I'm officially excited about this film now. :)

talk about a really great read! I honestly don't know how they can turn this into some type of Blockbuster without pumping the material in the ass. The novel is extremely intelligent and deep without coming off as pretentious. I'm about to continue reading within the next few minutes.

The pics look great!

doc manhattan is simply too big, too smart, too powerful a character for anyone to write, even his genius creator. hence there lies the problem - you cant force a character like that into a plot structure without making him look dumbed down a bit. there are so many inconsistencies with that character - his last act to that masked fellow being the worst offender to me. completely unnecessary and was there just to force a downer ending.

Agree that Ozzy looks a trifle young and though it's a pretty good character design in a gothicy Egyptian kind of way I think the sort a dazzlingly bright royal purples and Blues of the original would be better suited perhaps.

Comedian looks spot on silk spectre does what she is supposed to (though yeah perhaps a shade too beautifull) Night Owl is intriguing. The parrallel was fairly obvious in the book but here it really is rubbing your face in it and shouting "Guess who this is!!!" Prefer the round owlish goggles myself and agree he can't appear superfit but must look gone to seed at some point. However there ARE times when donning the costume is supposed to turn back time for him and make him realise this was all he ever wanted and was meant to do so he must look badass then.

Oh and P.S. Mystery Men ?!?!?!? FFS get real. Jeeeeesus !

Manhattan IS problematic but he was going through the motions of being human and bowed to the inevitable in the end.

sure, he admitted to caring a bit after that conversation on mars, but then he went on and left earth again at the end. so why bother in the first place? like i said, inconsistencies.

Mixed feelings about that as the ever changing blots was a genius idea and as creepy as it gets BUT they may have tried it and found that just didn't translate to the sceen as well, as in how fast does it change and how fluid are the patterns etc.

Meh. Even without a changing blot Rorschach will creep people out and who knows perhaps he will get the changing mask in the end ?

Ozzy still didn't look like that young or old and I always thought his colour template should be the Tutankahmun mask, Regal, Imposing, Powerfull, Wise, etc.. there should be no hint of Darkness about him whatsoever, that's important for the plot not just aesthetics.

I don't think Manhattan was doing it for the world I think the last real human connection he had was to Laurie and he decided to return and do what he did as a favour to her. I think Manhattan was simply tidying up loose ends before he left and Rorschach was one of them. He could have wiped his mind of the memory, done unimaginable things to prevent Rorschach from leaving or revealing the secret such was his power but he looked into his eyes and did what Rorschach wanted him to do. And remember Manhattan as much as tells Ozzy the secret will outanyway before he goes.

But this is all opinion and the brilliance of the book is there are a great many ways to interpret what happens.

If that's Ozzy at the very end then there's a very good reason for him to suddenly appear menacing for instance and yeah alot of this is guessing and speculation because of the time periods too but I'll be seeing this as already the signs are this will be at the very least an intriguing take and perhaps even a brilliant Movie to boot.

But isn't the point that Nite Owl *isn't* kickass. Nite Owl is a dweeby guy, albiet one with a bag of cool tricks. This pic looks like how Nite Owl would like to see himself, how he would like others to see him. But it isn't how Nite Owl is.

I think Watchmen the film will be cool, but it's already looking to be a somewhat free adaptation.

2....

3....

MEH!

Here's hoping the first trailer looks just as promising whenever it arrives...Go, Zack, GO!

I only look a LITTLE gay.

The costumes, to me, look a little off. Comedian is done excellent, and so is Rorschach. but where are the poignant colors of Nite Owl's and Ozymandias' costumes?

The themeing for each character is good too (the Egyptian head behind Ozymandius). I guess it's just weird seeing my most beloved comic characters being brought to life and seeming so different.

Although my faith with Snyder remains and this movie, box office or not, will kick our motherluvin asses.

Yes and the Comedian does look badass. I want to see him fighting in Nam with the blue man.

Adrian looks like a kid caught in his father's superhero costume. And why is he thrusting his groin out?

I'd call 'Watchmen' and 'The Dark Knight Returns' 'graphic novels'...I'd call Archie a 'comic'.

You could call Watchmen a comic, but you probably wouldn't call Archie a 'graphic novel'.

That said, it's not the difference between 'movie' and 'motion picture'...it's the difference between a flick and a film. Peace.

Hate on, man, I just liked how you Swiftied yourself.

http://ti nyurl.com/2anlvx

The palette heads more toward the Fincher-esque, but the design is pretty much the same...

Actually the best and most subtle parody of the "new black leather costume" cliche was in Grant Morrison's "Animal Man", where he had a super-hero just put a biker jacket on over his costume. Think about it, why else would an animal rights crusader wear leather isf it wasn't as a joke?

So even after the Mystery Men movie - which was not that faithful to the Flaming Carrot comics source material - spoofed the "new black costume" cliche and then X-Men parodied the parody, Hollywood still kept the cliche going with the Black spidey in "3" or the Green Leather Arrow on "Smallville". At this point any new depiction of a superhero wearing either a black costume or leather that isn't based on his or her original comic book appearance is now a parody of a parody. And there's nothing wrong with turning Watchmen into a satire as long as you're aware of the joke. Watchmen was meant as a commentary of the comics medium,and satire is a legitimate form of commentary.

My pet peeve: peole who don't get the difference between an original graphic novel and a comic book collection in trade paperbaack form.

A graphic novel is something like Will Eisner's work, created as a GN in the GN format and intended to be published as a GN. And even though Maus was serialized in chapter form as a series of magazine inserts, I believe it was ultimately intended to appear as a collected graphic novel.

Watchman was a twelve issue comic book mini-series which was later collected in trade paperback book form. Dark Knight was a four issue comic book mini-series in an admittedly unigue (at the time) squarebound cardstock covered "deluxe" format. Later it was collected as a trade paperback volume, even later as a hardcover, later than that in a leather-bound edition. "Love Showdown," the story arc that introduced Cheryl Blossom to the Riverdale world, was published in four issues of Archie and later collected in trade paperback format. Or to cite a more recent example, the controversial Jeff Butler "Bad Boy Trouble" was serialized in four issues of Betty and Veronica Double Digest, then collected in a single TPB volume. A COMIC BOOK collected in trade paperback format is NOT the same thing as a work created to be a stand alone graphic novel.

I don't know any clearer way to express that than to define the terms and provide examples.

The mainstream public repeatedly designates Eisner's "A Contract with God," "Maus," "Dark Knight" and "Watchmen" as the best graphic novels. But when it comes to comics, face it, the mainstream media is not always well informed.

"ACWG" and "Maus" are graphic novels, "Dark Knight" and "Watchmen" and the two Archie properties I mentioned are comic books. Or, IF "Dark Knight" and "Watchmen" are graphic novels by some loose, inaccurate definition of the term, then so are "Love Showdown" and "Bad Boy Trouble". You can't have it both ways.

And the whole business of kids who are insecure about being comic book fans whining about wanting them called "graphic novels" was already parodied years ago on Mystery Science Theatre 3000. Once something is skewered by MST3K, it can no longer be taken seriously.

It's such a useless distinction, especially in this day and age, when any good serialized comics will likely be collected into TPBs mere months later. And we don't need faux-respectable terms like "graphic novel" now that there's such a critical mass of good stuff out there (Black Hole, Persepolis, and The ACME Novelty Library, to name just a few).

Veidt, so so. The pose is amusing, and does convey some of the smug prissy twat-ishness, but overall, I'm still not feeling it. Also, I recall him looking sort've like someone who could be anything from a fashion model to a politician, not a cosplay geek.

Rorschach looks fine, but, after all, he's just a dirty trenchcoat and a hat with a mask. This could be fanart, if it weren't official.

Silk Spectre I'm seriously mixed on. The update doesn't hurt I guess, but the picture itself is quite silly (agreeing with whomever it was above who said it looks like she just shat a building into flames) and the color-combo of yellow suit/auburn hair is, to me, kinda off-putting.

Nite Owl is fine, if that's a younger version. The update here doesn't bother me at all, as the old feather suit wouldn't have worked even less.

I guess my biggest aprehension overall is still whether or not Zack Snyder is up to the task of showing us a world of superheroes and villains, with lines blurred suitably, that doesn't boil down to the same old crap that Watchmen was initially a reaction to.

Watchmen isn't just (and shouldn't be) guys in masks, punching each other. If Snyder can give me a counterpoint to THAT, then I will whole-heartedly concede. If he doesn't, and the subtexts are completely obliterated, leaving only 'superhero X vs. supervillain Y' i.e. the same old crap we've seen a billion times, it won't matter to me how pretty it looks. It'll just be more crap.

In short these costumes are interesting and some of them a reat deal better than that but none of them are hardly any sillier than anything already out there.

It's what's in the costumes that counts in the book and what the costumes do on screen that counts in the movie.Yeah there are choices some are curious about but at the end of the day so far this looks pretty damn good to me and alot better than many thought it could ever be when given a hollywood treatment.

If the story is kept pretty much the same then this will (despite it's age) reveal just how shallow some of the newer Superhero films really are, while highlighting how influential watchmen was, and still is.

And, for those who rightly don't want to judge a book by its cover, here's a bit more to go on:

"He shuns comic-book conventions, never travels outside England and is a firm believer in magic as a 'science of consciousness.' 'I am what Harry Potter grew up into,' he said, 'and it's not a pretty sight.'"

Dave Itzkoff, New York Times, 12 Mar. 2006, available at http://tinyurl.com/36ro8j.

I managed to get a master's in creative writing with an undergrad degree in English without ever having heard about this thing. So let's not pretend it's To Kill a Mockingbird. I'm sure it's fun and I will probably check it out at some point, but seriously, people need to calm down.

Are you proposing outing any bearded writers or just anyone with a beard in general? Just curious. Do they look like furriners to you ? No wait you don't want us to judge a book by it's cover so you helpfully posted a URL of a picture of him ?!?!

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHH HHHHHH!!!!!!

Alan Moore has a sense of humour and doesn't take himself too seriously the Harry Potter line was what some of the less retarded would refer to as a "joke".

Besides he claims he worships a Snake Glove puppet so if you're aim was to ridicule you can't even do that properly.

I've seen you post this information more than once now so I'm curious why the obsession with Moore ? Because he could have the longest muttonchops in the World and Worship using magic underpants for all I care because the bottom line is his writing is superb and few can match him.

Ditko BTW makes Moore look flat out boring such is his level of reclusivity and strange views so are you proposing a boycott on him ?

Also, by the way, I never proposed boycotting or outing anybody, whether or not they had facial hair. And who is this "ditko" personage you refer to?

Perhaps you should stick to Ziggy cartoons since that appears to be the level we are dealing with ?

Frankly I don't give a fuck if you consider his work literature or not, But the incredible level of dribbling buffoonery that would make someone post about how an author looks and try to lampoon him with one of the authors own jokes while he claims he can't be bothered to read the work in the first place so clearly doesn't have a clue whether it is literature or not, is staggeringly amusing.

And I doubt I'm not the only one to get a rise out of that fact.

Oh and Mystery Men for those who don't seem to have grasped it, is a comedy. This isn't. That clear enough for ya ? Look it up if you don't believe me. Mystery Men was also at best a second rate parody you want a smart slick superhero comedy and parody The Incredibles pisses all over Mystery Men and even The Tick has far better moments.

This may turn out to be a bad film who knows, but few thought 300 would be as succesfull, few that is unless you count those who knew the source material and thought if it was done correctly it would counfound those who tried to ridicule it... like say, another project in development.

I draw no conclusions from moore's appearance, but I must say, whether or not he is able to joke at his own expense, some people are taking this particular collection of words n' pictures far too seriously.

And, because I'm really just trolling at this point, I'll take your mention of "Ziggy" as an opportunity to point out that more people have heard of and know what "Ziggy" is than have ever heard of "Watchmen." Take that as you will.

All that said, from the perspective of this outsider, the movie looks interesting.

...for now, I'll blame the PR department for going apeshit with Photoshop and thinking they are making X4 - but those are god awful.

All of you who think they "caught the feel" of the comic are living in Circle Jerkville. Those are Lexus-selling slick and Gibbons work is the polar opposite. It looks like Snyder's commercial background is going to glossy this sucker up, when it really calls for a Fincheresque muted quality. Again, maybe he has a different feel in post, maybe it's the HD cameras, but he had to approve those as the first shots out.

As the Ol Templar said - He chose poorly.

And he IS able to take a joke at his own expense hence his appearance on The Simpsons not too long ago.

As for taking this too seriously, I'll take whatever work I am currently reading or watching as seriously as I wish because I can assure you the opinions of a self confessed troll will never ever enter into it.

Your Ziggy comment suggests you have been smoking far too much of something rather potent and I suggest that the complex world of level headed criticism or rational appreciation may not be for you.

But please keep "trolling" or whatever it is you think you are doing because it IS intensely amusing.

but if you're clueless passerby who just happen to catch these pics for the first time, then yeah, chances are you're going to laugh your ass off. my point is, once you've read the comics, then you're gonna wipe that stupid smug grin off your face .

I'll admit, I could be wrong about Ziggy, but there's no need for you to suggest I'm smoking potency or that somehow (if I'm reading you right) "rational appreciation" (of what, I wonder) is beyond my ken. That's just mean-spirited. Maybe we'll just have to both agree that more people have heard of "Garfield" or "Snoopy" than "Watchmen." We'll leave it to greater minds to ponder whether that means anything. I for one don't want trouble.

And of course you are free to take mr. moore and his work as seriously as you will, even to the extent of mounting simpsons-based defenses of mr. moore's sense of humor. I just think that, in the scheme of things, such earnestness is maybe a little misplaced.

Anyway, glad to amuse you so intensely. I'm afraid I can't return the compliment, but maybe I'm just jaded.

Joking dude, I´m enjoying Lost too. And Zack Snyder´s Watchmen. Peace out.

creative minds often live their lives on the edge, outside of the mainstream. geniuses even more so. in contrast, just because michael bay or p.w. anderson look normal and clean cut, doesnt make them less of a wanker.

I've never seen a picture of p.w. anderson (or one of his movies, I'm pretty sure), so I'll have to take your word for it. Michael bay, if memory serves correctly, sports a mullet, doesn't he? But you are right, that's probably unrelated to whether or not the man's a wanker.

Anyway, don't pay me much heed; I'm sure this watchmen thing is one of the greatest of all comic books, a genre unfairly maligned by smartasses everywhere.

Besides being confused what exactly IS your point ? Does it really just boil down to

"He's goofy lookin ! Hyuk, hyuk, hyuk."

Profound stuff from a man who thinks he is well placed to trash an entire artform.

Self proclaimed trolls who post about how something isn't literature without having read it don't strike me as ideally placed to malign anything.

You also seem unable to concieve of someone who doesn't necessarily take himself that seriously producing serious work. That's simply a failure of imagination on your part as anyone familiar with Alan Moore's work knows that he can be devastatingly witty yet still produce great tracts of social commentary with the likes of From Hell and V for Vendetta.

And lest you be in any doubt the vast bulk of Hollywood fare is shit and there are few Movies that are particularly well regarded. So it is with the Graphic Novel and comic medium.

Sadly having read your contributions no doubt you'd trash Maus because Garfield is better known and features lots of slapstick & more amusing renditions of cats and dogs.

1) I haven't read "watchmen," for reasons having nothing to do with mr. moore's beard

2) I think mr. moore's appearance is comical, in part because of the beard

3) I think that this movie looks interesting, but suspect that some people are getting a bit carried away in their praise for the source material.

4) I have never said anything about the relative worth of "watchmen" versus "ziggy" or "garfield" or "snoopy," although I did suggest these are more generally known.

5) I wholeheartedly agree with you that the vast bulk of comic books are shit.

I'm not really saying anything else other than that. Except that I am admittedly just trying to get a rise out of folks like you. But I'm certainly not trying to trash art, not even the cartoon variety. Don't read to much into this.

"suspect that some people are getting a bit carried away in their praise for the source material." And I suspect that since you haven't read it you don't have a fucking clue.

"I think mr. moore's appearance is comical, in part because of the beard" (so does Mr Moore but I doubt he devotes as much thought and intense scrutiny over it as you clearly do) What exactly made you think this was remotely interesting or that the world desperatlely needed to know this ? I personally find it hard to imagine posting anything more pointless and meaningless myself.

"I have never said anything about the relative worth of "watchmen" versus "ziggy" or "garfield" or "snoopy," although I did suggest these are more generally known." Sorry there IS something more utterly pointless and meaningless than Mr Moore's beard and that was the proof.

"I wholeheartedly agree with you that the vast bulk of comic books are shit." Too subtle for you ? It appears so. The vast bulk of MOVIES, graphic novels, music, TV, & literature is shit very little of it is considered the best in it's field.

That you chose to use Watchmen (which you haven't read) as the jumping off point to trash ALL graphic novels and comics was foolish because there are so many other really bad examples and because you can't use one example to trash a genre anyway.

Were I arrogant or stuppid enough to try and sneer at an entire genre like Movies for example then I would have the sense to choose the likes of Norbit to do it. Not The Godfather.

"I'm not really saying anything else other than that." Believe me just you haven't been saying anything at all.

Someone had to say it.

but you're right about comic books. they are mostly just shit. watchmen, however, is that one rare exception.

but i dont think i would mind the queen story arch, were it interesting and original. but it feels like a time filler. and her arch was wrapped up way too easily. she stabbed the guy, coins fell out of him, everyone picked it up and cried, 'he's a traitor! he's a traitor!' that alone is more cartoonish than the most unrealistic battle scene in the film.

And you don't know about it. And that's fine, but you should own up to your cultural illiteracy, and having done so, either a) seek to correct it or b) stop talking. Contrary to what you may have heard, thudding ignorance is not a cardinal virtue, nor is it in the least charming.

Dollar Bill?

the tentacle monster at the end?

Captain Facetious?!