Watchmen

[AverageGuy]

I'm more worried about Ozymandias's costume. He doesn't look like the golden boy the rest of the world sees him as.

SPOILER: since some people may never have read Watchmen

I at least started off loving Ozymandias and thinking "What the fuck?" when I saw Rohrshach. I don't want the impact of that ending to be lessened.

And yes, it looked more like a typical superhero story than Watchmen actually was. I know trailers don't necessarily reflect the movie, but from what I saw of 300 (I walked out), this director may be more flash than substance.

ETA: spoiler bit

[Dr. Pickles OB/GYN]

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.

Well not to pick nits, but the Silk Spectre is an analogue of Nightshade, from the Charlton books that Beetle and the Question came from...not Black Canary.

Like Comedian is The Peacemaker and Ozymandias is (ahem) Judomaster.

Remember, Moore was going to use the entire Charlton cast as DC had just purchased the rights to them. They wouldn't let Moore use them after initially agreeing to it, as they elected to use the Charlton characters in the Crisis on Infinite Earths mini that year. Moore just tweaked them a bit. He did, however, manage to keep a bit of The Question's Objectivist ideology and shift it further right.

I just saw the trailer have to admit to being pretty damn impressed. The Nite-Owl thing doesn't bother me that much. There's only a couple of ways you can present a superhero costume on the screen that won't seem ridiculous. I think most of us can agree that Wolverine would look pretty damn silly in his comic book costume on the big screen. Some things just don't work.

The actor playing Nite-Owl (the name escapes me) apparently packed on a bunch of fat to illustrate how out of shape he really is after being retired, and has to squeeze into such a tight costume.

All in all, I'm very interested in the movie.

Once you get over the fact that a 2-3 hour movie isn't going to capture every little nuance of the epic that is Watchmen, you can judge the film on its own merits.

The only way you'd come close to getting everything would be in the form of an 8-12 hour minseries.

And if we don't like the movie, we can just pull Watchmen off the bookshelf and wrap ourselves up in that wonderful little masterpiece of fiction.

If the movie sucks, it doesn't mean Watchmen sucks. Let's just keep our heads and some perspective, huh?

[mormont]

Well not to pick nits, but the Silk Spectre is an analogue of Nightshade, from the Charlton books that Beetle and the Question came from...not Black Canary.

Well, if we're really going to pick nits...

Although you're perfectly correct about the origins of the characters in the Charlton line, Moore has said that he based SS much more on Black Canary than Nightshade. That's where the mother/daughter dynamic and the sexier, 'glam' image came from, since Nightshade didn't have these elements. There's practically nothing of Eve Eden/Nightshade in either SS.

I just saw the trailer have to admit to being pretty damn impressed. The Nite-Owl thing doesn't bother me that much. There's only a couple of ways you can present a superhero costume on the screen that won't seem ridiculous.

But then, Nite Owl himself admits that his costume is a bit ridiculous.

The actor playing Nite-Owl (the name escapes me) apparently packed on a bunch of fat to illustrate how out of shape he really is after being retired, and has to squeeze into such a tight costume.

Interesting, and I hope this bears out: but you really can't see it in the trailer.

If the movie sucks, it doesn't mean Watchmen sucks. Let's just keep our heads and some perspective, huh?

I'm very far from losing my head or my perspective, don't worry.

[Dr. Pickles OB/GYN]

Well, if we're really going to pick nits...

Although you're perfectly correct about the origins of the characters in the Charlton line, Moore has said that he based SS much more on Black Canary than Nightshade. That's where the mother/daughter dynamic and the sexier, 'glam' image came from, since Nightshade didn't have these elements. There's practically nothing of Eve Eden/Nightshade in either SS.

True, but nearly all female comics characters (in that vein) can claim Black Canary as inspiration. Especially the Huntress, and even Catwoman to a certain extent. She definitely broke ground for non-powered female adventurers. Maybe we're both right?

But then, Nite Owl himself admits that his costume is a bit ridiculous.

Oh yes, absolutely. All superhero costumes are pretty silly. It's just weird that we'd prefer one silly over the other, especially when it crosses over to another medium where that particular sort of silly might be considered laughable in light of the fact that someone is actually wearing the silly ass thing. Funny how some folks (not necessarily you, Mormont) will suspend disbelief for one thing and not the other.

I had a slight problem with the costume in Superman Returns, simply because they were trying to fix something that wasn't broken. I'm not saying they should have used the same suit Reeve wore, but they should have just made some minor tweaks and be done with it, rather than turn it into the aquamarine/maroon eyesore we all saw. Turns out the costume was the least of that movie's problems.

Spider-Man's costume seems to be the only one that can translate well to the movie screen without a total overhaul.

Interesting, and I hope this bears out: but you really can't see it in the trailer.

No, you really can't. However, assuming the Nite-Owl costume in the book was your standard spandex/lycra deal, this may be due to the type of costume the movie version wears. Nite-Owl's paunch is front and center throughout his scenes in the book, but the movie version seems to be traditional "Batman" style body armor, which is probably way less forgiving than stretching glorified stockings over your pot-belly. As long as the fact that he's fat and out of shape is addressed, I'll forgive the fact that he isn't jiggling his way through fight scenes. I may even be thankful for it!

I'm very far from losing my head or my perspective, don't worry.

Well, that wasn't really focused at you, but there will be quite a few people that will use the small liberties that you must take when adapting a comic book to film and use it as the noose with which to hang the whole thing.

As I said, I'm looking forward to seeing it and hope that it does some justice to what is probably the best comic story of all time.

So call it cautious optimism if you will. The trailer has reinforced my outlook, as has Zack Snyder's attitude about the project. I was skeptical about his ability to do Watchmen justice because he had introduced the concept of zombies that run faster when dead than they ever could in life, but I read a piece on the film at the Entertainment Weekly site in which he said:

...his fear of seeing a bad Watchmen movie trumped his fear of trying to make a great one. ''They were going to do it anyway,'' he says. ''And that made me nervous.''

If he'd rather shoulder the responsibility of making a Watchmen movie rather than see it get fucked up by someone else who didn't know the material, kudos to him. At least he can fuck it up on his own terms while trying to make it great.

[AverageGuy]

...and Ozymandias is (ahem) Judomaster.

I thought Ozymandias was the Peter Cannon Thunderbolt? I know that's one of the Charlton characters that remained creator-owned instead of transferring to DC - is that "ahem" because DC was messing with copyright stuff?

[Dr. Pickles OB/GYN]

I thought Ozymandias was the Peter Cannon Thunderbolt? I know that's one of the Charlton characters that remained creator-owned instead of transferring to DC - is that "ahem" because DC was messing with copyright stuff?

God damn it, I think you're right.

I'm gonna go hand in my geek credentials.

Fuck.

[Ser Warpechowski]

http://gizmodo.com/5026434/nerdgasm-watchm...web-a-day-early

The trailer looks fucking awesome.

[Ser Warpechowski]

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.

There is a ploblem there: 300 trailer was also pretty awesome. In fact, 300 trailer was better than the movie.

One, because the best scenes were in the trailer. Second, because ALL the best scenes were in the trailer.

So I wont get hyped because of this trailer because it may be better than the movie itself.

[me399]

http://gizmodo.com/5026434/nerdgasm-watchm...web-a-day-early

The trailer looks fucking awesome.

I agree with you. I can not wait to see this. Its looking better than I had thought it would. *keeping fingers crossed*

[Bellis]

I just saw the trailer in the opening to The Dark Knight. The first scene with the creation of Manhattan, and I exclaimed in a loud voice, "omigod!! is that the watchmen!!" usually when I say such things, I am totally completely wrong. It soon became clear that I was right. I spent the rest of the trailer telling my friend next to me how awesome this was going to be.

I cannot wait. This will be an event!

[Brude]

Honestly, I think some of you guys are trying to find too many one-to-one comparisons between the Watchmen characters and certain specific characters from other comics. They each bear resemblances and traits of many different characters because it's not meant to riff on just one set of characters - it makes comments about the many universes of comic book heroes as a whole. Night Owl is NOT Batman, he's Night Owl, he's NOT Blue Beetle, he's Night Owl - but there is a lot of Batman in there but there is, no doubt others as well. Batman was not original, he was based in part of previous characters, among them The Shadow, The Phantom, etc., so you can maybe find a bit of them in there too (or in someone else, just as likely). Ozymandias has many Batman elements, too, but you are going to make yourself crazy if you try to argue one direct comparison of or connection over another because nobody in the comic is all one character - that would be a simplistic and reductionist way to go about telling that story. Then it would be commenting on specific other comics rather than the whole panoply of them out there.

It doesn't hurt to be reminded of other characters, what they are about, their roles, purposes, mythologies in their own time-lines and stories and worlds. It adds resonance to the Watchmen story because they become archetypal characters for comic-book-dom as a whole and it doesn't matter who they remind you of either, so long as you bring some of that along. More casual fans of comics, like myself and 98% of the readership, will place memories of Batman, Superman (there's some of him in Dr. Manhatten), etc. on them. If you know more obscure, more archaic characters, maybe you bring that too and that's cool because you are maybe experiencing more nuances than a more casual reader but that doesn't negate the experience of the more casual reader either because it's there too - and I think intentionally done that way.

Edit: oh, and Patrick Wilson is playing Night Owl. He's a fantastic actor. I first saw him in "Angels in America" but he has done a lot of other very fine work since, too. Perhaps most notably in "Little Children," which also starred Jackie Early Haley (Rorschach) in his great comeback role.

[mormont]

Honestly, I think some of you guys are trying to find too many one-to-one comparisons between the Watchmen characters and certain specific characters from other comics.

Well, there's a good reason for that: according to Moore, the Watchmen characters mentioned above are actually specifically based on those particular characters!

They each bear resemblances and traits of many different characters because it's not meant to riff on just one set of characters - it makes comments about the many universes of comic book heroes as a whole. Night Owl is NOT Batman, he's Night Owl, he's NOT Blue Beetle, he's Night Owl - but there is a lot of Batman in there but there is, no doubt others as well.

That's my point. There is not a lot, or indeed any, of Batman in Nite Owl.

If you're looking for a Bruce Wayne archetype, that's Adrian Veidt: if you're looking for a Batman archetype, that's Rorschach. (Both, incidentally, examples of characters who reference more than one superhero - indeed more than two.)

But Dan Dreiberg? What does he have in common with Bruce Wayne? Where is the Batman in Nite Owl? They're both crimefighters, they both use gadgets, they both wear a hooded cloak, they're both animal-themed... it's all very general, IMO, far too general to be directly a Batman parallel. None of it can justify the film using Batman as a specific reference point.

ETA - to be fair, I just thought of one delberate parallel: the Batcave/Dan's basement hideout.

So it's not that I'm trying to outgeek anyone, just that I am slightly worried that Snyder may subscribe to your view, and use Batman as a reference more than visually. As far as I can see, that would be to depart radically from the character of the book Nite Owl, who never really shares Batman's attitudes, outlook, methods, or character.

[Dinsdale!]

The comic to comic comparison doesn't really seem like the one that's most relevant to the plot.

So the Comedian is based on the Peacekeeper, or Rorschach based on the Question? How is it relevant to them as characters in the context of the novel?

[lokisnow]

the comic book was good and the trailer looks good too. I hated 300, but I'll catch this opening weekend.

Personally, knowing that they're all supposed to be some randomass super-minor comic book cast of Charleton Heston characters but Moore wasn't allowed to use them makes the whole thing seem a lot less special. I liked that there was a kind of meta sense to the book, too bad that wasn't intended, nope they were just supposed to be something specificly minor explicitly to appeal to the super-trivia-champ who knows that useless shit.

[Intercept]

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.

In the next two years, Marvel is set to release 12 superhero movies.

You don't think that's a bad thing? They're literally just spamming these. Look, like I said, I really can't blame the Big 2 for trying to make a buck. Seriously, I can't. I very much understand that the entertainment industry is run by money, and there is no shame in trying to make a bunch of it. But there is a line where decisions for established intellectual property is tasteful and when it's just tacky.

Case in point, Spiderman 3 and X-Men 3.

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).

Not at all. The only thing close to the comic was that he was a paranormal detective.

But Constantine isn't a dark, brooding, emo character like he was depicted in the movie at all. He has no interest in bargaining his way into Heaven, because frankly, he could've give less of a shit. He's extremely sarcastic and funny. That's why he's so interesting in the comic -- you'd think a guy who fights demons all the time would be the atypical antihero, but he's quite sly.

Also, he's an awful fighter and a terrible shot, both in action and to his own admittance. He gets by on his wits.

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.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

I liked Wanted for what it was and I liked Constantine for what it is, but they used the comic book license and made a bunch of tasteless changes just to cash in on the right to say, "HEY! Watch this shit it use to be a comic! It's now the movie sort of kind of not really at all based on the comic!" If they just made them as original ideas, I'd be all for it.

And Alan Moore may be an asshole, but as Ran pointed out it's justified. His comics have been majorly majorly MAJORLY fucked up in the past.

[Intercept]

a

[Intercept]

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.

SPOILER: LAWL SPOILER

In my opinion, the most shocking part of the whole thing is the rape scene. That's the big subplot throughout the comic. Brudewollen pointed out the pirate comic-within-a-comic, but that's more of a metaphor to the plot rather than the subplot.

It's really really layered. When your reading it, remember you're reading a comic and not a book. Pay attention to the art. Every single thing in every single panel -- color, facial exp​ression, costume, positioning, body language, scene, camera shot [Long, face shot, silhouette, etc] and even the organization and size of the panels -- means something.

[AverageGuy]

Personally, knowing that they're all supposed to be some randomass super-minor comic book cast of Charleton Heston characters but Moore wasn't allowed to use them

Moore could've used the the Charlton characters (they weren't exactly minor - they did support their own comic company for forty years). He chose not to for a few reasons. Yet more useless shit for you

[Jaxom 1974]

This weeks EW cover story on the Watchmen Movie...

I can't help but notice the very first quote from the director, especially in relation to the current discussion of the use of what characters and such going on here.

[lokisnow]

thanks for the link Jaxom, excepting about 278 geeks that are even aware Charleton Heston comics ever existed, most people are going to draw the same broad, basic parallels that Synder illustrates in that quote. If he were yammering on about blue beetles, madame cockroaches and captain judo-chop I'd become a lot less interested in the movie, both as someone who has read the book (because it would indicate he's more interested in the minutia than what I understood to be the broader implications of the story) and stepping outside myself, if like the vast majority of the movie going public I knew nothing about the story, I would think, "who wants to see a dark version of a blue beetle character I've never heard of? It probably will only be interesting to stereotypical comic book superfans"