Watchmen

[Brude]

Mind spoilering that major sub-plot? I'm rather curious what could be so very deviant that the studio wouldn't let them do it.

And thanks for talking about the novel. I've put it on my 'to read' list.

Graphic novel, technically, but Time still thought it was worthy, I guess.

The sub-plot isn't excised for being too deviant (really, if that was their problem they wouldn't have made the movie at all), it was just going to throw a lot of people for a loop - and probably add about 20-30 minutes and several $10's millions to the budget. The director has said that they will do an animated version of it to be included with the DVD - not sure if it will be inserted into the movie proper or as a extra, special feature.

SPOILER: I won't ruin the story but I will say that 'The Black Freighter' plot is...

a horror comic story that a very minor character in the graphic novel is seen reading at various times through out the main plot of Watchmen. We get to read the Black Freighter story this character is reading and the story serves as a kind of commentary on the main story. It's not directly related as a story, but its themes are important. It's also not something you will probably be able to synch up to the main story right away - at least I didn't. It will take some thinking.

[Intercept]

That would be Silk Specter, she's not trying to look like an insect. Also, understand the story is very much a riff on the tropes of comic books, so if some of them didn't have slightly silly costumes the point wouldn't be made quite as well. In the comic sometimes the characters even question the whole costume thing at various times.

But the story is much, much bigger and deeper than that. Time Magazine named it one of the 100 greatest novels of the 20th Century, for instance. Is it really that good? Maybe, I don't know. It's certainly deals with some moral quandaries that few, if any, stories I have seen or read before or since have even dared to imagine, much less tackle. The movie is apparently pretty slavish to the comic (minus one major sub-plot the studio wouldn't let them do), so hopefully they get it right. If they do it could be monumental, but I'll settle for just damn good and thought provoking.

Watchmen was the single most important comic book since the 1940 and on. It completely changed the superhero genre as we know it today, and comics as a whole.

Yeah. It was a pretty big deal. I could devote an entire thread just talking about how significant it was and all the references and allusions and metaphors in the comic, but it's just too much. I read it once every year and I always find something new about it.

Alan Moore is extremely meticulous and deliberate with his scripts. Every blot of ink on the page and every image in a panel and every color means something. The downside to this is that he's notorious for turning any artist collaborating with him into his personal art monkey. The artist gets practically no say in how he wants to manage the script.

Which is why I think the movie will be meh. For something this monumental you can't expect someone like Zack Snyder to adequately fill the role. This is one of the Holy Grails of comics.

[Dinsdale!]

I dunno, I think the Comedian looks more villainous in those pics. Very Joker-ish, especially compared to Night Owl and his Batman-esque outfit.

I always thought the Comedian was a take on the Joker. Like this sort of Nietzschean take on the Joker, where he's still kind of nuts, but "beyond good and evil" or what have you.

[Paddy]

In one hand main stream appreciation always means there will be some kids who discover and get really into comics, but on the other hand, it makes it a cheap fad to cash in on.

Can you explain the second part a bit more? I'm not sure what the inherent negative is.

I dont equate cheap with big budget, as most of these adaptations are. Would you say that you mean "cheap" as in sort of "soulless" because the films often miss some of the subtleties and character development that is done in the comics, due to the constraints of the format? I'd mostly agree with that, though I've been pleasantly surprised with what comic book adaptations of movies have been able to do with its characters in a few instances.

As for it being a fad, well, I guess the surge in popularity at the time of its release qualifies as a fad, but what's so bad about that? Surely it all depends on how good a job the movie does at representing the comic book interpretation of those characters?

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with "cashing in" on intellectual properties like this. The problems come about when a bad adaptation is done, in which case, we, the fans say that the makers didn't care about the property, they were just "in it for the money".

But the fact is that it is all done "for the money" when you get right down to it. Or else these people wouldn't bother working at jobs where they have editors telling them what to do or not to do, deadlines and contract that take away their rights to their creations.

The important part is, can the work rise above that. And we wont know until we see the final product and judge it for ourselves.

I wish companies would stop licensing comics like Wanted, Constantine and Watchmen and fucking it up with movies that pretty much have nothing to do with the comic.

I haven't seen Constantine, but I thought I heard it was pretty close to the comic books? The character himself at least? No?

Watchmen, by all accounts, will be rather faithful to the original material, so it doesn't belong on that list (unless those reports are untrue).

Wanted was bizarre though. Maybe they started off like the comic and through script rewrites, it got changed to what it was.

In that case, why they didn't just call it something else and create their own, new property, I have no idea.

[EHK for Darwin]

There's a reason why Alan Moore tells everybody to take his name off the material whenever someone wants to adapt his stuff into movies.

Because he's a self-important jackass. Read some interviews. The guy is a grade A, 110% asshole.

I wish companies would stop licensing comics like Wanted, Constantine and Watchmen and fucking it up with movies that pretty much have nothing to do with the comic.

The Wanted film had nothing to do with the comic, I agree there. The comic also wasn't that good. Great concept, poor (IMO) execution.

As for the trailer, I thought it was pretty kickass. Lets also remember that its a teaser. Those generally don't tell you anything about the film, plot, or characters. A few quick action sequences is about par for the course. This one was well done as far as those things go. Expect more content in the later ones.

[Ran]

Moore was fine with having his name on things until he got screwed over six ways from Sunday, dragged into lawsuits for League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and victim of studio lies. It really has nothing to do with him being an asshole, just an artist with a very specific conception of what's right by him.

I like the trailer of this well enough. I wish they stuck to having Niteowl as a chubby, middle-aged guy, but the costume he has _is_ pretty badass at least (which is sort of contrary to the point, but there you go). I also wish that Veidt taking out the would-be assassin had a different swing to that post so you could have a momentary flash of the X that's right smack dab in the middle of the entire series. X mark the spots. Still, it looks like it'll try to visually faithful for the most part. We'll see how the nuances play in Snyder's rather unsubtle hands.

[EHK for Darwin]

Eh...I can understand being pissed off to no end over League, but that's no reason to pull a Tony Kaye against the entire industry over this shit. With all his 'fuck the man (DC, Hollywood, anyone with power, money, and authority) bullshit, 'Take my name off everything', and 'don't ask me about those damned film projects' whining, he sounds like an angry, bitter hippy.

He produced arguably the greatest work the genre had ever seen. He's talented. Intelligent. But you need a fricken chainsaw to cut through his constant wall of angry cynicism. He is an asshole, and while alot of people in Hollywood might be douches, I'm sure his assholeness certainly played a role in anything that went down.

[delete this account pls]

Moore's infamously temperemental. And, let's face it, a bit of a whacko. A genius, but a whacko.

P.S; EHK, good to see you, haven't noticed you around the boards for a few days.

[delete this account pls]

Mind spoilering that major sub-plot? I'm rather curious what could be so very deviant that the studio wouldn't let them do it.

And thanks for talking about the novel. I've put it on my 'to read' list.

You've never read Watchmen? You've got to rectify that asap girl!

[DanteGabriel]

Pots: Whether or not you see the movie, you should read the book. It's just that damn good. And you should definitely read the book (maybe a couple of times, as I'm always discovering new stuff, new layers of meaning, every time I re-read it) before you see the movie.

[mormont]

That would be Silk Specter, she's not trying to look like an insect. Also, understand the story is very much a riff on the tropes of comic books, so if some of them didn't have slightly silly costumes the point wouldn't be made quite as well. In the comic sometimes the characters even question the whole costume thing at various times.

Even given all that... SS's costume looks awful.

Nite Owl seems to be visually and conceptually far too close to Batman, also: a major step away from the book portrayal. And there seems to be a shot of the Comedian punching through a wall.

Overall, less than happy with the tone of the trailer. Not at all optimistic about this.

[DanteGabriel]

The trailer is definitely very visually faithful. Almost every scene looks like something projected directly off the comic page: Jon Osterman "going to pieces" in the chamber, Nite Owl's ship rising from the water, Rorshach with the aerosol flamethrower, Dr. Manhattan disintegrating a Vietnamese soldier, the crystal palace rising out of the dust of Mars... All very much like the comic panels.

But, like Mormont, I am concerned. I'd be concerned about any director's chops in handling this project, much less the 300 guy. Granted, the source material for 300 doesn't give a guy much to work with except cool visuals, but Watchmen is a thousand times more complex than 300. Are we just being set up for some overly literal, unimaginative dumbing down of the source material into something like... "The 300 Watchmen"? Comedian punching a hole in the wall and the speedup-slowdown edit of Ozymandias clocking his assassin makes me afraid.

[Brude]

Nite Owl seems to be visually and conceptually far too close to Batman, also: a major step away from the book portrayal. And there seems to be a shot of the Comedian punching through a wall.

Eh, I always thought that was the point of Night Owl - and he always looked visually close to Batman in the comic to me, anyway. Film is a more visceral medium anyway - sometimes you need to be a little more explicit in how your portray visual cues and clues to an audience because they pass by in such a fleeting way. Maybe filmmakers sometimes even get too obvious with such things (I new a professor in college who even accused Akira Kurosawa of that flaw), but if anything I think that might be why he looks maybe even more like Batman than in the comic. Still, I got that connection instantly, the first time we saw him in the book.

[Blaine]

Eh...I can understand being pissed off to no end over League, but that's no reason to pull a Tony Kaye against the entire industry over this shit. With all his 'fuck the man (DC, Hollywood, anyone with power, money, and authority) bullshit, 'Take my name off everything', and 'don't ask me about those damned film projects' whining, he sounds like an angry, bitter hippy.

He produced arguably the greatest work the genre had ever seen. He's talented. Intelligent. But you need a fricken chainsaw to cut through his constant wall of angry cynicism. He is an asshole, and while alot of people in Hollywood might be douches, I'm sure his assholeness certainly played a role in anything that went down.

To me there's a pretty big difference from being an impossible to work with baby like Tony Kaye and being a reclusive, "fine - do what you want, just take my name off of it." guy like Alan Moore. Unlike Kaye, Alan doesn't have anything to do with the actual movie. Moore creates the comic and for him, that's the definitive version of his creation. Fuck everything else. I can respect that.

Honestly, I'd have more respect for novelists and artists and the like who took their name off of adaptations. How many times has some hackneyed combination of moronic studio execs, shitty hack screenwriters, egocentric directors and douchey actors ruined something that used to be great in its original form?

You have three choice at that point:

1. Turn down any licensing and say no to Hollywood money. (something Moore didn't have the luxury to do on his work for DC and other comic publishers in the 80s)

2. Smile and show up at the premiere and give bullshit soundbytes about how you appreciate what the director did (by ruining) your story.

3. Just walk away from the whole thing alltogether.

I'd pick #3 too. As such, the average American movie retard doesn't know the name Alan Moore when they watch V for Vendetta or League. And by the time they do learn his name, it's because they're more inclined to read the story the way he wrote it. Makes perfect sense to me.

[davos]

John Ostman looks perfect. Night Owl I'm ok with. The rest, I'm not so sure. Oxymandius is way off. Way to skiny and way to dark. I've been really skeptical about this film. The trailer does change my opinion any.

[EHK for Darwin]

Moore's infamously temperemental. And, let's face it, a bit of a whacko. A genius, but a whacko.

P.S; EHK, good to see you, haven't noticed you around the boards for a few days.

Hey, appreciate it brady. Been politicoed out the last few days. Got to force myself to browse Gen Chat at the moment. Have phases like that every so often. And haven't had much to say in the entertainment threads, so yeah...quiet couple of weeks for me.

[mormont]

Eh, I always thought that was the point of Night Owl - and he always looked visually close to Batman in the comic to me, anyway. Film is a more visceral medium anyway - sometimes you need to be a little more explicit in how your portray visual cues and clues to an audience because they pass by in such a fleeting way.

Good grief, no.

To begin with, Nite Owl was an analogue to the Blue Beetle, not Batman (as Silk Spectre was to Black Canary, Doc Manhattan to Captain Atom, and Rorschach to the Question). I thought that was fairly well known.

Granted, Batman (like Nite Owl and Blue Beetle) uses gadgets to fight crime, although the concept is actually much more central to Nite Owl than it ever was to Batman: and visually, I suppose he has a few similarities - hooded cloak, etc. - but they're not so close as to make a deliberate parallel credible IMO. Especially when you consider that character-wise, Nite Owl doesn't really have any parallels to the Dark Knight. He's fairly mild-mannered, motivated by a general sense of good, and is very much the 'everyman' of the series, the least like the grim and driven Batman. He doesn't have Batman's phenomenal physical training and incredible mind (that would be Ozymandias), nor his intimidating presence, ruthlessness and obsessive personality (Rorschach has those).

I do agree there seems a deliberate attempt in the trailer to be sending the visual cues of a parallel to movie-Batman. That's just what concerns me. To draw such a parallel would be to depart radically from the character as it exists in the comics.

[Guy Kilmore]

Granted, Batman (like Nite Owl and Blue Beetle) uses gadgets to fight crime, although the concept is actually much more central to Nite Owl than it ever was to Batman: and visually, I suppose he has a few similarities - hooded cloak, etc. - but they're not so close as to make a deliberate parallel credible IMO. Especially when you consider that character-wise, Nite Owl doesn't really have any parallels to the Dark Knight. He's fairly mild-mannered, motivated by a general sense of good, and is very much the 'everyman' of the series, the least like the grim and driven Batman. He doesn't have Batman's phenomenal physical training and incredible mind (that would be Ozymandias), nor his intimidating presence, ruthlessness and obsessive personality (Rorschach has those).

This is the first I have heard of the Blue Beetle. I am not a comic book junkie though, more of a story one. I always related Nite Owl to the Adam West interpretation of Batman. I don't know if I am thrown off by the idea of relating him to Batman as the audience has an idea who that is. While I see those aspects you listed in Batman, I also see the inquisitive side of Batman. The builder who uses tools to solve problems, I don't think it is too much a stretch to tie into that part of Batman.

[Humble Asskicker]

I'm just going to...wait. I'm making no assumptions about this movie other than it's not going to equal the graphic novel in quality. Whether it will be a good film on its own merits, and whether it can reach beyond "another comic action flick" status...I've been surprised about these things before. I know what the studio would like this movie to be, considering their selection of director, but perhaps the director can reach beyond his usual fare and produce something worth considering. Like I said, I've been surprised before.

[Xray the Enforcer]

I'm with Mormont on this, at least as far as the Nite Owl goes. Just...*shakes head*