I am digging the cast though. Screw A-Listers. Put up a decent script and good direction and this movie will be tits squared.

This MAY be good, but for such a complex story and weird comicbook story, not having any name actors to bring the suckers in could be a big mistake.

Then, we get just that, and people bellyache about "Who???" and "No names."

I'm excited we get some *characters* and not some fucking big-dollar dickheads.

Let's face it, that's going to be one of the hardest things about marketing this film. It would have been one thing if DC/Warner made a movie right after the book first came out. But WATCHMEN is 21 YEARS OLD at this point and that's a problem.

So, on the one hand, the studio is certainly banking on comic book and genre geeks to be the backbone of the box office, but there's no question that THEY already know the so-called "twist ending." On the other hand, if you're the general public and just a casual movie fan, you're still going to see in the entertainment news sidebar stories about this being made...that it's an adaptation of one of the most famous graphic novels ever...blah, blah, blah...at which point all you have to do is spend under 30 seconds online to find out what WATCHMEN is actually all about. And once anyone DOES go looking -- since it has been 21 years now -- pretty much 99.9999% of any web site they'll come across will reveal the ending, figuring after two decades its not anything they have to hide anymore.

Hell, look at it this way: the ending for the new POTTER book was online almost instantly and that's something "new." So you think a 21 year old book is going to have much of a chance of keeping its twist ending a secret? For some, maybe...but I'm already willing to bet that as this goes forward in production that more and more reporters will inadvertantly reveal the ending, only to later be saying "What, after 21 years that was supposed to be a surprise?"

Also, I like this director Zack Snyder so far. He's a shallow bastard, but he's very good at that superficial action thing he does. Nothing specifically wrong with that. At least the guy knows how to stage a coherent action scene. If he can add some depth to what he does, he could be something special in the action genre, which it really needs right now. Fuck Michael Bay and his offspring.

Look, I was merely responding to an earlier post, where someone brought up the interesting observation that in The Hollywood Reporter's announcement article, in describing each of the actors cast in relation to who they'll be playing and their plot motivations in the film, they did sort of accidentally reveal "what" the big secret is in the story -- or at least "who" is secretly behind things. He then made a comment that the reporter had now "blown it" for people, to which I was simply responding that after 21 years (1) most geeks, clearly the backbone for the box office, already know the story and the ending, so to a large degree they won't really care what the trades say...and (2) since it has been 21 years and in that time WATCHMEN has only grown in stature and fame, it wouldn't take the casual movie fan more than 30 seconds to find out online how it all ends either.

But you need to work on your reading comprehension skills, Canada. In my post I NEVER said anything about the film's box office or gave any predictions, nor did I ever say that BECAUSE the ending was already out there that it would bomb. Go read my post again and check for yourself.

So you're reply is ridiculous to begin with since its obvious that ANY adaptation of a pre-existing work is going to have its ending already known by some people out there. Which is exactly WHY I also said that it's a different ball game to make the movie now, 21 years later, versus if DC/Warner had made it when the book first came out, and not too many people (in terms of the general public) had been exposed to it.

In short, I was simply noting that in trying to protect the mystery elements in WATCHMEN's storyline and its ending for "new people", the studio is clearly going to have an interesting marketing problem. Basically, they're going to have to juggle the "newbies" and NOT give away too much to them versus dealing with old time fans, who already know WATCHMEN from start to finish, and who are going to be looking for a different type of media campaign or have their own expectations. That's all I was saying...so where you're pulling your sarcastic LOTR response from, I have no idea.

All in all, I sort of agree with Spykid above. If I had to take a guess, I could also see them doing the usual "From the Director of 300" type of trumpeting, and then handling it is as a murder mystery where a sort of Doomsday countdown has begun. Spykid's right -- given the classic imagery from the comic itself, a bloody ticking watch/countdown motif is clearly going to be a prime marketing image throughout. I mean, come on, we can take that one to the bank already!

Come on, Ain't It Cool News. Where the hell are your Simpsons reviews?

...OR you take a turn to the left and go in the completely opposite direction, casting ONLY "lesser known" stars, basically banking on the idea that since they're not so recognizable, that will allow the viewers to concentrate on the story even more.

Which is why I couldn't see casting most of these people, but then having Brad Pitt suddenly showing up as Ozy. Someone above noted that it would make perfect sense to have someone like that, someone that famous in real life, playing someone that famous in the WATCHMEN world. That it would be a perfect match.

But that brings up what I call "The Donner Rule." Back when he was casting SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, Warner Bros insisted that Superman HAD to be played by an A-level star, at which point they were actually considering people like Robert Redford or Sylvester Stallone. But Donner finally stood up to the studio and stuck to his far better vision and take on the character by arguing, "That's completely insane. Because every time the audience sees Superman on screen, instead of being wowed or being sucked into the moment, they're instantly going to be pulled OUT of the film instead, and they'll suddenly be sitting there thinking "Oh look! It's Robert Redford dressed up as Superman! How cute!"

So, to me, that would be the problem with Snyder even casting one major star -- like Pitt as Ozy -- in this thing now. Because I just think that then I'd be sitting there munching on my popcorn...I'd be watching all these people that I'm not all THAT familiar with...I'd allow myself to get lost in the WATCHMEN world...at which point Ozy would stroll on screen and the mood would be shattered, at which point I'd be thinking "Hey look! It's Brad Pitt all dressed in gold! What's he doing here?" So like I said, I think you either go all out one way or the other.

All in all, I agree with DannyOcean -- I think Synder has the right idea here to go the lesser name route (but still get solid actors), save on the money, and now he can really go to town with the green screen and SFX work to bring the world to life, which frankly is going to require a helluva lot of work (and bucks) so that WATCHMEN ultimately lives up to the expectations that everyone has for how we want it to "look"...

go Kelly go!

Just be thankful it doesn't have Josh Hartnett and Hilary Duff in it.

In principle, I agree with your idea of an unconventional story and critical word of mouth, but given the studio (Warner Brothers) and the director they've hired (very slick, not much up top), spectacular entertainment is going to be high on the agenda.

I still think this could be a good one, but I also think fans are going to have swallow a few changes here and there.

Which means the script probably blows.

A. X-Men/JLA rip-off (for those who never read the book)

B. Mystery Men 2

It's definitely interesting that this movie is being made but I have zero hopes for it being even remotely good. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.