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

A New WATCHMEN Trailer Variant Is Now Online...

Whoa! A Watchmen MOVIE?!! by SimpleSandwiches	Dec 10th, 2008 11:51:39 AM
I keed, I keed....
I'm done w/ this til opening night. by Nice Marmot	Dec 10th, 2008 11:52:43 AM
My only thought now: Is there time to make half of the stupid slow-mo shots regular-mo? And fuck the stupid squid.
cool by hulkbuster	Dec 10th, 2008 11:53:07 AM

Um what? by Uridium	Dec 10th, 2008 11:53:12 AM
Isnt that an older trailer.....
Sixth by JacksParasites	Dec 10th, 2008 11:53:59 AM

trailers slow-mow shots which are 'regular' speed in the film by mutombo	Dec 10th, 2008 11:57:01 AM
don't they? Or I at least think they did, back in the '90s and so on.
If there's this much slo-mo in the theatre... by MisterE	Dec 10th, 2008 11:59:46 AM
...the film will be nine hours long.
Little Rorshach and Dead Dollar Bill... by Redfive!	Dec 10th, 2008 12:02:16 PM
That was cool,I cant wait for the flashbacks for Dr.Manhattan and Rorschach,there suppose to be almost panel to panel the book.
And I....... by bralli	Dec 10th, 2008 12:06:34 PM
....jizzed in my pants...
Yep. Excited. by PotSmokinAlien	Dec 10th, 2008 12:13:03 PM
get ready for hype a thon 2009 it seems like. Oh well, still gonna be good. i still like the smashing pumpkins song better than that muse piece of shit in the more recent trailer.
IIII seeeeee nnoottthhiiinnnggggg by welsh12uk	Dec 10th, 2008 12:17:12 PM
wwrrooonnng wwiiittthh ssslllooowww mmmooootttiiiooonnn ttttrrrraaaaiiilllloooorrrr
why isn't this region locked for yanks?? by thinboyslim.	Dec 10th, 2008 12:17:26 PM
for years us brits have had to put up with exclusive videos being region locked (mtv i'm looking in your direction) finally a tv channel over here gets an exclusive trailer and gives acces to the whole world. what a let down, i'm so disillusioned.
Thinboyslim: Oh, quit whining. The BBC already blocks content. by SpyGuy	Dec 10th, 2008 12:24:25 PM
For example, try and watch any of the video on the official DOCTOR WHO site if you're here in the States. Thankfully, we have YouTube and many Brits with nothing better to do than upload content for us to get around the Beeb's bullshit.
good ol' bbc by thinboyslim.	Dec 10th, 2008 12:28:19 PM
for queen, country, and to protect doctor who from being seen overseas.
BBC by Pandas-R-Us	Dec 10th, 2008 12:40:59 PM
Everyone in the UK with a TV set pays for the BBC via the licence fee (assuming they are not watching illegally) so there would be a public outcry if we all paid for something that folks in other countries could then watch for free.
Brits are so dumb... by infallible	Dec 10th, 2008 12:50:57 PM
...that they require a license just to own a TV!
weirdly enough... by RockLobster800	Dec 10th, 2008 01:08:13 PM
that trailer got me a lot more buzzed than the others, even though I knew all the footage...something must have clicked in the way they paced it or something...well, anyway,squid or no squid colour me excited!
I'm getting to the point of no return by Maxer	Dec 10th, 2008 01:34:48 PM
I watched every little thing for Episode III and absolutely ruined my first viewing by knowing every shot. Soon I will have to stop watching these things.. tougher than quitting smoking, honestly.
Also, owl ship looks tons better by Maxer	Dec 10th, 2008 01:36:18 PM
The cg on the water coming off the ship looks alot better than it has before.
WATCHMEN ARE OVER by turketron	Dec 10th, 2008 01:48:01 PM
That's the line that everyone is praying makes it into the final cut of the movie, right?
It's got to be hard to make a guy in an owl costume by Snookeroo	Dec 10th, 2008 01:49:41 PM
look anything but ridiculous in a movie. Somehow they've pulled it off. Hoot.
can't wait by wixmmm	Dec 10th, 2008 01:51:10 PM
the graphic novel watchmen is just too good to be a crappy movie. i'm not fooling myself--this movie won't come close to the graphic novel, but its still gonna be damn good. Squid? who cares. people seem to think that the new manhatten ending misses the point of what the squid was about--first, there isn't time to include the artists planning the squid so the squid at the end would just seem random and lame to the average viewer. second--the big issue people have with the squid not being included is that it 'won't bring the world together.' Of course it will! manhatten is going to kill tons of people IN THE STATES...it IS a threat to the world...yes, manhatten's american, but if he attacks america and the rest of the world, you have your worldwide threat that will unite everyone. i don't see why that's so hard for some people to understand. the new ending serves the purpose it should, and it ties together almost all of the plot points the average viewer will see in the movie. i love watchmen--it got me into comics and now i'm a huge fan. we're just lucky we're getting this movie and its rated R, which is key. The ending was never the reason i loved the book so much...with watchmen, its the journey, not the destination.
Still no squid :( by Gorgomel	Dec 10th, 2008 02:09:08 PM
damn you Snyder, damn you!
Looks pretentious and slooooow.... by loserguy3000	Dec 10th, 2008 02:10:06 PM
I can't get over how pretentious and unappetizing this looks... I enjoyed the book quite a bit, but this really doesn't look like it. It looks piecemail Watchmen, like they were afraid to go full-on and really give the book's dedicated and nuanced story a go. Much like any adaptation from Moore. Also, the costumes look ridiculous (like, Batman and Robin bad) and there's too much slow-motion. I'm hoping for the best, but these pretentious comic book movies need to stop... when will they be allowed to have fun again?
David Bowie IS Ozymandias by I am_NOTREAL	Dec 10th, 2008 02:11:32 PM
Kudos to Snyder for inventing the time machine that brought "Changes"-era Bowie into this crucial role. Gilliam wouldn't have done that, I tell ya.
loserguy3000 by Inglorious Bastard	Dec 10th, 2008 02:26:13 PM
Did you even read the book? And what are all the pretentious comic book movies you are talking about? The ones that I can think of that weren't fun definitely weren't pretentious.
loserguy = tool by wixmmm	Dec 10th, 2008 02:32:23 PM
i think you're the 'pretentious' one. How the hell do you know that 'they were afraid to go full-on and give the book's dedicated and nuanced story a go' There is no way to draw that conclusion from a trailer. Love or hate the costumes, but they look better than the ones in the graphic novel...but i'll give you costumes, i don't really think they're bad enough to ruin anything, but you can have that point--because it's the only point you made that can be made based on a trailer. What else? how do you know the movie uses too much slow motion? do we really see THAT many movies that use the slow mo technique? enough to say that the novelty is worn off? i don't think so, i like it, especially in a comic book movie because it showcases the composition of a shot, like a panel does in a comic. But you can't say its used too much if you haven't seen the movie. seriously, you're the pretentious one, drawing conclusions about the movie from a few trailers that use the same shots. get a life.
loserboy by wixmmm	Dec 10th, 2008 02:47:43 PM
How have comic book movies become 'pretentious?' You cite the god aweful batman/robin movie, and while that is an unbelievably unpretentious movie it is the 'fun' kind of comic book movie, and while it is terrible, it's probably the most 'fun' take on a comic book movie. I think you're just someone who always wants go against the grain to prove...i don't know...something...by making a statment like that without any points to back it up. Comics used to be fun, and i really enjoyed the refreshingly fun tone in 'crisis on multiple earths' collections, however, that's not the type of comic i want to read every week. comics evolved thanks to miller and moore in the eighties, and it took comics from being kids stuff and targeted an older audience. When they first started comic book movies they were 'fun' like you said, but the new movies have learned that comics evolved and the audience became older and because of that, we get a movie with depth, like the two batmans...spiderman is 'fun' but that's the tone of the comic, but still, even in those movies, you have deeper levels of conflict than the earlier stuff. And i didn't like the new superman (because of the absurd 'flying a continent of kryptonite into space' ending) but i am not a fan of donner's first superman. #2 was good, but that's because the villains were actually scary and a real threat to superman, and really, outmatched superman. The first superman was brought down by the charicature of luthor, and i would put it in that 'fun' class you say you want.
and most of all by wixmmm	Dec 10th, 2008 02:56:09 PM
have you really read watchmen, loserboy? By saying: "these pretentious comic book movies need to stop... when will they be allowed to have fun again?" are you trying to say that watchmen needs to be more 'fun?' Because that's what it sounds like. You absolutely have no grounds to bash the watchmen movie by saying that you're tired of these dark comics and they need to be fun. NO. You can't say that you think this movie won't be nuanced like the book, and go 'full-on' (points you cannot make based on a trailer) and then complain that you want comic book movies to be 'fun' again. Those nuanced details, and the 'full-on' approach you say you want and say (prematurely) is missing from this movie are the very same things that make it dark.
No Squid?!?!? by spud mcspud	Dec 10th, 2008 03:30:07 PM
No peace.
SpyGuy/ThinBoySlim by frozen01	Dec 10th, 2008 03:35:56 PM
Screw Doctor Who. I want Tudors Season 2. The Brits get it, why?
Really my only complaint is... by Cap'n Jack	Dec 10th, 2008 03:37:04 PM
...WAY too much slo-mo.
at least this time they didn't call themselves thr watchmen by CampKoala	Dec 10th, 2008 04:08:06 PM
that last trailer sucked and blowed, they've back tracked a little with this one. I'm still worried though.
is this the first R-rated superhero film? by smudgewhat	Dec 10th, 2008 04:14:11 PM
i want to see some super boobz.
Slo-mo by jcrash	Dec 10th, 2008 04:16:22 PM
give me a break, it fits the song, it conveys the concept of an epic story arc, and it looks good. Why hate on it? Who knows if its over-used in the movie? I think the trailer was done really well and gives enough snippets of visual information on most of the main characters and sparks curiosity and interest. While I have reservations on if the movie will actually work, I think it's visually shaping up to meet or exceed my expectations.
smudgewhat... by MisterE	Dec 10th, 2008 04:29:45 PM
...Sin City was Rated R (and had a little boobage). Not sure if there have been others.
jcrash by wixmmm	Dec 10th, 2008 04:41:49 PM
basically what i said, the slow mo does work because it showcases the composition of the frame, like a comic book does. i don't count sin city as r rated comic movie because i think a r rated superhero movie is something else. sin city had to b r--the graphic novel demanded it...what suprises me is that the studio let them make an r superhero movie instead of trying to get the younger demographic and boosted ticket sales that go with that demographic. they easily could have forced a pg-13, and i would be angry, yes, but it would be understandable. kudos to the studio.
Yeah, but Ozymandias still looks an asthmatic Elijah Wood. by Vote Fa Stokes Brutha	Dec 10th, 2008 04:49:13 PM
And Snyder's undercranking doesn't say anything in regards to film grammar other than LOOK AT THIS SHOT. LOOK AT IT. STILL LOOKING? CAUSE IT'S STILL HERE.... YEP, STILL HERE. AAAAAAND, WAIT NO STILL HERE- AND CUT. It doesn't do anything on a story level other than emphasize a dramatic beat, and given that translation, this movie will be 100% climaxes. One of the great things about the book is how down-to-earth and human the characters are rendered... This is a direct conflict with the 300 "this is all legendary mythos" style.
Yeah, but Ozymandias still looks LIKE an asthmatic Elijah Wood. by Vote Fa Stokes Brutha	Dec 10th, 2008 04:50:29 PM
that just got out of a dunking booth in sub-zero weather.
Dan Screaming in the Snow by DennisMM	Dec 10th, 2008 04:51:07 PM
I'm a squiddy, but let's forget that for the moment. In all the trailers I've seen, Dreiberg is shown screaming in the snow. Why? I think I know why, and it's as much a betrayal of the story as dropping the squid. SPOILERS: At no point in the book does Dreiberg drop to his knees, screaming, at Karnak. However, in the earlier scripts he loses it because he learns Rorschach has been killed. He then tries to kill Veidt and succeeds after being badly beaten. Why would he go after Veidt, when Manhattan killed Rorschach? It makes no sense and it harms Dreiberg's character significantly. Okay. Pile on and tell me that changing it doesn't affect the storyline.
So psyched, but... by gboybama	Dec 10th, 2008 05:20:44 PM
I really think the movie is going to kick our asses with minimum compromises to the studio and their mainstream audiences. However, I do take issue with one thing. If we're really calling the six "present-day" costumed adventurers "heroes" on a super team called "The Watchmen", then I think that's a misstep of colossal, squid-like proportions. I pray to God that the lines heard in the previous trailer are pieced together from audio left on the cutting room floor in order to create a sort of hook for the uninitiated. Oh boy, I hope that's right. If it comes about, any change to the ending will be insignificant before concocting a "super team" out of the blue to essentially dumb down the material and make it more easily digestible. It's a short cut that not only appeals to Joe Six Pack, but eliminates having to explain why Rorchach is sympathetic to the Comedian in particular, how Dreiberg discovers his inner butch and decides to bust Rorchach out on nothing more than a whim and how Laurie never gave a crap about following in her mother's footsteps but ends up tagging along with Dan and then trying to talk Jon into averting nothing less than an atomic exchange. Hey, let's just make them all a part of a super team and then we can just say that they're trying to unravel the mystery and stop a bad guy out of nostalgia for the old team. Argh.
Word is... by Rain_Dog	Dec 10th, 2008 05:41:26 PM
Captain Metropolis doesn't hold an unsuccessful meeting to form a team called the Crimebusters. Instead, Dan Dreiberg calls the meeting, the team comes together, and is called The Watchmen. The thing with a piece of work as finely constructed as Watchmen is that you can't go around making wanton changes to it without creating a serious ripple effect within the rest of the narrative. I'm pretty much no longer looking forward to this movie as anything other than an empty visual reflection of the comic.
Dennis (SPOILERS) by Le Vicious Fishus	Dec 10th, 2008 05:54:50 PM
From EW some time ago (see last sentence particularly): "Over many months, and many meetings, Snyder persuaded Warner Bros. to abandon the Greengrass/Hayter script and hew as faithfully as possible to the comic. The key battles: retaining the '80s milieu, keeping Richard Nixon... AND PRESERVING THE VILLAIN-DOESN'T-PAY-FOR-HIS-CR IMES CLIMAX." One would think this last bit eliminates one concern (Dreiberg killing Veidt [as if]). That stated, I don't understand why they retained the non-canonical "Nite Owl falling to his knees screaming NOOOOO" bit. I believe that bit has been used in every single trailer, so maybe Snyder just thought it would make a stylish addition to the film. Great Cephalopod's Ghost, I hate the tired "NOOOOO" convention.
No one is mentioning the obvious... by Jimmie Dimmick	Dec 10th, 2008 06:03:54 PM
300 debuted at BNTA. Will The Watchmen play? It has been shown already in an unfinished form.
please... by Luke902	Dec 10th, 2008 06:10:47 PM
stop calling it "The Watchmen"
Thank you, Fishus by DennisMM	Dec 10th, 2008 06:12:31 PM
I never read EW, so I didn't get that bit of information. As you say, that still doesn't explain the screaming. And it doesn't help all the other problems that are evident. Why so many tiny cosmetic changes that make no sense? I try to ignore the costumes after all of arguing over deconstruction, but the faithfulness of the Minutemen costumes makes a mockery of some of the "modern" costumes. Why does the Blake of 1940 have a mustache and look 30 instead of being a high school aged kid? Isn't a baby-faced rapist scarier than some thug with a big mustache and a cigar? Why does Laurie tell Jon to save the world for her sake, when she feels utterly hopeless in the same scene in the book? Why does Dreiberg have such a Midwestern whine? Why does Matthew Goode look like David Bowie and not Robert Redford? Why claim you're entranced by the book, recreate entire scenes visually but change the emotional content of the story? I hate that cliché myself, LVF, and I feel for you. I'd scream, "NOOOOO!" but the other folks in the office would be upset.
Dammit by DennisMM	Dec 10th, 2008 06:14:00 PM
When will AICN get an edit function. I'm a sick man. First drafts can't be expected to make sense!
Change the period by DennisMM	Dec 10th, 2008 06:15:27 PM
after "function" to a question mark. Fucking swiss-cheese brain of mine.
(ø‹›≈≈ by Mockingbuddha	Dec 10th, 2008 06:26:18 PM
The dark and dreary day I learned (ø‹›≈≈ There'd be no squid for which I'd yearned (ø‹›≈≈ O'er many a weary and lonely eve (ø‹›≈≈ My squid-less tears did stain the floor (ø‹›≈≈ Silver Screen Squid-less Forevermore( ø‹›≈≈ (ø‹›≈≈ (ø‹›≈≈ Hater I was labeled for my concern (ø‹›≈≈ That Watchmen end with Lovecraftian burn (ø‹›≈≈ From all things mundane: a short reprieve. (ø‹›≈≈ Zack Snyder is a filthy whore (ø‹›≈≈ Silver Screen Squid-less Forevermore.(ø‹›≈≈ (ø‹›≈≈ (ø‹›≈≈
RE: Sans (ø‹›≈≈ by Vote Fa Stokes Brutha	Dec 10th, 2008 06:45:48 PM
That was beautiful.
gboybama by Thrillho77	Dec 10th, 2008 06:52:26 PM
To add to what has already been said, one of the stars in an IGN interview said that the team is, in fact, called "The Watchmen" in the movie. I can't remember who it was (Patrick Wilson maybe?) as all of them were interviewed. Anyway, I was VERY disappointed to hear that. That's clearly a move just aimed at dumbing it down for the general audience.
"Great Cephalopod's Ghost" by finky089	Dec 10th, 2008 07:02:28 PM
good one, Fishus lol
Actually there are a number of new shots... by r_number6	Dec 10th, 2008 07:17:41 PM
just to name a few, there are views of Veidt's Antarctic retreat, what looks to be a young Walter Kovacks (about to administer a cigarette to the face, maybe?), Super-Sized Doc Manhattan smashing into Veidt's retreat and most of all, what looks like Doc & Laurie appearing in the middle of a severely bombed-out looking city, which would seem to confirm the "blow up cities and frame Dr. Manhattan" climax rather than the "Big Dead Alien Squid" climax. I haven't seen the iTunes footage yet (can't get the iTunes store at work, damned firewalls!), but I would like to see this trailer in big, clear Quicktime.
Le Vicious Fishus by yiannis	Dec 10th, 2008 08:00:46 PM
Welcome back my piscine pal! Glad to see you found that interview with Snyder you mentioned last time. Like you, I don't get why the Seymour Skinner "NOOOOOOOO" is still in there (Dreiberg's character has his emotional pay-off in Laurie's arms - why does he need another?), but hopefully we can put that fucking Batarang or whatever Hayter had him chuck to bed. Seeing Dollar Bill was fairly cool, but I am VERY excited about the sight of wee little Walter (the whole reason I'm posting at all), as the flashback to his childhood was NOT in any of the online scripts. The Dr. Long bits were, but not in enough detail to go into Rorsharch's full backstory. All in all, it points very much to a Jackson-on-LOTR process going on, with each draft of the script getting closer and closer to the original story. Yes, obviously there's still no squid (no need to re-open that debate here), but it's still a good sign.
Love the new trailer. My only problem so far... by Paul Bucciarelli	Dec 10th, 2008 08:02:38 PM
has been the way Veidt looks. The character is suposed to be the world's most perfect human specimen (think Doc Savage) but this guy looks like Danny O'Day in a muscle suit. I keep expecting Farfel to pop up behind him with a tin of Nestle's Chhhaaawwwkkkliiittt* Hopefully his performance will overshadow his lack of physical impressiveness. Other than I pretty psyched.
Love the new trailer. My only problem so far... by Paul Bucciarelli	Dec 10th, 2008 08:02:38 PM
has been the way Veidt looks. The character is suposed to be the world's most perfect human specimen (think Doc Savage) but this guy looks like Danny O'Day in a muscle suit. I keep expecting Farfel to pop up behind him with a tin of Nestle's Chhhaaawwwkkkliiittt* Hopefully his performance will overshadow his lack of physical impressiveness. Other than I pretty psyched.
"Watchmen...one of us has died tonight" by Weezy F. Baby	Dec 10th, 2008 09:06:42 PM

getting pretty SICK by j_difool	Dec 10th, 2008 09:07:16 PM
of these trailers. maybe they started the hype machine too early on this film? i mean... fuck. i'm just tired of seeing the same shots repeated and repeated in different order. let's either watch the whole goddamn movie or have some peace and fucking quiet from the marketing dept. marketing depts are so goddamn fucking stupid.
"Watchmen...one of us has died tonight" by Weezy F. Baby	Dec 10th, 2008 09:09:39 PM
yeah i felt like my inner fanboy died a little when i first heard that, but than i realized this: if snyder is gonna (hopefully) tone down the slo mo, keep it rated R and at LEAST 2 1/2 hours, keep it in the eighties and seemingly keep intact the entire structure of the story besides the fucking squid, which would completely ruin half the uninitiated audiences moviegoing experience, than i think that i can deal with the "crimebusters" formerly having an official name. you wanna know the truth, i didn't even realize they werent called the watchmen the first time i read it. what i am EXTREMELY HAPPY to hear tho is that the entire flashback sequence with jon on mars (my favorite sequence of the book) has been retained in it's entirety.
Muse >>> Smashing Pumpkins by TheWaqman	Dec 10th, 2008 09:12:37 PM
Fucking angsty losers. BTW the ending to this movie will make absolutely no sense since they will blame the nuclear attacks completely on Manhattan, who was a puppet for the US. So that basically brings the world against the US, rather than full world peace. Fucking idiot Snyder. Have fun jerking off to your full slo-mo movie.
god help us all by kafka07	Dec 10th, 2008 09:13:39 PM
alright already
while we're at it... by j_difool	Dec 10th, 2008 09:15:49 PM
... can we scream in pain every time something is posted on iTunes? FUCK iTunes !!!!! there should be howls of protest against any "site" or service that requires you to register or be logged in in order to view a Christ-bitten trailer.
yiannis by Le Vicious Fishus	Dec 10th, 2008 09:40:25 PM
Howdy there! Yes, young Walter K is definitely set to shove a cig into the eye of one deserving, closet-case bully boy. Now I can only pray the following brilliant dialogue is included, uncut just on this one occasion: "Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. Was Rorschach." Damn, that's amazing writing, as is the conclusion of arguably the finest chapter in WATCHMEN: "I looked at the Rorschach blot. I tried to pretend it looked like a spreading tree, shadows pooled beneath it, but it didn’t. It looked more like a dead cat I once found, the fat, glistening grubs writhing blindly, squirming over each other, frantically tunneling away from the light. But even that is avoiding the real horror. The horror is this: In the end, it is simply a picture of empty meaningless blackness. We are alone. There is nothing else."
All I'm hoping for is... by beastie	Dec 10th, 2008 09:51:34 PM
... a fucking amazing film. Not a perfect adaptation of one of the greatest books of the 20th century. I want something as good or at least almost as good as The Dark Knight. If changes must be made, then so be it. Just make it work on screen to blow my mind. Hell, I enjoyed V for Vendetta and From Hell for the films (not the adaptations) that they were. I HOPE that this does the same for me.
TheWaqman by wixmmm	Dec 10th, 2008 10:04:24 PM
"the ending to this movie will make absolutely no sense since they will blame the nuclear attacks completely on Manhattan, who was a puppet for the US. So that basically brings the world against the US, rather than full world peace." I don't understand why so many of you squid lovers see the new ending as such a big deal--LISTEN--Mahatten will cause a nuclear explosion IN THE STATES!!! HE IS ALL-POWERFUL AND THE WORLD WILL FEAR AND UNITE AGAINST MANHATTEN. geeze--what about that is so hard to comprehend???? Manhatten will attack america! and then on to the world!!! its simple: it will be the world against manhatten--everyone will be united and it will be because of a character/plot line that joe movieguy will understand! the squid had it's purpose--it was a threat that would unite the world...the same thing will happen when manhatten nukes an american cityy! do i need to try saying it again or rephrasing it again??? i can't beleive so many of you think that an attack on the US will turn the world against us. i've read this so many times and i don't get what is so difficult to understand. i mean...FUCK!!!
I still want the Squid by Russman	Dec 10th, 2008 10:34:15 PM
I still want the Squid. There's plenty of time. Screw you haters!
Wow. I must have fucked that one up. by beastie	Dec 10th, 2008 11:10:54 PM
I meant to say "I want something as good as or ALMOST as good as The Dark Knight".
..for the love of... by TakeItEasyMon	Dec 10th, 2008 11:25:21 PM
for the ten-millionth time, Doc M ending is ridiculous. He's essentially omnipotent, and if he really wanted to 'attack the united states' he would damn well turn the entire country to dust, not just a single blast in NYC. The squid works because the squid dies, it can be killed, and a united front is plausible. A united front against Manhattan is pointless, since it doesn't matter if it's one person or a million people against him, he wins, no contest. You can't fight a god, but the squiddy, well it's already dead, so it can be killed, and who knows how many more of them there are? Much more plausible (albeit still in zany land) --- Also, the comment earlier about Redford was great, Ozzy needs to look a bit older and more handsome, but I'm assuming they picked the actor for his skill and not just his looks, so I'm sure he will be fine.
Dollar Bill got wacked yall! by uberfreak	Dec 11th, 2008 12:11:38 AM
Watchmen will be fucking our eyeballs! Fuck Terminator and all these other lame movies.
we don't know by wixmmm	Dec 11th, 2008 12:13:07 AM
all we know is that manhatten is somehow involved with the destruction of a city or cities. It probably won't be manhatten just going on a rampage...it will be something that happens involving manhatten that the rest of the world has a chance to unite and save the world...while manhatten cannot be beaten, there are many ways you could involve some part of manhatten that the world would have a chance against. you can't just assume how its going to end. some of you think the squid is soooo important--its not. you should all be happy that the studio is letting it be rated R. the squid would not go over well with the average moviegoer. it would probably be despised. just because it's based on an incredible comic book doesn't mean that the movie is for die hard comics fans--its for everyone. so many of the geeks here feel this false sense of entitlement about geek related things. the movie is not going to have a squid. deal with it. if you can't handle it, don't see the movie. organize a boycott and convince yourselves it will make a difference. books and movies aren't just about the ending, be it a twist ending or not--it's about how everything leads up to the ending. i think they will get all the lead up stuff right, and then the end will satisfy the average moviegoer. there is no way an average moviegoer will accept all that great lead-up stuff when the payoff is some alien squid looking thing.
wixmmm by TakeItEasyMon	Dec 11th, 2008 12:27:11 AM
you're right, people will never accept some alien squid looking thing, or guys with laser swords with some crazy 'force' powers, or a guy dressed up like a giant bat beating up criminals, or a big red demon-spawn working for the U.S. government. Or an omnipotent glowing-blue man-god flying around on mars. You're right, they could never make the logical leap to comprehend a giant squid. Silly me.
wixmm again by TakeItEasyMon	Dec 11th, 2008 01:21:07 AM
"so many of the geeks here feel this false sense of entitlement about geek related things" I'm sorry, I guess I didn't realize it's a talkback forum about a nerd movie on a nerd movie website. What the hell do you expect to hear people talking about? Of course they feel a sense of entitlement in this particular corner of the web. People get points for effort and follow-through. If you change things for good dramatic reasons and can bring the audience with you, then more power to you. ----------When you get rid of exposition/plot to include expanded action scenes for an adaptation of "Watchmen" you've already missed the fucking boat----------- When the writers think they can out-Moore Moore, it's just hubris. I'm not saying Watchmen is Shakespeare, but if you adapt Shakespeare, you don't assume you are a better writer than him when you adapt the play and change things willy-nilly. And if these changes are made because the writers feel they work better, then I don't want to hear the director blowing smoke up everyone's ass about how much respect they have for the GN and how precisely things are going to be translated. They are grasping at the images and not the substance. You fill background shots with fake newspaper clippings that most people won't even notice and translate plenty of panel images exactly to the screen but change major elements of the plot? Fuck that. It's not the stupid squid, it's the lack of faith in their product, to let the damn thing be what it is, instead of "what we really need is less of this plot stuff, and more tits and longer action scenes."
Who the fuck cares when... by Motoko Kusanagi	Dec 11th, 2008 01:26:30 AM
...we can bitch about the T4 trailer on the other thread? Now head over here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node /39388
anyway by TakeItEasyMon	Dec 11th, 2008 01:33:27 AM
I'm sure the majority of the movie will probably be quite entertaining, it's just so damn frustrating when they do this kind of thing, it's like a rusty nail hidden in a box of popcorn.
Not to be a dick but NO Squid=Cloud Galactus by kirttrik	Dec 11th, 2008 01:37:28 AM
It's probably a dead issue by now and I'll probably have to wait 20 years till the verbatim 12-24 episode ANIME comes out drawn in Dave Gibbons style, but fuck this! No SQUID=GALACTUS IS A CLOUD!
Watchmen Anime coming soon! by kirttrik	Dec 11th, 2008 01:41:46 AM
How many of you click this hoping that was true! Probably not that many, but my point is I would of clicked it, Because if it was drawn in Gibbons style, with ALL MAJOR STORY ARCS INTACT, including psychic squid and ANN RYAN fountain stuff, IT WOULD BE FUCKING AMAZING. Get the guys who did THE DARK KNIGHT soundtrack, mix it with the best underground eighties mix you can find and...BOOM. Heaven.
I don't want to see anymore by Eyegore	Dec 11th, 2008 02:20:58 AM
I don't want to see anymore until I see the movie in the theater. My excitement peaked shortly before finding out that the ending had arbitrarily changed. So disappointing.
Fuck the squid, glad it's gone. by BurnHollywood	Dec 11th, 2008 02:27:25 AM
It's a plot element moving the story to its conclusion (and not a very good one, unless you were one of the geeks who wet their pants over the Starro reference) nothing more. An existential threat is needed that can motivate global powers to put their differences aside...this could be any number of things, and I recognize Snyder's need to make the singular alteration (removes maybe twenty minutes of runtime better devoted elsewhere and makes the movie less of a rote recital to seasoned fans). It's not a stupid squid that makes it WATCHMEN, it's the Watchmen themselves and their back-stories. Thus far, I've seen a lot of care put into those elements, so as a fan going back to the Eighties, I'm pleased. ...And that's all I've got to say about THAT.
kirttrik by yiannis	Dec 11th, 2008 04:23:12 AM
Don't know about an anime, but have you heard of the Watchmen Motion Comic? The first six chapters are available for torrent (or you can buy them at ITunes if you like). Check them out.
Le Vicious Fishus by yiannis	Dec 11th, 2008 04:39:11 AM
Pure poetry! Totally agree with you on your assessment of that chapter (I would even go so far as to remove the word "arguably"), so we can only hope. In all probability we WON'T see that dialogue though, at least not word for word, if for no other reason than pacing. After all, that section of the movie does nothing except explain the backstory of a single character. No matter how important the character is, no matter how interesting the backstory and no matter how luxurious the running time of your movie, I would consider it bad storytelling in any movie to grind the plot to a halt for 15-20 minutes to do this. In this sense Watchmen's ORIGINAL format (12 monthly issues) worked to its advantage over the movie, as you can reasonably take a whole issue off from the plot and readers will just say "ok, this is the backstory issue". Then again, you could argue that Moore did that TWICE in 12 issues, with chapter 4 (Jon on Mars) as well as chapter 6 (Walter Kovacs). Considering that the latter HAS made it into the film almost word for word, and considering almost every interview with Snyder has focused on "character" above anything else, we might yet be in for a treat an hour or so in...
Whatever You Do, Read The Book First by Autodidact	Dec 11th, 2008 06:33:37 AM
I have a long-time buddy who is outright refusing to read Watchmen before seeing the movie. He told me "Reading Wanted before I saw the movie totally ruined that movie for me, so I'm not going to read Watchmen before seeing the movie." I've been friends with this guy for 20 years and I don't think he's ever disappointed me this much. I told him if he sees the movie without reading the book first, I never want to discuss either the book or the movie with him. I have a brother-in-law who is a pop-culture nut, to the point I was surprised when he told me he hadn't read Watchmen. Before Xmas last year he told me "I want a good novel, a story I can really sink my teeth into", so I got him the Watchmen trade paperback. He didn't read it!
lil' Rorshach by donnarumsfeld	Dec 11th, 2008 07:26:20 AM
Wouldn't it have been rad to use some Kelly Leek footage from the Bad News Bears?
The geeks will look up and shout save the squid by warm_turtle	Dec 11th, 2008 07:39:57 AM

And synder will whisper no by warm_turtle	Dec 11th, 2008 07:40:32 AM

Ive seen the watchmen by warm_turtle	Dec 11th, 2008 07:41:43 AM
Roshark dies
Autodidact... by Ghostball	Dec 11th, 2008 07:47:41 AM
Maybe he read it, and in some sort of epiphanic moment decided it was too good to share his thoughts on, too profound and private an experience. Or maybe he just took one look at it and thought 'what a piece of stupid crap'. We'll never know.
AICN TALKBACKERS by yodalovesyou	Dec 11th, 2008 09:43:19 AM
FUCK OFF! FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!FUCK OFF!
Fake by TheBlackKnight	Dec 11th, 2008 12:06:07 PM
This is obviously edited together from the previous trailers and the recently released comic-con footage. People think this is actually released from Warner Bros.?
Justify... by Darth Macchio	Dec 11th, 2008 12:43:43 PM
Ok, so people wanting the original GN as much as chronologically possible are haters and geeks and assholes who don't know shit from shinola. Ok. Got it. We suck, you rock!. And everybody else is falling all over themselves justifying Snyder's retooling of Watchmen (ie, making shit up to fill in the shit that is not scripted). Anybody who's read the GN knows that you don't "just replace" the squid with Manhattan and thus you need backstory to make this change. This change is pure "add on" to the original story. Not bits and pieces Moore never used. But that's fine, right? It has to happen unless Moore agrees to be involved and we know he hates the idea of a movie right? They better call them 'Watchmen' but who gives a shit if Snyder and team just presume to write their own version of the story? And now I'm a dick for even suggesting that this might not be a good idea? Or that someone like Snyder and his group are likely not up to this very ambitious task? Or that we're going to sell this as "tough shit, it could be worse, we could never even have a Watchmen movie and your balls could be covered with fire ants dipped in rubbing alcohol". Ok, point taken...but it would be nice for all of you Hater-haters (people ragging on those of us who would prefer to see the as much of the original story as possible) stick around after the release to answer for your zeal to change the original story (not to us or AICN but to the Gods of the Geekverse of course...those entities that gave you a touch of geek dust otherwise you wouldn't even know what a watchman is outside of something you plug a headset into). But who's the one equivocating? Who's the one justifying the change? Shit, some of you want the change so why would you care if they call it "Watchmen" or "The Watchmen" or even "Watchmen & friends" or just call it "Superhero Apocalypse" or something random like "Butterscotch Crotch". I mean anybody arguing for the greatest degree of translation as possible are just pretentious assholes with oily, jelly-donut filled pie holes right?
I'm holding at lukewarm. by bellwether	Dec 11th, 2008 01:42:54 PM
...mainly because I don't want to be disappointed by this. Initially I was bordering on hysterical excitement, but upon discovering the changed ending I've become ambivalent. I gather being disappointed by the lack of cephalopod means I am some kind of obsessed fanboy living in a basement, but at the risk of being repetitive, it's not the lack of tentacles per se. The octopus is a comic book plot in a world where comic books are pirate horror stories; removing the octopus also removes various other aspects of the story and theme; the replacement ending (as so far revealed) makes very little sense; and so on. I think it's a little odd to render so much of the adaption so faithfully if you're then going to unravel one of the major threads. That said, I'll be interested to see what people who've never read the book make of the film, and what they make of the book if they read it later. I'm of the opinion the original ending is not only irreplaceable and could have been a horrific and spectacular sequence, but having read Watchmen in it's twelve issue release, it's probably impossible for me to form a fully objective opinion. At this point I'm just hoping for a half decent movie.
The graphic novel sucked ass. Why should the movie be better? by Snake Foreskin	Dec 11th, 2008 02:15:26 PM
It looks like complete shit.
bellwether by Le Vicious Fishus	Dec 11th, 2008 02:27:49 PM
I agree more or less on each of your points for various reasons. I've done a LOT of past railing against the cephalopod's exclusion (for mostly pragmatic reasons I think). But I've had my say about all that. (ø‹›≈≈ Nuff said. I'm ambivalent about WATCHMEN (the movie)--like you. And I'm PERHAPS a bit less cool to the film adaptation, even given my problems thus far with it (e.g., the plot-unraveling idiocy of the masked protagonists calling themselves "the Watchmen").
warm_turtle by samsquanch	Dec 11th, 2008 02:44:38 PM
funny
Graphic novel, my ass by Thunderbolt Ross	Dec 11th, 2008 03:30:28 PM
I'm going to keep saying that. Pretentious revisionism!
yodalovesyou, it would of been cool if... by kirttrik	Dec 11th, 2008 03:53:51 PM
...you could of made the fuck offs look like a light sabor or smiley face, you know, for WATCHMEN.
Yiannis, thanks for thr tip but... by kirttrik	Dec 11th, 2008 03:56:38 PM
....I'm not into motion comics, I like comics or animation. Although some interesting things have been done with motion comics, I don't see it as a replacement for comics or a substitute for real animation.
A couple of Watchmen opinions by BobParr	Dec 11th, 2008 05:52:51 PM
I never liked The Squid Is Dr. Manhattan that powerful that he could level the entire planet as some TBers think? Didn't it take him a few months to bring victory in Vietnam? I think I saw Rorshak fighting The Comedian. I don't think that happened in the book. In fact, those two guys seemed to be on the same page.
kirttrik by yiannis	Dec 12th, 2008 03:37:13 AM
You're right, motion comics are neither a replacement for comics or a substitute for real animation, nor should they be. However, this particular motion comic is very well produced as it is a professional Warner Brothers production, complete with Dave Gibbons on board consulting and a full, original, orchestral score. I just thought that a lot of Watchmen fans would enjoy it (shout out to Le Vicious Fishus for pointing it out to me in the first place!) and your request for a faithful animation seemed like the perfect opportunity to raise the subject. If it's not your bag, then fair enough, each to their own.

Talkbacks

A New WATCHMEN Trailer Variant Is Now Online...

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks