Spankity New Watchmen Trailer (Very different from before)

[hanzo66]

Hope this link works... (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/watchmen.html?showVideo=1)

And no, this isn't just another one with that Smashing Pumpkins song with a few new footage. This is more like a regular trailer where you can hear the characters talk and all.

please don't make this like other threads I start and only last 5-6 posts...

[kpenguin]

Can I get a "WTF" from the house, yo?

[BRC]

I don't much like Jon's voice. However, it would work for him pre- Manhattan, so I guess that's okay.


They seem to have made some changes, acting like the Watchmen was an organization, similar to the Minutemen, which didn't happen in the book. Perhaps it's just to ease storytelling, which is forgivable, and so people don't miss all the symbolism.

Rorschach's voice is annoying, but then again, he's not supposed to be a likeable guy, and Laurie describes his voice as Creepy, so that makes some sense.


I really don't like

Their footage of The Comedian's Death. "I guess it was only a matter of time", COME ON. There was NO evidence that Blake knew who was behind the island. And The Comedian is not fatalistic like that, in the book he was in a state of shock the entire time. Also, they have Adrian throwing him across half the room, which didn't happen. Ozzy is strong, but not THAT strong, he carried him to the window and threw him through it, he didn't chuck him across the room like a sack of feathers.

The People's Conclusion: I remain optimistic, and some changes were inevitable, but the question remains, are these changes Pragmatic Adaptations, necessary to turn the very medium-based story of Watchmen into an enjoyable film? Or just the Screenwriter trying to put their "Mark" on things.

[FoE]

Rorshach has to lay off the smokes. :smalltongue:

In all seriousness, the old trailer gave me hope, but this new trailer fills my heart with dread.

[Random NPC]

Rorshach has to lay off the smokes. :smalltongue:

Isn't it supposed to sound scruffy and monotonous?

[Hands_Of_Blue]

I can understand why they would make Watchmen the name of their former super hero team, since all non comic book people would be wondering why the movie is called Watchmen.

But it still annoys me.

[BRC]

I mean, it may just be because they felt silly saying "Costumed Adventurer". Personally, I think people are able to get what they mean by "Watchmen", especially with the "Who Watches the Watchmen" thing.

[hanzo66]

Their footage of The Comedian's Death. "I guess it was only a matter of time", COME ON. There was NO evidence that Blake knew who was behind the island. And The Comedian is not fatalistic like that, in the book he was in a state of shock the entire time. Also, they have Adrian throwing him across half the room, which didn't happen. Ozzy is strong, but not THAT strong, he carried him to the window and threw him through it, he didn't chuck him across the room like a sack of feathers.
Well, I'd assume that "I guess It's a matter of time" was more out of the fact that Blake just has a lot of enemies in his life, being Nixon's Pet Psycho after all.

[kpenguin]

I assume in the Watchmen movie-verse, the Crimebusters went through. Although, Captain Metropolis is missing from that shot.

[The Extinguisher]

Doubt it. It's a very important point that it busted.

Maybe they just collectively referred to themselves as the Watchmen without actually being a "team"

[Brewdude]

I don't much like Jon's voice. However, it would work for him pre- Manhattan, so I guess that's okay.

They seem to have made some changes, acting like the Watchmen was an organization, similar to the Minutemen, which didn't happen in the book. Perhaps it's just to ease storytelling, which is forgivable, and so people don't miss all the symbolism.

I really don't like

Their footage of The Comedian's Death. "I guess it was only a matter of time", COME ON. There was NO evidence that Blake knew who was behind the island. And The Comedian is not fatalistic like that, in the book he was in a state of shock the entire time. Also, they have Adrian throwing him across half the room, which didn't happen. Ozzy is strong, but not THAT strong, he carried him to the window and threw him through it, he didn't chuck him across the room like a sack of feathers.

The People's Conclusion: I remain optimistic, and some changes were inevitable, but the question remains, are these changes Pragmatic Adaptations, necessary to turn the very medium-based story of Watchmen into an enjoyable film? Or just the Screenwriter trying to put their "Mark" on things.

{Scrubbed}

This is the trailer this movie needs, and frankly, my optimism is now high for this movie. I cried in real life while watching it I want to see it so badly now. :)

[Icewalker]

Looks interesting. Equal parts awesome and 'aaw, damn' I'd say.

Ok fine, significantly more awesome as a movie, but it gives an ever-clearer example of how it will be a fantastic movie, but won't live up to the book's level of awesome at all.

I find Rorschach's voice kind of annoying, but not because it is deep and gruff, but because it sounds like a person trying to make a deep and gruff voice, rather than a strange unique voice.

I am however quite disappointed by Jon's voice. Felt like it should be somehow epic/magicy/powerful rather than a normal voice. Ah well.

Still looks awesome.

I'm still annoyed by Ozymandias' darker costume. Way too blunt foreshadowing. Also, I totally never realized it was he who killed the Comedian until now :smallredface:

I'd say that yeah, the Comedian's line "I guess it was only a matter of time" is more of a 'someone is here to kill me' than 'Ozymandias is here to kill me for my knowledge about the island.'

[Nevrmore]

Big ol' spoiler:

Honestly, what worries me most about the trailer is that they re-used the shot of Nite Owl II falling to his knees and screaming in the snow, but the checkerboard reflection on his goggles seem to have been editted out. In the first trailer, that was used as evidence that he was in Veidt's room with the big wall of TVs, which meant he was reacting to the news that 3 million people had been killed. Other people thought that the reflection was from the stage lights on the set and that it had neglected to be corrected.

If the reflection is gone, then that more than likely means Nite Owl is outside in this shot. And if he's outside, then that more than likely means he's screaming because he just saw Rorschach die. And if he just saw Rorschach die, that means that there's a good chance that he's going to do exactly what David Hayter's version of the script wrote him doing - kill Veidt.

[Icewalker]

Big ol' spoiler:

Honestly, what worries me most about the trailer is that they re-used the shot of Nite Owl II falling to his knees and screaming in the snow, but the checkerboard reflection on his goggles seem to have been editted out. In the first trailer, that was used as evidence that he was in Veidt's room with the big wall of TVs, which meant he was reacting to the news that 3 million people had been killed. Other people thought that the reflection was from the stage lights on the set and that it had neglected to be corrected.

If the reflection is gone, then that more than likely means Nite Owl is outside in this shot. And if he's outside, then that more than likely means he's screaming because he just saw Rorschach die. And if he just saw Rorschach die, that means that there's a good chance that he's going to do exactly what David Hayter's version of the script wrote him doing - kill Veidt.

Damn, I hope not. That'd be a really mucked up moment of plot which would be really unnecessary...

Oh wait, do you mean Rorschach killing Veidt? Because that wouldn't be crazy unreasonable plotwise, it just doesn't happen, and shouldn't. Nite Owl doing it would just be all wrong...

[kpenguin]

Big ol' spoiler:

Honestly, what worries me most about the trailer is that they re-used the shot of Nite Owl II falling to his knees and screaming in the snow, but the checkerboard reflection on his goggles seem to have been editted out. In the first trailer, that was used as evidence that he was in Veidt's room with the big wall of TVs, which meant he was reacting to the news that 3 million people had been killed. Other people thought that the reflection was from the stage lights on the set and that it had neglected to be corrected.

If the reflection is gone, then that more than likely means Nite Owl is outside in this shot. And if he's outside, then that more than likely means he's screaming because he just saw Rorschach die. And if he just saw Rorschach die, that means that there's a good chance that he's going to do exactly what David Hayter's version of the script wrote him doing - kill Veidt.

If that happens, I'll be very PO'd.

Also, Laurie asking Jon to save the world for her? Laaaame. Laurie doesn't seem like the kind of woman would say something like that.

[BisectedBrioche]

^^^ Of course you could argue that Jon's response would most likely be No, you cheated on me. as it was in the comic.

Personally I hope they leave in all of Rorschach's kills. That alone would make it one of the best films of the year.

[GenericFighter]

The 'Wathcmen' group photo bit looks like the police strike/riot/Keene Act part.

[Comet]

Can't wait to see this flick. The visuals at least are very, very impressive.

Can't say nothing about the plot yet, though. I liked the comic book but I still don't think changing a few details would ruin the movie. We're just gonna have to wait and see.
I'm feeling optimistic about this.:smallsmile:

Oh and I kinda liked Manhattans voice. The conflict with his god-like appearance and mundane speaking voice intriqued me or something. And I thought Rorschach was as cool as ever, even though he sounded like Batman.

[BRC]

If that happens, I'll be very PO'd.

Also, Laurie asking Jon to save the world for her? Laaaame. Laurie doesn't seem like the kind of woman would say something like that.
Meh, Laurie isn't the type to put herself over the fate of the world, I could picture her saying that, even if she didn't really mean it.


It should be noted that only Rorshach refers to them as "Watchmen" in the trailer, which would work with Rorshach's personality. He would assign the more dramatic "Watchmen", implying that they were the guardians of justice, rather than "Costumed Adventurer", which makes them sound like Don-Quixote esque idiots wearing silly clothes.

Concerning the accusations of Fanboiness, that is a title I would hold with Pride. Perhaps it's because I'd heard so much about how the movie was trying to be true to the book (Right down to the electric cars) that I am slightly dissapointed in any change. Jon's voice, for example, isn't the voice I imagine Dr Manhattan, near-omnipotent superbeing whose very existance changed the world, who is having trouble relating to humans. It works perfectly however for Jon Osterman, young atomic scientist who wanted to be a watchmaker.

[Phase]

John's voice, for example, isn't the voice I imagine Dr Manhattan, near-omnipotent superbeing whose very existance changed the world, who is having trouble relating to humans. It works perfectly however for Jon Osterman, young atomic scientist who wanted to be a watchmaker.

Well, they can be true to the book and still have that voice. Note that the books typically didn't speak.

[Vuzzmop]

I'm reserving my opinion for the film itself on the basis that trailers usually mess with stuff anyway.

Rorschach's and Dr Manhattan's voices do bother me though.

[T-O-E]

If these rumours are true then Synder will be fearing for his life.

[Tamburlaine]

I like the new trailer, personally: nice visuals, still seems mostly true to the book - should be awesome.

I'm indifferent to Rorschach's voice, it seems to be pretty good even if it isn't exactly how I envisioned (enlistened?) it, but I think that Doctor Manhattan's voice is almost perfect; I always imagined his voice being fairly mundane to contrast his appearance and the things he says.

Overall, I'm still cautiously optimistic.:smallsmile:

[WalkingTarget]

I like the new trailer, personally: nice visuals, still seems mostly true to the book - should be awesome.

I'm indifferent to Rorschach's voice, it seems to be pretty good even if it isn't exactly how I envisioned (enlistened?) it, but I think that Doctor Manhattan's voice is almost perfect; I always imagined his voice being fairly mundane to contrast his appearance and the things he says.

Overall, I'm still cautiously optimistic.:smallsmile:

I think Rorschach sounds a bit too angry, but I think it'd be difficult to make a character's voice do what it does in my head when I read it and not annoy the audience over the course of an entire film.

The problem I have with Doc's voice in the preview is that I always felt that the special speech balloons he got implied that his voice wasn't normal. However, I'm not sure what effect I'd prefer exactly, so maybe being normal is the best compromise.

[Somebloke]

I'll enjoy it. I have a sneaking suspicion I'll have to shut off my brain when I do, and that I'll be hearing my sister (who enjoyed it on a more intellectual level)'s screams from Australia, but still.

[PanNarrans]

Take a Bow was the perfect song to play over the trailer, I think. I might re-read the book listening to it looped.
Nite Owl II doesn't look out of shape enough.

[Nevrmore]

Damn, I hope not. That'd be a really mucked up moment of plot which would be really unnecessary...

Oh wait, do you mean Rorschach killing Veidt? Because that wouldn't be crazy unreasonable plotwise, it just doesn't happen, and shouldn't. Nite Owl doing it would just be all wrong...
No, in Hayter's version of the script, Nite Owl sees Jon kill Rorschach, realizes that Rorschach was right, and goes to Veidt's room and kills him with an...owlrang.

[Tirian]

I'm reserving my opinion for the film itself on the basis that trailers usually mess with stuff anyway.

Rorschach's and Dr Manhattan's voices do bother me though.

You're not supposed to like anything about R. Jon's voice is a little wimpy, but he's designed to be a contrast of cosmic power and historical impotence, and the movie probably isn't going to be showing off his tiny phallus. :smallbiggrin:

I guess I'm the only one bugged by Dan's voice. It sounds like he graduated from the Christopher Reeve School For Milquetoast Alter-Ego Voices.

I'm also sad that "Golden Age" Nite Owl and Ozymandius were wearing the same "rarrrr" outfits that they are in 1987, instead of being more lighthearted in the simpler age.

[Thormag]

I really don't like

Their footage of The Comedian's Death. "I guess it was only a matter of time", COME ON. There was NO evidence that Blake knew who was behind the island. And The Comedian is not fatalistic like that, in the book he was in a state of shock the entire time. Also, they have Adrian throwing him across half the room, which didn't happen. Ozzy is strong, but not THAT strong, he carried him to the window and threw him through it, he didn't chuck him across the room like a sack of feathers.


According to Dave:


I think what you’ve got to remember is that the Comedian, when we see him at the time of his murder, is quite a lot older. Although he’s still a hefty guy and he’s obviously kept in shape, he’s not as quick as he once was, probably, and not as strong as he once was. Realizing that he’s up against Adrian Veidt – although we don’t realize it at that time – who is the fittest man in the world, the best-trained athlete, he’s probably thinking “You know, realistically speaking, I’m not going to win this.” I think he puts up a fight, I don’t think he’s drunk, I don’t think he willingly dies. But I think he reaches the point where he’s seen it coming. I think he says as much to Moloch and I think he knows his day has come.

There’s an Arabic saying that “Until my day comes, nothing can harm me and when my day comes, nothing can save me.” I think possibly he’s in that frame of mind. It’s like seeing Adrian Veidt crash through his door and he thinks to himself “Well, this is it.”

[PhallicWarrior]

Alrighty,
I'm liking the visuals, and the addition of the fight at the beginning of the movie, what with the fight between Comedian and and Ozzy (Whited out for those who haven't read.) I just hope they don't turn the scene on Mars into a big "I don't care about the world. But you love me, and I do love it, fix it for me. OK, but just for you." dealy instead of Doc M rediscovering the value of life like it should be. Other than that, and the fact that I think Damian Lewis would make a much better Rorschach than the guy they have now, I can't really find fault with what I've seen.

[BRC]

Re-watching the trailer. One line that bugged me "Watchmen, tonight one of us died in new york, someone knows why", because it implied that the Watchmen was an organization. However, I think it's there to replace "Tonight, a comedian died in new york", because people unfamiliar with the book wouldn't know who the Comedian was, and would merely find the line confusing.

[Cheesegear]

"Watchmen, tonight one of us died in new york, someone knows why", because it implied that the Watchmen was an organization. However, I think it's there to replace "Tonight, a comedian died in new york", because people unfamiliar with the book wouldn't know who the Comedian was, and would merely find the line confusing.

That's what exposition is for. It would confuse them at first, and then they'd find out who/what the line was referring to.

[GenericFighter]

Re-watching the trailer. One line that bugged me "Watchmen, tonight one of us died in new york, someone knows why", because it implied that the Watchmen was an organization. However, I think it's there to replace "Tonight, a comedian died in new york", because people unfamiliar with the book wouldn't know who the Comedian was, and would merely find the line confusing.

They probably just couldn't get the rights to the song.:smallbiggrin:

[Satyr]

Calling Snyder visonary is like calling Boll experimental.
The more I see and hear about the movie zthe more I fear it becomes a superficial style over substance tale like many where the visuals are great, but the movie is still lobotomised. I would rather have a less optical impressive but more intelligent movie.

And please do not use stuff like that the audience wouldn't understand it' as an excuse for stupidification of a movie or story. Most people aren't stupid, and shouldn't be treated as if they were.

[DomaDoma]

It could be a line written entirely for the trailer, though. It does happen.

[Cheesegear]

Calling Snyder visonary is like calling Boll experimental.
The more I see and hear about the movie zthe more I fear it becomes a superficial style over substance tale like many where the visuals are great, but the movie is still lobotomised. I would rather have a less optical impressive but more intelligent movie.

And please do not use stuff like that the audience wouldn't understand it' as an excuse for stupidification of a movie or story. Most people aren't stupid, and shouldn't be treated as if they were.

The problem is that Hollywood likes to make money. Not just money, but LOTS of money. So, when a comic-book movie comes around, they have to condense a whole story into roughly 90-120 minutes. It's do-able. But only if they cut out a lot.

Usually, it has nothing to do with 'The Fans are Stupid'. It has to do with a lot of things aren't really important to the greater story. There are a lot of 'little bits' that probably should be included. But important? They are not. So directors/producers cut it out. Not to mention the more stuff they include the more money they spend, the less Step 3 (har har har) they recieve.

And the fact is; No matter how bad it looks in the trailers, most fans of the book are going to see it anyway (I know I am, even if Rorschach sounds even more ridiculous than Batman). And, sadly, people who aren't fans of the book, aren't going to want lots of backstory/exposition. They just want stuff to blow up. I'm looking at you Michael Bay.

[Mx.Silver]

It could be a line written entirely for the trailer, though. It does happen.

Now now, let's not bring reason into this. It would spoil at that wonderful fanboy backlash about how 'They ruined EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!eleventyone!!!1' :smalltongue:

[The Corinthian]

My thoughts:
This movie is going to have little or none of the wonderful pacing of the comic. They look like they are giving away too much, too soon. But I think it's going to be as good a movie as it could be beyond that. (Assuming no stupid changes to the ending or additions of unnecessary fights)
Rorschach's voice wasn't *perfect*, but in filmmaking there are limitations. Drawing a speech-bubble in a unique and descriptive way is much easier than making a voice to fit. Jon's voice worked great for me, I'm with Tamburlaine on that. I mourn the loss of the "whores and politicians" line, but I can't say I'm surprised. And it would probably go over the heads of half the audience anyway. :smalltongue:
My only real worry is that they will ruin the scenes on Mars, particularly by trying to play up the "romance" angle. :smallfurious:
One thing, a minor quirk I guess, REALLY bugged me: Rorschach saying they'd find the killer for "retribution". That's ****. That's not how Rorcschach thinks AT ALL.

But on balance, I'm looking forward to this. I'm eager, but not as anxiously so as I was for The Dark Knight.

[T-O-E]

I mourn the loss of the "whores and politicians" line, but I can't say I'm surprised.

Hopefully only edited for the advertisement.

[Somebloke]

Anyone else worry that the whole 'kiss at ground zero' moment indicates a TPK for the cast?

[Brewdude]

Well, maintaining the slower pacing of the comics is gonna be a bit tough when they take out the whole "tales from the black freighter" story.

Sometimes, words just need to get changed because they work better in the medium of movies. It's not necessarily a matter of stupidification, but of pacing.

The criticisms I value least are those that compare a movie to it's source material, rather than those about how a movie worked in and unto itself. It's not the voices that annoy me, It's Jon's delivery of his line. He spoke it like it was two sentences, which doesn't make sense. THAT's what makes me scared: that Dr. Manhattan will get ruined by crappy line delivery. I can't believe that got by adr, let alone into the trailer.

[Jen0608]

The trailer isn't that bad but for me trailers must be more catchy (at least in my taste)

[Brewdude]

One thing they're going to have to do in either tv previews or other hype is introduce us to watchmen's heroes. Should probably be able to do it with actor appearances on late night, but I talked to someone who'd seen the preview at the bond film (he just came out as I was finding the rest of the shows were sold out. Grrr) who thought it was going to be some Justice League ripoff. Sigh.

[Green Bean]

Anyone else worry that the whole 'kiss at ground zero' moment indicates a TPK for the cast?

I'm pretty sure that was in the comic:

After SS and Nite Owl try to have sex, he has that dream. It's supposed to symbolize impotence or something.

[Zaphrasz]

As bad as most of the character voices are, I think Dan fits what I envisioned pretty well.

[Thufir]

The trailer isn't that bad but for me trailers must be more catchy (at least in my taste)

I suspect if the trailer was catchy, I'd hate it. Watchmen is not catchy.

Rorschach's voice isn't how I imagined it... I always imagined it kind of hoarse and rasping, and most significantly as if he was whispering all the time. Not sure why, just how it occurred to me.
The trailer kind of portrays Rorschach as more heroic than it should, in my opinion. Also makes it seem like he's leading the 'Watchmen', rather than the rest of them thinking he's crazy.
Oh, and did I hear right? "Jon thinks there's going to be a nuclear war." Please tell me I imagined that line. Watchmen is deterministic: if Jon thinks something is going to happen, it will. Nuclear war he thinks might happen, because it's a possible explanation for the tachyons.

Also, plot synopsis has problems: Describes Rorschach as 'washed up', again implies he's the leader, and no mention whatsoever of him being a nutjob.

[Green Bean]

The trailer kind of portrays Rorschach as more heroic than it should, in my opinion. Also makes it seem like he's leading the 'Watchmen', rather than the rest of them thinking he's crazy.

I think that's supposed to be the point. For folks who haven't read the comic, the trailer makes it look like a traditional superhero movie about the heroic Rorschach trying to stop bad guys from Destroying the World!, making the deconstruction that much more powerful.

[BRC]

I think that's supposed to be the point. For folks who haven't read the comic, the trailer makes it look like a traditional superhero about the heroic Rorschach trying to stop bad guys from Destroying the World!, making the deconstruction that much more powerful.
Looking at some stills, they have the Minutemen christmas photo, and they all look suitably ridiculous, which ddoes a nice job of portraying the message needed.

[Samurai Jill]

Calling Snyder visonary is like calling Boll experimental.
The more I see and hear about the movie zthe more I fear it becomes a superficial style over substance tale like many where the visuals are great, but the movie is still lobotomised. I would rather have a less optical impressive but more intelligent movie.

And please do not use stuff like that the audience wouldn't understand it' as an excuse for stupidification of a movie or story. Most people aren't stupid, and shouldn't be treated as if they were.
More to the point, everything you do to make a production more palatable or the stupid makes it less palatable for the smart.

Yeah, I'm afraid that if Snyder's treatment of 300 is anything to go by, we shall be bitterly disappointed. ...I'm still waiting for Sin City 2.

[Seraph]

More to the point, everything you do to make a production more palatable or the stupid makes it less palatable for the smart.

Yeah, I'm afraid that if Snyder's treatment of 300 is anything to go by, we shall be bitterly disappointed. ...I'm still waiting for Sin City 2.

snyder's movie of 300 was **** because 300 is a **** comic that was only worth reading because of the humor provided by unintentional homoeroticism meant to portray manliness. Watchmen could never be as good as the comic, but snyder seems to be enough of a fan to not make changes unless absolutely necessary. as opposed to Hayter's script, which was . . . less so.

[Samurai Jill]

I'm reasonably sure that there were some not-too-subtle changes made to 300's script and visuals on occasion that really put me off the finished product. I mean, in the film you have Ephialtes swearing a grudge after rejection, whereas in the book he literally jumps off a cliff, the Ephors never got as hands-on with the oracle, etc. etc.
Now, if relatively minor changes like that can wreck 300 for me- a book that's obviously and cheerfully ridiculous most of the time- then I am very, very afraid for Watchmen.

[Satyr]

While I think that 300 is a prime example of a movie with impressive visuals and incredible bad storytelling (which made even the whole main plot unecessary in the end, up to the situation where the heroic sacrifice of the heroes was completely pointless). And yes, it would be a much better movie if the homoerotic contents of the Spartiats would be included. And the scene where they comb their hair. I really don't know why both comic and movie let out the greatest display of Spartan defiance of death.

Even worse was Snyder's epic failure to retale the classic zombie movie Dawn of the Dead. The original had a point. It was an allegory. Not a particular good one, bit still. Snyder compltely negated that message and made an extremely flat movie out of it, without any significance, but some cheap horror shots (like the zombie infant). The original look very cheap in comparison, but at least someone made the effort and thought it through before he made the movie. Snyder probably didn't.

There are movies where pointlessness isn't bad, but which have only the intent to entertain. Those are rearely the real impressive movies, but still, sometimes they their right to exist. Watchmen certainly should not be one of them. The book is outstanding because it is complex, and multi-facetted and is certainly much more complicated than the average comic hero tale. From all comics I ever read (which aren't that many) this one came closest to be actual literature.

Snyder has shown that he lacks the tactfulness to handle more subtle storytelling, and his clumsy approaches to characterisation and plot building does not fit well to a highly complex story, like Watchmen.
In a novel with a very serious substance, the style over substance approach of a director like Snyder is just a bad idea.

[Samurai Jill]

I didn't mind Dawn of the Dead, actually, but I generally don't expect much out of zombie flicks (what I do expect, it delivered.) I mean, at least the dialogue was natural.

[Samurai Jill]

But hey- I could be wrong.

[kpenguin]

Big ol' spoiler:

Honestly, what worries me most about the trailer is that they re-used the shot of Nite Owl II falling to his knees and screaming in the snow, but the checkerboard reflection on his goggles seem to have been editted out. In the first trailer, that was used as evidence that he was in Veidt's room with the big wall of TVs, which meant he was reacting to the news that 3 million people had been killed. Other people thought that the reflection was from the stage lights on the set and that it had neglected to be corrected.

If the reflection is gone, then that more than likely means Nite Owl is outside in this shot. And if he's outside, then that more than likely means he's screaming because he just saw Rorschach die. And if he just saw Rorschach die, that means that there's a good chance that he's going to do exactly what David Hayter's version of the script wrote him doing - kill Veidt.

Alright, after watching this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I0LfvSJchk) with Zack Snyder, I think that Snyder seems pretty committed to having Veidt get away with his crime. It does seem like the Lovecraftian space squid is out, though.

[revolver kobold]

I'm guessing if the squid has been removed, its probably because of the removal of the text between chapters and the Black Freighter comics. A lot of the build up to the squid was in those sections. Though i have heard that the Black Freighter comic will be released on its own DVD, narrated by Gerard Butler.

Either way, I'm very excited about this film. Even if it bombs, and is dreadful (which I doubt), it won't stop the comic being awesome.

[TSGames]

And please do not use stuff like that the audience wouldn't understand it' as an excuse for stupidification of a movie or story. Most people aren't stupid, and shouldn't be treated as if they were.
People are stupid. A person may be smart.
Most are not.

[Project_Mayhem]

Even worse was Snyder's epic failure to retale the classic zombie movie Dawn of the Dead. The original had a point. It was an allegory.

Admitedly the original was, while watchable, absolute rubbish. Yes Romaro's films have points. Unfortunatly, they're terrible. Good terrible, but terrible nonetheless.

And I thought the trailer was good. I will watch Watchmen, and will probably complain that they changed bits. I will still like it.

[LurkerInPlayground]

I mourn the loss of the "whores and politicians" line, but I can't say I'm surprised. And it would probably go over the heads of half the audience anyway. :smalltongue:
Are you honestly telling me that an American audience wouldn't understand Rorschach as an ultra-right wing paranoid conspiracy theorist who views the rest of humanity as sinful smudges before the eyes of God?

Right.

Where have you been living?

In other news: Hearing that Jon will have the pin blamed on him for Ozymandias's plan seems to defeat the whole point of both their characters. Jon is supposed to be nonjudgmental and distant. He isn't the wrathful Judge of All Things that Rorschach had hoped for. He's Rorschach foil. He doesn't cow people into good behavior by using fear and brutality. Jon is supposed to be the exact opposite of a Deus Ex Machina. God, the sublime order of casuality or whatever; isn't there to bail out the human race. Making Jon the object of divine intervention defeats the entire purpose of the character.
*facepalm*

[Satyr]

Admitedly the original was, while watchable, absolute rubbish. Yes Romaro's films have points. Unfortunatly, they're terrible. Good terrible, but terrible nonetheless.

That is not the point. A movie with a deeper message and a purpose is almost always superior to a flat movies without these additional layers. Multidimensionality and several layers of message and points beside the obvious are necesaary qualties of a good movie. With a stupid audience mind, stupid and insignificant movies are made. Good movies are made for an intellectual and critical audience, not the hoi poloi.

[FoE]

A movie with a deeper message and a purpose is almost always superior to a flat movies without these additional layers. Multidimensionality and several layers of message and points beside the obvious are necesaary qualties of a good movie.

Mmmm ... that's not necessarily true. There are plenty of great films which function solely as entertainment.

[Satyr]

I would strictly and energically disagree. Merely entreertainmanet and great movies are nigh incompatible concepts. There are a few movies which manages to be attractive both to the intelectual and the normal audience, and those are truly great, but they are very rare.
But a shallow movie will almost never achieve the same quality as a deep one. The acclaim of five intellectual critics is more representative for the movie quality than the approval of a million easily manipulated movie-goers. Sadly, too many critics have given in tp populism and ceased to critize accordingly to the actual quality of a movie.

[FoE]

A poor film is a poor film. Plan 9 From Outer Space is among the most anvilicious movies of all time, but its awfulness is legendary.

Meanwhile, Star Wars functions solely as a very good story, but it's still regarded as one the movies ever made.

[Hawriel]

I hated that trailer. It was a tipacle hollywood trailer that tried to cram the whole movie in its trailer. The only thing it lacked was a shot of the artic base and the giant squid. If I didnt know any thing about the watchmen and saw this trailer in the theater I would think to myself, 'thanks for showing the whole movie now I dont have to go see it'. The Smashing pumkins song they used in the first trailer was nice fit for the movie.

I agree with some of you about John's voice. Its no whare neer what I thought of. I always figured it was a detached mono tone. With inflections of fatalism and anger when he was prodded enough to show emotion. But always with a foundation of detached mono tone. Also I think Christian Bale's Batman voice was stolen.

[Satyr]

I still disagree. Yes, there are many crappy movies which have a strong messages, but while this is an essential requirement of higher quality movies it is by far not the only requirement.
And Star Wars is a good, yet shallow entertainment movie, but it still falls short by far when compared to, let's say, 2001.

[charl]

I for one never thought they would be able to live up to the comic in the first place. Comic films aren't supposed to replace the original work, they are supposed to either supplement it or provide us with a different interpretation. Judging the trailer from this perspective I'm looking forward to watching the finished film, as the trailer shows promise. It won't be as good as the comic, but it might still be good.

Now for some whining:
1) What's with the "graphic novel" crap? Why can't you just admit it and write: "Comic" instead? I hate those new buzzwords people have made up to escape being branded as a comic book or based on a comic book just from fear that audiences will think it's just for children. Lame.
2) Jon's voice... yeah. 'Nuf said.
3) Redesigning the costumes. Ozymandias is just... wrong. While understandable (all modern comic book films use latex-rubber instead of the original looks), it just looks weird to me.
4) And the last point: what is up with the supernatural feats? The only one who's supposed to be superhuman is Dr Manhattan, so why do we see Ozy throwing a muscular guy half-way across a room as if he was made from styrofoam, or Nite-Owl jumping from a great height and landing on his feet without breaking both his legs? You don't have to ignore the laws of physics and biology to tell a good story, even if it involves superheroes. Stupid, stupid Hollywood. How I love to hate you.

[DomaDoma]

A higher-quality movie has to make some kind of Cosmic Point, regardless of whether people actually enjoy it? Yeah, that strikes me as an odd set of priorities. I mean, not every movie that's just trying to tell a good story is Independence Day, y'know. And as for 2001, it'd help them make their Cosmic Point if they could stave off sleep in the first forty minutes with, say, dialogue.

(In the context of Watchmen, of course, it absolutely does have to make a Cosmic Point - I'm just talking about movies in general.)

[Zaphrasz]

4) And the last point: what is up with the supernatural feats? The only one who's supposed to be superhuman is Dr Manhattan, so why do we see Ozy throwing a muscular guy half-way across a room as if he was made from styrofoam, or Nite-Owl jumping from a great height and landing on his feet without breaking both his legs? You don't have to ignore the laws of physics and biology to tell a good story, even if it involves superheroes. Stupid, stupid Hollywood. How I love to hate you. That was a complaint I had about the original comic book. These are regular people, who are managing to do things like fight off a small crowd from within his jail cell, break into a government facility like it was nothing, and use grappling hook guns. I just have to accept that writers have no idea what humans are actually capable of, nor do they know a great deal about physics. This is the Ozzy that caught a bullet, remember? Clearly, he is superhuman and does not care much for physics.

[charl]

That was a complaint I had about the original comic book. These are regular people, who are managing to do things like fight off a small crowd from within his jail cell, break into a government facility like it was nothing, and use grappling hook guns. I just have to accept that writers have no idea what humans are actually capable of, nor do they know a great deal about physics. This is the Ozzy that caught a bullet, remember? Clearly, he is superhuman and does not care much for physics.

I always thought the bullet catching thing was faked by Ozy. He planted a dented bullet beforehand, and then pretended like he caught it with his teeth, just to demoralize the others.

[DomaDoma]

I always thought the bullet catching thing was faked by Ozy. He planted a dented bullet beforehand, and then pretended like he caught it with his teeth, just to demoralize the others.

Ah, no. Laurie shot him.

The Veidt Method: scary effective.

[revolver kobold]

Also, he was bleeding after catching it too if I remember correctly. So even thought he caught it, it still hurt him somewhat.

[averagejoe]

That is not the point. A movie with a deeper message and a purpose is almost always superior to a flat movies without these additional layers. Multidimensionality and several layers of message and points beside the obvious are necesaary qualties of a good movie. With a stupid audience mind, stupid and insignificant movies are made. Good movies are made for an intellectual and critical audience, not the hoi poloi.

You're talking about two separate things, messages and layers. You can have a deep story without the author presuming to preach some deep message to everyone. The didactic technique is overused and overvalued, and often I'll enjoy a "great movie" despite the "message," not because of it. I fail to see the innate value in including one's opinions in one's works.

Granted, some of these "great films" actually do make me think differently about things, and I do tend to enjoy that. It just isn't a necessary condition.

Layers, on the other hand, make for an extraordinarily good (movie/show/book). Some of my favorites use symbolism to, say, give insight into (or add dimensionality to) the character's motivations, or the mechanization of the plot, or to just provide brain fodder for people who like that sort of thing.

You also leave out the intelekshuls who enjoy the craft of writing. There are some books/movies/shows I enjoy watching simply because they're well crafted. Is this all of a sudden an invalid and plebeian way of enjoying something? I know it's rather fashionable these days for art to contain some sort of message, but craftsmanship is another worthy quality independent of content. That's why I tend to enjoy, say, Shakespeare. You get a buncha people trying to justify their fascination with the playwright by reading and over reading "deep and ancient wisdom" from the texts, when, really, the guy was just clever with his words, and that's reason enough to make him great. It's very silly when you think about it.

[Satyr]

That sounds reasonable; it is frustrating, but in discussions like this I regularly reach the limits of my English knowledge to express what I mean so anything i try to express sounds like gibberish.
What I tried to say is that one of the typical traits of a good movie - and by far not the only one - is that there is more to it than it seems on the surface; a good movie is one which you can see and afterwards discuss up until deep in the night. A good movie is not only entertainment but an invitation for a longer discussion about it or an epiphany in the second where you actually understand what actually happens on screen.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I would strictly and energically disagree. Merely entreertainmanet and great movies are nigh incompatible concepts.

There's a film making ideology that believes independent films should strive to create "unpleasure" (their word not mine).

The followers of this ideology have never made a single movie worth anything.


And Star Wars is a good, yet shallow entertainment movie, but it still falls short by far when compared to, let's say, 2001.

Star Wars is no masterpiece, but 2001 is poorly paced and has an ending where everyone involved just gave up and put in some nonsense. 2001 was supposed to be about humans encountering aliens for the first time, but since these aliens created human sentience and never actually appear, it turns into a religious parable instead, which is completly counter productive to what the film was trying to achieve. Godlike aliens say a little about god and nothing about aliens.

Casablanca is a timeless movie despite its message being out of date and useless.


A good movie is not only entertainment but an invitation for a longer discussion about it or an epiphany in the second where you actually understand what actually happens on screen.

Novels are better at that though. Its too easy to miss things that only appear on the screen for short amounts of time and putting them there for too long will ruin pacing.

A bad movie can create equally good discussion as a great movie.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Ah, no. Laurie shot him.

The Veidt Method: scary effective.
I think Alan Moore said he was actually just wearing armor and palmed the bullet. Thus creating the illusion that he had "caught" it.

It may have been what he was planning on doing when he sent the assassin after himself. This would have the interesting side effect of making people believe that Ozymandias can catch bullets.

Basically, when he tells Laurie that he wasn't "sure that it would work," he was quite aware of the risk of taking a bullet pointblank.

[Drascin]

There's a film making ideology that believes independent films should strive to create "unpleasure" (their word not mine).

The followers of this ideology have never made a single movie worth anything.

It's not usually that I find myself agreeing with Closet, but in this I am in full agreement. A movie that wasn't enjoyed by the viewer, is movie that was worth almost nothing for the viewer.

Now, can you get movies that are enjoyable and tell a good story, and make you think at the same time? Yes indeed, and that's a hallmark of a great movie. But when a movie proceeds to beat you over the head with its message, when you can almost hear the director screaming "SEE! SEE THE SYMBOLISM?! MY FILM IS DEEP! MY FILM IS DEEEEP!" as you watch it... that is the hallmark of movie far worse than any shallow action flick. Because the action flick knows it's bad and doesn't care, but the "deep" movie is equally bad yet is utterly convinced of its own genius.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Because the action flick knows it's bad and doesn't care, but the "deep" movie is equally bad yet is utterly convinced of its own genius.

I'm going to disagree with your attempt at agreeing with me.:smallwink:

A movie that tries to be deep but fails is a bad movie (because its failed at its purpose) but an action flick that has no aspirations to greatness has wasted millions of dollars in order to provide no greater entertainment value than a Tom Clancy novel.

But mainly, many crap action movies are convinced of their own genius. Take Uwe Boll or Michael Bay for example. Also, those crap action movies sometimes did intend to have a message but it was either ruined by an executive or buried under the rubble of one of the explosions. Common messages in apparently messageless action films are "look how badass Americans are", "technology and progress are evil", "foreigners just want to eat you", "country folk are imbred and psychopathic, do not go on trips to the country", "old fashioned pragmatism is superior", "if you need something done, wait for a white male to do it for you".

If a messageless popcorn flick annoys you less than a pretentious art film, then I'd say its because the popcorn flick was a better movie than the art film, not because the popcorn flick wasn't trying as hard. Alternatively, they can both be equally crap but one of them is so bad it's good while the other is so bad it's lame.

But still, (and here I think Drascin agrees with me) films are not medicine. They are not more effective the worse they taste.

[averagejoe]

That sounds reasonable; it is frustrating, but in discussions like this I regularly reach the limits of my English knowledge to express what I mean so anything i try to express sounds like gibberish.
What I tried to say is that one of the typical traits of a good movie - and by far not the only one - is that there is more to it than it seems on the surface; a good movie is one which you can see and afterwards discuss up until deep in the night. A good movie is not only entertainment but an invitation for a longer discussion about it or an epiphany in the second where you actually understand what actually happens on screen.

Oh, I quite agree, but my point is the actual vehicle for discussion can come in many forms. (Blech. Bad metaphor.) I also disagree that the "for the masses" pandering is necessarily mutually exclusive with the "for smart people" one. In fact, the whole stance, I find, is just another way of saying, "my sort of people are better than your sort of people," which opens up a whole lot of unpleasantness.

The immediate, short term enjoyment of a movie is certainly a different experience than the meta, long term enjoyment of one, but neither experience has more inherent worth. The only reason the former type of movie is considered to have less worth is that sort of enjoyment is, in general, easier to produce (more supply), which is also the reason those sorts of films are discarded more easily, while the "intelekshul" films last longer because that sort of entertainment is harder to achieve well.


Star Wars is no masterpiece, but 2001 is poorly paced and has an ending where everyone involved just gave up and put in some nonsense. 2001 was supposed to be about humans encountering aliens for the first time, but since these aliens created human sentience and never actually appear, it turns into a religious parable instead, which is completly counter productive to what the film was trying to achieve. Godlike aliens say a little about god and nothing about aliens.

Well, the main problem with the movie was that it duplicated the events of the book (which was excellent, by the way, and more of a celebration of exploration and the drive to discover and learn than anything else) without giving the same explanation that the books gave. In the book the bits where Bowman was alone made more sense, because in books you don't depend so heavily on dialogue to figure out what's going on. The movie (which I saw second) didn't make sense unless you had already read the book, really.

Music was still good, though, and to me that counts for a lot in movies.

[Shatteredtower]

Well, the main problem with the movie was that it duplicated the events of the book...

Actually, no, it's the other way around. Mr. Kubrick expanded on a short story (which I find tends to make for better movies on average, though short story writing is notoriously unprofitable for writers) by Mr. Clarke, who then had to turn around and make sense out of Mr. Kubrick's movie. I think he did a great job of it, and, like you, I'm glad I read it before I saw the movie.

Funny thing about the music, by the way: it wasn't originally intended to be the score. It was originally meant to fill in until the real score was added, but when it turned out to be a pretty good fit, they kept it.

As for Watchmen, I don't think I'll have any problem getting anything out of it on film either. The discussion its regenerated alone has been worth the price of admission I've yet to pay.

[TigerHunter]

Sadly, too many critics have given in tp populism and ceased to critize accordingly to the actual quality of a movie.
So what you're saying is that these people should assess the movie based on criteria that few people actually care about instead of actually doing their jobs and advising people about what they'll like and what they won't?

A "quality" film is one that succeeds in entertaining people, which is, you know, the entire purpose of the entertainment industry.

[Thufir]

Actually, no, it's the other way around. Mr. Kubrick expanded on a short story (which I find tends to make for better movies on average, though short story writing is notoriously unprofitable for writers) by Mr. Clarke, who then had to turn around and make sense out of Mr. Kubrick's movie. I think he did a great job of it, and, like you, I'm glad I read it before I saw the movie.

Wikipedia disagrees with you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey)

[averagejoe]

Wikipedia disagrees with you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey)

And the introduction to my copy of the novel (written by Arthur C. Clarke) agrees with Wikipedia.

[Nevrmore]

I think Alan Moore said he was actually just wearing armor and palmed the bullet. Thus creating the illusion that he had "caught" it.

It may have been what he was planning on doing when he sent the assassin after himself. This would have the interesting side effect of making people believe that Ozymandias can catch bullets.

Basically, when he tells Laurie that he wasn't "sure that it would work," he was quite aware of the risk of taking a bullet pointblank.
No, Alan Moore has never said that. Ozymandias caught the bullet.

[charl]

No, Alan Moore has never said that. Ozymandias caught the bullet.

I think that's up for interpretation. Moore hasn't afaik ever said he actually did catch the bullet either.

[averagejoe]

I think that's up for interpretation. Moore hasn't afaik ever said he actually did catch the bullet either.

Yes, but he gave you no reason to suspect this was the case. There was this big setup where Ozzy calmly and confidently states that he could catch a bullet; there was no hint of anything involving sleight of hand. It was something I had never considered until reading this thread, and there's no indication of it in the text. We are clearly supposed to think that he actually caught the bullet.

[Halna LeGavilk]

Personally I think that films are more enjoyable when they don't contain a ton of symbolism. I prefer shallow movies, and I think most average American viewers do too. And the director will almost always make the movie to please the most amount of fans (try to, anyway), regardless of what the fans of the original comic/book/toy line/whatever thinks.

And don't get me wrong, I love the graphic novel of Watchmen, love the deepness, love the symbolism, love it all, but a brain-frying-explosion awesome people Watchmen film works as well.

[kpenguin]

Alright, its been... 40 days since this thread has last been posted in. Since one and a half months is the set line for thread necromancy, I'll go ahead and post this here rather than starting a new thread altogether.

It seems that the court has ruled in favor of Fox on their Watchmen lawsuit. There are talks of delays, but nothing has been finalized yet. I'm not going to say I'm horribly upset over this. I'm not dripping with anticipation for this movie and this gives me more time to bug my friends into reading the graphic novel.

Also: this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo05w83DZXQ) hasn't posted here yet. Its the Watchmen footage released at Comic-Con, probably tailored especially to satisfy fans like us. Thoughts?

[revolver kobold]

For all your Watchmen news, previews and video diaries. (http://www.worstpreviews.com/review.php?id=590)

We have to wait till the 20th to find out whether or not Fox will be able to block the film.

[T-O-E]

Has anyone seen the Japanese trailer? (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mgOY0p67bvw&feature=related)

A lot of scenes not included in the English version.
Seems like the ending was changed,, look at 1:47-1:48.

[InkEyes]

Does anyone think Fox actually wants to stop the movie?

Personally, I don't see Fox stopping the movie from coming out. Getting a large cut of the movie profits (unless the ruling is overturned) and generating a bit of publicity, yes definitely, but if they really cared about stopping it they would've filed the suit when the movie was still in pre-production.

While we're posting videos, I like the video about the Minutemen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4olvISjbj0) and their costumes. Mothman's wings look a bit small, but I really like Dollar Bill's costume.

[Jahkaivah]

Has anyone seen the Japanese trailer? (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mgOY0p67bvw&feature=related)

A lot of scenes not included in the English version.
Seems like the ending was changed,, look at 1:47-1:48.

Seriously, trust the Japanese to advertise the film as what it bloody is.

So it seems those guys in suits have something to do with the nuclear war, they've made specific mention of the Doomsday Clock now which again uses the "audience are idiots" approach in comparison to the comic. That isn't really a problem though. (and to be fair I wasn't aware of the Doomsday Clock references until I read about it)

1:47-1:48 shows New York being taken apart by an explosion... surprising they saw fit to put something so spoilerific in the trailer but that did happen in the comic last time I checked.

That said...

HEY! Its the Bernies! I was worried they were gonna leave that kick ass political analogy out. That should mean we will have sufficient character development with them as well, I loved those two. :smallbiggrin:

[BRC]

I read somewhere that, because the big alien brain squid thingy would have looked ridiculous on-screen, they replaced it with a bomb or somthing.

[Sneak]

I read somewhere that, because the big alien brain squid thingy would have looked ridiculous on-screen, they replaced it with a bomb or somthing.

Doesn't that kind of defeat the whole purpose of Ozymandias' plan?

Also, here are some comments: I'm not a fan of Rorschach's voice. His voice is supposed to sound monotonous and yes, maybe a bit gravelly, but it's not supposed to sound like a really angry Christian Bale impersonator. Ah, well, at least it fits more in this case than in Batman's. Additionally, Nite Owl's costume seems to look a bit too much like Batman's to me, and they shouldn't have made Adrian's costume darker. It makes him look too evil. He's supposed to look like an archetypical superhero, not like an dark anti-hero type.

[BRC]

Doesn't that kind of defeat the whole purpose of Ozymandias' plan?

Also, here are some comments: I'm not a fan of Rorschach's voice. His voice is supposed to sound monotonous and yes, maybe a bit gravelly, but it's not supposed to sound like a really angry Christian Bale impersonator. Ah, well, at least it fits more in this case than in Batman's. Additionally, Nite Owl's costume seems to look a bit too much like Batman's to me, and they shouldn't have made Adrian's costume darker. It makes him look too evil. He's supposed to look like an archetypical superhero, not like an dark anti-hero type.


No, if it's a bomb of clearly extraterrestial origin, or at least looks like it (I think thats what the big blue flash o' Doom in the trailers is), the effect is the same. Earth feels threatened by an alien force and puts aside their differences to fight it.


Also, concerning the costume changes with Ozzy and Night Owl, I think it's because what works in comic-form would look silly on screen. That's why Night Owl's costume got the same treatment as Batman's costume. People think spandex looks silly. Same thing with Ozzy's costume, heavy metal plates and a big fold of purple cloth would look kinda stupid on-camera.

[Sneak]

No, if it's a bomb of clearly extraterrestial origin, or at least looks like it (I think thats what the big blue flash o' Doom in the trailers is), the effect is the same. Earth feels threatened by an alien force and puts aside their differences to fight it.

Ah, alright. I don't really remember the trailers that well, I should probably watch them again. From what you said, I gathered that for some reason Adrian had just decided to bomb New York. :smallconfused:

I still feel like that plan wouldn't work nearly as well as the alien plan...but eh, if the professionals felt that that wouldn't have worked on-screen, who am I to disagree?

Also, yeah, I get the whole thing with the costumes looking silly, but, well...wasn't that the point? They were supposed to look silly. It was part of the whole "deconstructing the superhero genre" bit.

I mean, the characters themselves admit that they looked silly. The fact that the concept is so ridiculous is why the whole thing about the psychology behind pretending to be a superhero in the real world is interesting.

[SmartAlec]

One wonders if the film's rewrite has Ozymandias bombing one of the gratest cities in the world simply so as to bring the horror of nuclear war to the forefront of public consciousness.

[Ditto]

Ozymandias looks like a thin little pansy man... as convincing as Michael Keaton beating people up as Batman. :smallconfused:

[Evil DM Mark3]

Nervous as I am to judge a film by it's trailer (obligitory TVTropes link) (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeverTrustATrailer) I think this looks promising. The whole squid/bomb thing is not likely to be a real problem as, after all, the squid WAS little more than a bomb in effect. If this film fails to please the fans it will not be for a lack of trying. The squid was infact my largest problem with the novel anyway. Despite the fact that I know that no one will question it (after all it happened) why would it arrive and then DIE? Why would it not survive it's own technology?

[kpenguin]

Personally, I don't care much if the ending is with the Lovecraftian squid horror or that energy bomb thingy.

Although... the energy pulse seems to be consistent with how they're portraying Doc Manhattan's teleportation, so that might just be the squid being teleported in.

What I care about with the ending is that there be no gory discretion shot (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoryDiscretionShot). I'm not one for gore most of the time, but the pages where the streets are piled with bodies and blood, a few of which you can recognize as minor characters, chilled me. This being an R rated movie, I hope they aren't pulling any of the stops.


The squid was infact my largest problem with the novel anyway. Despite the fact that I know that no one will question it (after all it happened) why would it arrive and then DIE? Why would it not survive it's own technology?

I don't have my copy of the graphic novel with me right now, but if I recall correctly, the attack was compared to a bee sting. No one had any reason to believe that it was the teleportation itself that caused the creature to die and probably assumed that the psychic attack itself was what caused the creatures death. Just like a bee dies when it stings, so too does a Lovecraftian alien space squid monster die when it releases a psychic death wave.

[Nevrmore]

Personally, I don't care much if the ending is with the Lovecraftian squid horror or that energy bomb thingy.

Although... the energy pulse seems to be consistent with how they're portraying Doc Manhattan's teleportation, so that might just be the squid being teleported in.
No, Snyder has gone on record as saying that the squid will not be in the movie.

The Jonergy-looking ring of energy is probably from the Hayter draft of the script, where

Veidt sets off a bomb that has Jon's energy signature on it, framing him for the destruction and leaving him to serve much the same purpose as the squid does.

[WalkingTarget]

No, Snyder has gone on record as saying that the squid will not be in the movie.

The Jonergy-looking ring of energy is probably from the Hayter draft of the script, where

Veidt sets off a bomb that has Jon's energy signature on it, framing him for the destruction and leaving him to serve much the same purpose as the squid does.

From what I remember some significant breadcrumbs that drive the story forward hinge on the disappearance of the artists and whatnot that work on the squid and the Comedian's reaction to seeing the squid. I mean, I'm not sure if Blake would have had the drunken/panicked scene with Moloch having only found out about a new "bomb" or whatever is in place of the squid here. Might have to page through my copy when I get home.

I mean, switching to a Day the Earth Stood Still/Abyss/other Cold War "play nice or else" type ending is weak. If it's supposed to fake Jon going rogue, then I don't think it works as well since one of the points of the squid plot is that it's an unknown quantity and the general population can wait indefinitely in expectation of an attack that's not coming. If they're expecting Jon to attack in earnest they'll eventually wonder what's stopping him from doing it right now since they know him and generally what he's capable of.

Anyway, I'm curious to see how they adjust things to account for the changes. I hope they thought the ramifications of no-squid through.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Oh, and did I hear right? "Jon thinks there's going to be a nuclear war." Please tell me I imagined that line. Watchmen is deterministic: if Jon thinks something is going to happen, it will. Nuclear war he thinks might happen, because it's a possible explanation for the tachyons.Actually it is a possible explanation for the interference he has on his ability to see the future (he does not know about the taceyons at this point. Remember Manhattan is immensely powerful and unbelievably knowledgeable, but he is NOT omnipotent and omniscient). We are falling here into a little trap I like to call the "Telepathic Cast Fallacy", the idea that if one character says another character said/thought something they will A) be correct and B) get the context right. Jon may well have said it might happened but the person speaking substituted might for going to because the two are (for most people) synonyms in this context.

Short version, this was a little picky.

[T-O-E]

SPOILER ABOUT THE FILM:
I remember reading somewhere that:

Ozymandias' bomb was developed through mimicry of Jon's abilities, which is why the explosion looks like his teleportation effect.
There are similar explosions throughout the world, not just in New York.


The missing artists can be replaced by missing scientists.

[Brewdude]

1) What's with the "graphic novel" crap? Why can't you just admit it and write: "Comic" instead? I hate those new buzzwords people have made up to escape being branded as a comic book or based on a comic book just from fear that audiences will think it's just for children. Lame.

Because comic books got longer than 35 pages.

It's a terminology thing. Comic book is to Graphic novel as short story is to novel. (Actually, Graphic novels are more novella length, but whatever). This complaint is like whining that people call Novels Novels rather than stories, because who are they trying to fool? Huh?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Because comic books got longer than 35 pages.

It's a terminology thing. Comic book is to Graphic novel as short story is to novel. (Actually, Graphic novels are more novella length, but whatever). This complaint is like whining that people call Novels Novels rather than stories, because who are they trying to fool? Huh?
Not to mention, graphic novels don't tend to be very "comic" at all.

[Evil DM Mark3]

SPOILER ABOUT THE FILM:
I remember reading somewhere that:

Ozymandias' bomb was developed through mimicry of Jon's abilities, which is why the explosion looks like his teleportation effect.
There are similar explosions throughout the world, not just in New York.


The missing artists can be replaced by missing scientists.I thought that that was the abandoned version of the script?

[T-O-E]

I thought that that was the abandoned version of the script?

I'm not sure, actually. I just remember reading that somewhere.

[charl]

Because comic books got longer than 35 pages.

It's a terminology thing. Comic book is to Graphic novel as short story is to novel. (Actually, Graphic novels are more novella length, but whatever). This complaint is like whining that people call Novels Novels rather than stories, because who are they trying to fool? Huh?

Watchman isn't a "real" graphic novel though. It was released as a short comic series.

[kpenguin]

Watchman isn't a "real" graphic novel though. It was released as a short comic series.

So? Great Expectations was released as a series as well and no one doubts that novel's status.

[Rutskarn]

Same with Three Musketeers. And a couple other works by Dumas, methinks.

[Pearl]

So? Great Expectations was released as a series as well and no one doubts that novel's status.

But that would also mean that every other collection of individual comics later put into one book are novels. So now the terms are pretty much meaningless, because almost every comic will be a 'graphic novel'. What's the point of making a distinction, anyway?

[BRC]

But that would also mean that every other collection of individual comics later put into one book are novels. So now the terms are pretty much meaningless, because almost every comic will be a 'graphic novel'. What's the point of making a distinction, anyway?
Not quite, the way I see it, a Graphic Novel needs to be a single ongoing plot. If you take fifteen comic book issues with Batman fighting a different villain each issue and put it in one book, I would define that as a Comic Collection, even if there are some interlinking plot points, if the main focus is on a different plot that begins and resolves each issue, it's not a graphic novel. If, however, all fifteen comics are about Batman fighting the same villain, trying to foil a single plot or stop a single overarching scheme, that's a graphic novel.

Or, to put it another way
A comic collection is several stories put into one book. A Graphic Novel is any single story of a certain length told using the comics medium, irellevant of how it was origionally released.

[kpenguin]

Indeed. Nobody would call a collection of Sherlock Holmes adventures a novel.

[Evil DM Mark3]

The Judge Dredd compliations make an interesting study here. The 1 year of comics collections are clearly not graphic novels, even in some of them are 80% one story line. The ones that follow a specific plot like Judge Dredd Vs Aliens clearly are graphic novels.

[kpenguin]

Also, has anyone checked out the developments on the video game?

Trailer here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wrdTDYwsto).

I don't know how to feel about this.

[Sneak]

Well, at least they're aware (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117989357.html?categoryid=13&cs=1) of the suckage (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/ironman/index.html) that is most movie tie-in games and are trying to set the bar a little higher. I don't know if their plan will work, but at least they're trying.

Here's (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1591385/20080723/id_0.jhtml) more information on the game, anyway.

[Seonor]

Well, it doesn't look to bad. If the story is bearable and the fighting more than "press kick till everyone is dead" it might even be good. Butcher Bay was good and had the same mixture (at least thats my impression from the trailer).

[adanedhel9]

Not that there was really any doubt that it would happen, but Fox and Warner Bros got everything figured out (http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSN1515061020090116). So the March 6th opening looks pretty solid at this point, for good or for bad.

[revolver kobold]

To all those who were upset about the alteration of Rorschach's 'whores and politicians' line, it appears to still be in the film.

If you go to the Watchmen movie website, its been updated and each character has a little monologue going.

[T-O-E]

Also, has anyone checked out the developments on the video game?

Trailer here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wrdTDYwsto).

I don't know how to feel about this.

Oh dear God...

No... No... Please no...

[Jahkaivah]

Yep the date has been confirmed, its still March 6th, and theres more good news..

Take a look at the new site (http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/), specifically at Rorschach's character profile...

Noticed what I noticed? :smallbiggrin:

He said whores and politicians, looks like the Trailer has been doing a little lying (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeverTrustATrailer). And given that it doesn't seem ridiculous to imagine it lied about their group being called Watchmen as well... :smallwink:

[Evil DM Mark3]

They are doing a good job of pitching Ozymandias as a hero...

[Thufir]

Yeah, with the ominous music and the potentially-open-to-megalomaniacal-interpretation speech, who could possibly think he was anything but a fine upstanding former costumed hero? :smallsigh:

The other characters I like, though. The voices are growing on me, and they seem pretty true to the comics.

[Evil DM Mark3]

On the subject of voices, have you heard the voice for Rorschach on his page. At times it gets to that raspyness that people where expecting (but in all honesty would be painful to hear for a whole movie) plus, look a the posters in the background! Pale hourse!

[Sneak]

After hearing Rorschach's voice on that new character page, I feel somewhat reassured. Now he sounds less like a bad Christian Bale impersonator and more like a straitjacket-bound sociopath.

Which is how it should be. :smalltongue:

[hanzo66]

Yeah, saw it. Looks great. Very anticipated for movie. Speaking in stilted manner for some reason.

No...

[Seonor]

The new frontiersman (http://www.thenewfrontiersman.net/) has now its own website, but there is nothing on it. Yet.

Different question: is the 03.06. the international release date? I couldn't find any opposed information, but i couldn't confirm it either.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Any news on Fox's attempt at an injunction?

[T-O-E]

I had a dream last night that I was watching the movie.
The only film characters that appeared were Nite Owl, Rorschach and Silk Spectre 2 (I'm bad with names.)
It ended with Rorschach riding a moped and making out with someone.

But somehow, I liked it.

[kpenguin]

I had a dream last night that I was watching the movie.
The only film characters that appeared were Nite Owl, Rorschach and Silk Spectre 2 (I'm bad with names.)
It ended with Rorschach riding a moped and making out with someone.

But somehow, I liked it.

*insert joke about that probably being better than the actual film here*

In all seriousness, I've never had a Watchmen dream... yet.

[Jahkaivah]

I had one awhile back, it turns out, Adrian Veidts secret base is actually Rapture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioShock).

[charl]

I had one awhile back, it turns out, Adrian Veidts secret base is actually Rapture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioShock).

That makes frighteningly much sense.

[hanzo66]

Any news on Fox's attempt at an injunction?

That depend....

Who in Fox News is..

I can't do this without breaking that whole No Politics thing...

[Evil DM Mark3]

I didn't have a Watchmen dream per se...

I did however have a dream where I was being phycoanalysed and I was shown an ink blot. I was asked what I saw and said a flag. I was told "No the correct answer is an anti-hero archetype."

[darkblade]

I had a dream that Watchmen is actually in the same universe as Neon Genesis Evangelion. Ozzymondias created the Angels and planned the Second and Third impacts to create a peace that is will last longer then the squid. Adam was found in Antarctica, make of that as you will.

[Haven]

I had a dream that Watchmen is actually in the same universe as Neon Genesis Evangelion. Ozzymondias created the Angels and planned the Second and Third impacts to create a peace that is will last longer then the squid. Adam was found in Antarctica, make of that as you will.

Hmm...A Watchmen-EVA crossover is a strangely resonant idea to me.

[T-O-E]

I love the voices. I think Doc Manhattan's is perfect.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

This will either be an awesome movie or the bane of every Watchmen fan's life. I am however a lot more optimistic than I was since seeing the new site (although they've made Ozymandias very obviously evil - not how he should be). What I do know is that like nearly every other mainstream movie adaptation this will overtake the comic in the public conciousness, which is why this had bloody well be good.

[TheEmerged]

I'm trying to go into this movie with the same attitude I did LotR. They're *not* going to get everything in, they're *going* to have to make some changes to make everything they can fit... I'm going to try and view it on its own merits/failures.

[revolver kobold]

I love the voices. I think Doc Manhattan's is perfect.

Yes! He just sounds so resigned.

[Rutskarn]

For some reason, Rorschach sounded a little flat to me. The others were good.

[revolver kobold]

Flat in what way? Other characters in the book describe him as having a monotonous voice, which they seemed to capture alright.

When he delivers his "Never compromise" line though, he sounds like he is about to explode with rage. (If you keep clicking through the "More Rorschach" button, you hear them say a few different things)

[Rutskarn]

Monotone, yes, but I guess I just imagined it as a more...vibrant monotone, I suppose. It's probably just my own whacked-out mental interpretation.

I didn't hear him say anything else.

(I think I'm giving this film a 15 percent chance of being extremely good, a 45 percent chance of being pretty good, a 25 percent chance of being okay and a 15 percent chance of sucking.)

[revolver kobold]

On all the characters pages, if you click the "More *Character*" button, you get more stuff like icons and backgrounds and what not, but they also deliver another line. Doesn't always work though, might have to try a few times.

You get a nice "We can save this world!" line from Ozymandias, so they aren't totally pushing the evil view.

[Sneak]

My bet's that the movie is gonna be a decent, entertaining movie.

And Watchmen fans around the world will be disappointed.

[Lost Demiurge]

Any news on Fox's attempt at an injunction?

Yeah, it's been settled. WB gave Fox $10 million up front and a small cut of the gross, and Fox backed down. No change to the date, as far as I know.

[Mc. Lovin']

2) Jon's voice... yeah. 'Nuf said.
3) Redesigning the costumes. Ozymandias is just... wrong. While understandable (all modern comic book films use latex-rubber instead of the original looks), it just looks weird to me.
4) And the last point: what is up with the supernatural feats? The only one who's supposed to be superhuman is Dr Manhattan, so why do we see Ozy throwing a muscular guy half-way across a room as if he was made from styrofoam, or Nite-Owl jumping from a great height and landing on his feet without breaking both his legs? You don't have to ignore the laws of physics and biology to tell a good story, even if it involves superheroes. Stupid, stupid Hollywood. How I love to hate you.

Jon's voice? Did you HEAR Rorschach? :smallyuk:

I completely agree with you on those though. Nite Owl's old costume looked so much better, it looks like he's trying to rip off Batman now. And Ozymandias? It's not just the costume they need to change, that guy is way too ... weedy? I suppose they wanted to play up the cleverness thing, and maybe make him less threataning so people don't guess the plot.

And the Dropping to the floor ... Maybe it was the cape? Or maybe he was dropping from ... his ship thing.


I always thought the bullet catching thing was faked by Ozy. He planted a dented bullet beforehand, and then pretended like he caught it with his teeth, just to demoralize the others.

I always thought he had superpowers as well. OR maybe they all did in a way (Certainly Dan's inventions, and Rorchach's sneakyness and that)

[Mc. Lovin']

Doesn't that kind of defeat the whole purpose of Ozymandias' plan?

Also, here are some comments: I'm not a fan of Rorschach's voice. His voice is supposed to sound monotonous and yes, maybe a bit gravelly, but it's not supposed to sound like a really angry Christian Bale impersonator. Ah, well, at least it fits more in this case than in Batman's. Additionally, Nite Owl's costume seems to look a bit too much like Batman's to me, and they shouldn't have made Adrian's costume darker. It makes him look too evil. He's supposed to look like an archetypical superhero, not like an dark anti-hero type.

oooh, we sort of made the same point, I feel honoured :smallredface:

I think the costume for OzzyMozzy in the trailer was the one he wore int he comic flashbacks, which was silver-black ish

[Thormag]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5cInmK6LQ

Watch that and tell me he didn't care.

[charl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5cInmK6LQ

Watch that and tell me he didn't care.

That was awesome. I think I just had a nerd-gasm.

[Illiterate Scribe]

Lookin' kinda Blue Man Group there, Doc Manhattan ...

[DomaDoma]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5cInmK6LQ

Watch that and tell me he didn't care.

Well, I'm not sure what's going on with Silk Spectre II here, but that's hardly a grievous thematic departure. They're definitely putting this movie in its historical context - that's the main point.

[Seonor]

If the movie is at least as good as the advertising campain, it will be worth watching.

[Sholos]

Yeah, with the ominous music and the potentially-open-to-megalomaniacal-interpretation speech, who could possibly think he was anything but a fine upstanding former costumed hero? :smallsigh:

The other characters I like, though. The voices are growing on me, and they seem pretty true to the comics.

Especially his costume. All that black and purple. Definitely says good guy.

[InkEyes]

Another new video up!

The Keene Act & YOU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5WsciSNVS0)

I feel more informed already!

[Tirian]

Another new video up!

The Keene Act & YOU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5WsciSNVS0)

I feel more informed already!

On the plus side: WE <3 DOLLAR BILL!!!

On the down side: The government decides that The Comedian is a threat to national security? I've also got a bit of a disconnect on the phone. In our world, I think it was quite a bit after 1977 before we had national coverage of 911. Maybe their technology and history let them go faster, but then why are they still using rotary phones?

[Illiterate Scribe]

but then why are they still using rotary phones?

Maybe they're stopping really really really antique cylons?

[Evil DM Mark3]

but then why are they still using rotary phones?I still see rotary phones in some ads today, it is just a recognizable thing. Plus if there was not national 911 coverage then I am sure that those areas that had a different thing to do would know what that thing was.

[Sholos]

I'm kinda wondering why they had the Comedian on the list.

[Evil DM Mark3]

I'm kinda wondering why they had the Comedian on the list.I think that might have been an attempt not to tip their hand to those who have not read the graphic novel.

[Zencao]

Did anyone else think that the the Rorschach face to question mark thing was a gag about him being an expy of the question?

[T-O-E]

Yeah, I noticed that too.

[Ichneumon]

Damn it! A trailer can not be that great! I watched it and was amazed. I reread the entire book in 2 days and now I'm completely hyped. I ordered 2 of the action figures and I can't wait till they arrive.

[WhiteHarness]

"Spankity??!?"

This is a word?

I can't tell if that means you like this movie trailer or not...

[Evil DM Mark3]

"Spankity??!?"

This is a word?

I can't tell if that means you like this movie trailer or not...

Spanking.
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable; distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
–adverb
5. Informal. extremely, strikingly, or remarkably; very: three little girls in spanking new dresses.

[Kaelaroth]

Lookin' kinda Blue Man Group there, Doc Manhattan ...

I think you mean the Blue Man Group look kinda Dr. Manhattan...

[T-O-E]

The advert for the Black Freighter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zUgBK0-qbo). Looks decent.

[MammonAzrael]

IGN has a clip from the movie (http://movies.ign.com/dor/objects/34260/watchmen/videos/watchmen_rescue_021809.html) of Nightowl and SS doing the rooftop rescue of the burning building.

[kpenguin]

Did they have to add that firey explosion thingy at the end? Really?

[T-O-E]

Did they have to add that firey explosion thingy at the end? Really?

It's Snyder. So yes. Yes they did.

[MammonAzrael]

Yeah, I haven't been able to check the book (or even listen to it yet, yay work), but it did seem rather...not-Watchmen-y. Unless I'm forgetting something, Laurie didn't jump down and effortlessly plow through the roof in the comic, did she? That seemed awfully needless and out of character...

[charl]

Four clips from the film are available here. (http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog/2009/2/17/four-watchmen-clips-debut.html) It's the fire rescue, Nite Owl and the Comedian trying to break up a riot, Nite Owl talking to Rorschach about the Comedian, and Nite Owl talking to Ozymandias about someone killing off capes.

[Seraph]

Nite Owl's old costume looked so much better, it looks like he's trying to rip off Batman now.

His old costume was intentionally as much of a batman ripoff when watchmen was first written, you moron! that was the POINT! If you're going to be complaining about a movie you haven't even seen yet, then try to use ACTUAL PROBLEMS TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.

[Comet]

You tell 'em, teach.

As for the clips themselves, I have to say I liked where the movie is going. The visual style is very appealing to me.
Altough that drama-exploshun at the apartment was really, really unnescessary. And it looked kind of goofy, too.

[charl]

I thought Nite Owl was based on Blue Beetle (number 2) and not Batman?

[Seraph]

I thought Nite Owl was based on Blue Beetle (number 2) and not Batman?

He was initially going to be Blue Beetle 2, but when DC told Moore not to use any preexisting characters he added a liberal dose of batman to Dan's character.

[Mc. Lovin']

His old costume was intentionally as much of a batman ripoff when watchmen was first written, you moron! that was the POINT! If you're going to be complaining about a movie you haven't even seen yet, then try to use ACTUAL PROBLEMS TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.

Ooop! I've hit a nerver here aint I, I wasn't even trying to be annoying :smallfrown:

I'm pretty sure I only need to see one clip to tell I don't like his costume, although maybe once I've seen him in it for about an hour and a half my opinion will have swayed.

[BRC]

My one complaint about Night Owl's costume is that it dosn't show off his fat when he puts it on in the retirement years, but thats more a case of me freaking out if they change anything, which I'm trying not to do.

Concerning the clips posted above
The Riot: That looks good, yeah, it looks like they changed the exact events that happened (No tear gas), but I think the effect will stay the same, Night Owl tries to play peacemaker until the crowd throws somthing and Comedian starts attacking. No complaints there
The Tenement Rescue: Very good, no complaints and decent cinematography.
"Good Friend": Location and Diaolouge changed, but it serves the same purpose, so no problems there.
"Warning You First": I'd need more context to know why they are having Dan warn Adrian instead of Rorschach, especially because Dan thinks Rorschach is being a crazy paranoid. Also, I think they are taking Rorschach's comment "Possibly Homosexual" too seriously, also, it's been said before, but the actor they have playing Adrian is far too wimpy.


I'm trying to avoid going into the movie, and then making marks every time they deviate from the book as if I'm grading a math test, but that will be tough.

[T-O-E]

the actor they have playing Adrian is far too wimpy.

Maybe it'll make the ending all the more surprising?

[Bryn]

Well, the Black Freighter trailer looks to show some extremely good animation (and three cheers for HD Youtube).

I'll wait to see if the movie's good when it comes out. If it is, then awesome! I've just watched a great movie! If not, then it's a shame - the book won't change.

[Rutskarn]

I already pretty much know what's going to go down.

1.) Watchmen is going to be a decent-to-good movie.

2.) I'm going to be disappointed.

[kpenguin]

Has anyone checked out the latest viral vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCpl3MLVwUc)?

Its... okay. Apparently its an accurate representation of the cheesiness of 80s MTV, not that I would know.

[madmotoristmonk]

I know its very unlikely, but will they find a way to work that zombie pirate thing into the movie. Either way I'm taking my nephew to see it, then I'm giving him a trade paperback version so he can take it in the way it was meant to be taken in.

And why does Nite-Owl look like a mens health fitness model in his costume?

Take that back just saw the trailer and their doing the Holis Mason tell all, I'll give it to the crew and cast and ...hell even the executive producers. They are going all out for this.

Also I concur my good man, I too shall find something trivial to others--ne'er the less glaring to me, to be disapointed about.smallamused:

[MammonAzrael]

So, Metacritic has three reviews up (http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/watchmen#critics) at this point:

Empire gave it an 80
Variety gave it a 50
The Hollywood Reporter gave it a 20

That's pretty much as "across the board" as you can get. Although it felt like The Hollywood Reporter simply didn't understand that Watchmen is a deconstruction, and at this point I'd like to give the movie the benefit of the doubt, not THR.

[T-O-E]

"When one superhero has to take a Zen break, he does so on Mars. Of course he does."

Uhh... What? This guy is a terrible reviewer.

[Ethrael]

Well I read the review from Empire. It gave it 4 stars, and had mixed views. It said that Snyder stuck to the comic like his Bible, and the film had relatively good artistic qualities, the best of which being the atmosphere of the city apparently, and that the film turned out to be one mostly aimed at the population who have already read Watchmen.

Allan Moore, when asked what he thought it was going to turn out to be like said, "Haven't we had enough of ****ty films?"

[kpenguin]

Wait, the Crimebusters are called the Masks now? Or did the reviewer for The Hollywood Reporter really not get it?

[madmotoristmonk]

here is that "wtf" you asked for kpenguin.

[T-O-E]

I don't think it has any significance. I mean, it's only a name change, right?

[Jahkaivah]

Wait, the Crimebusters are called the Masks now? Or did the reviewer for The Hollywood Reporter really not get it?

The Crimebusters are actually called Watchmen in the film.

Which makes the review more stupid, their name was in the bloody title!

[Winterwind]

It might be the nerd loving the original in me speaking, and it really seems that strange to people unfamiliar with the comic itself, but that Hollywood Reporter review seemed of rather... dubious quality to me.
Actually, I think "wtf" is a fairly good summary of my reaction to it.

[T-O-E]

Wow, only five more days.

[kpenguin]

Perhaps we should start some sort of short notice Watchmen Week?:smalltongue:

[Jibar]

Anyone else going to one of the midnight screenings?
It's one of the geekiest films imaginable, so I might as well do an incredibly geeky thing and go see it 2 minutes after it's released.

And, seriously, that Hollywood Reporter article is a load of crap from a guy who probably walked into the theatre thinking Tim Burton revolutionised superheros with his Batman film.

[charl]

I have to wait another 12 days, plus I don't know if it will even be showing on the cinemas in town (though most likely it will). Stupid European cinema tardiness.

[T-O-E]

Perhaps we should start some sort of short notice Watchmen Week?:smalltongue:

I am in favour of this because it means I don't have to do anything.

[kpenguin]

Well, I changed my avatar to something Watchmen-ish.

Also, does this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31e9YpoOE-U) look wrong to you? Let me give you a hint: grappling gun.

[T-O-E]

The guy's worried about not being able to fit the entire graphic novel into a 2.5 hour film yet he decides to put nearly everything in slo-mo...

[Rutskarn]

The guy's worried about not being able to fit the entire graphic novel into a 2.5 hour film yet he decides to put nearly everything in slo-mo...

He didn't put everything into slo-mo, actually. Apparently, the effect is used very sparingly in this movie.

[Illiterate Scribe]

Hey. Hey guys. I have a terrible Watchmen joke.

What did Rorschach say when asked what his favorite form of theater was?

[WalkingTarget]

Hey. Hey guys. I have a terrible Watchmen joke.

What did Rorschach say when asked what his favorite form of theater was?

Noh? extra words

[Illiterate Scribe]

Noh? extra words

Damnit ...

[Winterwind]

Hey. Hey guys. I have a terrible Watchmen joke.

What did Rorschach say when asked what his favorite form of theater was?He broke the little finger of the guy who asked and said "Don't know. But going to tell me now."?

Darn, ninja'd...

[Sneak]

This seems to be a good sign. (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090304/REVIEWS/903049997)

I trust Roger Ebert.