Watchmen Trailer

[kpenguin]

Ohmygod Ohmygod Ohmygod
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4blSrZvPhU)
Its happening, isn't it? The Watchmen movie is really happening. I'll leave my comments about the quality of the adaption later, but that its being adapted at all is enough for a :smallbiggrin:

[Edan]

Seems with all the buzz from other graphic novel and comic adaptations in recent years, I guess they decided to cash in on a loyal fanbase.

All I want to say is:

They better not screw this up otherwise I will complain about it on the internet and hit the enter key really hard while I whine.

Seriously, even if it isn't "perfect" it is going to be a movie, that is all that matters.

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[hanzo66]

The trailer itself looks amazing. Snyder at least knows how to do spiffy visuals and most of those scenes do seem to be quite like the Graphic Novel itself.


Jackie Hayle's Rorschach voice near the end seems fair enough. Will wait for clips.

[Tamburlaine]

The trailer looks promising indeed; I can barely contain my excitment! I quite like the way that the trailer has clips from all the major scenes included, just so no-one accuses them of ruining the plot.

[Ecalsneerg]

If the film is as awesome as the trailer hints at, I will be a happy man.

[Dhavaer]

I still can't get over how weedy Ozymandias looks.

[Zencao]

Rorschach sounds exactly like I imagined. And that makes me happy.

[Freshmeat]

Looks great. I'm really looking forward to this movie.

[BDEYE]

I thought that the trailer looked and sounded terrible. Expensive, sure, but terrible given the source. The guy doing the "drowning in the gutters" speech sounded like some dude LARPing.

I don't think people realize how badly Alan Moore is being screwed over in regards to this project, but even if it had his blessing there's no way I'd be forking over a cent of my money to see it. Life's too short.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Alan Moore hates any and all adaptations of his work, so I'm not too worried about his opinion. He'd despise it no matter what.

That said, it did look a little...well, the trailer did not give me any confidence in a faithful adaptation. My expectations are low, and I'll just see whether it turns out to be a bad movie or a good movie that's a bad adaptation.

[Zeta Kai]

I think Zack Snyder is the best possible choice for directing this project, & any claims of him not being accurate to the source material are most likely uninformed. The pains to which he went to make 300 accurate to the graphic novel are already the stuff of legend. Like 300, he used the comic book as the movie's only storyboard when making Watchmen.

Just about each seen depicted in the trailer is taken directly from the series, with few significant alterations. I, for one, have been eagerly anticipating a Watchmen movie for over 10 years, & I must say I couldn't be more pleased with how it's turning out. I've followed Snyder's career since Dawn of the Dead, & I think he's the best hope for getting a decent adaptation out of Hollywood. One day, I'd like to see him do some original property, but I'd be happy if he did nothing but über-faithful adaptations for the rest of his life.

I know that to some, it's just a movie, & a comic-book movie at that, with all the lowered expectations that come with that. To others, it's a hopeless effort, & any deviation from the original work would doom the project to failure. I feel like it's somewhere in between: it is just a movie, but it's also the only chance to see these characters on the big screen (at least until the remake, due out sometime after the year 2040). And for what it's worth, Zack has this fan's blessing, endorsement, & confidence.

[darkblade]

I thought that the trailer looked and sounded terrible. Expensive, sure, but terrible given the source. The guy doing the "drowning in the gutters" speech sounded like some dude LARPing.

I don't think people realize how badly Alan Moore is being screwed over in regards to this project, but even if it had his blessing there's no way I'd be forking over a cent of my money to see it. Life's too short.

You know that Alan Moore said this movie is supposed to be the closest anyone can get to making a movie for a graphic novel that was specifically made to be a story that could only be told in a graphic novel format. Shortly before negotiating to have his name removed from everything relating to the film to avoid anyother V for Vendetta.

[BDEYE]

When did he say that? Can someone give me a link?

[warty goblin]

After the horror that was 300, I have exactly zero confidence in Zack Snyder to deliver something that doesn't actually make me want to jump into the Pit of Death, on the theory that even if it is infinite in depth, the falling and dying will still seem short when compared to sitting through the rest of the movie.

[Tirian]

After the horror that was 300, I have exactly zero confidence in Zack Snyder to deliver something that doesn't actually make me want to jump into the Pit of Death, on the theory that even if it is infinite in depth, the falling and dying will still seem short when compared to sitting through the rest of the movie.

Wow. I didn't much care for the whole Senate subplot that got grafted on, but otherwise it was a great movie. Not only that, but it was painfully faithful to the source; the visuals matched the graphic novel even if it would have been been easier to go with a more natural design.

Still, as beautiful as the Watchmen trailer is, it doesn't convince me that the movie will work. The challenge has never been in filming the tenement fire or finding the right CGI to portray Dr. Manhattan, it has been about condensing the intricately-woven three-generation story from a twelve issue graphic novel into a 150 minute movie that won't confuse or bore an illiterate fourteen year-old boy.

[Zeta Kai]

After the horror that was 300, I have exactly zero confidence in Zack Snyder to deliver something that doesn't actually make me want to jump into the Pit of Death, on the theory that even if it is infinite in depth, the falling and dying will still seem short when compared to sitting through the rest of the movie.

If you hated 300, then you probably didn't like the original graphic novel, considering that the only major difference was that in one of them, the pictures moved.

[BDEYE]

If you hated 300, then you probably didn't like the original graphic novel, considering that the only major difference was that in one of them, the pictures moved.

Yup, here's the problem. The 300 graphic novel (as much as I disagree with its politics) is the work of a master. Every bit of dialogue, every drop of ink is deployed for maximum effect. All the elements support each other and hit the reader just the way they're supposed to without detracting from one another. Slathering everything with bad music and cheesy slow-mo doesn't add to the effect, it unbalances everything. Scenes that implied motion in the comic book and drag the reader into what is happening fall flat when they just show some shirtless dudes fighting. There is every possibility that it would've been a better movie if it'd been directed by somebody who would've changed things around a little to fit a new medium.

[AmberVael]

When did he say that? Can someone give me a link?



MOORE
David Hayter's screenplay was as close as I could imagine anyone getting to Watchmen. That said, I shan't be going to see it. My book is a comic book. Not a movie, not a novel. A comic book. It's been made in a certain way, and designed to be read a certain way: in an armchair, nice and cozy next to a fire, with a steaming cup of coffee.

Linky to the interview. (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1120854,00.html)
The quote comes from the top of page 5.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Alan Moore hates any and all adaptations of his work, so I'm not too worried about his opinion. He'd despise it no matter what.

Alan Moore appears to hate pretty much everything.

Not that he's at all unique in the "anal retentive artist bin".

This movie needs more light. It be more faithful to the graphic novel if they'd made it look like Adam West Batman.

[The J Pizzel]

I haven't read all of the graphic novel, but I've read a enough to at least know it. I've been following the production of it (at IMDB you can see screenshots of costumes and such) and was told ahead of time about the trailer before Dark Knight. I was eagerly awaiting it. My wife knew nothing about it and couldn't care less about 'the watchmen'...until she saw that trailer. As it ended she slowly turned and said:

wife "That's a graphic novel? Have you read it?"
me "Uh, some of it. Why? You wanna watch it?"
wife "F**king right i do!!"
me "I love you. Let's make kids."

Do you see what I get to work with?

jP

[BDEYE]

Alan Moore appears to hate pretty much everything.


He hates movies. Movies < Everything. And he doesn't even hate all movies, just, you know, every adaptation of his work that has ever been made. And he has some justification there- that's like four ungodly stinkers in a row. They cast Keanu Reeves as John Constantine, for god's sake. He'd have to be stupid to be looking forward to the next one.

[kpenguin]

Hey, can anyone identify the scene where Nite Owl is screaming? I can't.

[hanzo66]

Yeah, I remembered the movie was written by Solid friggin' Snake...

[Dryken]

Let the cautious optimism begin.

[Tirian]

Hey, can anyone identify the scene where Nite Owl is screaming? I can't.

I've got two guesses. First is the scene in Chapter 10 where Dan finds out that Hollis was killed by a gang of Topknots. Other choice is the nightmare that he had in Chapter 7 while sleeping with Laurie. I can't decide between them.

I'm wondering who says "God help us all". The effects make me think of Jon, but that would really be out of character.

[Jibar]

He hates movies. Movies < Everything. And he doesn't even hate all movies, just, you know, every adaptation of his work that has ever been made.

No, no... no. He does pretty much hate everything. Including all movies. I've read many many discussions with him were he talks about the multi-million money wasting industry that is holiday, feeding garbadge to 14 year olds with a lust for violence and no appreciation for true art or similar stuff.



This movie needs more light. It be more faithful to the graphic novel if they'd made it look like Adam West Batman.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. It's faithful to the comic at an incredible level, except someone stuck sunglasses over everything.

I like it though. It's shaping up to be visually incredible.
And I've got high hopes for the plot element. That's the bit that really matters.

[Nevrmore]

I still can't get over how weedy Ozymandias looks.
God, I know. That's the one thing that sticks in my damn craw.


Hey, can anyone identify the scene where Nite Owl is screaming? I can't.
I'm guessing somewhere in Antarctica, given the falling snow. If I had to guess, I'd say he was screaming over the moral dilemma of choosing whether to understand Veidt's point of view or not.

This trailer has gotten me pretty psyched, but the slow motion effects painfuly visible when Nite-Owl dropkicks some escaped prisoner and when Blake gets thrown out the window makes me wonder if Snyder ignored all the criticism about the over-intrusive slow-mo in 300.

[Ethrael]

*finishes screaming in joy*

*is breathless*

Ok. I've just finished reading it so the pictures are still vivid in my mind. So I will say that the effects are AMAZING!!!!!!!!

Now. As for the adaptating, I have no idea as I've just discovered the website. I'll be back.

Does anyone know how they're gonna make Dr. Manhattan not be a constant porn movie? Are they gonna do the comic book "we're looking from the angle where you can't see anything important"?

[kamikasei]

Meh.

It looks like it'll be a faithful recreation of how scenes from the comic looked, which is not the difficult part.

It tells me nothing about how the complexities of the story will come across, which is what matters.

In fact, I am worried about several things from it. Ozymandias looks absurdly wrong. The Comedian in Vietnam looks... odd (though that could be a stylized flashback or something similar).

[Nevrmore]

Does anyone know how they're gonna make Dr. Manhattan not be a constant porn movie? Are they gonna do the comic book "we're looking from the angle where you can't see anything important"?
Well, the only full-body shot we get of Jon in the trailer is when he appears in his "sunburn in November" scene, and his junk is not readily visible. Maybe they will just not include it at all.

describing him as a "constant porn movie" is a little bit crude...


Meh.

It looks like it'll be a faithful recreation of how scenes from the comic looked, which is not the difficult part.

It tells me nothing about how the complexities of the story will come across, which is what matters.
Well I mean it pretty much shows you scenes from every important part of the story, so it seems to be a pretty good promise that it will keep the plot's integrities intact.

[Ecalsneerg]

This movie needs more light. It be more faithful to the graphic novel if they'd made it look like Adam West Batman.

I just had a painful image of Rorschach doing the thing with the lighter and hairspray, which then blanked out with 'sizzle' written in big green letters.

Must get a trenchcoat, video camera and a video editor...

[Zeta Kai]

Can anyone tell me what song they were playing during the trailer? It sounded like Billy Corgan, but I couldn't tell if it was from the Smashing Pumpkins, his solo work, or Zwan. Does anyone know?

The song wasn't bad, & it worked for the trailer, I suppose, but I hope that it's not in the final film. I'd rather hear songs mentioned in the graphic novel, like All Along the Watchtower (although I would rather listen to the superior Hendrix version.)

[Ethrael]

Yeah the song was really cool. I wish I knew what it was...

I thought the Comedian looked pretty good. When they show him in Vietnam I felt as I were looking at the real life version of the panel. It looks a lot like him.

Ozymandias is just...wrong, he's got black-ish hair, is really skinny and I read somewhere that there was an actual reason for changing his costume from sunny-bright gold to dark grey/black for a reason but I can't see that now. It adds to the light-missing aspect of the movie.

It really does look like a modern day, good-yet-much-CGI-heavy remake of 300 with less than 300 protagonists...

Still, it looks pretty cool. :smallbiggrin:

[Thufir]

Ozymandias is just...wrong, he's got black-ish hair, is really skinny and I read somewhere that there was an actual reason for changing his costume from sunny-bright gold to dark grey/black for a reason but I can't see that now. It adds to the light-missing aspect of the movie.

Yeah, the costume colour really bothers me as well. I really feel that Ozymandias should be in bright gold, and brightly, warmly lit, to emphasise the point that he's such a great public figure in the world of Watchmen.

(Don't open this spoiler if you haven't read the graphic novel)
Which then makes the reveal towards the end all the more chilling. At that point they can put him in darkness.

[hanzo66]

[COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"]Yeah the song was really cool. I wish I knew what it was...

A slowed version of "The End is the Beginning is the End" by Smashing Pumpkins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWTVDhrer4s

[SmartAlec]

Actually, it's "The Beginning is the End is the Beginning", also by the Smashing Pumpkins. It is, admittedly, a slow version of The End is the Beginning is the End, but they're seperate songs on the Batman and Robin soundtrack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSPFNq2KsFE

[JonathanC]

As far as I know, Alan Moore is opposed to the adaptation of his work to film, and DC continues to whore out his work against his wishes. I doubt I'll bother with this in theatres, for that reason and because I didn't really like the changes Snyder made to 300; if he can't get 300's plot straight, he hasn't got a prayer of doing Watchmen. Already in the trailer I'm looking at a trim, fit Nightowl who jump kicks people, a Silk Spectre dressed in some slinky new outfit walking through burning rubble...it looks like a mess.

[Ethrael]

Ooh, thanks very much for that. I am now musically satisfied.

Oh and continuing my comments on each character, judging by detail on Laurie, does anyone think this is going to be too loyal? They've gone as far as to add a beauty spot on her. I'm not sure if that's possible, but it looks as if they've just made the comic the script.

I like it in movies when they show a reconstruction of something you've read and you can feel as if you know more than what's being shown, as if you know the history behind it. I'm not sure if we're going to get that feeling from this.

Then again I could just be reading too far into it...

[WalkingTarget]

Already in the trailer I'm looking at a trim, fit Nightowl who jump kicks people,

Could be a flashback to the days before the Keene Act, couldn't it? I only saw it the one time so far, so wasn't particularly trying to place all of the scenes within the framework of the comic.

Otherwise, yeah, I'm still very leery of this film. The plot of the comics is convoluted enough that I still think it would be better suited to a miniseries than to a single film. I liked Doc Manhattan and Rorschach so far (although I didn't see if his mask was dynamic, anybody else notice whether or not it was?), but we'll see how that goes.

[SmartAlec]

Could be a flashback to the days before the Keene Act, couldn't it? I only saw it the one time so far, so wasn't particularly trying to place all of the scenes within the framework of the comic.

Otherwise, yeah, I'm still very leery of this film. The plot of the comics is convoluted enough that I still think it would be better suited to a miniseries than to a single film. I liked Doc Manhattan and Rorschach so far (although I didn't see if his mask was dynamic, anybody else notice whether or not it was?), but we'll see how that goes.

Judging from the lines of cells in the jump-kick shot, it might take place during the breaking Rorshach out of prison. The mask is dynamic, though - if you peer at Rorshach's mask during the "... and I'll whisper - No" narration, you can see a new shape forming on it.

[Hoplite]

The marks on his masked changes yes.

[Nevrmore]

As far as I know, Alan Moore is opposed to the adaptation of his work to film, and DC continues to whore out his work against his wishes. I doubt I'll bother with this in theatres, for that reason and because I didn't really like the changes Snyder made to 300; if he can't get 300's plot straight, he hasn't got a prayer of doing Watchmen.
...The only thing he did to 300 was add the subplot of Leonidas' wife that has no connection to the main story at all. How did he muddle it?


Already in the trailer I'm looking at a trim, fit Nightowl who jump kicks people, a Silk Spectre dressed in some slinky new outfit walking through burning rubble...it looks like a mess.
Don't jump to conclusions. How can you even tell that Nite Owl is trim and fit? You see him for like 4 seconds, and that includes his back (obscured by a cape) and his face. You don't know how fit he is.

Secondly, The Silk Spectre's outfit has always been slinky, what's your point? She's walking through burning rubble right out of Chapter 7, "A Brother to Dragons."

[darkblade]

...The only thing he did to 300 was add the subplot of Leonidas' wife that has no connection to the main story at all. How did he muddle it?

You forgot the dozen exclamation marks in what should have been a calm retort to a panicing man shouting at the king before getting kicked into a pit.



Secondly, The Silk Spectre's outfit has always been slinky, what's your point? She's walking through burning rubble right out of Chapter 7, "A Brother to Dragons."

Her outfit in the comic was even slinkier. This one doesn't even show any skin while her comic costume barely covered her at all.

[SmartAlec]

You forgot the dozen exclamation marks in what should have been a calm retort to a panicing man shouting at the king before getting kicked into a pit

While there are many stylistic differences between 300 the graphic novel and 300 the film, the issue in question is the plot.

[JonathanC]

...The only thing he did to 300 was add the subplot of Leonidas' wife that has no connection to the main story at all. How did he muddle it?


By making the whole battle pointless, since it was supposed to be the sacrifice of the Spartans, not some parliamentary argument between Leonidas' wife and a nameless senator, that decided whether everyone got on board with fighting the Persians.

Also, the whole wife sub-plot seemed mildly misogynistic to me, portraying Spartan woman as weak, soft, and prone to manipulation. In the comic, she knew that her husband was going to die, and was proud of him for it; she wouldn't have compromised herself in a poorly-conceived bid to save him. It was a dumb plot that muddled the central plot of the film and wasted time.

[Tirian]

...The only thing he did to 300 was add the subplot of Leonidas' wife that has no connection to the main story at all. How did he muddle it?

It certainly diluted the impact of the sacrifice of Leonidas and the 300. In the graphic novel, the Greeks rally in the final scene because of Dilios' outstanding rhetoric in telling of the Spartan's valor. In the movie, he returned to a Sparta already fired up over the discovery of Xerxes corruption in the Senate. It leads one to idly wonder if Leonidas' sacrifice was in vain; could he have defeated the Persians and survived by staying home and untangling the plot to undermine democracy and the Oracle?

Besides, the plot itself was ham-fisted. Queen Gorgo murders Theron on the floor of the Senate in front of dozens of witnesses, and the only reason that she is instantly vindicated instead of immediately executed is because he is so colossally dim-witted as to still be carrying around the (currently unspendable) Persian money he was bribed with weeks before. Come on, Scooby Doo villains are given more credit than that.

And, yeah, it does make me uneasy about what similar changes he might feel are necessary to sanitize the Watchmen story. Alan Moore portrayed Laurie as a doormat, submitting first to her mother and later to Jon and Dan and only taking a firm stance about her future in the epilogue. Is Snyder going to turn her into Xena because he only directs Strong Women Characters?

And, of course, the climax involves the villain murdering half of the population of New York City and persuading the heroes that his actions are morally ambiguous; that some omelettes require the breaking of three million innocent eggs. How badly is that moral going to be whacked to accommodate modern sensitives?

[InkEyes]

I'm probably more excited about this movie than I should be, but dammit it looks promising. I was worried about the integrity of the plot itself until I read this Entertainment weekly article (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20213273,00.html).

Pros about the article:

Zack sounds like he earnestly wants the movie to be as close to the comic as possible.

He refused to make the movie more contemporary by switching the setting from cold war era to war on terror era

This (http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/covergallery/img/2008/jul252008_1003_lg.jpg) picture from the last page has Ozymandias in a much more heroic-looking costume than the one in the previews. I don't know why the darker one is in the trailer; maybe because that's the one his action figure will wear.

This quote:
A pirate/horror comic book that was threaded ironically throughout the Moore/Gibbons narrative is set to become a separate animated DVD


Cons about the article:

This worries me deeply:
Sure, there have been changes. The catastrophic climax is different. Provocative bits, like a timely subplot about alternative fuels, have been added.

From what I've heard though... (big spoilers about the comic/movie ending ahead)

The climax will still leave the world convinced there is an alien invasion; they might just use a method that isn't as over-the-top because movie audiences might not get that it's a jab at unnecessarily complex plots that comic book villains used in the silver age.

Also, I think Nite Owl's costume is an intentional nod/jab at the ones they use for Batman. It seems appropriate that a movie based on a comic that mocked and deconstructed superhero comics would also mock/deconstruct superheros movies. I think that's also why they used a song from Batman and Robin. The song is only on the Batman and Robin soundtrack, too; I think that's an interesting coincidence.

Overall, I can't wait to watch the entire movie, but for now I'll be satisfied with watching Rorschach spray flames with this 'Veidt' Brand Hairspray.

[Nevrmore]

And, yeah, it does make me uneasy about what similar changes he might feel are necessary to sanitize the Watchmen story. Alan Moore portrayed Laurie as a doormat, submitting first to her mother and later to Jon and Dan and only taking a firm stance about her future in the epilogue. Is Snyder going to turn her into Xena because he only directs Strong Women Characters?

Also, the whole wife sub-plot seemed mildly misogynistic to me, portraying Spartan woman as weak, soft, and prone to manipulation.
Heh.

White space.

[Tirian]

Heh.

:smallsmile:

I think that we agree that Queen Gordo was doing everything in her power to win the battle on the homefront, and giving up her body for the Spartan ideal. I didn't see that as weak or soft at all; I thought it somewhat blatant that it was a parallel to her husband's trials against impossible odds and ignoble Spartans. And even if she was outflanked at one point, she was hardly "manipulated"; she achieved her goal and accepted the price that she had to pay for it with as much nobility as possible. In my opinion, the only "weakness" of the storyline was the certainty that she was going to prevail.

[Shatteredtower]

The guy doing the "drowning in the gutters" speech sounded like some dude LARPing.A costumed vigilante is pretty much the epitome of some dude LARPing. It's not like Rorschach's alter ego missed out on a promising voice acting career.


I don't think people realize how badly Alan Moore is being screwed over in regards to this project...About as badly as he's chosen to be. Yes, the history up to this point contains some rather shameful moments, but Mr. Moore is getting exactly what he demands in terms of financial compensation for this project.


Her outfit in the comic was even slinkier. This one doesn't even show any skin while her comic costume barely covered her at all.I think the legs are throwing off your recollection of the comic version. The only thing her costume left bare were the better part of her legs (still showing less than a swimsuit), her hands, and her face. The costume suggested something skimpier in the black highlights over the yellow, but the costume even has long sleeves.

Oh, and very impractical looking shoes. Meanwhile, yes, the movie version has thigh high boots (and... sigh... high heels...), but the yellow portions of the costume are awfully suggestive under the right lighting. Kudos for slightly better leg protection for use on the city streets, at least.


And, yeah, it does make me uneasy about what similar changes he might feel are necessary to sanitize the Watchmen story. Alan Moore portrayed Laurie as a doormat, submitting first to her mother and later to Jon and Dan and only taking a firm stance about her future in the epilogue. Is Snyder going to turn her into Xena because he only directs Strong Women Characters?If she wasn't a strong character, she'd have fallen apart long before the events we saw in the graphic novel. If we get a slightly more believable presentation, so much the better.

Whether it works or not, it's still going to do more good than harm to the book's sales for the next year or two.

[Nerd-o-rama]

A costumed vigilante is pretty much the epitome of some dude LARPing.I would sig this, but I'm out of room.

[BDEYE]

About as badly as he's chosen to be. Yes, the history up to this point contains some rather shameful moments, but Mr. Moore is getting exactly what he demands in terms of financial compensation for this project.

Alan Moore could obviously care less about the money. He does seem to care about his work and how it's perceived, and what kind of ideas his work shoot out into the world, which is why he made the strongest statement he could by refusing payment for something he doesn't believe in.

[Shatteredtower]

Alan Moore could obviously care less about the money.It's not obvious in the least.


He does seem to care about his work and how it's perceived, and what kind of ideas his work shoot out into the world, which is why he made the strongest statement he could by refusing payment for something he doesn't believe in.Walking away from something that supposedly matters to you a great deal might make for a strong statement, but not an admirable one. If it's not really about the money, nothing was stopping him from demanding that the movie was, "Inspired by--" the work of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, rather than based on it. Nothing prevented him from negotiating a fee to be paid to the charity of his choice -- along with the receipt, waiving the option to claim it as a tax write-off.

Heck, "Inspired by--" would be more credit than Watchmen gave to Steve Ditko, Joe Gill, and Charles Nicholas Wojtkowski. Nice little dedication to Neil Gaiman, Pat Mills, Joe Orlando, and Mike Lake at the front of the book, but not one for the people who created the characters that were the inspiration for Dr. Manhattan, Nite Owl, the Silk Spectre, and Rorshach. Odds are that Mr. Ditko would never accept a dime for this movie either, while the other two creators are now deceased, but I haven't seen Mr. Moore offer a word of acknowledgement to them for substantially altering their creations.

[Jibar]

Heck, "Inspired by--" would be more credit than Watchmen gave to Steve Ditko, Joe Gill, and Charles Nicholas Wojtkowski. Nice little dedication to Neil Gaiman, Pat Mills, Joe Orlando, and Mike Lake at the front of the book, but not one for the people who created the characters that were the inspiration for Dr. Manhattan, Nite Owl, the Silk Spectre, and Rorshach. Odds are that Mr. Ditko would never accept a dime for this movie either, while the other two creators are now deceased, but I haven't seen Mr. Moore offer a word of acknowledgement to them for substantially altering their creations.

Well using their characters wasn't really their choice.
DC had just gotten the rights on them renewed, and thus needed to use them in something. They went to Alan Moore and said "Hey, we've got these characters. Make a story with them." He did, but then they said "That's a little final isn't it? We like it, but you're going to stop us using these guys. Just... make up some new people."
And he did.
It's not so much inspiration as... Requested Comparison.
Those guys deserve credit, sure, but Alan Moore being the crazy spawn of the Devil that he is didn't really need their characters to make the story work. He could've created his own heroes totally off the top off his head and still made Watchmen brilliant.

[H. Zee]

Cons about the article:

This worries me deeply:


Sure, there have been changes. The catastrophic climax is different. Provocative bits, like a timely subplot about alternative fuels, have been added.



If they change the ending I will hunt them down.

[Hoplite]

If they change the ending I will hunt them down.

If they change the ending a large army of fans would hunt them down. I sure hope they are smart enough to stay with the old fantastic ending.

[Nevrmore]

If they change the ending I will hunt them down.
From reading the article on watchmencomicmovie.com concerning the subject, it seems like the most important part of the ending...

...The squid...

...Is going to be in the movie. So the question is, if that's still there, what could have been changed to warrant the "catastrophic climax" being different??

The mind reels...

[Tirian]

So the question is, if that's still there, what could have been changed to warrant the "catastrophic climax" being different??

Could be the scale. In the graphic novel, three million people died. The Hayter script reduced that to "thousands" killed by a satellite-based laser instead of a teleporting explosive psychic squid. Perhaps Tse brought back the squid but retained the more modest death toll.

[Freshmeat]

...Is going to be in the movie. So the question is, if that's still there, what could have been changed to warrant the "catastrophic climax" being different??
The mind reels...

Ozymandias will probably die at the end, as opposed to the comic (where he survives, even after explaining his masterstroke).

[BDEYE]

It's not obvious in the least.

The only project Alan Moore has worked on that even tries to meet a popular audience halfway is some of the superhero stuff he did when he was still doing ABC comics like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Tom Strong, and even that made him considerably less money then he could've gotten writing plain-old big name superhero comics. Or writing screenplays, or even just skipping over to L.A. to be a "consultant" and lend legitimacy to some of these movies.

He spent ten years writing an epic pornography featuring characters from children's books which many bookshelves are afraid to shelve out in the open for fear of obscenity charges. I don't think he did that to subsidize that yacht he had his eye on.

[darkblade]

Ozymandias will probably die at the end, as opposed to the comic (where he survives, even after explaining his masterstroke).

Either that or Rorshach lives.

[Zeta Kai]

Either that or Rorshach lives.

If either of those things happen, I will hunt them down. Luckily for all parties concerned, I highly doubt that either will happen.

And yes, costumed vigilantes are basically LARPers writ large.

[Jibar]

Okay watching it again: That scene of Dan screaming and Ozy in his dark costume both take place in the ending.
Which means that, yeah, the ending has been changed. Because I certainly don't remember either of those showing up.

[Nevrmore]

Okay watching it again: That scene of Dan screaming and Ozy in his dark costume both take place in the ending.
Which means that, yeah, the ending has been changed. Because I certainly don't remember either of those showing up.
But the problem is to what degree the ending has been changed. I don't give a crap if it adds up to "Uhh, Dan screams in some snow and Ozy puts on a stupider costume." but for all we know it could be "Dr. Manhatten goes on a psychotic rampage and eats the Earth, but not before Rorschach uncovers the Watergate scandal and becomes a national hero."

For the record,

If Rorschach doesn't die...Hell, in fact, if they change ANYTHING about Rorschach at all, I'm going to rocket Paramount Pictures into the sun.

[kpenguin]

Things that, if they change, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all:



Ozymandias winning at the end (maybe). And by win, I mean he pulls off his scheme successfully and convinces the heroes that, in the end, he might just have been right.
Rorschach dying. It was just so... poignant. Anything about Rorschach, really. If they simplify him into a villain or a hero, I'll kill them. Especially him dying, though... and the backstory he tells to the psychiatrist.
The Comedian being Laurie's biological father and the resulting speech by Dr. Manhattan about the miracle of life.
Comedian shooting the Vietnamese woman pregnant with his child, with Dr. Manhattan watching.

[Thormag]

Has anyone seen this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQPva9fGbbk)?
White text of DOOM!

[Nevrmore]

Things that, if they change, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all:



Ozymandias winning at the end (maybe). And by win, I mean he pulls off his scheme successfully and convinces the heroes that, in the end, he might just have been right.
Rorschach dying. It was just so... poignant. Anything about Rorschach, really. If they simplify him into a villain or a hero, I'll kill them. Especially him dying, though... and the backstory he tells to the psychiatrist.
The Comedian being Laurie's biological father and the resulting speech by Dr. Manhattan about the miracle of life.
Comedian shooting the Vietnamese woman pregnant with his child, with Dr. Manhattan watching.


While I can't speak for the other things in that list, here is a picture (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1445107456/tt0409459) that looks a lot like The Comedian having just executed the Vietnamese woman. While there are a few problems with it (Why isn't he bleeding? Why does he look so calm?), it looks like a confirmation to me.

[Grynning]

So, finally something that gets me to post outside the gaming forum.

Just to toss my two bits out there on Zack Snyder's adaptations:

On 300: I felt that the movie did not successfully convey the idea that the story was being told by an unreliable narrator, and was essentially meant to be propaganda. Also, the fact that the line "Freedom isn't free" made it into the film made me want to beat someone with an eggplant.

On Watchmen: Yes, it looks great visually. However, making a great looking movie isn't hard these days, everything coming out has gorgeous effects and backgrounds slathered all over, so how faithful of an adaptation it is will be the real test. After all, this isn't adapting a character and creating a story based on a large body of work like the Batman, Superman, and Marvel films, this is a single story, and a story that's considered one of the best written in the century, as well as the best graphic novel of all time.

I too am worried that they may sanitize the ending and other elements of the story, especially the characters of the Comedian, Rorschach, and and Dr. Manhattan. They are a bit to amoral to be palatable to most movie-goers, and given what filmmakers have done with other Moore characters who were...distasteful (looking at you, V and Constantine) I fear that the movie versions will be at least toned down a bit.

P.S. - I wept, bitterly, at what they did to "Wanted." If you're a fan of the comic you know what I mean. If you haven't read it, please do, and maybe you'll understand why that movie was offensive to me.

[turkishproverb]

Looks better than i expected, Rorsarch seemed perfect, and Doc Manhatten seemed so visually.

Then again, I was expecting...well...nothing worht noticing, so this is a real improvement.


After the horror that was 300, I have exactly zero confidence in Zack Snyder to deliver something that doesn't actually make me want to jump into the Pit of Death, on the theory that even if it is infinite in depth, the falling and dying will still seem short when compared to sitting through the rest of the movie.

in all fairness, 300's problems were mostly Frank millers fault.


Linky to the interview. (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1120854,00.html)
The quote comes from the top of page 5.

that makes me feel a little better


Alan Moore appears to hate pretty much everything.

Not that he's at all unique in the "anal retentive artist bin".

This movie needs more light. It be more faithful to the graphic novel if they'd made it look like Adam West Batman.


agreed. in general


wife "That's a graphic novel? Have you read it?"
me "Uh, some of it. Why? You wanna watch it?"
wife "F**king right i do!!"
me "I love you. Let's make kids."

Priceless.


Actually, it's "The Beginning is the End is the Beginning", also by the Smashing Pumpkins. It is, admittedly, a slow version of The End is the Beginning is the End, but they're seperate songs on the Batman and Robin soundtrack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSPFNq2KsFE

only good thing to come of that movie.


A costumed vigilante is pretty much the epitome of some dude LARPing. It's not like Rorschach's alter ego missed out on a promising voice acting career. /QUOTE]

love it. sigging

[QUOTE=Shatteredtower;4573513]It's not obvious in the least.

Walking away from something that supposedly matters to you a great deal might make for a strong statement, but not an admirable one. If it's not really about the money, nothing was stopping him from demanding that the movie was, "Inspired by--" the work of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, rather than based on it. Nothing prevented him from negotiating a fee to be paid to the charity of his choice -- along with the receipt, waiving the option to claim it as a tax write-off.

Ah, you are aware that it is a MORAL issue for him on these books on TWO levels. He thinks he should still own watchmen and V, so hates not getting them back and 2: he doesn't approve of films of his work. He refuses the money for films based on his work.

And giving credit to people who's characters inspired yours (little more complicated here) would have to be serial over time if you demanded it. SHould EVERY detective writer credit Dashell Hammit and Conan Doyle?


The only project Alan Moore has worked on that even tries to meet a popular audience halfway is some of the superhero stuff he did when he was still doing ABC comics like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Tom Strong, and even that made him considerably less money then he could've gotten writing plain-old big name superhero comics. Or writing screenplays, or even just skipping over to L.A. to be a "consultant" and lend legitimacy to some of these movies.

He spent ten years writing an epic pornography featuring characters from children's books which many bookshelves are afraid to shelve out in the open for fear of obscenity charges. I don't think he did that to subsidize that yacht he had his eye on.

Agreed. It's not about the money for this guy. and "Lost girls" Is up there with anne rice in proving something can be both smutty and art.

[kpenguin]

I just checked my local library's catalog for Watchmen. Twelve holds, up from two.

[Nevrmore]

and "Lost girls" Is up there with anne rice in proving something can be both smutty and art.
This comparison makes me weep.

[Aquillion]

If you hated 300, then you probably didn't like the original graphic novel, considering that the only major difference was that in one of them, the pictures moved.The problem with this is that slavish duplication is not always the best way to make a movie.

The fact is, movies and graphic novels are different. Some things that work in a graphic novel or comic book are never going to work in a movie. Some things that are important or even essential for a good movie are totally unimportant in a graphic novel.

On top of this, good directors have to be willing to change and adapt as they work -- if you want to make the best movie possible, sometimes you have to change things to work with your actor's strengths. A director who tries to rigidly force every actor they have into the exact mold set by the source material is not going to get the best performance they could have out of them. In a character-driven work like Watchmen, this is particularly important -- if a particular actor is more suitable to saying a line differently from how it was in the original, they may actually end up capturing the spirit of the character better with that change than they would have if you just had them mindlessly repeat what was written.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that someone who makes a slavish imitation of Watchmen in film form is never going to end up with a good movie. It could be a good movie, but it would require a director who is very, very creative -- if you just take panels from the books and try to directly translate them to film as faithfully as possible, some are simply not going to work no matter how skillful you are.

Who wants a Watchmen movie that tries to simply be the books? That'd be a complete waste. We already have the books; there's no way any Watchmen movie is going to be better at being the Watchmen books than the books themselves. But it might be a good movie, if the director has enough skill and courage to stand on their own -- drawing on the source material, but not rigidly aping it.

Watchmen in particular would be a very very bad thing to try and rigidly copy to film. 300 was different; it was one of the most cinematic graphic novels ever made. Watchmen is one of the least. Trying to apply the same approach to both will be an absolute disaster.

[Jerthanis]

You see... I hope I don't like the movie... because I didn't like the Graphic Novel. Yeah, I know I'm the only one, blah blah, it just wasn't my cup of tea. Nothing about it really appealed to me, and it seemed like the soapbox ranting of a man who had nothing in common with me taking place in a world full of characters I didn't like.

But so many people love the comic, that if I like the adaptation, those people will most likely be hugely disappointed. So... for me, wishing for the movie to be good is actively wishing for the disappointment of countless other people. I also can't justify going to see a movie I hope is bad, so I probably won't go see this movie (especially if I hear it's good!)

But for all your sakes... I hope it sucks! :smallbiggrin:

[Aquillion]

Nothing about it really appealed to me, and it seemed like the soapbox ranting of a man who had nothing in common with me taking place in a world full of characters I didn't like.I think it's funny for someone with an "ANSWER THE QUESTION" avatar to say this. :smalltongue:

...you're not supposed to like them, though. And if you took it as soapbox ranting, you probably made the (common) mistake of taking one or more of the characters as being Moore's mouthpiece. The point of the comic is that all of their philosophies are fatally flawed.

[Jerthanis]

I think it's funny for someone with an "ANSWER THE QUESTION" avatar to say this. :smalltongue:

Rorschach was based on the Question visually, but the comic Question and the comic Rorschach are worlds apart in terms of methods, operations and philosophy. Also, I kind of like where the Question went more than where he came from, and the fact that he was a kind-of, sort-of dynamic character in a medium full of retcons that put every character back where they started every 5-10 years.

For the record, Rorschach was also the only character I ended Watchmen hating less than I did at the beginning.



...you're not supposed to like them, though. And if you took it as soapbox ranting, you probably made the (common) mistake of taking one or more of the characters as being Moore's mouthpiece. The point of the comic is that all of their philosophies are fatally flawed.

Fair enough. Why would I like something purposefully designed to be unlikable in every respect? Even assuming Moore did intend every viewpoint to be perceived by his audience as fatally flawed.

EDIT: Crap, I'm derailing the thread, I'm going to try to avoid this route... uh... if nothing else, Snyder will give us a million gifs depicting Rorschach's head on various objects, people, or concepts. That'll be worth any amount of failure in movie-hood.

[Turcano]

And if you took it as soapbox ranting, you probably made the (common) mistake of taking one or more of the characters as being Moore's mouthpiece. The point of the comic is that all of their philosophies are fatally flawed.

Especially if you do this with Rorschach, whose fascist political beliefs are about as far from Moore's real political stances as possible.

[Aquillion]

Especially if you do this with Rorschach, whose fascist political beliefs are about as far from Moore's real political stances as possible.

Rorschach was based on the Question visually, but the comic Question and the comic Rorschach are worlds apart in terms of methods, operations and philosophy.
I won't get into actual philosophical arguments here, but as far as Moore's intentions go, it's worth pointing out that he has described the philosophy of Mr. A (Dikto's much more outright 'Objectivist' superhero) as follows:

There was a guy with a hat and a mac, that was the Question, who was also very similar to Steve Ditko's far more right-wing character, Mister A, that was too right-wing to put in mainstream comics but which Ditko had published some strips about in independent comics at the time. Mister A was an absolute insane fascist but done absolutely straight.He also said:
"I have to say I found Ayn Rand's philosophy laughable. It was a 'white supremacist dreams of the master race,' burnt in an early-20th century form. Her ideas didn't really appeal to me, but they seemed to be the kind of ideas that people would espouse, people who might secretly believe themselves to be part of the elite, and not part of the excluded majority."
He saw Objectivism as very close to Fascism, so his intention was to have Rorschach's philosophy be an extension of the very early Question's (certainly not the later versions -- but remember, he was writing shortly after DC acquired the rights, so there wasn't much 'later' Question out there.) Obviously, I don't mean to start a political debate here (it's Moore's views, I'll leave mine out of it) -- but knowing where Moore was coming from, and the fact that he saw a very very thin line between Objectivism and Fascism if he saw any at all, is pretty important to understanding Rorschach's character.

Remember, the Watchmen was originally going to use the actual Charlton Comics characters -- he wrote the general shape of how Rorschach acted, was portrayed, and was seen with the intent of applying this to The Question. It was only changed because someone at DC realized that doing things like this with the Charlton Comics characters might make them hard to use for anything else later on.

The fact that the ending shows Rorschach in the light it does, I think, illustrates that despite this Moore didn't intend to be standing on a soapbox, at least not in espousing / damning individual philosophies.

But to get back to discussing the movie... I suppose the big question everyone has is how well that kind of philosophical background can be translated to the screen. I mean, partially, Rorschach (for example) was intended as a Take That (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeThat) to a character and a philosophy that 95% of the audience aren't going to know a thing about.

And partially, the fact is, action sequences are much more distracting on the big screen. In a visual novel, you can skip from a fight on one page to a terse argument between the viewpoints of moral absolutism, utilitarianism, nihilistism, and so forth without too much of a problem; on the screen, it can be much harder. Can that really be turned into an engaging big-ticket movie?

Even if the film keeps every scene and frame, it's easy to see, say, the question of Rorschach's philosophy being overshadowed by the ZOMG BADASS of the camera lingering on his action sequences. (Truthfully, that happened to many readers of the comic anyway, judging by the reaction...)

[turkishproverb]

This comparison makes me weep.

why? at least some of Rice's work is definitely worthy of the term Art, and almost all of it is rather erotic.

[Shatteredtower]

Ah, you are aware that it is a MORAL issue for him on these books on TWO levels.Sure. That doesn't leave him entirely in the right, even where I do agree or sympathize with his positions.


He thinks he should still own watchmen and V, so hates not getting them back...Based on the contracts he'd agreed to in order to get them published, he never actually owned them in the first place.


And giving credit to people who's characters inspired yours (little more complicated here) would have to be serial over time if you demanded it. SHould EVERY detective writer credit Dashell Hammit and Conan Doyle?If your character is still recognizable as Sam Spade or Sherlock Holmes the way Rorshach does for the Question, that seems entirely appropriate to me, even if there's no longer any concern over legal repercussions.

Glad you and Nerd-o-ama liked the LARPing quote.

[Nevrmore]

why? at least some of Rice's work is definitely worthy of the term Art
Let's agree to disagree.

[Blayze]

Hang on a moment. I've only just started reading Watchmen, but...

From the comic:


The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll look down, and whisper "No."

From the movie:


The world will look up and shout "Save us", and I'll whisper "No."

I *hope* they're not going to dumb down the script like that.

[BRC]

Hang on a moment. I've only just started reading Watchmen, but...

From the comic:



From the movie:



I *hope* they're not going to dumb down the script like that.

ACtually, you could call that Socio-political commentary. YOu know like the Mark Twain Quote "Pretend you are an idiot, now pretend you are a member of congress, but I repeat myself."

[Tirian]

I *hope* they're not going to dumb down the script like that.

Brace yourself. Of course, I don't know about the final revision, but the word "thirty-five" didn't appear in the Hayter script if you know what I mean. And like I've said before, I don't know who is saying "God help us all" in the trailer, but it would be profoundly disappointing if it were Jon.

A part of me died when the early publicity work showed that the picture in The Comedian's apartment showed him shaking hands with Richard Nixon instead of Gerald Ford. Man, I loved the cops who ruled out Ford as a suspect because "a job like this just isn't his style."

[kpenguin]

Brace yourself. Of course, I don't know about the final revision, but the word "thirty-five" didn't appear in the Hayter script if you know what I mean. And like I've said before, I don't know who is saying "God help us all" in the trailer, but it would be profoundly disappointing if it were Jon.



Oh god... if they change Ozymandias's line there in a way that makes him less magnificent... I'll kill 'em. I'll kill 'em all.

I think the person saying "God help us all" might be some newscaster reporting on the imminent nuclear war.

[Blayze]

the word "thirty-five" didn't appear in the Hayter script if you know what I mean.

This news makes me want to send a bunch of emails to the relevant people. Said emails would contain quotes from the comic, adapted to fit. For example...

"Blah blah reference to thirty-five blah blah reference to whores and politicians blah blah."

Or perhaps just the phrase "THIRTY-FIVE MINUTES" in bolded, font 96 or above text.

Edit: Oh God no.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.66902

"The game is described as "bloody and brutal," and well worth an M (Mature) rating from the ESRB. The two characters will feature unique fighting styles: Rorschach is a "feral, loose cannon" who uses down-and-dirty street fighting techniques and "psychotic special moves" against his opponents, while Nite Owl employs martial arts finesse and the tools in his utility belt to get the job done. In cooperative mode, the game will also feature numerous puzzle elements that require a combined effort to solve."

[Tirian]

Oh god... if they change Ozymandias's line there in a way that makes him less magnificent... I'll kill 'em. I'll kill 'em all.

Do it? Dan, all appearances to the contrary, I'm not some ridiculous comic book villain. Do you seriously think I would explain my master stroke... If there remained the slightest chance you could do anything [to] stop it? (presses button on his laptop) I "did it" just now.

If other words, Adrian gave them ample opportunity to stop him, they just didn't succeed. Then, ten minutes later, he doesn't even catch a proper bullet but rather a magic ball from Laurie's "energy slingshot".

Maybe he needs that black body armor to compensate for all of the badass that was drained out of the script....:smallmad:

[kpenguin]

Okay, here (http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/media/images/downloads/wallpapers/wm5_1920x1600.jpg) is a better picture of Ozymandias. Its with the domino mask, though, so its young Veidt.

[InkEyes]

Heh, bumped, but for a good reason!

Posters (http://www.superherohype.com/news/watchmennews.php?id=7562) have been found!

I think they look really cool! Fun fact: when you put them in a certain order, the clock on the top left corner counts down to midnight. Even more interesting is that they are all almost perfect copies of the original posters (http://blog.newsarama.com/2008/03/13/fearful-scenery-vintage-watchmen-ads/) used to advertise the comic. I'm also excited because this shows that everyone's favorite tiger-lynx-whatever is going to be in it!

[Serenity]

I've got to say, I was wholly unimpressed with the trailer. The costumes, by and large, looked ridiculous, and not in the slightly hokey way that fits the tragic absurdity of these people's careers. And given that this is perhaps one of the single most complex plots of any graphic novel, crammed full of philosophical and socio-political content, I have a very hard time believing that any movie could possibly do justice to the story.

[SmartAlec]

On the same note, I have a hard time believing that a small teaser trailer can do justice to a movie that, against the odds, DOES manage to do some justice to the comic. So, reserving judgement of any kind for now.

[thegurullamen]

Do it? Dan, all appearances to the contrary, I'm not some ridiculous comic book villain. Do you seriously think I would explain my master stroke... If there remained the slightest chance you could do anything [to] stop it? (presses button on his laptop) I "did it" just now.

If other words, Adrian gave them ample opportunity to stop him, they just didn't succeed. Then, ten minutes later, he doesn't even catch a proper bullet but rather a magic ball from Laurie's "energy slingshot".

Maybe he needs that black body armor to compensate for all of the badass that was drained out of the script....:smallmad:


Please tell me that this is all just speculation. Dear God, please.

[ArmorArmadillo]

I guess I'll be breaking from the rest by saying I thought this looked terrible.

The art of watchmen was all about grit and darkness, it was one of the few occasions where 'darker and grittier' really meant better.
This art, by overrated hack Snyder, is all glossy and shiny. It's like Joel Schumacer with better CG.


For the record, 300 was schlock. It was all about greased up muscle-heads trying to OMG BLOW YER SKULL WITH LEETNESS!
For 300, at least this fits the idea of a single epic battle. For Watchmen a book about gritty subtlety, this uber-shiny style is completely wrong.

Not to mention that the characters look really stupid in their rubber superhero costumes.

[Zencao]

I'm calling BS on anyone claiming to know the script. Until some evidence pops up (I.E the actual movie) it's best to just be cautiously optimistic. And hope for adaptation distillation versus decay.

A watchmen based movie that deconstructs movie tropes and traditions will be just as good in my opinion. The whole point of watchmen was to expand on the realistic flaws of a society that acted like a comic. To do the exact same as the comic wouldn't translate well to the screen... So it's obvious there will be changes, but if the batman trilogy has proven anything its that details don't matter compared to being true to the actual 'point' of the work.

I personally would have proffered a trilogy of films about watchmen, but it'll still be interesting to see how they put the story onto the big screen. And I'm glad they cut the pirate comic ****, which in my opinion was needless and just took up space for the sake of it.

[Tirian]

I'm calling BS on anyone claiming to know the script.

What I posted was from David Hayter's original script. If the movie had come out two years ago, it would have been that script. It's been available on the web for years and I have never heard claims that it is inauthentic. Google it yourself.

And, yes, Alex Tse is known to have revised the script for Snyder to make it more faithful to the source, but Hayter retains top billing. All I'm saying is that we need to go into the movie knowing that there are no lines too sacred to be mangled by the adaptation.

[Da Beast]

I am not looking forward to this movie. Watchmen was such a brilliant, character driven story but this trailer looks like nothing more than a bunch of stylized action sequences. The kind that made 300 so dull. Maybe this is just what the producers think will put people in the seats and the movie will be every bit as brilliant as the comic, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

[BRC]

Having recently read Watchmen, I decided I like the Trailer. The Point of the trailer is to say "Hey, that looks like a good movie" without going over thirty seconds. You couldn't do, Say, Dr Manhattan discussing why he should stay on mars, or Roarsach (I misspelled it, I know) investigating the Comedian's murder, or Adrian discussing his journey, retracing the steps of Alexander the great, in thirty seconds. All that stuff is stuff that makes Watchmen good, the deep characters and the story, however, you couldn't put that in a thirty second trailer. What you can put in a thirty-second trailer is people getting hurt.

[Nevrmore]

What I posted was from David Hayter's original script. If the movie had come out two years ago, it would have been that script. It's been available on the web for years and I have never heard claims that it is inauthentic. Google it yourself.

And, yes, Alex Tse is known to have revised the script for Snyder to make it more faithful to the source, but Hayter retains top billing. All I'm saying is that we need to go into the movie knowing that there are no lines too sacred to be mangled by the adaptation.
At least there's none of that crazy "I have created a portal to the past with which I will assassinate Jon Osterman" or "Oh crap, we were sent into the real world where we only exist as comic book characters!" nonsense in Hayter's version.

[two_fishes]

A watchmen based movie that deconstructs movie tropes and traditions will be just as good in my opinion.

Obviously this is not what is going to happen. Really, if you wanted a movie that examines film that way that Watchmen examines comics, it'd probably have to be a film-noir, not a superhero story.


The problem with this is that slavish duplication is not always the best way to make a movie.

I think everything you wrote is pretty much bang on.

[13_CBS]

I have little optimism for something like this. Why?

Because Watchmen fans like you guys are probably not the primary target audience.

I've never read Watchmen, to be honest. But it doesn't surprise me that they're making rather unpopular changes to Watchmen as they see fit.

The thing is, the director may say things like, "Oh we're gonna make this a faithful adaptation, the Watchmen fans are gonna love this!", but those are just words. Likely just words to get Watchmen fans like you all to check out the movie. However, most movie goers are not Watchmen readers. Many of them may be comic book readers, and some of them may be Alan Moore readers. But I really don't think avid Watchmen fans make up enough of a target audience to be worth a multi-million dollar project.

Like Ozymandias: I've seen enough of the Watchmen to know that Ozymandias is rather...colorful. Some may derogatorily call him "fruity". In an ironic sense, he fits right into the gritty world of Watchmen and becomes all the more creepier when he unveils his "35 minutes ago" plan due to that same costume. However, how many people who will end up watching Watchmen will know this? How many of them will be readers of the novel? Or even if they read the novel, how many of them got the meaning behind that bright costume? I'll doubt that enough will. If they left in the colorful costume and tried to do what Moore did for Ozymandias except on film, I think many people will ignore/not notice the irony and simply comment things like, "OMG OZY WU GAY LOL" and so forth.

Likewise with the Nite Owl apparently looking fit. I think a lot of people will scratch heads and go, "Huh?" at a portly man doing what they think should be superhero stuff. Heck, I doubt many will get the whole moving-pattern thing on Rorschach's mask unless the movie takes some time to do some expositioning, which may detract from the movie experience.

In a nutshell: what Watchmen fans consider to be awesome, profound, and interesting might not sit well with most other people who haven't read the book. Unfortunately, there are a lot more haven't-read-Watchmen people out there that the movie makers want to show their movie to than there are Watchmen fans. Thus, things that make Watchmen Watchmen might not make it into the film, because for most people, Watchmen will probably just be a gritty looking film with what look like superheroes and was supposedly based off of "the greatest graphic novel of all time" that they've never heard of.

I don't blame Watchmen fans the slightest for the movie looking like it might make some rather unpopular choices. I felt the same way when the Uruk-hai in the LOTR films showed up with crossbows and plate armor (:smallfurious:).

(Now, according to Murphy's Law of Posts, my entire post will be made irrelevant by some kind of knowledge that I never picked up on. :smallannoyed:)

[Jibar]

Posters (http://www.superherohype.com/news/watchmennews.php?id=7562) have been found!
they are all almost perfect copies of the original posters (http://blog.newsarama.com/2008/03/13/fearful-scenery-vintage-watchmen-ads/) used to advertise the comic.

...is that the Comedian... in Dallas?

Edit: Whew. No. Can't make out the poster in the background on the comic one.

[Lord Seth]

I don't think people realize how badly Alan Moore is being screwed over in regards to this project, but even if it had his blessing there's no way I'd be forking over a cent of my money to see it. Life's too short.This makes no sense. How is "life is too short" any reason whatsoever to not see a movie? It would be what, three hours? If we ignore the first 18 years of your life and don't count when you're asleep, that's STILL
only about .000105% of your life. And evidently you have enough time to post on Internet boards, so...how does your reason make any sense whatsoever? Actually, life being "too short" seems a darn good reason to SEE a movie, as you wouldn't exactly have any chance to do so once your time's up.

Maybe I'm being overly nitpicky, but that statement really makes no sense to me.

[Nevrmore]

I have little optimism for something like this. Why?

Because Watchmen fans like you guys are probably not the primary target audience.

I've never read Watchmen, to be honest. But it doesn't surprise me that they're making rather unpopular changes to Watchmen as they see fit.
The only "changes" made thus far beyond costume changes are just speculation.


The thing is, the director may say things like, "Oh we're gonna make this a faithful adaptation, the Watchmen fans are gonna love this!", but those are just words. Likely just words to get Watchmen fans like you all to check out the movie. However, most movie goers are not Watchmen readers. Many of them may be comic book readers, and some of them may be Alan Moore readers. But I really don't think avid Watchmen fans make up enough of a target audience to be worth a multi-million dollar project.
Zack Snyder has made some extremely bold claims in regards to this movie, saying that he doesn't care if the only thing the movie accomplishes is being a 3 hour advertisement for the book, because that'll be just fine with him. Saying, "I'm not bringing Watchmen to the people. I'm trying to get the people to come to Watchmen." Honestly, I've watched interviews with him and he knows the graphic novel intricately. I have faith in him.


Like Ozymandias: I've seen enough of the Watchmen to know that Ozymandias is rather...colorful. Some may derogatorily call him "fruity". In an ironic sense, he fits right into the gritty world of Watchmen and becomes all the more creepier when he unveils his "35 minutes ago" plan due to that same costume. However, how many people who will end up watching Watchmen will know this? How many of them will be readers of the novel? Or even if they read the novel, how many of them got the meaning behind that bright costume? I'll doubt that enough will. If they left in the colorful costume and tried to do what Moore did for Ozymandias except on film, I think many people will ignore/not notice the irony and simply comment things like, "OMG OZY WU GAY LOL" and so forth.
I've seen some screenshots that look like Ozy is wearing a brighter, more GN-ish costume than the one we've seen in the trailer. Current speculation is that he switched to that one for the climax of the movie.


Likewise with the Nite Owl apparently looking fit. I think a lot of people will scratch heads and go, "Huh?" at a portly man doing what they think should be superhero stuff.
Patrick Wilson (Nite-Owl's actor) specifically stated that he had to get out of shape to fit Dreiberg's physique for the film. People just haven't had an opportunity to see that yet.


Heck, I doubt many will get the whole moving-pattern thing on Rorschach's mask unless the movie takes some time to do some expositioning, which may detract from the movie experience.
It's expositioned perfectly fine in the graphic novel, in a very short, succinct way. I'm sure they are going to simply lift that onto the movie.


In a nutshell: what Watchmen fans consider to be awesome, profound, and interesting might not sit well with most other people who haven't read the book. Unfortunately, there are a lot more haven't-read-Watchmen people out there that the movie makers want to show their movie to than there are Watchmen fans. Thus, things that make Watchmen Watchmen might not make it into the film, because for most people, Watchmen will probably just be a gritty looking film with what look like superheroes and was supposedly based off of "the greatest graphic novel of all time" that they've never heard of.
300,000 copies of Watchmen shipped in the last 2 weeks. (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6583142.html)

"I'm not bringing Watchmen to the people. I'm trying to bring the people to Watchmen." indeed.


I don't blame Watchmen fans the slightest for the movie looking like it might make some rather unpopular choices. I felt the same way when the Uruk-hai in the LOTR films showed up with crossbows and plate armor (:smallfurious:).
I remain cautious, but hopeful. At the moment my biggest concern is
If Nite-Owl screaming in the snow as shown in the trailer is an indication that they used Hayter's script's ending, in which Nite-Owl witnesses Rorschach's death, screams, then gets the motivation to go and kill Ozymandias.


(Now, according to Murphy's Law of Posts, my entire post will be made irrelevant by some kind of knowledge that I never picked up on. :smallannoyed:)
I aim to please.

[13_CBS]

I aim to please.

Any my cynicism proves to be correct. :smallbiggrin:

[Lord Seth]

Thing is, we really don't know anything about the movie other than two minutes worth of random clips shown in no context and an old version of the script. Neither proves much. You can hardly tell anything about a movie from a trailer that's just a bunch of random clips put together, and scripts can get changed so much after some rewrites that using an old version to judge a movie is ridiculous; for fun, take a look at the first draft of the Star Wars script (it's online somewhere). It's pretty much a different movie than the final product.

[kpenguin]

Patrick Wilson (Nite-Owl's actor) specifically stated that he had to get out of shape to fit Dreiberg's physique for the film. People just haven't had an opportunity to see that yet.

From the Entertainment Weekly article I read, he put on around 20 pounds.

[factotum]

Thing is, we really don't know anything about the movie other than two minutes worth of random clips shown in no context and an old version of the script. Neither proves much.

Especially when said clips are from a movie that isn't even due out for another year...chances are that those aren't the final SFX, for a start!

[Project_Mayhem]

Especially when said clips are from a movie that isn't even due out for another year...chances are that those aren't the final SFX, for a start!

The Conclusion: People like to moan about stuff on the net. It's fun.

I personally am optimistic and hopeful - If it's a good adaptation, then great, I'm happy.
If it doesn't do the comic justice, then I still have the unadulterated original version.

[factotum]

I agree totally. Who cares if the film version of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was absolute codswallop when we still have the vastly superior original graphic novel?

[Nerd-o-rama]

I agree totally. Who cares if the film version of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was absolute codswallop when we still have the vastly superior original graphic novel?I liked the League film. Just not as an adaptation, in which regard it was terrible.

[WalkingTarget]

I agree totally. Who cares if the film version of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was absolute codswallop when we still have the vastly superior original graphic novel?

While, in general, I like having film adaptations of books/comics I enjoy for the reason that it might cause more people to read them that may not have done so otherwise, the problem with really bad adaptations is that they fail to do so and possibly cause people to actively avoid said books.

Of course, then there's the related problem of people who see a less-than-faithful but not terrible adaptation but take things no farther. Ever try to have a discussion of LotR with somebody who's only seen the films? Or V for Vendetta? You can hit most of the salient plot points, but discussions of major themes and characterization get all screwed up. I can see Watchmen being especially susceptible to this, especially if it turns into Just Another Action Movie (which I hope doesn't happen).

Sharing and discussing a book is part of the fun for me. If a film version fails to generate interest in the original it makes me sad (not that there seems to be a problem with that in this case given the sales figures Nevrmore linked to).

[Rare Pink Leech]

What I posted was from David Hayter's original script. If the movie had come out two years ago, it would have been that script. It's been available on the web for years and I have never heard claims that it is inauthentic. Google it yourself.

And, yes, Alex Tse is known to have revised the script for Snyder to make it more faithful to the source, but Hayter retains top billing. All I'm saying is that we need to go into the movie knowing that there are no lines too sacred to be mangled by the adaptation.

I believe David Hayter gets top billing because even if 95% of the script is now Alex Tse's, it is still based off Hayter's script. If Tse had started the script from scratch, then he would get top billing. At least, I think that's how it works.


At least there's none of that crazy "I have created a portal to the past with which I will assassinate Jon Osterman" or "Oh crap, we were sent into the real world where we only exist as comic book characters!" nonsense in Hayter's version.

Are those really some of the things that are in Hayter's script floating on the Internet? He came to my school a few months ago for a question-and-answer seminar, and from what he told us he left the story basically unchanged.

Edit:


The art of watchmen was all about grit and darkness, it was one of the few occasions where 'darker and grittier' really meant better.
This art, by overrated hack Snyder, is all glossy and shiny. It's like Joel Schumacer with better CG.

I disagree about the visuals. Take a look at the art in the comic - the art itself isn't dark at all. There's a lot of primary and pastel colours, and not a lot of shading. Thematically it's dark, but visually it isn't.

[Nevrmore]

Are those really some of the things that are in Hayter's script floating on the Internet? He came to my school a few months ago for a question-and-answer seminar, and from what he told us he left the story basically unchanged.
Uh, read a little closer. I said that's NOT in Hayter's script. What I wrote there is from an earlier draft written by a man named Sam Hamm.

[StGlebidiah]

Originally Posted by Entertainment Weekly
Sure, there have been changes. The catastrophic climax is different. Provocative bits, like a timely subplot about alternative fuels, have been added.

Actually, the part that has me the most worried there is not the "catastrophic climax" bit that you bolded, but the "timely subplot about alternative fuels."

Didn't Dr. Manhattan revolutionize the whole energy thing?

Not to mention that tacking on some hackneyed environmental message about how we should burn corn in our cars instead of feeding starving people and walking a bit more instead of driving would just completely detract and distract from the main message of the work.

It's when pointless, unrelated to the original, crap like this gets put in movies just because the director/script writer/whoever has an ax to grind that things really get out of hand and you end up with a bad film/book/whatever.

[Thormag]

Actually, the part that has me the most worried there is not the "catastrophic climax" bit that you bolded, but the "timely subplot about alternative fuels."

Didn't Dr. Manhattan revolutionize the whole energy thing?

Not to mention that tacking on some hackneyed environmental message about how we should burn corn in our cars instead of feeding starving people and walking a bit more instead of driving would just completely detract and distract from the main message of the work.

It's when pointless, unrelated to the original, crap like this gets put in movies just because the director/script writer/whoever has an ax to grind that things really get out of hand and you end up with a bad film/book/whatever.

Well... I thought they were keeping the cars as electrical. I saw no exhaust pipes in the cars showed in teaser pictures (or leaked pictures, I can't tell the difference anymore), but I know they are keeping the "normal" aspect of the cars, so no futuristic cars as far as I know.

So, I saw the trailer and I immediately got interested in the graphic novel (which I hadn't read). So I read it, and I fell in love with it. And now that I watch the trailer again, I'm happy with what I see. Let's hope my hope doesn't get crushed.

[Jibar]

I liked the League film. Just not as an adaptation, in which regard it was terrible.

I hear that. Sean Connery was as magical as ever.

Now V For Vendetta on the other hand, was terrible, as an adaption or not.

[ArmorArmadillo]

Actually, the part that has me the most worried there is not the "catastrophic climax" bit that you bolded, but the "timely subplot about alternative fuels."

Didn't Dr. Manhattan revolutionize the whole energy thing?
Yes. Believe it or not, there was gasoline in the 80's! There was also pollution and even politics.

I hate these bids for "timely" messages. The messages of the cold war are still relevant, that's why people still read Watchmen.
By adding these "timely" things, they only date the movie to the political hotbuttons of it's day. Then, instead of a sincere message, you'll just think, "Huh, this is the part about ethanol, Jon Stewart talked about that last night."

And, five years from now, people will roll their eyes and say "This was soooo made in 2008."

[Aquillion]

Yes. Believe it or not, there was gasoline in the 80's! There was also pollution and even politics.I think the funniest part is that they think something about a fuel crisis is 'timely'. Because, yeah, there wasn't any of that in the 80s, amirite? I mean, nobody worried about fuel in the early 80's at all. So it's only logical that we have to add a fuel-shortage subplot to this work that was created back in the 80's when there wasn't any gas crisis and worldwide panic caused by the Iranian revolution!

[Turcano]

I hate these bids for "timely" messages. The messages of the cold war are still relevant, that's why people still read Watchmen.
By adding these "timely" things, they only date the movie to the political hotbuttons of it's day. Then, instead of a sincere message, you'll just think, "Huh, this is the part about ethanol, Jon Stewart talked about that last night.

Of course, there's a lot in Watchmen that isn't timely enough, like, say, a five-term President Nixon.

[Kaelaroth]

I hear that. Sean Connery was as magical as ever.

Now V For Vendetta on the other hand, was terrible, as an adaption or not.

... I liked it. I was slightly annoyed they couldn't have the main roles played by English actors, but I recognise that having two incredibly famous non-Brit megastars would pull in more viewers. And they're both good actors. It wasn't a faithful adaptaion, I'll give you that, but it was good.

[adanedhel9]

I'm going to put myself into the cautiously optimistic camp - the trailer was exciting enough to get me to reread the novel, but now I'm not sure that it's possible to create an even remotely faithful adaptation of such a complex work. Of course, there are much more creative and intelligent people on this earth than myself, so just because I'm not seeing it right now, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Now V For Vendetta on the other hand, was terrible, as an adaption or not.

I actually preferred the movie to the graphic novel. I think my personal politics got in the way of enjoying the original, whereas I was able to appreciate the movie as a fun dystopian action flick.

[ArmorArmadillo]

I disagree about the visuals. Take a look at the art in the comic - the art itself isn't dark at all. There's a lot of primary and pastel colours, and not a lot of shading. Thematically it's dark, but visually it isn't.

It's not about dark, it's about grittyness. It was a sloppy, ugly world that was rough around the edges. If you watch this trailer, the world is saturated in shine and gloss.

Just look at 300. Snyder went for this same ultra-glossiness. Let's see how he does when he can't just coast by on ripped abs and loincloths.

[InkEyes]

Actually, the part that has me the most worried there is not the "catastrophic climax" bit that you bolded, but the "timely subplot about alternative fuels."

Didn't Dr. Manhattan revolutionize the whole energy thing?

Not to mention that tacking on some hackneyed environmental message about how we should burn corn in our cars instead of feeding starving people and walking a bit more instead of driving would just completely detract and distract from the main message of the work.

It's when pointless, unrelated to the original, crap like this gets put in movies just because the director/script writer/whoever has an ax to grind that things really get out of hand and you end up with a bad film/book/whatever.

In-comic people talk about how Dr. Manhattan was able to synthesize enough lithium to power all motor vehicles on electricity, and I can see why they'd talk about that in the movie: it gives you a small grasp on how powerful Dr. Manhattan is.

Unless the movie does something like:

Primus: "Thank God for Dr. Manhattan! If it weren't for his ability to synthesize lithium we'd still be driving those cruddy old petroleum-powered vehicles instead of our nice, clean electric ones!"

Secunda: "Indeed, not only is electricity environmentally friendly, but it's also much quieter running than a combustion engine!"

Primus: "I heard economist theorize that if we didn't sever our dependence on petroleum when we did, we would have had a major oil crisis within the next twenty years, say, by 2008! And the polar ice caps would start melting from all the pollution and there would be wars over the remaining supplies! Can you imagine that?"

Secunda: "That would be terrible! Good thing we use electric-powered cars now and will preserve the Earth for future generations!"

Primus: "Unless the Russians nuke us..."

Secunda: "Oh, right..."

I doubt it would detract from the movie. It's all about how it flows. If Zack Snyder is as earnest about making an accurate adaption as he sounds, I doubt (well, hope actually) that he won't do something that painfully anvilicious.

[_Puppetmaster_]

I don't really care right now about speculating about how good it will be. I'm just totally exited that it will be. :smallbiggrin:





:smallbiggrin:

[StGlebidiah]

In-comic people talk about how Dr. Manhattan was able to synthesize enough lithium to power all motor vehicles on electricity, and I can see why they'd talk about that in the movie: it gives you a small grasp on how powerful Dr. Manhattan is.

See, if they left it at that, just saying, "We [magically] have enough lithium that fossil fuels for vehicles are obsolete," then fine - leaving it as it was in the book, just a little footnote, grand. The specific word that has me spooked is "subplot."

That means, to me, that it's gone from being a minor detail to being something that gets returned to every so often, breaking the flow of the main story. The Queen of Sparta thing - that was a definite "subplot" that they tacked on. I'm concerned that this Watchmen "subplot" will be comparable, except worse.

[ArmorArmadillo]

That means, to me, that it's gone from being a minor detail to being something that gets returned to every so often, breaking the flow of the main story. The Queen of Sparta thing - that was a definite "subplot" that they tacked on. I'm concerned that this Watchmen "subplot" will be comparable, except worse.

Accuracy in screen adaptations is overrated. It's the job of a director to pick, choose, and add. To make a movie that flows well as a movie and accurately models the spirit and message of the work as it existed.

The fact that Snyder twits over the "accuracy" of the movie and is adding preachy, author-on-board subplots that go against the spirit of the original movie augurs poorly for the quality of the movie as a whole.

[Jibar]

Accuracy in screen adaptations is overrated. It's the job of a director to pick, choose, and add. To make a movie that flows well as a movie and accurately models the spirit and message of the work as it existed.

See, this is why other Moore adaptions have failed.
I could talk about the others, but no, because I really hate the movie, I need to talk about V for Vendetta.
What does the book deal with? The notions of what is real freedom, the virtues of anarchy, the advancement of technology, Britain's silent steps towards facism in the 80s under Margaret Thatcher.
What does the film deal with? War On Terror Are Bad... that's it. You think there's anything more in there? No. That's it. The whole film is just there to tell you that America is being a bad boy and should sit down and have a long hard think about what they've done.
But they can't even stick to that, considering they made a film about a terrorist, and feel the need to drop in every now and then that Terrorists Are Bad Too.
Plus, some of their changes were just idiotic. Erik Finch goes from being one of the few genuinely sympathetic characters to being a grumpy bum who gets subjected to exposition/9-11 analogies. Evey changes from being a scared little girl who learns what freedom really means to being a rebellious so and so who grows to just hate the government a little bit more than she did before. V goes from being a man of thought and plans who works to bring freedom to the masses to a dude with a knife fetish who kills because they are BAD PEOPLE who COULD TOTALLY HAPPEN.
And some of the key sequences... eugh. The various bombings never get an explanation. They're just blown up because that's what terrorists do. In the book there is meaning behind each explosion, plan and purpose. Evey's imprisonment... NOTHING HAPPENED! The book uses this as her turning point, as a sort of meditation, learning experience. In the film, sure, it happens, pretty much exactly as in the book, but then nothing comes of it. Nothing. Evey is pretty much exactly as she was, just missing some her. There is no grand purpose behind it, no real reason. In the film V does this to her because he can. And Finch's birth, the one that gave to him enlightenment, just as V and Evey had gained and let him realise that now all he wanted to do was kill V. He had no loyalty to this country or to any ideal. V just had to be killed. In the movie he just mentions offhand "Oh yeah. I visited this place. It was... cool, I guess. Kinda trippy. Anyway, I'm-a gonna shoot you now... for no real reason."
Oh and then the part that annoyed me most, the complete lack of understanding of British culture. Hey, so suddenly most people in London live in homes very similar to an upper middle class American home, located in the suburbs. Oh and we all eat Eggy in the Basket apparantly. And we'll all watch some twit ranting on TV when most people won't even watch Big Brother these days, let alone anything vaguely political.
It took a very good British book, and turned it into a very bad American movie, by feeling that their job was to transplant just the basics of the plot, while modernising everything else so it works with modern issues and is in America, but still in Britain, because that would be too different.

Sorry I'm done ranting.
That's just a lesson of how to do an adaption wrong.
The Harry Potter movies are actually very good adaptions. That take what needs to be in there, keep it, keep all the background, and about the only changes they make are minor details with no real relevance on the overall plot, or exclude sections that in the books are used to advance characters who aren't nearly as important in the movies.

...really hate V For Vendetta movie.

[ArmorArmadillo]

Sorry I'm done ranting.
That's just a lesson of how to do an adaption wrong.
The Harry Potter movies are actually very good adaptions. That take what needs to be in there, keep it, keep all the background, and about the only changes they make are minor details with no real relevance on the overall plot, or exclude sections that in the books are used to advance characters who aren't nearly as important in the movies.

...really hate V For Vendetta movie.

It's okay, Jibar, ranting is justified when you're totally right.

There's a dissapointing trend in political messages in modern film that messages must be 'timely' to be important.

V for Vendetta wasn't about 9/11, the War in Iraq, or the War on Terror. It was about the 1980's in England. The 1980's were important, and you can learn from them by studying what happened in retrospect. The idea that unless something covers all the currentpolitical hotbuttons it isn't important, is just wrong.

I fear that Watchmen is going to abandon Watchmen's general ideas about science in the atomic age and replace it with a 'timely' message about Global Warming and why it's wrong to power cars with burning dinosaurs.

[Jibar]

power cars with burning dinosaurs.

After posting that big serious rant, I feel the need to do something silly so I need to say this is one of the coolest mental images I've ever had.

[InkEyes]

After posting that big serious rant, I feel the need to do something silly so I need to say this is one of the coolest mental images I've ever had.

^ x2 :smallbiggrin:


See, if they left it at that, just saying, "We [magically] have enough lithium that fossil fuels for vehicles are obsolete," then fine - leaving it as it was in the book, just a little footnote, grand. The specific word that has me spooked is "subplot."

That means, to me, that it's gone from being a minor detail to being something that gets returned to every so often, breaking the flow of the main story. The Queen of Sparta thing - that was a definite "subplot" that they tacked on. I'm concerned that this Watchmen "subplot" will be comparable, except worse.

The 'subplot' term worries me too, but without seeing any reliable info about the movie I can't know whether it's a full-blown subplot or Snyder just said: "Yeah, we're putting a little more emphasis on how all cars in Watchmenverse are electric" and EW interpreted that as Snyder adding in a 'timely subplot'. I'll store up a large jar of nerdrage for a few months down the road, when they start early showings of the movie or the script/scenes from the movie get leaked. If I hear people complain about a tacked-on plot about alternative fuels that drags moviegoers out of the actual plot, then I'll foam at the mouth.

About the Queen of Sparta: I've never seen the movie or read the source, but I was under the impression that the subplot was added because the movie would've been uncomfortably short otherwise (even with gratuitous use of slow-mo).

[ArmorArmadillo]

^ x2 :smallbiggrin:



The 'subplot' term worries me too, but without seeing any reliable info about the movie I can't know whether it's a full-blown subplot or Snyder just said: "Yeah, we're putting a little more emphasis on how all cars in Watchmenverse are electric" and EW interpreted that as Snyder adding in a 'timely subplot'. I'll store up a large jar of nerdrage for a few months down the road, when they start early showings of the movie or the script/scenes from the movie get leaked. If I hear people complain about a tacked-on plot about alternative fuels that drags moviegoers out of the actual plot, then I'll foam at the mouth.

About the Queen of Sparta: I've never seen the movie or read the source, but I was under the impression that the subplot was added because the movie would've been uncomfortably short otherwise (even with gratuitous use of slow-mo).
Worst, perhaps, is that it's very hard to imagine how you could make a serious environmental message using Watchmen. No matter what thing you do, Watchmen is built around a world in which there's a godlike figure who can create resources and manipulate energy in ways beyond mortal ken.

Anything that happens in the movie can be written off as "Yeah, but we don't have Dr. Manhattan, so we have to compromise in the real world."


To top it all off, part of the plot of the original Watchmen was that, despite the incredibly useful environmental advancements brought on by Dr. Manhattan, the destabilizing force of scientist caused more problems than it solved.

[InkEyes]

Maybe the actual timely subplot will be all about how Veidt made an electric car that would teleport the fake alien into the middle of New York City...

Electric Cars! They save the environment, reduce our dependency on foreign oil and kill millions of people with fake aliens!:smalltongue:

[Rare Pink Leech]

Uh, read a little closer. I said that's NOT in Hayter's script. What I wrote there is from an earlier draft written by a man named Sam Hamm.

Oops, my bad. Man were those some god-awful changes you mentioned. I couldn't figure out how the man who wrote X-Men and X2 could come up with such awful garbage, so thankfully I just misread what you said.


It's not about dark, it's about grittyness. It was a sloppy, ugly world that was rough around the edges. If you watch this trailer, the world is saturated in shine and gloss.

Just look at 300. Snyder went for this same ultra-glossiness. Let's see how he does when he can't just coast by on ripped abs and loincloths.

Fair enough, I understand where you're coming from. I still think, at least colour-wise, Snyder has the visuals down pat, even if it does look glossy. Although I think we shouldn't forget about the photos of the New York set he released - those are quite rough and haggard. Maybe the parts of the trailer we see are just sampled from some of the "glossier" scenes?

Something else I think we should all keep in mind - everyone who's commenting about the movie so far - is that we've only see 2 minutes of very short clips so far. I think we're all guilty of jumping to conclusions way too early.


Jibar's V For Vendetta rant.

Thank you thank you thank you. I agree with just about every point you made, except for your "And we'll all watch some twit ranting on TV when most people won't even watch Big Brother these days, let alone anything vaguely political" comment. I think that was less of a lack of understanding of British culture and more of a 1984-style "we'll listen to whatever bollocks the government tells us".

Quite possibly my biggest gripe with the movie is how they treated Norsefire. In the book, Moore presents them without making any judgements. Yes, they are a facist government who kills minorities and rules with an iron fist, yet they did rescue Britain from total anarchy in a post-nuclear world. He lets you decide whether or not their tactics are justified, just as he lets you decide whether V's anarchy and his tactics are justified. The movie, however, turns Norsefire into "OMG! Teh guvurnment released a virus on the people so they could liek totally take power! Their evil!"

[kpenguin]

@Rare Pink Leech: I'm not sure if it was you, I seem to remember you started a thread about how you didn't like V for Vendetta a while back? You changed your mind?

[Jibar]

I forgot the mention: Not all British humour is Benny Hill. :smallmad:
That scene was just ridiculous and was a waste of Stephen Fry's talent.

Seriously, I'll stop now.

[Verruckt]

I have to disagree with most people's opinion of V for Vendetta. Yes it was no where close to the comic, yes it left out major plot lines, but really, what did you expect them to do? The comic was huge, something that really should have been a trilogy if they'd wanted to do it fully. The key thing is though, they clearly didn't. V for Vendetta is a more universal story then people seem to give it credit for. They wanted to make a short brutal punch of a movie to communicate one of the facets of V, and they succeeded. Of course they went for current events and allegory. Allegory is expedient, it allows you to get the audience on the same page with you without going in to 15 minutes of pace destroying exposition. Really, ask the average American to name a building in London and they'll say "The Big Ass Clock", how can you expect them to grab the significance of him blowing up the Old Bailey? The point was to pose questions not easily answered, and to make the audience think and seek knowledge outside the theater. I for one think they accomplished that rather nicely.

[Roupe]

Well, there are numerous movie makers that just want to parasitize on a established fan groups "brand", or sabotage it with a totally different philosophy.

Then there are those few film makers that honor the work, and keep their own egos in the box -and thus makes great films.

If they want to use the brand it should be the brand -not something else.

When I order & pay for Steak, I'm annoyed if I'm served only lettuce - because the chef has moral issues to vent.

I would have no such qualms with the lettuce if it was on the meny as such.

Highlander2 (Laser pistols & Aliens -WTF)

[kpenguin]

Question: If you were to make an actual trailer for Watchmen that's around 1.5 to 2.5 minutes long, rather than a teaser, how would you do it? What images would you show, what narration, what title cards?

[Jibar]

I'd make two.
One would be like the one that's out now, except with much more dialogue in there, faithfully taken from the book.
The other would be me, the director, sitting in a chair and apologising to all the fans that I can't simply reproduce the book on screen. I can't get everything in there. I will have to cut stuff, but I will work my damn hardest to make sure that whatever is cut isn't treated as if it never existed. It simply won't be shown. And I would then promise, with text showing up to make this a written promise, that the ending would be exactly the same. Right down to camera angles if I can pull it.

If I saw that, I would be happy.

[ArmorArmadillo]

I have to disagree with most people's opinion of V for Vendetta. Yes it was no where close to the comic, yes it left out major plot lines, but really, what did you expect them to do? The comic was huge, something that really should have been a trilogy if they'd wanted to do it fully. The key thing is though, they clearly didn't.
Except the problem wasn't that they didn't include everything in the book. The problem was that, instead of keeping the general themes and message of the book, they replaced it with a Take That to America and lost the philosophical meditation that made it significant.

V for Vendetta is a more universal story then people seem to give it credit for. They wanted to make a short brutal punch of a movie to communicate one of the facets of V, and they succeeded.No, because the "short brutal punch" they made was never part of V for Vendetta. The movie wasn't a flat critique of government, it was an examination of the qualities of government against anarchy.
You're right in saying the story is universal, which begs the question of why they needed to rewrite it to be entirely 'timely' and specific to issues, which removes the general message of it.

Of course they went for current events and allegory. Allegory is expedient, it allows you to get the audience on the same page with you without going in to 15 minutes of pace destroying exposition.
Except there's lots of exposition establishing the political plot points in the film.
And it's not really an allegory. Animal Farm is an allegory, this is a polemic against big government set in the "Near Future".

Really, ask the average American to name a building in London and they'll say "The Big Ass Clock", how can you expect them to grab the significance of him blowing up the Old Bailey? The point was to pose questions not easily answered, and to make the audience think and seek knowledge outside the theater. I for one think they accomplished that rather nicely.
Aside from the fact that this point is founded on a theoretical straw man of the "dumb American", nothing in the movie wasn't easily answered.
The big government was bad, getting rid of them was good. In the book, these questions were more complex.


Of course, the standard complaint is "Well, it wasn't the book you can't just compare it to the book." But really, you have to.

They weren't just making any old movie, it was V for Vendetta.
When you adapt a famous, influential book for film, you do have a responsibility, in fact an obligation, to hold fast to that book's ideals, and not just steal all the characters so you can give the finger to the war on terror.

[Rare Pink Leech]

@Rare Pink Leech: I'm not sure if it was you, I seem to remember you started a thread about how you didn't like V for Vendetta a while back? You changed your mind?

That was indeed me. However, I started a new thread a few months later after reading it again, and it was like night and day. First time through, I didn't like it at all. Second time through, and it's suddenly a masterpiece to me. No idea how that happened. I actually talked about it in another thread. Here are the two threads I started:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52892
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70953


Really, ask the average American to name a building in London and they'll say "The Big Ass Clock"

You, sir, deserve a medal for that line. Brilliant.

[darkblade]

I just figured I'd post this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2wpQts0e9U) here and see how many rabid Watchman fans try and kill me.

[Tamburlaine]

^ I might try and kill you, but not for posting that; it was, if clumsy, mildly amusing.

[darkblade]

^ I might try and kill you, but not for posting that; it was, if clumsy, mildly amusing.

There wasn't enough dialouge in The Watchmen trailer to lip syncing it at all effectively so I didn't even try.

[Shatteredtower]

The problem was that, instead of keeping the general themes and message of the book, they replaced it with a Take That to America and lost the philosophical meditation that made it significant.Yeah, if that's what you insist on reading into the movie, there's no helping you. It's not true, though.

[Mx.Silver]

I'd make two.
One would be like the one that's out now, except with much more dialogue in there, faithfully taken from the book.
The other would be me, the director, sitting in a chair and apologising to all the fans that I can't simply reproduce the book on screen. I can't get everything in there. I will have to cut stuff, but I will work my damn hardest to make sure that whatever is cut isn't treated as if it never existed. It simply won't be shown. And I would then promise, with text showing up to make this a written promise, that the ending would be exactly the same. Right down to camera angles if I can pull it.

If I saw that, I would be happy.

Except that this thread has pretty much established that the Watchmen fans are going to be a completely unpleasable fanbase (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnpleasableFanbase) who will spend the entire film complaining about how they changed it now it sucks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks). :smalltongue:

Seriously, all anyone has seen of it so far is a trailer. A trailer which gives very little indication as to what the film is going to be like. There's no real dialogue, and even if there was I wouldn't trust it, given that a lot of trailers take lines out of context. Maybe we wanna hold back before we all start announcing how it's ruined forever (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuinedFOREVER).

[InkEyes]

Except that this thread has pretty much established that the Watchmen fans are going to be a completely unpleasable fanbase (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnpleasableFanbase) who will spend the entire film complaining about how they changed it now it sucks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks). :smalltongue:

Seriously, all anyone has seen of it so far is a trailer. A trailer which gives very little indication as to what the film is going to be like. There's no real dialogue, and even if there was I wouldn't trust it, given that a lot of trailers take lines out of context. Maybe we wanna hold back before we all start announcing how it's ruined forever (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuinedFOREVER).

It's a piece of critically acclaimed literature being turned into a movie. Moreover, it's a piece of critically acclaimed literature that was written by Alan Moore: a man who writes stories that have been notoriously mistranslated onto the big screen. Doom-sayers are a given at this point in time. Right now, it's just best to sit back and watch people debate the merits of the V for Vendetta movie.

[Aquillion]

No, because the "short brutal punch" they made was never part of V for Vendetta. The movie wasn't a flat critique of government, it was an examination of the qualities of government against anarchy.You're wrong. At least in this point, you're quite definitely wrong.

Sure, there are more layers to the story, but Alan Moore's notes make it very clear that the book was also intended as a direct and harsh criticism of the Thatcher government. It was a little bit broader than that -- he makes it clear that he was criticizing not only Thatcher, but the way the nation had changed since WWII in ways that had allowed it to elect someone who he saw as being as terrible as Thatcher -- but that's a basic part of V for Vendetta, and if you missed it then you missed a major part of what you were reading.

(Likewise, the movie was not a 'Take That' to America; it was a Take That to America's current administration and to certain aspects of America related to it, just like the original book was a Take That to Thatcher and certain aspects of the country that supported her. There was more there in each, but if you didn't get the fact that Moore was explicitly criticizing Thatcher in the original, then you missed something.)

[BRC]

My predictions for the film.

They will likely cut out the whole Newsstand thing, and even if they have it the "Tales of the Black Freighter" won't be in there and it will be severely cut down. (NOTE: I just checked the photo gallery, and they have a picture of Newstand Bernard and Bernie in there, so we know they will be included) By my count, the only real "Action" Scenes in the book are

Rorschach's arrest.
Dan and Laurie getting mugged.
Dan and Laurie breaking Rorschach out of prison.
Now, with the exception of the arrest, the action in these scenes isn't the focus, in the film, these scenes will be expanded and people getting punched will be the focus. They will probably also "Action-ize" a couple more scenes, like the Riots, heck, I won't be surprised if they give Adrian a few gun-wielding goons in Antarctica for Rorschach and Dan to beat up.

Now, if they do the above, but don't change much else, I could live with that.

The Following things would ruin the movie for me
1, Trying to make Rorschach more Sympathetic: If the movie doesn't include him walking into bars and hurting people on the off chance that somebody in the bar knows something, he's not Rorschach. They may try to make him seem like a reasonable guy who just happens to have a cynical outlook on the world or somthing. He's not, he believes in absolute good and absolute evil, that evil people are incapable of good and vice versa. Thats why he has no trouble breaking a glass in a mans hand and then squeezing it, according to him the man is evil and that's all there is too it.
2, Making the Comedian Sympathetic:This goes without saying, I mean, come on, do I even need to explain this one.
3, Removing the Commentary: The entire point of the novel is to explain how absurd the whole super-hero concept is. Look at the still-active heroes, Rorschach's borderline insane, Jon just see's people as a collection of particles, and the Comedian see's everything as a joke. If they turn this into another "people getting punched in the face" movie, it could still be a good movie, but it wouldn't be watchmen.
4, Changing Ozymandus significantly; They already changed his costume a little, though that may just be because the whole Gold and Purple thing looked ridiculous on screen. The actor they picked dosn't look like somebody who an interviewer practically begins worshiping them moment he meets him, somebody who could take down an ogre like the comedian with his bare hands, then throw him through reinforced glass. They may try to re-write ozymandus so that he's well-intentioned but isn't really thinking about the consequences of his actions. make him obsessed with his goal to the point of blindness or somthing. That would be a good character, but it would Not be Ozymandus. He knows exactly what he's doing, he's thought it through, weighed the pros and cons countless times, analyzed the situation, and said "Yes, this should be done, sadly, this is the only way to do it." Re-writing him as an insane fallen hero type would ruin that aspect of him.

[Ascension]

Re-writing him as an insane fallen hero type would ruin that aspect of him.

I agree with all of your things-that-would-ruin-the-movie-if-changed, BRC, and I'd like to expand on the above line... A fallen hero type who is completely and utterly sane, who knows exactly what he's doing, and, especially, one who's probably right is far scarier and more meaningful than someone who's just a psycho. I might even be willing to stomach a mangling of Rorschach as long as Ozymandias is kept intact.

[JMobius]

http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=7598

Potentially alarming?

[Nevrmore]

More proof that Fox is directly involved with all the bad things in the world.

[Ascension]

As far as it's come it's going to be released. WB might just have to pay Fox some cash or something to get them to shut up, but it's going to be released regardless.

[InkEyes]

As far as it's come it's going to be released. WB might just have to pay Fox some cash or something to get them to shut up, but it's going to be released regardless.

I agree, it's so far into the post-production at this point that there's no way Fox could stop it. The only reason Fox is kicking up a fuss now is that Fox wants some of the money, if they really wanted WB to completely stop the project they would've filed the suit before filming started.

[Rare Pink Leech]

I think you underestimate the power of a good legal team to delay just about anything from happening :smallamused:

At any rate, how close to completion the movie is won't (and shouldn't) have any bearing on whether production is stopped or not. If the studio's legal right to make it is in question, then it will be stopped. Saying "but judge, we're so close to finishing, why don't you just let us finish it" isn't a real defence, but it would kick ass if it was :smallbiggrin:

[Aquillion]

At any rate, how close to completion the movie is won't (and shouldn't) have any bearing on whether production is stopped or not. If the studio's legal right to make it is in question, then it will be stopped. Saying "but judge, we're so close to finishing, why don't you just let us finish it" isn't a real defence, but it would kick ass if it was :smallbiggrin:No, but it impacts how hard the studio will fight back (or how likely they are just to pay a pile of money to make the issue go away, which is more likely what Fox is after here.) If this came up before shooting started, it would be much more likely that WB would just say 'screw it' and ditch the project without much fight. Now that they've invested this much into it, they're likely to fight it tooth and nail or pay Fox off or whatever is necessary to eventually get a shot at getting their investment back.

[Rare Pink Leech]

Ah, when you look at it that way, the movie will indeed be hard to stop. When you've already invested $100 million+, you're going to be willing to spend a whole lot more to make sure the movie is seen. Let's hope this doesn't become a protracted legal battle so we can actually see the movie.

[Irenaeus]

Meh.

It looks like it'll be a faithful recreation of how scenes from the comic looked, which is not the difficult part.

It tells me nothing about how the complexities of the story will come across, which is what matters.

In fact, I am worried about several things from it. Ozymandias looks absurdly wrong. The Comedian in Vietnam looks... odd (though that could be a stylized flashback or something similar).I agree completely to the post quoted above.

Though if it works, I'll be in awe. I just don't see how it can be done in a movie. It would fit well for a miniseries, though.

[Irenaeus]

Snip.That was a quality rant!

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

In the actual movie, Rorshach had better say "whores and politicians," instead of "the world."

Also, they had better keep in American love.

[Aquillion]

In the actual movie, Rorshach had better say "whores and politicians," instead of "the world."

Also, they had better keep in American love.I can't imagine they'd censor it just for the trailer, sadly.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I'll be forced pretend everyone in the world is either a whore or politician, if that is the case.

I will lose a lot of friends. D=

[ArmorArmadillo]

Yeah, if that's what you insist on reading into the movie, there's no helping you. It's not true, though.

There's no helping me? I have a different reading of the movie than you and I've lost all hope. Honestly, considering you don't even actually say anything substantive about why you think I'm wrong than I can't say I can put much stock in this retort.

@ Aquillon (Who did have substantive things to say, thank you)
The book is clear in not accepting England's steps toward fascism, but it didn't gloss over the people behind it. It made point of giving insight into the psychology of the fascist leaders. The leader, particularly, was almost sympathetic by the end of the book.
He was crazy by the end of it, but you didn't see him is a blank faced totaliarian emperor. Contrast with the film, where the only thing we learn about the leader was that he enjoyed milk and was very angry.

The movie lost the book's prophetic realism wherein you could see how the fascist government came into being without needing a gigantic manufactured plague.

[snoopy13a]

I saw the trailer before the Batman movie.

All I thought was, is that one guy Batman? Because he kinda, sorta looks like Batman... It said DC comics before the trailer started so maybe that guy is Batman?

[kpenguin]

I saw the trailer before the Batman movie.

All I thought was, is that one guy Batman? Because he kinda, sorta looks like Batman... It said DC comics before the trailer started so maybe that guy is Batman?

No... no he isn't.

He's Nite Owl, a middle-aged, retired superhero who is based off of the Blue Beetle. They Batmanified him for the movie.

[ColonelFuster]

I've seen the trailer. I love it. But for some reason, I thought it was Nixon who said, "God help us all."
Didn't sound like Nixon. XP

[Jibar]

I can't imagine they'd censor it just for the trailer, sadly.

Well actually...
A lot of trailers are censored, at least here in England.
That way they can show them with films lower than their age rating.

[ArmorArmadillo]

No... no he isn't.

He's Nite Owl, a middle-aged, retired superhero who is based off of the Blue Beetle. They Batmanified him for the movie.

Although those who didn't know Blue Beetle would think he's based on Batman. I did, at least.

[turkishproverb]

I've seen the trailer. I love it. But for some reason, I thought it was Nixon who said, "God help us all."
Didn't sound like Nixon. XP

In all fairness, the real nixon sounded too much like Rich Little's impersonation for a voice too similar to be taken seriously in the film.

[Tirian]

I've seen the trailer. I love it. But for some reason, I thought it was Nixon who said, "God help us all."
Didn't sound like Nixon. XP

I reread the story since raising that issue a few pages back, and didn't bother noting that I had resolved the matter in my own mind because I didn't think anyone else cared.


You don't really give a damn about human beings. I've watched you. You never cared about whatsername, Janey Slater, even before you ditched her. Soon you won't be interested in Sally Jupiter's little gal either. You're drifting outta touch, Doc. You're turning into a flake. God help us all.

[kpenguin]

Wow.

The voice that says that in the trailer does not sound like the gruff Comedian to me at all.

Say, Tirian, just a question:

Why did you omit the bit that mentions Jon in your Ozymandias quote? I was re-reading Watchmen and I noticed the quote in the Nova Express interview.

[Tirian]

The voice that says that in the trailer does not sound like the gruff Comedian to me at all.


Yeah, to say nothing of the fact that it doesn't sound like someone who has just been stabbed in the face with a broken bottle. But it's enough to dampen my fears that the words had been forced into Jon's mouth. We'll find out for certain in six months, I suppose.



Say, Tirian, just a question:

Why did you omit the bit that mentions Jon in your Ozymandias quote? I was re-reading Watchmen and I noticed the quote in the Nova Express interview.

Personally, I think that Alan Moore is speaking directly to us through much of that interview, that you or I sitting in our easy chairs can choose to see superhero comics as escapism or inspiration. Adrian had to be specific to the only superhero that anyone in their world would be expected to remember, but you or I know far more examples. We can wait for our family to be gunned down by mobsters or to be the sole survivor of a doomed planet, or we can transform the world through courageous decisions today. That, and the four words and a colon really weighed down the sentence.

While on the subject, I think that Adrian's Nova Express interview (at the end of chapter 11) is the greatest in-world "appendix" written since Orwell's "The Principles of Newspeak." If you've only read the parts of Watchmen that have pictures, you owe it to yourself to check it out.

[Nevrmore]

I can't imagine they'd censor it just for the trailer, sadly.
Because you can't say "Whores" in a trailer that is ahead of a PG-13 rated movie?

Just like the censors raised a fuss over the scene where Veidt smacks the would-be assassin into a fountain with a banister because they have a retarded rule about not allowing guns to be pointed "at the audience" in trailers (the camera was directly behind Veidt in the first few frames of the cut, so if he wasn't there the man would have been pointing the gun at the camera), so they edited the offending frames so that he was holding a walkie-talkie.

[chiasaur11]

Although those who didn't know Blue Beetle would think he's based on Batman. I did, at least.

When really, he's based on Spider-Man. Or at least the second one is.

[Rare Pink Leech]

Come again? How is Nite Owl II based off Spider-Man?

[BRC]

When really, he's based on Spider-Man. Or at least the second one is.
Explain Please. Night Owl's main benefit is his nifty toys (I wish I had an owlship, that thing beats the batmobile any day of the week), while Spideys power is his super strength, web swinging, and snarking.

[darkblade]

Explain Please. Night Owl's main benefit is his nifty toys (I wish I had an owlship, that thing beats the batmobile any day of the week), while Spideys power is his super strength, web swinging, and snarking.

I think he was refering to the second Blue Beetle not Nite Owl.

[BRC]

I think he was refering to the second Blue Beetle not Nite Owl.
Oh, that would make a bit more sense.

[chiasaur11]

I think he was refering to the second Blue Beetle not Nite Owl.

Yeah. Sorry if I was unclear.

[Rare Pink Leech]

Yeah. Sorry if I was unclear.

Hey, no problem. People make mistakes all the time, and rereading what you wrote, I'm inclined to say I misread what you wrote more than you wrote something unclear.