lots and lots of it.
As a genre fan, I'd like to see it, but stop pushing this crap t by Triumph poops!	May 10th, 2005 06:22:30 AM
Quite frankly, after plowing through 11 issues of WATCHMEN, by the time you get to 12 and "learn" what it's all about and get to the destruction of NY, blah, blah, blah, it all makes for something that was "ok" for it's time -- there's no question that Alan Moore can write a great scene -- but seriously in the passage of time WATCHMEN is now a bit overrated. It wasn't like it was the second coming of literature for God's sake. As for that ending, I liked it better on THE OUTER LIMITS which Moore not only ripped it off from, but he even acknowledges that fact with a tossaway blurb coming from a TV in the final pages. And when I saw the ending on OUTER LIMITS, they got to it in under 45 minutes...it didn't take them 12 issues and Lord knows how many pages!
"Hopefully Watchmen won't be the kind of flick parents would tak by Triumph poops!	May 10th, 2005 06:30:19 AM
Congratulations, Reactor 4, on explaining just WHY Brad Gray will now call the other department heads of Paramount into a room, look at a piece of paper outlining a $100 million plus movie, slap his head and then say, "Fuck! We're gonna lose our shirts on this aren't we? We're gonna try and sell them on a comic book and turn right around and alienate people with this mature bullshit, and to top it off we're not gonna make shit on licensing are we?" At which point everyone sitting around the conference room table will hang their heads and sort of mumble under their breath "Uh, no, sir. Not really. Acording to all the projections we could put together, we're gonna take a bath on this one."
I SECOND THAT WHAT Reactor 4 & Trancer posted!!! by CurryIce	May 10th, 2005 06:36:30 AM
This should be made as faithful as possible and i think it wouldn't hurt to change it JUST a little bit to make it relevant to our days. And after reading the interviews on chud.com i'm very optimistic that Greengrass (BloodySunday was a great intense film) is the right choice to sit on the director's chair. and just to quote Trancer's plea to Paramount: "Let this production team make this movie; stay out of the creative process; give them the budget they need to make it right.
Yes we know its from the Outerlimits by spider-ham	May 10th, 2005 06:57:34 AM
We even had that idea in the book. The idea is Ozymandias wasn't that freakin smart.
JewJewBoy: by InBloom	May 10th, 2005 07:24:23 AM
Shall I warm Sir's crack pipe now?
The 'Hard Sell Movie' by Zool	May 10th, 2005 07:59:38 AM
Watchmen is a hard sell, but there's a massive market for the 'hard sell' movie because of the millions upon millions of us who seek out the unusual, rare, interesting and above all else good. Then evangelise about it to our friends, their friends and anyone who listens. Serenity's going to hit big because of this kind of word of mouth and because, ultimately, it's a class piece of work. Watchmen will do the same; Superheroes are big, the story works and the fanbase is vocal, smart and active. Just make the thing.
Actually, Triumph's right about zeroing in on Reactor 4's commen by Commando Cody	May 10th, 2005 08:04:20 AM
First off, I'll start by saying I'm a long time comic fan, so I'd love to see WATCHMEN on the screen as much as the next person. Hell, for that matter, there's lots of comic properties still to be mined that I'd love to see on the big screen. However, that said, those clamoring for WATCHMEN and likewise yelling "It must be done right! It must be done dark and gritty and totally adult in tone like SEVEN or INSOMNIA" (or pick a movie or your choice) are really missing some realistic key business points here. For starters, DON'T try convincing Paramount they should do it based on a comparison to an "adult themed murder mystery" like INSOMNIA since that was a major box office dud for Warners. And the point many are missing here is exactly what Triumph is right about: the suits at Paramount are NOT looking to make you comic geek fanboys happy. They're looking for one thing and one thing only. TO MAKE A PROFIT. They're not looking to make art...they're not even looking to break even. They're looking to make money and have the numbers be ON THE PLUS SIDE in the ledger book. So when people like Reactor 4 say "DON'T make this the kind of movie that parents can drop their kids off at" you're only slitting its throat. Because frankly -- given target audience ages and the types of movies you can successfully market particular genres to -- the ONLY way that WATCHMEN is ever going to break even and post a profit with a $100 million budget is if kids or teens in large numbers CAN go to it. You CAN'T lock them out. As I said, Paramount isn't looking to make high art here. He's not out to please you Internet film fan geeks. The President of Paramount doesn't give 2 shits if he makes the "the greatest comic book adaptation ever" OR a new Julia Roberts romance reteaming her with Richard Gere -- he just cares that whatever he's writing a check for, whatever he's now spending $100 million on, is going to make $200 million domestic BACK. And ideally, he'd love to get a franchise out of it...which frankly, is the other problem with WATCHMEN. Those clamoring for a totally true, purist adaptation of the source material aren't taking into account that this is then pretty much a one picture deal. You do the story and that's it. It's over. Because these same purists would only raise holy hell if there was then a WATCHMEN II. Meanwhile, in taking the totally OPPOSITE view, the suits at Paramount are sitting there thinking "We only get one film out of this? Wait, I thought we were getting our own SPIDER-MAN here. Our own multi-picture franchise like Sony has!" Now, the other problem with those going on about how WATCHMEN needs to be adult-toned is this mistaken notion that adults will flock to it in droves. That's the same elusive audience the American comic book industry has been seeking for years and has STILL never managed to tap in any great or significant numbers. The truth is America just hasn't turned into Japan where comics (in book format) do sell to adults. American adults aren't flocking to comic stores to read comics. Hell, anyone involved in the comic industry can tell you flat out the business is exceedingly crappy these days and comic shops are still CLOSING across the country due to lack of ever-dropping business as kids switch more and more to video games. Today's comic market has VASTLY shrunk from the heights of the early Nineties and the Image explosion (where individual comic titles were selling in the millions). These days, even the best selling comics (like X-Men) struggle to hit a couple hundred thousand in sales, while the core average for a Marvel or DC book is down in the 25,000-40,000 copy level if even that. And think about that. THAT'S the average. Independent comics (which do target adults) sell drastically less, with print runs merely in the hundreds or maybe a few thousand. So, again, Paramount HAS to be taking this all into account and HAS to be saying, "Man, this BETTER appeal beyond the comic geeks. Because if it doesn't, we're dead even on opening weekend." Look at it this way -- do the math the same way the suits at Paramount are doing it right now. Even if every comic geek flooded out to see WATCHMEN, you'd have a situation like SIN CITY where they toss maybe $25-30 million into the box office opening weekend. But then what? The last thing you want is a $100 million plus movie whose box office arcs like SIN CITY where it then loses HALF its revenue stream in week 2. Great, you appealed to a core demographic and it's over, just like that. Because it's not like the comic geeks are ALL going to come back to see it again and again just because they're comic geeks -- that's an unrealistic notion too. Sure, some percentage of the geeks will, but the far greater number will simply say "Yeah, saw it. It was ok. Next movie!" Which means we're right back to square one and Reactor 4's comment: You CAN'T treat WATCHMEN with the attitude he was advocating. This movie HAS to appeal to a broader range and parents HAVE to be able to drop their kids off. Which means (to my guessing) that the suits at Paramount might be willing to do this, but only for a massively scaled back budget to make it more safely profitable, but as I said that's just my guess given that this property is such a "niche specific item." And I'm sure Paramount will want to make sure that the overall story and its tone and the characters are accessible to the mainstream, otherwise you can bet this will go into turnaround pretty damn quick yet again.
"I'd hate to screw up the cast"... by kiddae	May 10th, 2005 08:07:44 AM
Oh, fuck off. Don't pretend your wanting to keep your industry buddies sweet is an altruistic gesture, you hack.
Some Excellent Casting Ideas For Paramount Who Are Reading by Jam Banjo	May 10th, 2005 08:31:02 AM
Nite Owl: Michael Keaton (see what I done there? Brilliant!) The Comedian: Tom Selleck Rorshach: Jim Carrey / Samuel L Jackson Silk Spectre: Lindsay Lohan (Her Mom can be played by Jamie Lee Curtis like in the excellent film, Freaky Friday). Adrian Veidt: Cyclops From X-Men, James Marsden The Newsagent Guy: Dan Akroyd ----
Couple of things: by Z_B_Brox	May 10th, 2005 08:53:15 AM
1: It's interesting to see the number of people here who showed up just to claim that Watchmen isn't that great in the first place. Like you get some kind of geek brownie point by spitting in the face of popular opinion. The reason Watchmen is considered the be-all-end-all of superhero comics is because it's a fucking fantastic piece of work, not because all we crazy fanboys are delusional. 2: tubby_bitch, dude, what the hell? That was a pointless, poorly thought-out bit of bitchery, care to explain why you wasted all our time NOT talking about Watchmen? 3: I can't believe people are still saying you can't do the Watchmen ending. Motherfuckers, did you NOT see The Day After Tomorrow?! The Sum of All Fears? Hell, 24?! Mass urban destruction and nuclear terrorism are officially okay again. In film, I mean. Not in real life. Don't get the wrong idea. 4: Making Watchmen "too dark" wouldn't, I think, be too big an issue. No you don't want it to do "Sin City" numbers, but Sin City had so many things working against it (less built-in fanbase, April release, Black and White...) that you could make it just as dark and double those numbers if it's good. And merchandising? Kids don't buy action figures anymore, it's more and more becoming an adult market. Sin City action figures are all over the place, and they are awesome. T-shirts are a big things, too, and they could be plastered all over Hot Topic. An R-rating and a dark film will not kill this sucker. Oh, and just to throw my hat in the ring, I and everyone I know will see it, see it again, buy the DVD, and tell all our friends and families about it. Just make it good.
Super Hero movies... by Atropos	May 10th, 2005 09:03:07 AM
...the main reason super-hero movies bomb is because studios try to mess with the source-material and make it "hip" and mainstream. Spiderman 1 & 2 however had a passionate director who stayed true to the characters and tone of the comic, and hey waddayaknow, instant megahit. Just because something is "only" appreciated by the geek-squad soesn't mean it needs to be jazzed up for the mainstream, it just means that only the geeksquad has accessed the material so far. Do it right, and they all will come. Sin City will make all it's money back and more on DVD alone. So for god's sake, if you have the chance to do Watchmen right, do it. I'll be there.
So Perlman for Comedian and Theron for Spectre? by DannyOcean01	May 10th, 2005 09:32:54 AM
They must have seen Theron with black hair in the Aeon Flux pics. And hell, they're shooting that in Berlin which could be a good cut price option. But then, what about Halle Berry, she's an Oscar winner, cast her..... I still say J K Simmons for Comedian. He'd bring his Oz ferocity. And great news on the hint about an unknown for Rorschach. I agree how distracting it'd be to notice a star in the crowd.
its by ZO	May 10th, 2005 10:00:49 AM
perlman for comedian and swank for silk. thinking phoenix for dan but mel gibson signing on would greenlight this one quick
Since arguing why... by Childe Roland	May 10th, 2005 10:03:12 AM
...this film should or shouldn't be made is like watching a dog chase its own ass, I'll indulge in some fanboy casting. I've been a Cusack proponent for Night Owl II since I first heard they were thinking about this movie (about a year ago). He's perfect for the role... vulnerable, intelligent and sensitive but with massive potential seething just below the surface. Use Michael Keaton as Night Owl I to help viewers connect the dots to the inspiration for the character. Charlize Theron is a great idea for Silk Spectre II, and Jamie Lee Curtis could easily handle Silk Spectre I. I still say use Kurt Russell as the Comedian, but I could get behind a scarred Mel Gibson if the idea doesn't conflict with his relatively newfouond Christian sensibilities. David Caruso should be Rorschach. It's just too perfect and most folks wouldn't know David these days to look at him, so there's no real concern about identifying him too early unless you're a fanboy (in which case you'll know who Rorschach is supposed to be the minute you see the guy with the end of the world sign). And if Caruso's on board, how about bringing in his old Kiss of Death buddy Nic Cage for Ozymandius? He's worked with Cusack before, too. And for Dr. Manhattan, I don't see how you couldn't want a bald Billy Zane in the role. Throw in Morgan Freeman as the Prison Psychologist and you've got a solid cast for a solid summer blockbuster. Star poer could sell this thing to those who aren't already salivating to see it made. Not super-mega-A-list stars, but quirky almost has-been stars a'la early Tarantino. Film buffs would geek out as much as comic buffs and the studio would make its money back in the first two weekends.
squid! more squid! by Atomic-Lobster	May 10th, 2005 10:05:27 AM
Very doubtful about changing the ending. Entire point of Veidt's plan is that the utterly alien nature of the threat should unify humanity. A threat so hideous and revolting - some crawling, writhing Lovecraftian nightmare from the madness that lies outside out world - that all our differences are revealed as trivial. Rumoured solar death ray doesn't have the same effect. Given the number of cuts that will be required even to make this (the Black Freighter parallel to Veidt's journey will probably go, to name but one), difficult to change the ending without gutting the story completely. You can't lose the squid as well as the raw shark.
wolf at the door by Z_B_Brox	May 10th, 2005 10:08:04 AM
"that's not how those movies END, dumbass". Ooookay. So now it's movies with unhappy endings that are the problem? Or, wait, movies where the lead characters are complicit in mass murder? Tell me how much money you expect Episode III to make, again? Even Mystic River grossed 160 million worldwide--but, you're right, that hardcore Dennis Lehane fanbase probably bolstered sales. Listen, blowing up a city in a movie is okay again, and people are perfectly willing to accept imperfect, even fallen, heroes in their pop culture. And, y'know what? If there's controversey, as people have pointed out, all the better. Fahrenheit 9/11 grossed 100 million as a documentary and Passion of the Christ made ungodly amounts of coin. Even fucking Million Dollar Baby, a largely unadvertised, dark, down-beat movie with a controversial, some say offensive, dark ending where all the heroes are in some way sullied made frickin' 200 million dollars world wide. But, look, I can point out dark, R-rated, controversial, comic book, unknown, whatever movies that made mad cash all day, why don't you give me a real-world example of a genuinely good big budget, relatively well star-powered movie that failed at the box office 'cause it was too dark or depressing or violent or whatever? On another note "i'm getting a big laugh from reading posts saying "I and everyone I know will see it". yeah, because that will help balance the books at paramount..." Don't be so willfully ignorant. No one here thinks we alone can power a movie, but if they're looking at us as a focus group they can see there are plenty of people out there who will eat this stuff up. Just like people are eating up Sin City merchandise, just like people ate up Constantine, just like they're using screenings to generate interest in Serenity. Now I'm the first person to admit that Warner Brothers isn't gonna redesign their Superman costume 'cause a bunch of idiot 12-year-olds cal it "gay", but does interest from an existing fanbase help a project get greenlighted? If it didn't, sequels and adaptations wouldn't be so popular.
Cool fanart by Wonderboys	May 10th, 2005 10:11:06 AM
There is some really cool fan concept art in the watchmen boards: http://www.watchmenmovie.com/b oard/showthread.php?t=227
by Wonderboys	May 10th, 2005 10:12:51 AM
Ah, umm, and Hulk Hogan would rule as the Comedian... "Grando Carlissian has beer and cheets on all your base are belong to us, Ozymandias, Brother!!"
If Paramount makes it, I will come! (litterally!) by sidesimon	May 10th, 2005 10:39:06 AM
To the Powers That Be over there, at Paramount, I don't actually go to movies very often anymore but I will go see Watchmen at least 3 times if you make it and at least ten times if it's good (not to mention my buying the DVD when it comes out and the special extended edition when THAT comes out as well as the very very special extended director's cut edition christmas special version 20 disc boxed set edition 2 months later. So, please, just let your artists do their stuff. If they're as committed as it sounds they'll make a movie you'll be proud of and, more importantly, you will make truckloads of money. Thank you.
Make it and it makes money, no matter what by RezE11even	May 10th, 2005 10:50:42 AM
It's Watchmen. This is the most read comic ever. If you are over the age of ten and read comics, you have at least heard of Watchmen. That alone will get you asses in the seats, even with an R rating(Which is needed, you bastards).
I'll watch it by coop	May 10th, 2005 10:58:31 AM
I haven't read the comics but whenever a comic book film is made where the director is passionate about the source material, it comes out good. Much like Lord of the Rings and X-Men, this film sounds like the director lives and breathes it and that is something I have to see. Besides, this story has a huge following so I figure there must be a reason.
Fucking make that shit! by Airclair	May 10th, 2005 11:02:58 AM
/signed
Buuuuuuulllllshit. by Z_B_Brox	May 10th, 2005 11:06:37 AM
Sean Penn's character in Mystic River was an unabashed murderer (oh he thought a guy, a friend no less, had murdered his daughter (there was no rape, nor did he think there was a rape), sure, but what about the other fella? And what about the cop who lets him get away with it?), while NiteOwl in Watchmen tries like hell to catch a murderer and then fails. And when he fails, he decides exposing the truth would only, y'know, lead to nuclear armageddon. So what's he supposed to do? Just because it makes the audience think about what a moral solution would be doesn't mean the character is evil. NiteOwl is tortured by his decision. Again, do you expect Episode III to fail? We all know going in that the hero is going to become a coldhearted mass murderer, but we're damn well going in anyway. Just 'cause something isn't "Family Friendly" does NOT mean it won't make a couple hundred million worldwide. Hell, the first Matrix contained multiple scenes of killing dozens of innocent police officers who just happened to be under the delusion their world was real, we can justfiy that but not Dan and Laurie's actions in Watchmen? Again, give me some examples of a good, big-budget genre movie where being overly dark killed box office, because right now the only thing propping up your bad judgment is insults.
Triumph poops! & Commando Cody: by CurryIce	May 10th, 2005 11:29:07 AM
DUH! I mean you have valid arguments and points BUT you totally misunderstood Reactor 4's post. Watchmen shouldn't be handled like Spiderman or X-Men where you expect to attract children and teenagers(and the merchandising behind it). Dark materials like Seven were successful, weren't it? Matrix was successful. Blade and Constantine made good money. So that's the way Watchmen should earn their money and not like Spiderman...Of course there must be a few changes about the violence etc. and i'm sure they will change things to attract more people than just the FANS. Of course they have to consider every aspect of this business to be sure that it's fucking profitable. But Watchmen should maintain it's dark tone. Is it risky? You bet it! After all Paramount has to pour much money into production BUT that's the point! To take the risk for this difficult material. To take the risk of making a dark film whether it get's a PG-13 or R and market it in the appropriate way. This is not Superman or Spiderman. It's not the typical DC or Marvel comic film. I think the best way to approach it would be just to forget that it has anything to do with "comics" and that's what Paramount has to understand.
Oh, I get it! by Z_B_Brox	May 10th, 2005 11:35:13 AM
You're not propping up your arguments with insults, you're propping them up with lies! This makes a lot more sense. See, in reality, the heroes in Watchmen DON'T agree blowing up New York was a good thing and the DON'T allow it to happen. They TRY to stop Veidt, they tell him they WON'T ALLOW HIM to do it, but, alas, they're too late. After that they make the decision to keep the secret, but they do NOT endorse the murders. They simply say "if we expose you, it'll be the end of the world, so we won't expose you." They're put in an impossible situation with no good choices. Again, you skirt around my statements, picking out little bits you can pick on and ignoring the substance. Sean Penn's character was an unrepentant murderer, not just of someone he THOUGHT killed his daughter, but of at least one, and it is implied more, former associates. And you have yet to name me a movie. A rational human being in your position would, at this point, either make a real goddamn point or back the hell off.
Commando Cody is so right! by Homer Sexual	May 10th, 2005 11:51:33 AM
C.C. and Triumph are thinking like a studio, which is the way to approach this topic. Sin City was a labor of love, medium budget, and Watchmen COULD follow that path and be successful. Hellblazer was a piece of crap totally altered by the studio, again with a medium budget. Watchmen could go that route as well. But since apparently Watchmen is going the Summer Blockbuster route, I don't see how anyone can argue against Commando Cody's analysis.
Homer: by Z_B_Brox	May 10th, 2005 12:29:16 PM
I agree this movie should be a hard PG-13, but it should definitely be a hard PG-13. If Revenge of the Sith can manage, if War of the Worlds can manage, Watchmen should be able to. I don't think, however, an R would be a death kiss. If the people making the film are determined to make an R, absolutely let them. The Matrix movies were all Rs, Constantine was an R, Passion of the Christ was an R... You've got a built in fanbase that WILL be vocal, you've got the potential to make an oscar-worthy movie, you've got the potential to merchandise the hell out of this thing with action figures, t-shirts, even lunchboxes are back in ironic style. Hell, Chronicles of Riddick was a shit movie but they did well off the good video game. There's a whole lot of marketing options beyond cereal boxes and coloring books. Now, I have no doubt that making it more family friendly unlocks a potential for more cash, but if you make a shitty movie in the process you wash that potential down the drain anyway. I think it'd be a mistake to kill a potential Matrix or Terminator because you really want to make a Spider-Man. Everyone wants to make a Spidey or an LotR, but the attempts will flop more often than not. Watchmen? Make it good, and you'll break even at worst, and the sky is more or less the limit. What other property is unclaimed, has a built in fanbase of god knows how many hundreds of thousands (I have no doubt that watchmen has been read by millions of people; X-Men number 1 was read by millions of people, and Watchmen had a good five year son that) and has the potential to be such a critical success? Go with it and don't fuck it up.
WAIT FOR ARONOFSKY TO DO IT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!! by Heezy	May 10th, 2005 01:12:32 PM
He is a perfectionist and groundbreaking in everything he does. DAMMIT PARAMOU

Talkbacks

Moriarty