Watchmen

[Overman]

Just finished reading the Watchmen again...I was reminded of it in a different thread and it had been years.

Such an amazing book.

http://www.bugpowder.com/gallery/tshirts/watchmen.jpg

Since they are making a movie of it some time next year now is a pretty good time to bone up for anyone curious out there...

For those not curious...

In 2005, Time magazine placed Watchmen on its list of the 100 Greatest English Language Novels from 1923 to the Present, stating that it was "told with ruthless psychological realism, in fugal, overlapping plotlines and gorgeous, cinematic panels rich with repeating motifs...a heart-pounding, heartbreaking read and a watershed in the evolution of a young medium." Watchmen was the only graphic novel to be listed. Watchmen has also received several awards spanning different categories and genres including: Kirby Awards for Best Finite Series, Best New Series, Best Writer, and Best Writer/Artist, Eisner Awards for Best Finite Series, Best Graphic Album, Best Writer, and Best Writer/Artist, and a Hugo Award for Other Forms.

For those that have read it...:covereyes


1. Do you think that Adrian Veidt's plan works in the long run?

2. Do you think that an alien invasion would unite the human race?

3. Got any favorite moments/chapters/insights you would like to discuss?


:) <--with a dash of blood...

[MelBrooksfan]

1. Unfortunately, no. It's just that, in the long run, I think eventually people would be going "Uhh.. where's the aliens? They just drop a biological atom bomb on New York and never come back?"


2. Yes. An external threat could probably united humans. At least for as long as said external threat existed. After that it'd be back to the old squabbles.

3. My personal favorite is the entire Rorschach-in-prison arc. It's the character's defining moment. And so disturbing. I was never sure if I should be rooting for Rorschach or not. His back story is certainly sympathetic but that's juxtaposed with Rorschach, very calmly, hurling boiling grease into the face of an inmate trying to kill him or Rorschach methodically executing Big Figure's henchman while he sedately keeps score.

[ClintonHammond]

Rorschach is likely my favourite character from any "comic book" ever....

[Overman]

3. My personal favorite is the entire Rorschach-in-prison arc. It's the character's defining moment. And so disturbing. I was never sure if I should be rooting for Rorschach or not. His back story is certainly sympathetic but that's juxtaposed with Rorschach, very calmly, hurling boiling grease into the face of an inmate trying to kill him or Rorschach methodically executing Big Figure's henchman while he sedately keeps score.


Gotta be my favorite too..


''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.''

His revelation at the end, and how he effects the psychotherapist are just so well written...I stopped after reading that chapter and just thought awhile before moving on. So well done.

[Hawk one]

No matter how many times I read it, it still touches me like hardly anything else can.

1: I think the main problem is that sooner or later, it would be discovered that this monster would have a cell structure and DNA structure too similar to our own. Maybe also someone who'd understand would get access to Ror's journal as it got started being printed, but I believe that the biggest danger is in those labs... Unless of course Adrian makes sure that it'll be -his- labs that undergo all the tests of the monster he made.

2: More or less, yes. Think of humans as the Ogg family, happily feuding with each other throughout generations, until one outsider - seeing all the bickering - stupidly decides to make a crack about one Ogg, at which exact moment every single Ogg will turn on said outsider.

3:
Chapter 6, when Rorchack has his final conversation with the shrink, and ends it with "In the end, it's only us." And I share Mel's sentiments about Rorchack. There's a reason he is the most used character, it's because he's the most interesting one.

Chapter 12, when Adrian says "I did it. I DID IT!" Hell, just thinking about it gave me goosebumps right now! It's just that great a moment.

A friend of mine once said "I was giving Watchmen a 9 out of 10 until the moment Adrian said 'I did it 35 minutes ago.' At that point, it broke the scale.

[Overman]

Because its basass...

http://tonymooreillustration.com/v-web/gallery/albums/sketchbook/rorschach.jpg

[The Demon's Head]

The Absolute Edition of The Watchmen is a MUST READ! It is even more grand in the absolute format. Seriously.

[MelBrooksfan]

The Absolute Edition of The Watchmen is a MUST READ! It is even more grand in the absolute format. Seriously.

It is also expensive, however.

[The Demon's Head]

It is also expensive, however.

Yes, but it is well worth it.

I recall a slipcase edition was once offered, however, it was a limited print run.

[thrombus29]

They re-issued the hardcover last year, pretty expensive.

It has been my fave since High school

Four or five years ago when I first heard they were going to make it into a movie I bought up a bunch of the collectable stuff hoping to flip it at the top of any media hype. It's still sitting in my closet.

One of my favorite themes in Watchmen is the "Pirate" comics, how in a world that had superheros, Pirates became the focus of the comic industry. It illustrates how the people of the "Watchmen" universe see the pirate comics evolving from pulp to a popular, respected form of lit. (like our comics gaining respectability through the years). The way Moore builds that whole backstory for "The Black Freighter" just as a way to provide a running metaphor/commentary for his own story is genius.

[Overman]

In other news... (http://en.rian.ru/world/20070719/69254298.html)

[alfaniner]

I always wanted to make a Rorshach mask. Preferably one that wouldn't asphyxiate me.

[Augustine]

Great comic, but I dread the movie - especially in light of the disastrous League of Extraordinary Gentlemen...

[Vorticity]

Great comic, but I dread the movie - especially in light of the disastrous League of Extraordinary Gentlemen...

Bwaaa-ha-haaaaa!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/451469fd6ec6dae1.jpg

[Comsat Angel]

As a long-time comics reader (since 196coughcough), this truly is one of the genre's most outstanding achievements, ever. For anyone who hasn't read it, once you've read it for the first time, you have to go back and read it again in the light of what you now know. Absolutely first class!

And for me, the best bit is Rorschach's statement when locked-up in prison. "I'm not in here with you. You're in here with me." Not mere words - he means it.

[alfaniner]

I just re-read it last year. The previous (and only) time was when they came out as monthly issues. At the time I thought it was cool how the WATCHMEN logo tended to march across the succeeding wraparound covers. It wasn't noticeable until about issue 3 or 4 -- it was about that point that I thought, 'Hmmm, they're taking care to do that little bit of continuity, I hope this story works out!"

I got so much more out of it on my recent re-reading.

[The Demon's Head]

I really hope The Watchmen isn't adapted. I really can't stand to see another bastardization of a great comic book. Besides, it has been a struggle to get the projected film going.

[Doc Daneeka]

Here's one thing that bugs me. If and when they do adapt it to the screen, there are going to be a lot of people who think that it was basically plagiarised in many ways from NBC's "Heroes". :D

[kmortis]

Here's one thing that bugs me. If and when they do adapt it to the screen, there are going to be a lot of people who think that it was basically plagiarised in many ways from NBC's "Heroes". :D

Well, 'til us from Fandom set them straight.

Hrm...it would apear that the same director that brought us 300, is bringing Watchmen to the silver screen. I'd still prefer Gilliam, but I understand his "issues".

Actor Tom Cruise expressed interest in the role of Ozymandias to the director, but no casting decision was finalized.[

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S HOLY, PLEASE SHOOT THAT MAN BEFORE HE KILLS THIS MOVIE FOR ME!!!! CRUISE???? As Ozymandius???? AHHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

[Beleth]

I really hope The Watchmen isn't adapted. I really can't stand to see another bastardization of a great comic book. Besides, it has been a struggle to get the projected film going.

Besides, there's only one person who can really play Rorschach.
http://www.nevadamagazine.com/Carrot.Top.jpg

[Vorticity]

Besides, there's only one person who can really play Rorschach.


I was thinking Ron Perlman:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/45146a4ce37b99a3.jpg

Big. Menacing. Red hair. He'd be perfect.

[Vorticity]

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S HOLY, PLEASE SHOOT THAT MAN BEFORE HE KILLS THIS MOVIE FOR ME!!!! CRUISE???? As Ozymandius???? AHHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Well, as for Ozymandius, how about Viggo Mortensen:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/45146a4cfaec1f7b.jpg

Give him a square haircut, slap a suit and tie on him, and I can see it.

[wollery]

I agree, Watchmen is a true work of genius. I've read it several times.

1. Do you think that Adrian Veidt's plan works in the long run?
No, for many of the same reasons that others have already given.

2. Do you think that an alien invasion would unite the human race?
Yes, at least in the short term, but as Doc Manhattan points out, "Nothing ends, nothing ever ends."

3. Got any favorite moments/chapters/insights you would like to discuss?
The whole ongoing exchange between the psychiatrist and Rorschach is fantastic. In particular the way Rorschach gets into his head and causes him to totally lose his objectivity.

I also like the "comic within the comic" - a lovely touch, and the relationship between the news vendor and the kid is great.

I also like the idea that the only character with genuine superpowers is Dr Manhattan. A refreshing twist on the superhero genre (okay, so batman doesn't have any actual powers, but I hope you know what I mean).

[wollery]

I was thinking Ron Perlman:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/45146a4ce37b99a3.jpg

Big. Menacing. Red hair. He'd be perfect.Except that Rorschach is a short skinny guy, wearing elevator shoes. The actor would have to be no more than 5'8", and slightly built.

[Beleth]

Has anyone ever actually read the text-y parts at the ends of the comics? I tried to, once after my third or so reading through the whole novel, but I couldn't get into it. Are their contributions to the story worth slogging through?

[Vorticity]

Except that Rorschach is a short skinny guy, wearing elevator shoes. The actor would have to be no more than 5'8", and slightly built.

Hmmm. Good point.

Hey! I've got it!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/45146a5131bbcca6.jpg

[The Demon's Head]

I was thinking Ron Perlman:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/45146a4ce37b99a3.jpg

Big. Menacing. Red hair. He'd be perfect.

Yes, but Bruce Campbell is just so much cooler :p

[MelBrooksfan]

Hmmm. Good point.

Hey! I've got it!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/45146a5131bbcca6.jpg

I can see him delivering some of those lines, "A Comedian died tonight and nobody cares. Nobody but me." XD

[Floyt]

Has anyone ever actually read the text-y parts at the ends of the comics? I tried to, once after my third or so reading through the whole novel, but I couldn't get into it. Are their contributions to the story worth slogging through?

I loved them. More mastery of meta-fiction. I see these bits as a concession that some kinds of content can actually be more effectively delivered in "classic" literature style rather than illustrated, graphic novel style, and that there's no reason not to make use of it to produce the most satisfying result.
Don't think they are essential for the enjoyment of the book, but it's more good stuff on the characters - why deprive yourself? :)

[MelBrooksfan]

Has anyone ever actually read the text-y parts at the ends of the comics? I tried to, once after my third or so reading through the whole novel, but I couldn't get into it. Are their contributions to the story worth slogging through?

You should read them. They flesh things out quite well. As Watchmen is a look at the superhero genre, some of the most pointed notes come from those text sections. From debates on costume design (See: Hollis Mason's reasons for choosing his mask and the fate of Dollar Bill) to the sexualized nature of adventuring. They also flesh some of the characters more.

[Wheezebucket]

I own 6 copies of the trade paperback, just to borrow/give to people to read (the count used to be higher). If anyone still hasn't read it, but would like to, PM me your mailing address and I'll send one out (provided you'll send it back eventually, I'm runnin' low these days). It's one of those things you just want to give to everyone, it's that good.

Stood in firelight, sweltering. Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in the night. Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. Cold, suffocating dark goes on forever, and we are alone. Live our lives lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, Hell-bound as ourselves; go into oblivion. There is nothing else. 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.

[The Demon's Head]

Zach Snyder is supposedly going to reveal his cast for The Watchmen at the San Diego Comic Con while Matthew Goode has already been cast as Ozymandias.

[alfaniner]

I own 6 copies of the trade paperback, just to borrow/give to people to read (the count used to be higher). If anyone still hasn't read it, but would like to, PM me your mailing address and I'll send one out (provided you'll send it back eventually, I'm runnin' low these days). It's one of those things you just want to give to everyone, it's that good.


That was the first major graphic novel I lent out. Never got it back. It wasn't until a few years later that I was looking for it and realized that. Had to buy it again.

[Vorticity]

...while Matthew Goode has already been cast as Ozymandias.
Terrible, terrible! Much to young!

This gives me the sinking feeling that they're going to cast all young, beautiful people for roles that should be anything but.

[Admiral]

My two favorite chapters were "Watchmaker" and "Fearful Symmetry." Watchmaker was brilliant for the six dozen meanings of the word "Watchmaker"- Dr. Manhattan's father's occupation, God, or Albert Einstein's quote ("If only I had known, I would have become a watchmaker"). It really gets at the heart of what Dr. Manhattan is and represents.

Fearful Symmetry was heavy on the symbolism too- Rorschach's face is symmetrical, the chapter starts with a symmetrical club sign, and, most interestingly, the whole chapter is nearly symmetrical itself. If you look at the first and last pages, and the pages in between them, you'll see they're nearly mirror images. (The middle of the chapter is the scene where Veidt gets attacked).

I just take these two chapters as examples of how every time you read it, you just discover more.

[alfaniner]

How much you wanna bet they put a Speedo on Dr. Manhattan???

[Overman]

I bet they use clever camera angles...

[The Demon's Head]

Terrible, terrible! Much to young!

This gives me the sinking feeling that they're going to cast all young, beautiful people for roles that should be anything but.

That's the problem with these film makers. They show us a pretty face instead of the superhero :mad:

[Wheezebucket]

That's the problem with these film makers. They show us a pretty face instead of the superhero :mad:

Well if you're looking for a 'superhero' in the Watchmen, sounds like you're just as off-base as Snyder appears to be.

[kmortis]

I do fear a bit. Moore has already resigned from the picture in disgust.

[MelBrooksfan]

I do fear a bit. Moore has already resigned from the picture in disgust.

Moore resigns from disgust from every picture based on his works. Said pictures always suck (Yes, even V for Vendetta. V for Vendetta was a travesty), though.

[The Demon's Head]

Well if you're looking for a 'superhero' in the Watchmen, sounds like you're just as off-base as Snyder appears to be.

Did I say that? No, I did not. The comment was made about casting beautiful people for roles. I took it a step further by commenting about how film makers will cast a pretty face to show rather than the superhero.

[Wheezebucket]

Did I say that? No, I did not. The comment was made about casting beautiful people for roles. I took it a step further by commenting about how film makers will cast a pretty face to show rather than the superhero.

You just said it again...

(The Watchmen isn't about 'superheroes')

[The Demon's Head]

I did not say that. Read it again.

[alfaniner]

I think Malcolm's Dad would make a great Ozymandias. (He can play serious roles.)

[MelBrooksfan]

Regardless of whether you said that, he's wrong. Watchmen is about superheroes. It's about the entire superhero genre and, largely, the evolution of superhero comics in general. The Minute Men of the past being representative of the true-blue comics Golden Age and the heroes of the continuity's modern time representing the grittier portrayals of the silver and modern ages.


With regards to a pretty face, that might not be inappropriate for Veidt, really. Ozymandias is supposed to be that. It juxtaposes his true nature quite well. A pretty face for the aged Dan Dreiberg or Rorschach, though? Not a chance.

[The Demon's Head]

Regardless of whether you said that, he's wrong. Watchmen is about superheroes. It's about the entire superhero genre and, largely, the evolution of superhero comics in general. The Minute Men of the past being representative of the true-blue comics Golden Age and the heroes of the continuity's modern time representing the grittier portrayals of the silver and modern ages.


With regards to a pretty face, that might not be inappropriate for Veidt, really. Ozymandias is supposed to be that. It juxtaposes his true nature quite well. A pretty face for the aged Dan Dreiberg or Rorschach, though? Not a chance.

I agree that The Watchmen is partly the reason why comics have evovled. DKR can also be associated with the idea.

I'll agree that V for Vendetta was a bastardization for the most part.

I really wish these adaptations would stop, but it seems more and more are being given the greenlight. Not only are the characters being given a poor treatment in the literary forms, but it is just as bad on film.

[MelBrooksfan]

I'll agree that V for Vendetta was a bastardization for the most part.


Travesty may have been strong. But a lot of things just shouldn't have been done (chief among them being giving far too much focus to Creedy and far too little to Finch. What was the point of Finch in the movie, anyway?)

[The Demon's Head]

Travesty may have been strong. But a lot of things just shouldn't have been done (chief among them being giving far too much focus to Creedy and far too little to Finch. What was the point of Finch in the movie, anyway?)

And the chaning of events was wrong. However, Weaving was spot on with his performance as V with a few minor things absent from the character.

[MelBrooksfan]

And the chaning of events was wrong. However, Weaving was spot on with his performance as V with a few minor things absent from the character.

I assume you mean the order in which V blew things up.. That didn't much matter to me. But I really, really missed V's speech to the statue of Justice. Weaving did well with what he had. I do think they (the Wachowskis) could've reinforced the "Maybe he's just nuts" side of V's character more.

[The Demon's Head]

I assume you mean the order in which V blew things up.. That didn't much matter to me. But I really, really missed V's speech to the statue of Justice.

I really don't want to go into detail about it since this thread is about The Watchmen.

Bottom line, V for Vendetta was impressive visually with a decent performance from Weaving but still a dissapointment.

[MelBrooksfan]

I really don't want to go into detail about it since this thread is about The Watchmen.

Bottom line, V for Vendetta was impressive visually with a decent performance from Weaving but still a dissapointment.

Alrighty.. RERAIL:
http://www.rorschachsjournal.com/

It's a kind of viral advertising gig wherein you can converse with Rorschach via e-mail. Responses come in character and everything.

[wollery]

Why oh why can most film makers not cast people appropriate for the role they're playing?

The characters should mostly be in their 40s and 50s, and most (Nite Owl particularly) should look it, although, to be fair, they will also need young looking versions for the flashbacks (assuming they include those).

[Wheezebucket]

Regardless of whether you said that, he's wrong. Watchmen is about superheroes. It's about the entire superhero genre and, largely, the evolution of superhero comics in general. The Minute Men of the past being representative of the true-blue comics Golden Age and the heroes of the continuity's modern time representing the grittier portrayals of the silver and modern ages.


The story has nothing to do with the evolution of superhero comic books in real life. Yeah, one of the things that makes Watchmen great is that it works on so many levels, as intended, but that should hardly be the focus of a film adaptation - it wouldn't make any sense, and it's not really the focus in any format, in my opinion.

I was more taking a dig at Demon's Head than anything, just because he annoys me, but my point was - the super heroics aren't, and shouldn't be, the focus. They weren't in the book, and they shouldn't be in the movie, any more than a pretty face should be.

Then again, I wish they weren't making it at all, so...eh.

[MelBrooksfan]

Why oh why can most film makers not cast people appropriate for the role they're playing?

The characters should mostly be in their 40s and 50s, and most (Nite Owl particularly) should look it, although, to be fair, they will also need young looking versions for the flashbacks (assuming they include those).

The way the Hollis Mason was drawn always reminded of Dick Van Dyke.


but that should hardly be the focus of a film adaptation - it wouldn't make any sense

That's the problem with the film adaptation. Moore wrote his pieces, especially Watchmen to, paraphrasing, show what comics could do that movies couldn't.

[Wheezebucket]

That's the problem with the film adaptation. Moore wrote his pieces, especially Watchmen to, paraphrasing, show what comics could do that movies couldn't.

I agree completely. I mean hell, just look at the panel structure alone. The way most pages mimic others, the mirrored images and reverses - and all of it, every last panel, is tied so directly into what he was doing there. To rip all that apart and shove it into a two hour movie...it's a crying shame. No wonder Moore won't put his name on any of this crap or take any money from it.

[Overman]

I just read one of the proposed scripts...It is not bad at points, but no masterpiece...I think a lot of people will not be happy.

Back to the derail...

I had never read V for Vendetta until after I saw the movie, and as a fresh face to it I loved the movie. I was really really impressed. Then I read the comic, and it was awesome as well, but the movie was still solid.

They make movies for people who have never read the comics, not people who have. We will always be disappointed with many aspects that just don't cross over.

If you are gonna dig it as a movie, you have to forget everything you know about it.

PS. David Hayter's script. (http://www.sendspace.com/file/dhl9pk)

PPS. Tse's script. (http://www.sendspace.com/file/vr6eg1)

It is not really spoilers when you alrealdy know what is going to happen!

[Vorticity]

With regards to a pretty face, that might not be inappropriate for Veidt, really. Ozymandias is supposed to be that. It juxtaposes his true nature quite well.

I agree completely. But the guy they selected is still much too young. That's why I suggested Viggo Mortensen for Ozymandias.

Of course, I'm sure they'll pick the wrong people for the other roles as well.

Brad Pitt as Dreiberg
Elijah Wood as Rorschach

Some goddamned thing like that...

[Uncle Feedle]

There's no way they will be able to cram this into 2-3 hours, at least not in any form that does the story justice. It's just too complex and deep. I favour a LOTR-style trilogy (or possibly a mega-budget, 12-part mini series).
As a superhero film, it would have to be unlike any other, with no-holds-barred brutal, realistic violence and the casting of mature, seasoned actors - REAL actors, not Hollywood A-list beautiful people. It might even benefit from using unknowns.

[The Demon's Head]

I was more taking a dig at Demon's Head than anything, just because he annoys me, but my point was - the super heroics aren't, and shouldn't be, the focus. They weren't in the book, and they shouldn't be in the movie, any more than a pretty face should be.

Feel free to put me on ignore, I won't be offended.

[MelBrooksfan]

There's no way they will be able to cram this into 2-3 hours, at least not in any form that does the story justice. It's just too complex and deep.

Also, it's an ensemble cast where the characters are often at different places and different times. It would be difficult to do in a single movie. A 2-part epic would be best, I think. That should doable if they shave down some things (I loved The Black Freighter but, let's face it ladies and gents, it ain't gonna make the final cut in anything aside from a cameo).


With regards to Hayter's script above, I have some extreme reservations with the changes made to the ending.

[Overman]

Tse's script has the about the same ending and I have about the same (I assume) reservations...

[Thanz]

I agree completely. But the guy they selected is still much too young. That's why I suggested Viggo Mortensen for Ozymandias.

Of course, I'm sure they'll pick the wrong people for the other roles as well.

Brad Pitt as Dreiberg
Elijah Wood as Rorschach

Some goddamned thing like that...
How about...

Clint Howard or Willem Dafoe as Rorschach
Alfred Molina as the Comedian
Tom Hanks as Nite Owl
Ewan McGregor as Ozymandias
Lawrence Fishburne as Dr. Manhattan

[ZirconBlue]

There's no way they will be able to cram this into 2-3 hours, at least not in any form that does the story justice. It's just too complex and deep. I favour a LOTR-style trilogy (or possibly a mega-budget, 12-part mini series).
As a superhero film, it would have to be unlike any other, with no-holds-barred brutal, realistic violence and the casting of mature, seasoned actors - REAL actors, not Hollywood A-list beautiful people. It might even benefit from using unknowns.


A 12-episode HBO series would really be the way to go, I think. One episode per issue.

[The Demon's Head]

A animated or live action series wouldn't be a bad option at all. As long as they don't stray away from the source material and there is no reason to in this case.

[Vorticity]

How about...

Clint Howard or Willem Dafoe as Rorschach
Alfred Molina as the Comedian
Tom Hanks as Nite Owl
Ewan McGregor as Ozymandias
Lawrence Fishburne as Dr. Manhattan

Good list. It got me curious, and I wandered around the internet looking for tidbits about who has supposedly been "unofficially cast" for the upcoming Zach Snyder production of Watchmen. The consensus seems to be:

Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach
Ron Perlman as the Comedian
Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl
Mathew Goode as Ozymandias
Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan
Malin Akerman as Laurie Juspeczyk

http://www.filmstalker.co.uk/archives/2007/07/wilson_is_watchmens_nite_owl.html
http://www.mania.com/55327.html

A mixed bag. Haley and Perlman should be great. Wilson and Goode are too young and pretty. Crudup should be good with his deadpan stare. I wonder what he'll look like with a shaved head. I don't know anything about Akerman.

[MelBrooksfan]

Tse's script has the about the same ending and I have about the same (I assume) reservations...

That turns Veidt into a megalomoniacal dictator who uses an orbiting satellite to keep the world leaders and his beck-and-call behind the scenes?

[MelBrooksfan]

We have a cast (http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=11293)

[Vorticity]

We have a cast (http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=11293)

Ah, well I was only off on the Comedian.

[ImaginalDisc]

Ah, well I was only off on the Comedian.

Am I the only one who thinsk the Owl and the Comedian are way too young and pretty?

[Spidey13]

And for me, the best bit is Rorschach's statement when locked-up in prison. "I'm not in here with you. You're in here with me." Not mere words - he means it.

My favorite quote, too! :)

[Spidey13]

Here's a pic of my right arm. :D

[Wheezebucket]

Great tattoo! I'm getting Rorschach's head on my shoulder in a few months.

[Spidey13]

Thanks! I have Spider-Man on the other arm. I think I like this one better. I considered getting Rorschach but couldn't think of a design that I liked. Be sure to post a pic of yours when you get it!

[President Bush]

Nite Owl: What happened to the American dream?

Comedian: It came true. You're looking at it.

[kmortis]

Am I the only one who thinsk the Owl and the Comedian are way too young and pretty?

totally
For the Comedian, I was thinking Stacey Keetch. He's supposed to be old and grizzled.

[Wheezebucket]

totally
For the Comedian, I was thinking Stacey Keetch. He's supposed to be old and grizzled.

But he's way too short and wicked fat. If it was animated he'd make an awesome voice.

[kmortis]

But he's way too short and wicked fat. If it was animated he'd make an awesome voice.
Ok true, but he's got the face and presence for it. Maybe some lifts and a nice diet?

In any case, the guy they chose is NOT Eddie Blake.

[The Demon's Head]

We have a cast (http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=11293)

I think Billy Crudup may have been considered for the role of Batman in Batman Begins before Christian Bale was chosen.

Overall, I think they put together a decent cast. It isn't a horrible group of actors, but I don't exactly know who would be right for each role.

[Overman]

Pretty solid discussion with minimal flaming going on here (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=280550)about if Adrian Viedt should live or die....

[dudalb]

I will go see it,sure,but I do not have high hopes.
Zack Synder is 50/50 with me...I (surprisingly) liked his remake of Dawn of the Dead (although the Romero original was a much superior film) but hated "300" . I am afraid he is going to aim Watchmen at his core audience of testosteron crazed teens and miss all the subtlelty and charactization that made the novel so compelling.And nothing he has down has shown us that Synder can handle the complexity of the novel.
And the cast seems way,way,too young.

[geni]

Pretty solid discussion with minimal flaming going on here (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=280550)about if Adrian Viedt should live or die....

If he dies the parallel with Truman is weakened which makes a mess of one of Rorschach's inconstancies.

[The Demon's Head]

I prefer for The Watchmen to be adapted as how Sin City was adapted. I really couldn't accept the adaptation any other way. And it is not a lot of material that their adapting when comparing the many years worth of material of Batman or Spider-Man.

[dudalb]

I prefer for The Watchmen to be adapted as how Sin City was adapted. I really couldn't accept the adaptation any other way. And it is not a lot of material that their adapting when comparing the many years worth of material of Batman or Spider-Man.

WATCHMAN Is quite literally a Graphic Novel...a long,complex single story with and beginning and an end....,whereas Batman and Spiderman are basically a bunch of short stories spread out over many years.
You can't pick adc choose and rearrage elements from WATCHMAN the way you can with Batman and Spidey.
ANd the characters are way more complex then the typical superhero comic.
Apples and Oranges.

[Magic 9-Ball]

WATCHMAN Is quite literally a Graphic Novel...a long,complex single story with and beginning and an end....,


I agree. And I always have thought that it should be a mini series, as a 2 hour movie could never give it its due. But it's not a network miniseries. Not the Sci-Fi channel, either. HBO maybe.

It's memorable in so many ways. The ending is great.

I just re-read it again, and finished it 2 days ago.

[The Demon's Head]

There should not be the changing of events with The Watchmen as there were changes with the Batfilms and Spider-Man films which was wrong.

I think we agree about no changing of events and characters concerning the adaptation of The Watchmen, right?

[ponderingturtle]

There should not be the changing of events with The Watchmen as there were changes with the Batfilms and Spider-Man films which was wrong.

I think we agree about no changing of events and characters concerning the adaptation of The Watchmen, right?

Why? So was LA Confidential such a bad movie because it was so radically different from the book? The author did not think so.

I think the important thing is to tell the best story and make the best movie that can be done, and not worry about being overly worried about getting all the details as similar to the original story as possible.

[The Demon's Head]

Why? So was LA Confidential such a bad movie because it was so radically different from the book? The author did not think so.

Whether or not the creators of characters and story say it was properly made or not isn't exactly the issue here.

I think the important thing is to tell the best story and make the best movie that can be done, and not worry about being overly worried about getting all the details as similar to the original story as possible.

As long as the film makers adaptations are meant to be entirely faithful or a great percentage is faithful depending on the context. This is how the debate of changing events becomes evident when discussing the adaptation of The Watchmen.

[Overman]

There should not be the changing of events with The Watchmen as there were changes with the Batfilms and Spider-Man films which was wrong.

I think we agree about no changing of events and characters concerning the adaptation of The Watchmen, right?

What you consistantly fail to comprehend is that what makes a good comic book does not necessarily make a good movie. The mediums are different, people perceive them differently, and people think in a different fashion while experiencing them.

Changes are absolutely necessary, if not just for time justification.

[ponderingturtle]

Whether or not the creators of characters and story say it was properly made or not isn't exactly the issue here.

So your contention is that the shift from a serial killer story to a corrupt gangster story, by definintion means that the movie LA Confidential sucks.



As long as the film makers adaptations are meant to be entirely faithful or a great percentage is faithful depending on the context. This is how the debate of changing events becomes evident when discussing the adaptation of The Watchmen.

And this is exactly the fanboy attitude that to many people have. Film is a different media from comics, stories work differently in each media as each has certain strengths and weaknesses. You should not get to tied up in saying "But THIS is the only TRUE WAY TO MAKE A FILM" becuase you will be wrong.

I have seen translations between media work where they where very accurate, and ones that removed or added major characters.

[The Demon's Head]

So your contention is that the shift from a serial killer story to a corrupt gangster story, by definintion means that the movie LA Confidential sucks.

No. My comment was about whether or not creators think adaptations of their works is proper.

And this is exactly the fanboy attitude that to many people have. Film is a different media from comics, stories work differently in each media as each has certain strengths and weaknesses. You should not get to tied up in saying "But THIS is the only TRUE WAY TO MAKE A FILM" becuase you will be wrong.

I have seen translations between media work where they where very accurate, and ones that removed or added major characters.

What exactly has been completely accurate about any of the recent superhero adaptations? This question barring Sin City, Superman: The Movie and Batman Begins. Which Batman Begins should have been better.

The different mediums is a lousy excuse.

[ponderingturtle]

What exactly has been completely accurate about any of the recent superhero adaptations? This question barring Sin City, Superman: The Movie and Batman Begins. Which Batman Begins should have been better.

The different mediums is a lousy excuse.

So only comic book movies count now?

[The Demon's Head]

That is not my agruement.

[ponderingturtle]

That is not my agruement.

Then what is your arguement then for why Watchmen MUST have a minimal number of changes to be a good movie?

[The Demon's Head]

I suppose you think changes applied to the Spider-Man films and X-Men films made those films great?

[Thanz]

What exactly has been completely accurate about any of the recent superhero adaptations? This question barring Sin City, Superman: The Movie and Batman Begins. Which Batman Begins should have been better.

The different mediums is a lousy excuse.
A lousy excuse for what? Making changes? It is not an excuse - it is a reason. And a good one. You have a base presumption that no changes should be made when adapting from one medium to the other. You need to support that assumption with something - some fact or argument - rather than just reasserting it in different ways.

Why, in order to be a 'good' movie, must a movie based on a comic be slavishly faithful to the comic?

As for Sin City, however good it may be as a comic/graphic novel, as movie it was just okay. Not great. I thought that the movie adaptations of X-Men and Spiderman (certainly the first two of each series, less so the third installments) were much better movies than Sin City.

[Augustine]

Personally I do not care if the events of the story change, so long as the characters maintain their integrity with the original story. (cf League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) Unfortunately, the battle for the soul of this movie will be between the desire for a summer blockbuster and the faithfulness to the darker undertones and complexity of the graphic novel.

[The Demon's Head]

The adaptation of Sin City was better than just okay. It was pretty much perect.

I have not seen a Marvel films that are about a Marvel character. Spider-Man films needed a reboot from the very beginning. Sure, the Spider-Man films were successful in terms of profits but poor adaptations.

[Thanz]

The adaptation of Sin City was better than just okay. It was pretty much perect.
The problem is that you are rating it solely as an adaptation. It may be a good adaptation of the comic, but as a movie, it was just okay. And part of the reason it was just okay could be due to the slavish way it was adapted.

I have not seen a Marvel films that are about a Marvel character. Spider-Man films needed a reboot from the very beginning. Sure, the Spider-Man films were successful in terms of profits but poor adaptations.
This is just silly. The core of Spiderman was still there.

You still need to come up with some reason why a more faithful adaptation would make for a better movie.

[Wheezebucket]

You can't get a straight answer out of him on this subject.

[The Demon's Head]

The problem is that you are rating it solely as an adaptation. It may be a good adaptation of the comic, but as a movie, it was just okay. And part of the reason it was just okay could be due to the slavish way it was adapted.

This is just silly. The core of Spiderman was still there.

You must be joking?

You still need to come up with some reason why a more faithful adaptation would make for a better movie.

Apparently you think the films were good enough they way the films were adapted. So, therefore, it wouldn't matter to you for a more faithful adaptation since you already think the films were good enough. It also depends on what you deem is faithful. If you think Raimi's versions were faithful then obviously you wouldn't think for a need of a reboot or changes to the current existing franchise.

[ponderingturtle]

I suppose you think changes applied to the Spider-Man films and X-Men films made those films great?

So we are back to comic book movies then?

Which changes in particular, referenced to which version of the comic characters?

[ponderingturtle]

The adaptation of Sin City was better than just okay. It was pretty much perect.

I have not seen a Marvel films that are about a Marvel character. Spider-Man films needed a reboot from the very beginning. Sure, the Spider-Man films were successful in terms of profits but poor adaptations.

What changes that where made in spider man do you think if they had not changed would have made it a better movie?

[dudalb]

The fact is adapting "Watchman" to the screen is much closer to adapting a "Straight" novel then a typical Superhero Comic,which is basically just a collection of short stories and/or short novels about the same characters.A huge difference.
And I thought the first two Spidey Movies and Batman Begins captured the flavor of the comics brilliantly.
BTW most SPidey fans praised the first two movies for being faithful to the spirit and characters of the Spiderman comics.

[dudalb]

So we are back to comic book movies then?

Which changes in particular, referenced to which version of the comic characters?
Good Point.Both Spidey and Batman have gone through dozens of versions as the writers and artists change.The Batman of the 60's is totally different then the Dark Knight concept.You really have to choose which,you can't do both.
This is too much like the freaking "Purist/Revisionests" wars over the "Lord OF The Rings" film.

[ponderingturtle]

Good Point.Both Spidey and Batman have gone through dozens of versions as the writers and artists change.The Batman of the 60's is totally different then the Dark Knight concept.You really have to choose which,you can't do both.
This is too much like the freaking "Purist/Revisionests" wars over the "Lord OF The Rings" film.

It is really the same thing. The Fanboys are going to complain, the fanboys ALWAYS complain. The goal needs to be to make the best film for the non fanboy.

[The Demon's Head]

What changes that where made in spider man do you think if they had not changed would have made it a better movie?

Are you satisfied with the Spider-Man films? If you are happy with the way the material was adapted, then you wouldn't think there would be a need for a new franchise or changes to the current franchise.

The fact is adapting "Watchman" to the screen is much closer to adapting a "Straight" novel then a typical Superhero Comic,which is basically just a collection of short stories and/or short novels about the same characters.A huge difference.
And I thought the first two Spidey Movies and Batman Begins captured the flavor of the comics brilliantly.
BTW most SPidey fans praised the first two movies for being faithful to the spirit and characters of the Spiderman comics.

I believe this sort of thing has already been discussed extensively before in this thread.

In what ways were the Spider-Man films absolutely faithful to the source material?

Good Point.Both Spidey and Batman have gone through dozens of versions as the writers and artists change.The Batman of the 60's is totally different then the Dark Knight concept.You really have to choose which,you can't do both.
This is too much like the freaking "Purist/Revisionests" wars over the "Lord OF The Rings" film.

I have no interest in seeing any earlier incarnation of the Batman being adapted.

It is really the same thing. The Fanboys are going to complain, the fanboys ALWAYS complain. The goal needs to be to make the best film for the non fanboy.

It would be nice if you wouldn't refer to me as a whining fanboy or what ever disparaging word you would use for your arguements purposes.

[Rufo]

I look forward to the movie, judging from what I've heard so far. Although I'm a little disappointed that Gilliam didn't make it (Gilliam being my absolute favorite director of all time, and Moore being amongst my favorite authors), it would be nice if the movie was simply good enough to get more people interested in the graphic novel. Moore being oversensitive after things like The League isn't really an indication that all movies based on his works will be bad.

Regarding changes in the film adaptions of books and comic books, I think there's a huge difference between adapting something to a new medium and taking the opportunity to add your own ideas. For instance - in V for Vendetta, several posters have mentioned V's speech to Madam Justice being missing from the movie. As much as I loved this scene in the book (to the point of often acting it out aloud :D) I can understand that it may have fit less well in the movie. But a complete revision of what the Larkhill experiments were all about? Leaving out Finch's LSD use? That's just unnecessary plot changes and censorship.

The same applies to Watchmen. I have not read the script, but it sounds like there has been a revision of the ending which has little to do with adapting a graphic novel to a motion picture. Sure, authors should be more understanding than Moore, but that understanding needs to be mutual.

[MelBrooksfan]

Finch's LSD was crucial. That and his speech to Madame Justice show the "Maybe he's just crazy" side of V that was integral to the graphic novel. Moore is an admitted anarchist but he knew to write V ambiguously. The voice of morality is Evee, not V. There's the scene where V is all set to kill the man who had ruined Evee's second chance. All she had to do was give the word and she declined. Even V seems to realize this when he gives to Evee the decision to send the train or not.

[ponderingturtle]

Are you satisfied with the Spider-Man films? If you are happy with the way the material was adapted, then you wouldn't think there would be a need for a new franchise or changes to the current franchise.

You seem to be repeatedly claiming that there was some change made in the adaptation that was detrimental to the movie, but other than blind assertion you are not making any case for that.


It would be nice if you wouldn't refer to me as a whining fanboy or what ever disparaging word you would use for your arguements purposes.

You are acting like one.

[Overman]

You are acting like one.

Incorrect, he IS one!

The very definition of a Fanboy. I have shown a couple of friends who are fans of the watchmen this thread and each one declared DH to be a hardcore Fanboy well before you got to that...

And they have never seen his complaining in the spiderman or batman or any other movie threads (BTW, this is a book thread first!).

[Thanz]

The fact is adapting "Watchman" to the screen is much closer to adapting a "Straight" novel then a typical Superhero Comic,which is basically just a collection of short stories and/or short novels about the same characters.A huge difference.
I see what you are saying regarding the difference between a bunch of short stories (typical superhero comic) and Watchmen, which is a single contained story. But I think the comparison of Watchmen to a novel ends there. There is so much going on visually that it is hard to see how Watchmen could be adapted well to either a straight novel or a movie. For example, the chapters that have the pirate comic running through them. Extremely hard to translate that sort of thing to another format.

Which is to say it is hard to capture all of what is good about Watchmen into a movie. They may be able to make a good movie out of the central story - we'll see. But if they do, I expect the reaction to be the common "That was good, but the book was better". So I guess that is one other way that it is similar to adapting a straight novel.

[Thanz]

You must be joking?
Not in the slightest. What were the changes? Well, the spider was some sort of genetic modified super spider instead of radioactive. Does that make any real difference? No. Peter still gets bit by some special spider and gets spider powers.

The biggest change, of course, was the organic webshooters. Which I think made sense and did not change the essence of the character. He was still a nerdy, bookish, smart individual, who had more confidence as spiderman, with frail-ish Aunt May, Great Power equals Great Responsibility, Uncle Ben dying, etc. The essence of the character is the same.

Apparently you think the films were good enough they way the films were adapted. So, therefore, it wouldn't matter to you for a more faithful adaptation since you already think the films were good enough. It also depends on what you deem is faithful. If you think Raimi's versions were faithful then obviously you wouldn't think for a need of a reboot or changes to the current existing franchise.
Apparently, you don't know how to answer a straightforward question. Why would a more faithful adaptation make a better movie? What changes do you think should have been made to the movie to make it both more faithful to the source material and a better movie?

[alfaniner]

... There is so much going on visually that it is hard to see how Watchmen could be adapted well to either a straight novel or a movie. For example, the chapters that have the pirate comic running through them. Extremely hard to translate that sort of thing to another format.

Studio Executive: "Hey, pirates are really big right now. Let's make it more about the pirates. The whole superhero thing can just be a hallucination or something."

[dudalb]

Studio Executive: "Hey, pirates are really big right now. Let's make it more about the pirates. The whole superhero thing can just be a hallucination or something."

The biggest change, of course, was the organic webshooters. Which I think made sense and did not change the essence of the character. He was still a nerdy, bookish, smart individual, who had more confidence as spiderman, with frail-ish Aunt May, Great Power equals Great Responsibility, Uncle Ben dying, etc. The essence of the character is the same.

One of the marks of the die hard fanboy is an inability to see the forest for the trees.
I actually found the Organic Webs to be a improvement on the invented ones in the comic book.Even as a kid back in the 70's I had a hard time beleiveing that a 16 year old kid could invent an miracle adhesive that is 1000% more advanced then anything chemical corporations with large paid staffs of Scientests could come up with.

[The Demon's Head]

You seem to be repeatedly claiming that there was some change made in the adaptation that was detrimental to the movie, but other than blind assertion you are not making any case for that.

If I need to be more specific, then I will. I have no problem pointing out the problems with the adaptations.

You are acting like one.

Incorrect, he IS one!

Great way to support your arguement by using a derogatory term towards another :rolleyes:

The very definition of a Fanboy. I have shown a couple of friends who are fans of the watchmen this thread and each one declared DH to be a hardcore Fanboy well before you got to that...

There's that term fanboy again.

And they have never seen his complaining in the spiderman or batman or any other movie threads (BTW, this is a book thread first!).

I'd have to say that I somewhat had high hopes for the sequel of Batman Begins because of what I kept hearing about the sequel. But, now that the Joker has been revealed and the Batsuit and the awful teaser trailer. I don't have those high hopes for the sequel.

Not in the slightest. What were the changes? Well, the spider was some sort of genetic modified super spider instead of radioactive. Does that make any real difference? No. Peter still gets bit by some special spider and gets spider powers.

Again, you must be joking.

The biggest change, of course, was the organic webshooters. Which I think made sense and did not change the essence of the character. He was still a nerdy, bookish, smart individual, who had more confidence as spiderman, with frail-ish Aunt May, Great Power equals Great Responsibility, Uncle Ben dying, etc. The essence of the character is the same.

Let's start with the organic webbing. First of all, it is completely wrong to remove the web-shooters and the rest of his equipment (the utility belt) when those have been a part of the character's mythos for most of the character's existing history.

Apparently, you don't know how to answer a straightforward question. Why would a more faithful adaptation make a better movie? What changes do you think should have been made to the movie to make it both more faithful to the source material and a better movie?

I've answered that question several times already. If you were pleased with the adaptations, then you don't care to see it improved or rebooted and properly adapted.

One of the marks of the die hard fanboy is an inability to see the forest for the trees.
I actually found the Organic Webs to be a improvement on the invented ones in the comic book.Even as a kid back in the 70's I had a hard time beleiveing that a 16 year old kid could invent an miracle adhesive that is 1000% more advanced then anything chemical corporations with large paid staffs of Scientests could come up with.

Go back and read the comics. Seriously.

If you can't imagine the material to be properly adapted, then find another genre.

[dudalb]

Mythos...the fanboy's favorite word.
We are talking about a comic created to make a few bucks back in 1962,not Greek or Norse Mythology here,folks.
I enjoy comics,but this whole routine of treating them like they are some of kind of pinnicle of literature is pretty silly.

[The Demon's Head]

Essentially, it is mythology that we're discussing here.

[Overman]

Fanboy is not a derogatory term. It is a term used to describe fans of something who nitpick and complain about any change to an adaptation. You have proven yourself to be this time an time again...Why don't you just accept it? At least wear the label proudly!

It sometimes gets a derogatory nature because of the lack of reason and rational the fanboys use when forming their arguements.

To put it simply in an example...if you cannot see how using organic webshooters in the Spiderman movies greatly simplified the story at little to no cost to the superheros origin or character then you are probably a fanboy.

Seriously...WTF is the difference? It saves the directer about 15 minutes of explaining the invention. Thats 15 minutes that the director can progress the story and have other cool things that fans want to see in there. 15 minutes is millions in the movie world.

Oh BTW....Spiderman also currently has Organic webbing in the 616.

Let it go dude.

[Gregory]

I started to read the comic, but I was quickly turned off by it. Why? Because the panel layout is excruciatingly boring. I suppose that's not a very good reason to give up on what's supposed to be the greatest comic book ever, but there you go. Maybe I'll try again sometime. Or just see the movie, if it gets good reviews.

[Wheezebucket]

I'll throw this out there - Watchmen does have one of the most groundbreaking and detailed panel layouts in comic history. There's so much going on there it's insane. It seems pretty basic at first glance, yeah, but once you start piecing together mirrored pages, lighting tricks, etc. - your mind will melt.

Now back to Demon Head's fanboydom.

[Floyt]

From the cast link:

According to the Hollywood Reporter, actors Tom Cruise, Keanu Reeves and Jude Law were interested in appearing in Snyder's film, but refused to participate when it became clear that Warner Bros. were holding strong in regards to the budget.

Whew... dodged a bullet there :D

Re Fanboy-ness/faithful adaptations: unless the movie gets made by an inspired obsessive who loves the source material (i.e. Peter Jackson), the movie will not equally appeal to both those who saw the movie first and those who read the source first. LoTR was a windfall. Not gonna happen again these next decades.

Edit re panels: Once I figured out what was going on with mirroring and symbolism in the panel layout, I stopped where I was and started straight from the beginning again. Talk about an eye-opener!

[The Demon's Head]

Fanboy is not a derogatory term. It is a term used to describe fans of something who nitpick and complain about any change to an adaptation. You have proven yourself to be this time an time again...Why don't you just accept it? At least wear the label proudly!

You're using the term in a derogatory manner.

It sometimes gets a derogatory nature because of the lack of reason and rational the fanboys use when forming their arguements.

Lack of reason? Please.

To put it simply in an example...if you cannot see how using organic webshooters in the Spiderman movies greatly simplified the story at little to no cost to the superheros origin or character then you are probably a fanboy.

The removal of the web-shooters was just plain wrong. Apparently, you don't think so. That is a real big departure from the source material.

Seriously...WTF is the difference? It saves the directer about 15 minutes of explaining the invention. Thats 15 minutes that the director can progress the story and have other cool things that fans want to see in there. 15 minutes is millions in the movie world.

Apparently, what you're saying is the origin of Spider-Man is uninteresting and should be ignored.

Oh BTW....Spiderman also currently has Organic webbing in the 616.

I'm am fully aware of that. And it is a stupid change.

[Thanz]

Again, you must be joking.
Not at all. Do you really think that the 'specialness' of the spider makes a whit of difference to the character? Do you really think it makes any difference if it is 'radioactive' or 'genetically engineered'? Just go with the buzzwords of the day. It's not like the spider becomes his sidekick or something.

Let's start with the organic webbing. First of all, it is completely wrong to remove the web-shooters and the rest of his equipment (the utility belt) when those have been a part of the character's mythos for most of the character's existing history.
Again, we can agree to disagree on this point. I think the idea that a kid could come up with this miracle substance, but make his living from taking blurry photos of himself, to be even more absurd than the whole spider powers thing.

I've answered that question several times already. If you were pleased with the adaptations, then you don't care to see it improved or rebooted and properly adapted.
By 'answered' you must mean 'dodged'. Because this doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I haven't said the Spiderman movies were perfect and untouchable. I want to know what changes you think would have made it better - and more faithful - at the same time. Your stance is like telling someone if they like one particular pasta recipe, there is no point telling them how it could be improved.

[Overman]

DH...Unless I have read it incorrectly, your reply to my post only continues to prove my point...

Either way this is a horrible derail. I would love to sweep it aside and continue to venture into the masterpiece that is the Watchmen.

[MelBrooksfan]

Again, we can agree to disagree on this point. I think the idea that a kid could come up with this miracle substance, but make his living from taking blurry photos of himself, to be even more absurd than the whole spider powers thing.


You'll suspend your disbelief with regards to spider-powers but not for webbing?


Also,
RERAIL:
Is it possible to recreate some of those panel effects in the movie? With the right staging and art direction the cinematography of the Watchmen movie could be something fit for film school dissection.

[Overman]

Subtle things will be interesting to see if they do...Not one shadow falls on Dr. Manhatton the whole book...it adds to the weirdness of him...will they incorporate things like that?

Will they include Rorshach's love of Truman? Is a 'mainstream' American movie willing to debate the morality of Viedt's actions with Trumans?

[Professor Yaffle]

I read Watchmen years ago and have pretty much completely forgotten everything other than I thought that it was mind blowingly brilliant. So now I have a dilemma. Do I reread it before or after I see the film? Pros and cons, anyone?

[MelBrooksfan]

Reread it before. I'd gamble that the movie just won't measure up. You'll have lost nothing. If you can't enjoy a movie unless you have or have not read the source material, the movie has been made incorrectly.

[alfaniner]

Just from what I've read here, I'll have to go read it again. And I just only re-read it a few months ago for the first time since its debut. Mirrored pages? Really?

Studio Executive: "Hey, pirates are really big right now. Let's make it more about the pirates. The whole superhero thing can just be a hallucination or something."

I wrote this just before having seen Kevin Smith's lecture on what happened with his Superman script. "A few rules -- he can't fly, he can't wear the suit, and he has to fight a giant spider. Oh, and have Brainiac fight a few polar bears before he breaks into the Fortress of Solitude."

[Thanz]

Reread it before. I'd gamble that the movie just won't measure up. You'll have lost nothing. If you can't enjoy a movie unless you have or have not read the source material, the movie has been made incorrectly.
I disagree. If you want to enjoy the movie as a movie, resist re-reading the comic. Especially if it won't measure up. I have never had a good book ruined by having seen the movie first - but I have had a potentially good movie ruined by having read the book first.

[Thanz]

You'll suspend your disbelief with regards to spider-powers but not for webbing?
I know. Weird, isn't it? When I read the comics/watched the animated series when I was a kid, I didn't give it any thought. Now, though, it just seems so odd that he could be a super genius inventor but make his living taking grainy photos. Organic just makes more sense.

I think that it is just that certain things you take on faith for these kinds of stories - super powers, etc. But the rest of it I like to remain consistent.

[The Demon's Head]

DH...Unless I have read it incorrectly, your reply to my post only continues to prove my point...

No, it doesn't.

If you think that there should be significant changes and can't imagine the material to be faithfully adapted then find another genre.

And Raimi's Spider-Man is nothing like the real Spider-Man from the comics.

[Overman]

http://www.overman.info/OverGifs/RollsEyesComeback.gif

[The Demon's Head]

That really doesn't support your arguement in any way.

[insomneac]

Maybe not, but it reflects how we feel about your posts.

[Buckaroo]

And Raimi's Spider-Man is nothing like the real Spider-Man from the comics.

Sorry, I just had to interject... "the real Spider-Man?"

:rolleyes:

Okay, now I'll jump back into spectator mode.

[Wheezebucket]

Maybe not, but it reflects how we feel about your posts.

Amen.

[The Demon's Head]

Sorry, I just had to interject... "the real Spider-Man?"

:rolleyes:

Okay, now I'll jump back into spectator mode.

Using the term real loosely here since we're talkin' about fictional characters.

[Buckaroo]

Using the term real loosely here since we're talkin' about fictional characters.

Yeah, I know... I was just being needlessly snarky.
:)

[Buckaroo]

Here's the thing about Watchmen as a movie... the whole pudgy masked-adventurer thing works well in a comic panel, but transferred to a live-action movie, what do we get? A sagging middle-aged actor in tights. I just can't imagine that the sight of a real human being in the Nite Owl costume is going to do anything but incite laughter, which is certainly NOT what Moore had in mind.

ETA: Although Rorschach is gonna look BADASS.

[The Demon's Head]

Maybe not, but it reflects how we feel about your posts.

I've been right about the superhero adaptations all along. You know I'm right. And if you think the Marvel and DC properties were adapated correctly then wouldn't have anything to contribute to the discussion of how faithful an adaptation could be. This I have been sayin' all along.

For those who think I haven't been specific about this. I been specific on how faithful The Dark Knight should be and I have no problem being specific on how the rest of the adaptions could be faithfully adapted.

Sin City, Superman: The Movie and Batman Begins could be included as being faithful adaptations, but Batman Begins should have been better. Sin City being the most faithful adaptation. I've been saying this over and over.

Along with the horrible film adaptations, the comics are in a horrid state. I pretend that the events that have taken place in the last few years in comics didn't happen. Some worse more than others. I have lost all faith in Grant Morrison because of the awful issue Batman 663. JMS has pretty much ruined Spider-Man. Wolverine and the X-Men are and have been unreadable. Frank Miller isn't the writer he used to be with that jaded Batman comic.

Cowardice and realism are used as excuses for not being faithful to the source material.

[Professor Yaffle]

Going way off topic here - what do people think of Ian Rankin being a future writer for Hellblazer? I read a lot of the early issues but haven't read it for a loooong time. But I do like Rankin's novels, so it might be worth another look.

[Overman]

Cowardice and realism are used as excuses for not being faithful to the source material.


LOL@Fanboys!!!!!!

[The Demon's Head]

Is that the only response you can think of? Fanboy? Any other derogatory terms? As said before, that kind of arguementation doesn't help your arguement in any way.

[Overman]

No Idea how that double post happened, so here is a funny gif to make up for it.

http://www.overman.info/OverGifs/DataBlueScreenOfDeath.gif

[Overman]

I've made two declaritive posts...

1.What you consistantly fail to comprehend is that what makes a good comic book does not necessarily make a good movie. The mediums are different, people perceive them differently, and people think in a different fashion while experiencing them.

Changes are absolutely necessary, if not just for time justification.


2.
Fanboy is not a derogatory term. It is a term used to describe fans of something who nitpick and complain about any change to an adaptation. You have proven yourself to be this time an time again...Why don't you just accept it? At least wear the label proudly!

It sometimes gets a derogatory nature because of the lack of reason and rational the fanboys use when forming their arguements.

To put it simply in an example...if you cannot see how using organic webshooters in the Spiderman movies greatly simplified the story at little to no cost to the superheros origin or character then you are probably a fanboy.

Seriously...WTF is the difference? It saves the directer about 15 minutes of explaining the invention. Thats 15 minutes that the director can progress the story and have other cool things that fans want to see in there. 15 minutes is millions in the movie world.

Oh BTW....Spiderman also currently has Organic webbing in the 616.

Let it go dude.

I have failed to see after rereading this thread how you have 'argued' against either or these claims. You have many responses that are the equalivent of 'nope' or 'come on' but yet to provide any responses that refute either of these claims.

In fact, I haven't even needed to post anything else because your own posts have clearly shown that

1. You consistantly fail to comprehend that changes from a comic book medium to a motion picture medium are necessary (my first statement)
and
2. You are a Fanboy by the defination I provided. (my second statement)

Reread the thread dude, check for yourself!

Edit: Anyway, this isn't an arguement...its you whining and us rolling our collective eyes at you. If you took a break from this thread, so that we can get some type of disscussion other than "its unfaithfully to the source!!1!" every other post, it would be appreciated.

[The Demon's Head]

I've made two declaritive posts...

1.


2.


I have failed to see after rereading this thread how you have 'argued' against either or these claims. You have many responses that are the equalivent of 'nope' or 'come on' but yet to provide any responses that refute either of these claims.

In fact, I haven't even needed to post anything else because your own posts have clearly shown that

1. You consistantly fail to comprehend that changes from a comic book medium to a motion picture medium are necessary (my first statement)
and
2. You are a Fanboy by the defination I provided. (my second statement)

Reread the thread dude, check for yourself!

Edit: Anyway, this isn't an arguement...its you whining and us rolling our collective eyes at you. If you took a break from this thread, so that we can get some type of disscussion other than "its unfaithfully to the source!!1!" every other post, it would be appreciated.

What you fail recognize is that no one has tried to adapt the material correctly of certain properties and when the harder concepts for adaptation are spoken of you and the like say it won't work because the comics and film are different mediums or other phrases that are similar to that one. And this is being said without those more difficult concepts haven't been adapted. If you can't imagine most of the source material to be faithfully adapted then why are you reading the comics?

How are the changes neccesary? Which ones exactly would be the more precise question. Changes needed to work cinematically? That is just as bad as those other phrases you keep saying.

The makers of these superhero adaptations are jaded. Yes, jaded. If they think there is a need for significant changes when adapting the material then they shouldn't even be trying to do so.

[Buckaroo]

Dave Stevens LOOOVVVVVED Disney's The Rocketeer (as did I). This movie pretty much sums up how an adaptation can make some pretty sizable excursions from the source material and still be successful (note I'm not talking about economically), even to the extent of being popular with the original artist.

Slavish adaptations usually suck. Witness the first two Potter films. Yeah, I know Potter isn't comics, but it illustrates the point.

[Wheezebucket]

Dave Stevens LOOOVVVVVED Disney's The Rocketeer (as did I). This movie pretty much sums up how an adaptation can make some pretty sizable excursions from the source material and still be successful (note I'm not talking about economically), even to the extent of being popular with the original artist.

Slavish adaptations usually suck. Witness the first two Potter films. Yeah, I know Potter isn't comics, but it illustrates the point.

Man I love me some Rocketeer!

[Wheezebucket]

Going way off topic here - what do people think of Ian Rankin being a future writer for Hellblazer? I read a lot of the early issues but haven't read it for a loooong time. But I do like Rankin's novels, so it might be worth another look.

Phew! I almost missed this through Demon Head's nonsense. I'm kinda stoked for Rankin to hop on Hellblazer. Can't wait to see what he brings to the table.

[Buckaroo]

Man I love me some Rocketeer!

You ain't jes' whistlin' Dixie, brother. They're just about my favorite comics of the last 20 years. Dunno why -- that title just pushes the right buttons for me. The only downer about the movie is that it was made about two years too early, so it didn't have the benefit of the post-Jurassic Park digital renaissance. The effects look just a little -- okay, okay, a lot -- dated. Doesn't bother me too much, though, since everything else was pretty much pitch-perfect.

But WHY such a crummy DVD release?! (Grrrrr....)

[The Demon's Head]

Dave Stevens LOOOVVVVVED Disney's The Rocketeer (as did I). This movie pretty much sums up how an adaptation can make some pretty sizable excursions from the source material and still be successful (note I'm not talking about economically), even to the extent of being popular with the original artist.

Slavish adaptations usually suck. Witness the first two Potter films. Yeah, I know Potter isn't comics, but it illustrates the point.

You have misinterpretated everything I've said with statements like that.

I will be absolutely clear so that this can be completely understood.

It depends on what is determined successful. It is not a valid excuse the removal of source material if the films seemed to entertain and satisfy some fans. And there are those who are dissapointed with the adaptations. It should also be understood that the material hasn't been faithfully adpated. A film maker could honor the source material faithfully and the film still could be great. I thought Batman Begins was a fairly good film, but it still wasn't right for the removal of source material and could have been better. See my point about the idea of a more faithful adaptation?

Have the Spider-Man films honored the source material faithfully? No. Have the X-Men films honored the source material faithfully? No. Has any other adaptation honored the source material faithfully barring Sin City and Superman: The Movie and possibly Batman Begins. The answer again is no. The idea of organic web-shooters replacing the mechanical web-shooters isn't an improvement.

A few times it has already been said that there are those that can't imagine Peter Parker building his web mechanical equipment but could discuss the highly advanced sciences with Otto Octavious in Spider-Man 2. How absolutely absurd of a statement is that about Peter not being able to build his web equipment? Obviously those are the ones who don't understand Peter Parker. Parker is not an everyman character. He is extremely bright. Go back and read the Spider-Man comics, specifically the classic comics that were written by Stan Lee and pencilled by Steve Ditko and John Romita Sr.

There is not any room for this type of discussion with replies such as different mediums, changes neccesary and so forth. Those are not valid replies. I've made good reasoning on how a faithful and an adaptation could and should be. So, I'm pretty much done replying to this thread and the lack of valid replies.

[Buckaroo]

You have misinterpretated everything I've said with statements like that.

I will be absolutely clear so that this can be completely understood.

It depends on what is determined successful. It is not a valid excuse the removal of source material if the films seemed to entertain and satisfy some fans. And there are those who are dissapointed with the adaptations. It should also be understood that the material hasn't been faithfully adpated. A film maker could honor the source material faithfully and the film still could be great. I thought Batman Begins was a fairly good film, but it still wasn't right for the removal of source material and could have been better. See my point about the idea of a more faithful adaptation?

Have the Spider-Man films honored the source material faithfully? No. Have the X-Men films honored the source material faithfully? No. Has any other adaptation honored the source material faithfully barring Sin City and Superman: The Movie and possibly Batman Begins. The answer again is no. The idea of organic web-shooters replacing the mechanical web-shooters isn't an improvement.

A few times it has already been said that there are those that can't imagine Peter Parker building his web mechanical equipment but could discuss the highly advanced sciences with Otto Octavious in Spider-Man 2. How absolutely absurd of a statement is that about Peter not being able to build his web equipment? Obviously those are the ones who don't understand Peter Parker. Parker is not an everyman character. He is extremely bright. Go back and read the Spider-Man comics, specifically the classic comics that were written by Stan Lee and pencilled by Steve Ditko and John Romita Sr.

There is not any room for this type of discussion with replies such as different mediums, changes neccesary and so forth. Those are not valid replies. I've made good reasoning on how a faithful and an adaptation could and should be. So, I'm pretty much done replying to this thread and the lack of valid replies.

My goodness. :eye-poppi

[Overman]

So, I'm pretty much done replying to this thread and the lack of valid replies.

Rejoice!!!

http://www.overman.info/OverGifs/FryDance.gif

[Wheezebucket]

Finally.

[Buckaroo]

But back (almost) to the topic at hand...

How are they going to prevent Nite Owl and Ozymandias from looking like dorks on the big screen? Even in the book, their costumes looked a little like something you'd see on Who Wants to be a Superhero...

That's not actually a criticism of the book, BTW.

[dudalb]

God, I was getting flashbacks to the endless arguments about how "Faithful" the LOTR films were to the books when the films came out.
My main reason for being skeptical about the Watchman movie is not that changes will be made but nothing I have seen in Zack Synder's two previous movies gives any indication he can handle material as complex as the Watchmen.

[Rufo]

But back (almost) to the topic at hand...

How are they going to prevent Nite Owl and Ozymandias from looking like dorks on the big screen? Even in the book, their costumes looked a little like something you'd see on Who Wants to be a Superhero...

That's not actually a criticism of the book, BTW.
In a way, I wouldn't mind it very much if people thought they looked like dorks. After all, their costumes are not much more ridiculous than those used by established superheroes, and if the movie could make people realize it actually does look rather ridiculous, I would see that as a success of sorts.

Of course, I wouldn't want people to laugh at them. But if the actors do a good job portraying the characters, I do believe we could have at least a ridiculous-looking Nite Owl that isn't far from the original.

[MelBrooksfan]

To be fair, Nite Owl II looked like a dork on the page.

[JQH]

And for me, the best bit is Rorschach's statement when locked-up in prison. "I'm not in here with you. You're in here with me." Not mere words - he means it.

I liked when he killed the titchy Big Cheese (can't remember his name ffs!) by drowning him in the loo during the riot just prior to his being sprung. His comment:

"Never disposed of sewage in a toilet before. Obvious really"

[Vorticity]

The Big Figure

[Overman]

OK, So in all the scripts I have read...

They end up killing Viedt at the end...

Doesn't this change the whole context of the book? Arn't we supposed to discuss and wonder about the morals presented and their conclusions? Does the 'movie' ending leave any room for this?

[dudalb]

If Veidt dies,that is a deal breaker for me.

[JQH]

The Big Figure

Thanks!

"Big Figure. Small world"

Reread in order, I think

[lofgoernost]

Thanks!

"Big Figure. Small world"

Reread in order, I think

"Tall order".

[ponderingturtle]

And Raimi's Spider-Man is nothing like the real Spider-Man from the comics.

This is perhaps the ultimate Fanboy quote.

[thrombus29]

Enough of this fan talk, the important question is will I be able to make any cash off my old Watchmen swag if the movie is a hit.

[Scott Haley]

For those that have read it...:covereyes


1. Do you think that Adrian Veidt's plan works in the long run?

2. Do you think that an alien invasion would unite the human race?




:) <--with a dash of blood...



1. No.

2. No. Here's why I don't think so: For the natives of what would become the United States, white Europeans were alien invaders. The different tribes had other tribes that were traditional enemies. When white traders sold them guns, they tended to use them on their traditional enemies instead of the encroaching whites. The tribes didn't band together against the common threat until it was way too late. When Western Europeans lived in fear of the Norsemen, I don't think it stopped them from fighting one another either.

--Scott

[JQH]

Another touch I liked where towards the end where

SPOILER WARNING!!

Rorschach says he cannot keep silent about Veidt's actions. Dr. Manhattan threatens to kill him to keep him silent.

Rorschach realises the necessity of silence but compromise is not his way. So he pulls his mask off and tells Dr Manhattan to go ahead. The point being it was Kovacs who surrendered not Rorschach.

[geni]

The Big Figure

Nyet. Comment is made after killing one of his henchmen. The Big Figure is taken out latter.

[geni]

OK, So in all the scripts I have read...

They end up killing Viedt at the end...


How? The guy could catch bullets. Rorschach couldn't take him down dispite repeated attempts. Night owl also failed and Rorschach thinks he is a better fighter than Night owl. Dr M could do it but he accepts what Viedt did or at least accepts there is no point gain in killing Viedt for doing it.

[MelBrooksfan]

How? The guy could catch bullets. Rorschach couldn't take him down dispite repeated attempts. Night owl also failed and Rorschach thinks he is a better fighter than Night owl. Dr M could do it but he accepts what Viedt did or at least accepts there is no point gain in killing Viedt for doing it.

The more interesting thing is that Veidt, in the script, has set it up so that he is a man-behind-the-curtain dictator. The countries have to report to him for, basically, everything. If he dies, their complacency in his plan is moot as the US and Russia would soon figure out that their captor is no longer active and just move back to business as usual.

Also, would it against forum rules for me to supply a download link to the script?

[kmortis]

The more interesting thing is that Veidt, in the script, has set it up so that he is a man-behind-the-curtain dictator. The countries have to report to him for, basically, everything. If he dies, their complacency in his plan is moot as the US and Russia would soon figure out that their captor is no longer active and just move back to business as usual.

Also, would it against forum rules for me to supply a download link to the script?

Probably. PM Darat to be sure.

[Overman]

http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/watchmen.jpg

New Movie Still!!!!!!

[dglas]

OK, So in all the scripts I have read...

They end up killing Viedt at the end...

Doesn't this change the whole context of the book? Arn't we supposed to discuss and wonder about the morals presented and their conclusions? Does the 'movie' ending leave any room for this?

You can't be serious.

Do they change the crash site from New York to some Gotham City fictional location, too? Or does that even happen now?

Does the Comedian appear and everyone sings a rousing chorus of some insipid Disneyesque peppiness?

Does Kovacs get the girl in the end?

Gah!

[Piscivore]

Wait. Are we saying this is really finally happening?

[Wheezebucket]

I really wish it wasn't.

[Overman]

I've been following it here : http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/

And it looks like it going to be pretty solid actually...they seem to be having quite a bit of integrety of the source material (not that I'm a fanboy, usally I can care less, as long as they make a good film, but for some reason I'm being picker with this one, I suppose it may be that the details and eeggs within the book really make it for me).

Here is a great shot of the two Bernies:

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/photos/112607-backlot01-big.jpg

(marvelous detail right down to the Pale Horse Concert poster!)

vs. the comic panel:

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/photos/112607-backlot06-big.jpg

I heard The director passed out the book as the movie script to all involved.

If you can't tell I'm pretty excited...I really wonder what kind of reviews this will get!!!

[Tolls]

I've been following it here : http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/

And it looks like it going to be pretty solid actually...they seem to be having quite a bit of integrety of the source material (not that I'm a fanboy, usally I can care less, as long as they make a good film, but for some reason I'm being picker with this one, I suppose it may be that the details and eeggs within the book really make it for me).

Here is a great shot of the two Bernies:

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/photos/112607-backlot01-big.jpg

(marvelous detail right down to the Pale Horse Concert poster!)

vs. the comic panel:

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/photos/112607-backlot06-big.jpg

I heard The director passed out the book as the movie script to all involved.

If you can't tell I'm pretty excited...I really wonder what kind of reviews this will get!!!

Blimey.
That still is a good one!
I might actually try and see this one. I've avoided the other Alan Moore adaptations...then again, one photo does not a good film make!
:)

[zeusbheld]

is Alan Moore putting his name on this one? if so that's a hefty endorsement since his name appeared nowhere in the credits of "V for Vendetta." (anyone knows the backstory of his apparent falling out with the Wachowski bros, i missed that one).

[Tolls]

is Alan Moore putting his name on this one? if so that's a hefty endorsement since his name appeared nowhere in the credits of "V for Vendetta." (anyone knows the backstory of his apparent falling out with the Wachowski bros, i missed that one).

Unless he's gone back on what he said on Chain Reaction a couple of years ago (transcript (http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=4737)) he's not going to stick his name on any major film version of his stuff in the near future.

Relevant bit:

I've decided I don't want anything more to do with films at all. After all the stuff with "The League," there'd been some minor law suit with somebody claiming that I had gotten the idea from an American Hollywood screen writer and you can imagine how I felt about that. So, I felt, if I'm going to react I might as well over react. (audience laughs) So, I said, right, that's it, no more Hollywood films. And if they do make films of my work, then I want my name taken off them and I want all the money given to the artists. I thought, God, that sounds principled (audience laughs) and almost heroic! (audience laughs) Then I got a phone call from Karen Berger the next Monday, she's an editor at DC Comics, and she said, "Yeah, we're going to be sending you a huge amount of money before the end of the year because they're making this film if your Constantie character with Keanu Reeves." I said, "Right, OK. (audience laughs) Well, take my name off of it and distribute my money amongst the other artists. I felt, well, that was difficult, but I did it and I feel pretty good about meself. Then I saw David Gibbons who I had done "Watchmen" with and he was saying, "Oh Alan, guess what, they're making the 'Watchmen' film." And I said, with tears streaming down my face, "Take my name off of it David. (sniffles)" (audience laughs) "You have all the money." Then I got a check for the "V for Vendetta" film. It was just, this was within three days!

[Wheezebucket]

Plus, back when Terry Gilliam was attached to make it, Moore talks about having a meeting with Gilliam and basically telling him that it would be impossible to make into a movie, that the story was designed to be told in comic format, and felt bad having to break the news (he talks about it in that Moore documentary from 2003).

[dudalb]

I still think the Zack Synder is the wrong ,wrong,wrong,director for "The Watchmen".
Neither the "Dawn Of The Dead" remake or "300" show me that Zack Synder has what it takes to take a work as complex as the "Watchmen" and put it on the screen.
And all the photos in the world showing how he is basing the visuals of the film on the visuals of the graphic novel will not change my mind. It is easy to copy the look of a comic book for the screen. Any halfway decent Production Designer can do that. Transfering the brilliance of Moore's complex plot and characters to the screen is something else entirely.
Now if Terry Gilliam was doing it, I would be excited. But Zack Synder,who has made only visually flashy but shallow film so far? Nah.
What amazes about fanboys is how easy it is to impress them with a few superficial gimmicks.

[ZirconBlue]

I still think the Zack Synder is the wrong ,wrong,wrong,director for "The Watchmen".
Neither the "Dawn Of The Dead" remake or "300" show me that Zack Synder has what it takes to take a work as complex as the "Watchmen" and put it on the screen.
And all the photos in the world showing how he is basing the visuals of the film on the visuals of the graphic novel will not change my mind. It is easy to copy the look of a comic book for the screen. Any halfway decent Production Designer can do that. Transfering the brilliance of Moore's complex plot and characters to the screen is something else entirely.
Now if Terry Gilliam was doing it, I would be excited. But Zack Synder,who has made only visually flashy but shallow film so far? Nah.
What amazes about fanboys is how easy it is to impress them with a few superficial gimmicks.

While I agree that nothing he's made so far shows that he can make this film, I'll give him this: If you read interviews with him (the link above is a good start), it seems that he at least wants to make a movie that's true to the spirit of the source material. He may well fail, but, at least, I think his heart is in the right place.

[Tolls]

I still think the Zack Synder is the wrong ,wrong,wrong,director for "The Watchmen".
Neither the "Dawn Of The Dead" remake or "300" show me that Zack Synder has what it takes to take a work as complex as the "Watchmen" and put it on the screen.
And all the photos in the world showing how he is basing the visuals of the film on the visuals of the graphic novel will not change my mind. It is easy to copy the look of a comic book for the screen. Any halfway decent Production Designer can do that. Transfering the brilliance of Moore's complex plot and characters to the screen is something else entirely.
Now if Terry Gilliam was doing it, I would be excited. But Zack Synder,who has made only visually flashy but shallow film so far? Nah.
What amazes about fanboys is how easy it is to impress them with a few superficial gimmicks.

I'm less concerned by the director, though I can see your points, than I am for whoever is doing the adaptation. That's where this one will stand or fall, in my mind. Surely the director's only part of the equation and, in something where the visuals and some of the shots are almost predefined by the source material, not as major a part as, say, an adaptation of a book would be?

[Wheezebucket]

Oh, well have no fear then, since the script was adapted by David Hayter (http://imdb.com/name/nm0371684/), a second-rate voice actor and the genius responsible for The Scorpion King and the first two ****** X-Men movies (you know, where Magneto invents a wacky mutant-making device and builds it IN the statue of liberty ((secretly)) to turn 'all the world's leaders', who just happen to be all meeting at once, nearby, into mutants?).

But just in case his pass wasn't that great (to think!), they got a guy with no other writing credits (Alex Tse) who starred as 'Party Guest' in something called Bleach to take a shot at it - you know, tighten Alan Moore's work up a bit. I mean to be fair, he apparently was an executive producer for some canceled TV show nobody's ever heard of, so I'd wager he's up to the task.

But hey, at least it'll have a huge budget and be filled with CG, right? What more could we ask for?

I'm sure it'll be awesome...

[Tolls]

Oh, well have no fear then, since the script was adapted by David Hayter (http://imdb.com/name/nm0371684/), a second-rate voice actor and the genius responsible for The Scorpion King and the first two ****** X-Men movies (you know, where Magneto invents a wacky mutant-making device and builds it IN the statue of liberty ((secretly)) to turn 'all the world's leaders', who just happen to be all meeting at once, nearby, into mutants?).

But just in case his pass wasn't that great (to think!), they got a guy with no other writing credits (Alex Tse) who starred as 'Party Guest' in something called Bleach to take a shot at it - you know, tighten Alan Moore's work up a bit. I mean to be fair, he apparently was an executive producer for some canceled TV show nobody's ever heard of, so I'd wager he's up to the task.

But hey, at least it'll have a huge budget and be filled with CG, right? What more could we ask for?

I'm sure it'll be awesome...

Oh...I knew there was a reason I was avoiding following any of this.

(Tolls weeps quietly...)

[ZirconBlue]

Oh, well have no fear then, since the script was adapted by David Hayter (http://imdb.com/name/nm0371684/), a second-rate voice actor and the genius responsible for The Scorpion King and the first two ****** X-Men movies

I haven't seen The Scorpion King, but in my opinion, the first 2 X-men movies rank up there as some of the best Superhero movies made.


(you know, where Magneto invents a wacky mutant-making device and builds it IN the statue of liberty ((secretly)) to turn 'all the world's leaders', who just happen to be all meeting at once, nearby, into mutants?).


If this is the sort of thing that bothers you, I'm surprised you can enjoy any superhero comics.

A) A device that makes people (temporarily) into mutants doesn't seem too far-fetched in the context of a universe where super-powered mutants run amok. Nor does it seem any sillier to me than a "cure" for mutants -- a recurring theme in the comics.

2) Setting the climax in a dramatic location?! Oh, the horror! And doesn't Magneto use the device in his lair earlier in the movie, indicating that it was moved to the Statue of Liberty later, to coincide with the location of the summit?

[ponderingturtle]

2) Setting the climax in a dramatic location?! Oh, the horror! And doesn't Magneto use the device in his lair earlier in the movie, indicating that it was moved to the Statue of Liberty later, to coincide with the location of the summit?

Oh come on it is not like magneto has the capacity to move large metal objects with out disassembeling them entirely and reassessembleing them. How else could he do that superpowers?

[Darth Rotor]

Tom Cruise, Keanu Reeves and Jude Law were interested in appearing in Snyder's film, but refused to participate when it became clear that Warner Bros. were holding strong in regards to the budget.
Funny, Q. Tarentino was able to attract some fine talent to Pulp Fiction without breaking the bank. Maybe those three gents are forgetting where they came from. On the other hand, I don't see Law in any of the roles, Reeves is too wooden for any of them, save maybe bleached as Adrian, and Cruise? Well, put a mask on him, Rorsach him, so you don't have to see his face, and maybe, just maybe . . .

No, sorry, it just wouldn't work. No loss.

I loved the graphic novel. I think Moore is right, that you can't tell that story on film without cocking it up. If any chance is to be had, the mini series strikes me as the best path.

V for Vendetta: fine graphic novel, OK film, with the usual difficulties of translation. I agree with the comments that V's "might be nuts" ought to have been better explored in the film. Once again, the potential was pissed away, like so much ale at three in the morning on a lamp post.

DR

[dudalb]

V for Vendetta: fine graphic novel, OK film, with the usual difficulties of translation. I agree with the comments that V's "might be nuts" ought to have been better explored in the film. Once again, the potential was pissed away, like so much ale at three in the morning on a lamp post.
I liked the graphic novel,but am so sick of the Guy Fawkes mask being used as a graphic on the Internet to show how you are some kind of cool,hip,revolutionary that I am beginning to vomit at the sight of it.
But that is alot more the fault of the Warchowki brs..who I now beleive ware one of two shot trick pony ("Bound" and the First Matrix film were fun,but I have not liked much they have done since) then Alan Moore's.

[Wheezebucket]

I loved the graphic novel. I think Moore is right, that you can't tell that story on film without cocking it up. If any chance is to be had, the mini series strikes me as the best path.


That's my take on it, too. If they HAVE to film it to rake in a buck, turn it into a 12-part miniseries on Showtime or HBO or something. Getting some hacks to rip it apart and jam it into a two-hour mess seems pointless (and ******). Why not just steal some general themes from the book and make your own movie if you have to butcher the original work so badly just to make it work?

Oh yeah, because it'll still make a lot of money anyway. I mean if movies like X-Men, I Am Legend, Mission Impossible 2, and Resident Evil (1-3) can end up at #1 at the box office, why the **** not, right? Toss some special effects in and call it a day.

But I'm still gonna see it, because I can't help but be curious, terrible or not. I'll just make sure to steal it off the intarweb.

[Wheezebucket]

2) Setting the climax in a dramatic location?! Oh, the horror! And doesn't Magneto use the device in his lair earlier in the movie, indicating that it was moved to the Statue of Liberty later, to coincide with the location of the summit?

That's actually a good call, I forgot about that scene. Probably because it was boring.

Still a ****** movie.

[ZirconBlue]

Oh come on it is not like magneto has the capacity to move large metal objects with out disassembeling them entirely and reassessembleing them. How else could he do that superpowers?

Yeah, what was I thinking?

[zeusbheld]

you answer your own question:

...Why not just steal some general themes from the book and make your own movie if you have to butcher the original work so badly just to make it work?

...

But I'm still gonna see it, because I can't help but be curious, terrible or not. I'll just make sure to steal it off the intarweb.

and not everyone's gonna bootleg it. big first weekend, they sell international rights, TV rights and DVD rights, over and out. almost a guaranteed profit (most high-profile movies that lose money at the box office make it back on cable, regular tv and dvd sales).

given the massive budget a film like this requires, why *would* they take a chance, and just use the name as opposed to oh, i dunno, smearing the Watchmen brand all over it?

anyway rather than a miniseries i'd rather see something along the line of LOTR: make it as long as you need, release it in parts. along those lines i really wish id' had the chance to see Malick's 8+ hour cut of "Thin Red line," the one i saw felt truncated and abrupt. didn't work.

[Vorticity]

Better repair that quote box yet again...

[zeusbheld]

Better repair that quote box yet again...


tooo late to edit (why do they turn that off after a set time anyway), quotebox above says Vorticity, quote was from Wheezebucket.

my bad, basket counts, and one.

sorry. d'oh.

[Overman]

First screen shots of some characters released one year before release date...at 11:55...Doomsday clock time! (http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/watchmen-movie-photos.php)

Looks pretty cool to me...The comedian looks amazing! Ozy, not so much but still not bad.

[HarryKeogh]

First screen shots of some characters released one year before release date...at 11:55...Doomsday clock time! (http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/watchmen-movie-photos.php)

Looks pretty cool to me...The comedian looks amazing! Ozy, not so much but still not bad.

What the!? They changed a fabric's color! This movie's going to suck!

:D

Latex stockings are always great, BTW.

[ponderingturtle]

What the!? They changed a fabric's color! This movie's going to suck!

:D

Latex stockings are always great, BTW.

Remember everyone must wear black latex apparently.

[Tolls]

Remember everyone must wear black latex apparently.

I understand why the Owl was changed (since he's supposed to, essentially, be Batman, so it matches the Batman films), but Ozymandias? He should be all shiny and golden at the least, not black rubber (or whatever that is).

Oh well.

[ImaginalDisc]

I understand why the Owl was changed (since he's supposed to, essentially, be Batman, so it matches the Batman films), but Ozymandias? He should be all shiny and golden at the least, not black rubber (or whatever that is).

Oh well.

I'm pretty sure that the Owl is supposed to be the Blue Beetle, especially since DC had just bought the rights to the Charlie Comics characters and the names were changed when it was clear the plot Alan Moore put together. . .had huge reprocussions.

[Tolls]

I'm pretty sure that the Owl is supposed to be the Blue Beetle, especially since DC had just bought the rights to the Charlie Comics characters and the names were changed when it was clear the plot Alan Moore put together. . .had huge reprocussions.

Well, yes, but then again no "average" punter would really know who the Blue Beetle was, so I should have simply said "to match the Batman films".

I do like the history of the Watchmen...
"Here you go, Alan. Do something with these characters we've just acquired."
...some weeks later...
"You've done what?!?!"


hehehehehe
:)

[Overman]

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/5286/mmpicom0.jpg
:eye-poppi!!!!

[Vorticity]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/45148480b7434970.png

[Wheezebucket]

That was the funniest thing to happen on the Simpsons in 6 years, I was dying when Milhouse whipped that out.

[dglas]

I admit to being enticed and appalled at what I've seen so far.
Minor beef: Night Owl is supposed to be older and out of shape.
I guess it's wait and see. Willing to give the benefit of the doubt....so far.

V for Vendetta had at least one pivotal scene removed: The bunny and the cage magic trick V performs for Evey in the Shadow Gallery. That scene represented her giving him tacit permission to do what he does to her re the Valorie scenes. Without it, we don't get the importance V places upon individual liberty. Terrible, terrible omission.

[ImaginalDisc]

I admit to being enticed and appalled at what I've seen so far.
Minor beef: Night Owl is supposed to be older and out of shape.
I guess it's wait and see. Willing to give the benefit of the doubt....so far.

V for Vendetta had at least one pivotal scene removed: The bunny and the cage magic trick V performs for Evey in the Shadow Gallery. That scene represented her giving him tacit permission to do what he does to her re the Valorie scenes. Without it, we don't get the importance V places upon individual liberty. Terrible, terrible omission.

When they changed V from being an outright anarchist arguably as ruthless as the fascists he opposed to some sort of romantic revolutionary, that scene wouldn't have made much sense.

[Zenskeptical]

I'm actually reading the novel for the first time right now.

To say the least it's captivating. Hollis Mason's halloween attack really hurt and I couldnt help but feel pride and anguish over Rorschach's character and situation.

I am excited for the movie if only for the fact that it will provide more material for me to immerse myself in this wondrous universe.

[Vorticity]

Trailer:

R3orQKBxiEg

Doesn't look too bad...

[Blackadder]

I don't know the Watchmen this thread is about, but I always have to think about these when I hear 'Watchmen'

"They may be called the Palace Guard, the City Guard, or the Patrol. Whatever the name, their purpose in any work of heroic fantasy is identical: it is, round about Chapter Three (or ten minutes into the film) to rush into the room, attack the hero one at a time, and be slaughtered. No one ever asks them if they wanted to.

This book is dedicated to those fine men........"

[kmortis]

Trailer:

R3orQKBxiEg

Doesn't look too bad...

Sweet. It comes out just before my birthday. I know what I'm doing on my Bday.

[GreyICE]

Moore resigns from disgust from every picture based on his works. Said pictures always suck (Yes, even V for Vendetta. V for Vendetta was a travesty), though.

I just want to chime in on this.

Alan Moore is a well-known prima donna artist who won't work with anyone. This is NOT just a movie thing. He will no longer work with Marvel or DC, due to disputes, and nearly broke with Wildstorm.

He is NOT an easy person to get along with, and he reminds me strongly of Harlan Ellison in many ways.

So Moore disavowing the movie was pretty much a given, given that he's started major disputes over printing errors.

He's also overrated. I'd get a Spider Jerusalem tattoo long before a Watchman one.

[Wheezebucket]

Alan Moore not wanting to work for DC or Marvel is understandable. He's not alone in that stance. And for him specifically, it makes plenty of sense to me. He does have a bit of a reputation as being hard to work with, but I don't see more examples of that than the average writer/artist, especially ones with his backlog and clout.

Sure, the man's not a god. He's done *way* too many drugs and now genuinely believes himself to be a magician. He wears a thousand rings per hand, and all of them are stupid looking. And that hair...well, the hair is kinda cool.

Him not being thrilled that his work is being converted in to a medium he never intended it for by people he never even met (as a result of a deal he got screwed in and stolen from) doesn't seem unreasonable, especially given the quality of every other attempt.

I know people wanna get all stoked for the movie, and I don't blame em. But is it *really* that hard to see how some people might not be super excited? I mean, I saw the trailer, and it looks like Snyder had a lot of fun with some leather, cameras, and computers - but it doesn't look like a Watchmen movie to me. I just don't see how a 3 hour movie can do the comic justice, plain and simple. Sure, I'm still gonna watch it - I may even not hate it - but it seems unnecessary and, at least from what I've seen so far, crappy.

Also - I have a Watchmen tattoo AND a Transmet tattoo.

I DO have to say this - there is a little clip in the trailer of a profile shot of Silk Spectre, when she's kissing Dr. M, and MAN does that face look like it jumped straight out of a panel. That was kinda cool to see.

[HarryKeogh]

Anyone see (or hear about) the Watchmen "motion comic" (http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/061008-watchmen-comic-webisodes.php)? (I don't know if it was mentioned earlier in this thread). I was going to reread the graphic novel before the movie then came across it on iTunes. They animated the graphic novel (in a simple, but interesting way) and have an actor voicing it (same actor throughout...including female voices which has irked many but then again, many audiobooks use just one actor throughout for all voices).

I bought the season pass from iTunes for 19.99. One issue is up so far and they'll be releasing it in 11 more parts over the coming weeks. You can check out a 30-second preview on iTunes.

I opened up the graphic novel in one window and watched part of the movie in the other to see how they match up. It's pretty much frame for frame with about 10% of the dialogue edited out for time purposes (I guess).

Of course, it wasn't necessary to do this but it really is fun to watch.