Watchmen

[Intercept]

If that info's correct, a third in 2008. 1 scheduled to be released in 2009. Two in 2010. Three in 2011. And a bunch of movies announced or in development, which really means nothing, not even that they'll actually be made (the Black Panther movie's been in development for years). There's certainly no reason to assume they'll all come out at once.

Not a dozen movies in two years.

If you actually read each link of those movies listed, more than half that list is already in preproduction. Actually, you would've gotten that if you actually read my post.

That means directors are screenwriters are already attached and they've begun storyboarding. The last phase is casting, which you don't even need a full one for to start initial filming. You just work on scenes that the actors you got already appear in.

The Iron Man movie license was floating around forever too, but that got made quite quickly once this comic book fad was catching up, didn't it?

[arteliad]

I tend to be pretty quiet unless I feel I have something important to say. I would like to add that the one thing I find worrying about the promotional material so far is Ozymandias. In the pics and in the trailer he looks fairly sinister and evil, which is really really off base for his character and frankly the whole point of the story. I'm hoping that it's just something about those shots.

[Brude]

Lets see, we have 2 in post production already. Five have been announced and given release dates. That's 7 so far. We have another 9 already in development, and another 9 announced to be slated for development.

Average Guy said it already, but pre-production means next to nothing as far as whether or not a film is going to get made anytime soon. I'm sure Marvel Studios has anything and everything in pre-production at some stage or another that they even just might want to make into a film over the next dozen years. Some of that stuff will get more pressure and attention than others, while others will get scrips written (maybe) and will wait around for some major actor(s) or director to sign on to the project, at which point they will only start to gain some momentum. At any given time the vast majority of properties a studio owns exists in a state of either turnaround which means nothing is going on, or "pre-production" which means, in some cases, someone is writing a script or some concepts are being tossed around. Other times it means they are in full on pre-production mode (i.e. everyone is attached, art and CGI are being done, sets designed, rewrites, rehearsals, etc.) but from the listing on IMDb there is no way to know which it is.

Another question would be has anyone seen his remake of Dawn of the Dead, and what did they make of it? The reviews I've read of it seemed broadly positive.

I liked many things about it, but it had a few problems. The opening sequence was nothing short of brilliant and I REALLY liked the little "shot on video" epilogue that was interspersed through the credits. I think something got cut, somewhere, and the story got kind of confusing during the shopping mall sequence. Too many characters suddenly appeared and no backstory for several of them - one looked too much like the lead played by Sarah Polley and I was confused what was going on because suddenly, out of nowhere, the lead character, who had been a married woman, is acting like a total ho. Turns out it was a new character played by Maria Bello (I didn't know either actress well at the time, so "blonde pretty girl" meant to me it was the lead), but I think something got lost and it should have been obvious they were different people.

I think they should forget about adapting the comic and do Watchmen Babies instead.

God that's weird, I found the Simpsons context for that picture.

RE: Nite Owl

Thank you, you've articulated what I've been too hung-over explain and struggling to put into words all weekend.

[AverageGuy]

If you actually read each link of those movies listed, more than half that list is already in preproduction. Actually, you would've gotten that if you actually read my post.

Well, I'll defer to your expertise, then. Sorry, Brude, but what do you know?

Between 2009 and 2010 Marvel will release nine movies in addition to the three they have scheduled, or between 2010 and 2011 they'll release seven movies in addition to the five they have scheduled, thus giving us a dozen movies within two years.

[mormont]

RE: Nite Owl

Nite Owl's costume, gadgets, and owl-cave are all evocative of Batman. And they're supposed to be and they're CENTRAL to his character. Why? Because Batman is a cool, dark, brooding badass, and Dan Dreiberg is a timid, middle-aged loser who desperately, DESPERATELY, wants to be a cool, dark, brooding badass.

Uh?

No. No, he doesn't. He wants to be a hero, not a badass.

Where do you draw the idea that Dan idolised Batman from? Because it seems to be totally from left field, to me. Batman doesn't even exist as a fictional character in Watchmen: there are no big superhero comics there. There are pirate comics instead. Kids did not idolise fictional superheroes, they idolised real ones: who, prior to the existence of Doctor Manhattan, had no superpowers, so your argument about being able to 'relate to' Batman applied to all of them, regardless of attitude.

And so yes, Dan idolised and wanted to be just like the original Nite Owl: who was also nothing at all like Batman. He was a regular guy, just like Dan is, not a 'cool, dark, brooding badass'.

The gadgets don't come from imitation of Batman, they were just what Dan could bring to the job - especially as (unlike Batman) he's not a kickass martial artist, nor a brilliant detective either.

It's the dichotomy between Dan Dreiberg and Nite Owl that drives the character. It's the differences between himself in costume and out of costume. And if the actor playing him is a chubby middle-aged man that has trouble getting it up but looks damn cool in costume, then they've captured the essence of the character completely.

I agree that the dichotomy is the driving force, but there is a reason why Dave Gibbons' portrayal of Nite Owl in costume deliberately shows off that paunch and avoids having a 'cool' look. It is necessary to remind the reader that the costume is just a psychological crutch: that fundamentally, Dan and Nite Owl are one and the same person. In this, Nite Owl is a contrast to Rorschach: Rorschach became his masked persona, whether in costume or not. Dan never did: his mask was only ever a disguise, not an identity. (Which again highlights a strong dissimilarity with Batman.)

[Galactus]

there are no big superhero comics there.

Actually there wer,e they were just very short-lived (once real superheroes started popping up) IIRC the original NIte Owl was inspired by Superman.

[mormont]

Actually there wer,e they were just very short-lived (once real superheroes started popping up)

Well, that's why I say 'no big superhero comics', meaning there are none that have the cultural presence they do in our world. I realise that wasn't very well put, though.

And there's no particular reason to think that Batman exists, let alone that Nite Owl II ever heard of him or idolised him.

[Galactus]

Well, that's why I say 'no big superhero comics', meaning there are none that have the cultural presence they do in our world. I realise that wasn't very well put, though.

And there's no particular reason to think that Batman exists, let alone that Nite Owl II ever heard of him or idolised him.

Yeah, Batman isn't mentioned (but Superman definitely is and is citd as an inspiration by Nite Owl I)

[Dinsdale!]

Well, that's why I say 'no big superhero comics', meaning there are none that have the cultural presence they do in our world. I realise that wasn't very well put, though.

And there's no particular reason to think that Batman exists, let alone that Nite Owl II ever heard of him or idolised him.

I think you're misunderstanding arteliad's post.

He's not claiming that Dan Dreiberg idolized Batman, or that Batman exists in the Watchman universe. He is rather saying that certain elements of the NiteOwl character are thematically related to our cultural understanding of Batman. He is making a comment about what was going on in Alan Moore's mind, not in the fictional Dan Dreiberg's. arteliad may be incorrect on this point, but right now you're talking past him.

Anyway arteliad, great post.

And a question for fellow watchmen fans. What's the point of the Silk Spectre character? She strikes me as far less interesting than the other character. I don't understand what larger point Moore was trying to make with her character.

[mormont]

I think you're misunderstanding arteliad's post.

He's not claiming that Dan Dreiberg idolized Batman, or that Batman exists in the Watchman universe. He is rather saying that certain elements of the NiteOwl character are thematically related to our cultural understanding of Batman. He is making a comment about what was going on in Alan Moore's mind, not in the fictional Dan Dreiberg's. arteliad may be incorrect on this point, but right now you're talking past him.

What elements are these, then, and how are they related to our cultural understanding of Batman specifically? (As opposed to our cultural understanding of superheroes generally.) This seems to me to be key to whether one can justify the film making Nite Owl a specific Batman-analogue, which (I have been arguing) he is not in the books.

I'm fairly sure Moore did not intend to reference any aspects of the Batman character I have not already noted: the gadgetry, the animal theme, etc. The 'cool, dark, brooding badass' aspect, which I would associate strongly with the film-Batman the film-Nite Owl appears very closely visually modelled on, simply isn't a thematic element of Nite Owl at all. He isn't one by nature, and he never aspired to be one. So if the film portrays him as either being or wanting to be one, I think it will have screwed up.

And a question for fellow watchmen fans. What's the point of the Silk Spectre character? She strikes me as far less interesting than the other character. I don't understand what larger point Moore was trying to make with her character.

I think that SS I and II are intended as a commentary on the portrayal of female characters in superhero comics: this is why Moore used the 'sexier' and more stereotypical Black Canary as his model rather than Nightshade. SS I consciously gets into the business as an arm of 'showbiz' and her costume and career are founded on exploiting her sexuality. SS II finds herself literally an adjunct to the more dominant male superhero (Doc Manhattan): barely even a sidekick. She has to strike out on her own to achieve a sense of self (and even then, it is limited to switching to a less powerful and overbearing partner). The commentary in both cases is surely obvious: it's about how female characters in superhero comics are valued on their looks and relegated to secondary roles.

ETA - obviously, both play a key story role as well. Doc Manhattan has to have someone to debate with, after all.

[Brude]

I wasn't really too familiar with Malin Akerman's (Silk Spectre 2) acting but I happened to catch The Heartbreak Kid last night and I have to say she was pretty good, at least for a broad comedy. But I think she showed some real acting potential in that film so hopefully she's got some skills for drama as well. (The movie was kind of a misfire for the Farrely Bros., though. The lead is way too despicible to root for.)

[Brandon Stark]

I wasn't really too familiar with Malin Akerman's (Silk Spectre 2) acting but I happened to catch The Heartbreak Kid last night and I have to say she was pretty good, at least for a broad comedy.

I believe she was in Entourage for a few episodes also. Decent there as well.

[Brude]

I believe she was in Entourage for a few episodes also. Decent there as well.

She was, but whatever role she played doesn't stick out in my mind. Perhaps I liked her work in it, but I'm not sure who she played. (Edit: just looked it up, she played Sloan's college friend that she and E have the threesome with - I don't remember if she was good or not, just that she was damn sexy.)

[Galactus]

I'm fairly sure Moore did not intend to reference any aspects of the Batman character I have not already noted: the gadgetry, the animal theme, etc.

If there is a Batman paralell I've always thought it was more about Adam West Batman than anything else.

[Shryke]

What elements are these, then, and how are they related to our cultural understanding of Batman specifically? (As opposed to our cultural understanding of superheroes generally.) This seems to me to be key to whether one can justify the film making Nite Owl a specific Batman-analogue, which (I have been arguing) he is not in the books.

I'm fairly sure Moore did not intend to reference any aspects of the Batman character I have not already noted: the gadgetry, the animal theme, etc. The 'cool, dark, brooding badass' aspect, which I would associate strongly with the film-Batman the film-Nite Owl appears very closely visually modelled on, simply isn't a thematic element of Nite Owl at all. He isn't one by nature, and he never aspired to be one. So if the film portrays him as either being or wanting to be one, I think it will have screwed up.

I think your missing the point. The gadgets, the costume, the animal theme, the whole thing, it's all supposed to give the reader this idea that "This is this world's Batman". Your supposed to get this immediate reaction to it. And then, you find out .... he's not.

Moore uses clues the reader understands (ie - our perceptions of Batman) to set up their expectations, and then turns them on their head.

Nite Owl, at a cursory glance, SHOULD look like Batman. It's only when you get a good look that you see the differences.

[Dinsdale!]

What elements are these, then, and how are they related to our cultural understanding of Batman specifically?

What part of arteliad's post was confusing to you. It's not my argument, so I don't feel I ought to restate it. You should ask him what part of his post you need clarified.

I think that SS I and II are intended as a commentary on the portrayal of female characters in superhero comics: this is why Moore used the 'sexier' and more stereotypical Black Canary as his model rather than Nightshade. SS I consciously gets into the business as an arm of 'showbiz' and her costume and career are founded on exploiting her sexuality. SS II finds herself literally an adjunct to the more dominant male superhero (Doc Manhattan): barely even a sidekick. She has to strike out on her own to achieve a sense of self (and even then, it is limited to switching to a less powerful and overbearing partner). The commentary in both cases is surely obvious: it's about how female characters in superhero comics are valued on their looks and relegated to secondary roles.

ETA - obviously, both play a key story role as well. Doc Manhattan has to have someone to debate with, after all.

That's disappointing. That's a really banal feminist point he's making then. I'm not saying that it's not worth making, but it's really just a translation of arguments made by other writers in other mediums, and he doesn't add anything to it other than to note that this hyper-sexualization of women is common in comic books. And then when you compare it to Dr. Manhattan or Rorschach or the Comedian, as an internal conflict it doesn't really measure up at all.

[mormont]

What part of arteliad's post was confusing to you. It's not my argument, so I don't feel I ought to restate it. You should ask him what part of his post you need clarified.

But you're the one saying I need parts clarified. I think I understand it fine.

That's disappointing. That's a really banal feminist point he's making then. I'm not saying that it's not worth making, but it's really just a translation of arguments made by other writers in other mediums, and he doesn't add anything to it other than to note that this hyper-sexualization of women is common in comic books. And then when you compare it to Dr. Manhattan or Rorschach or the Comedian, as an internal conflict it doesn't really measure up at all.

Possibly so, and I wouldn't suggest that what I note above is all there is to the characters. But it has to be acknowledged that Sally and even Laurie are different from the three noted above. Laurie, for example, is really playing the same role as Dan: that of 'regular guy/girl'. In fact, in regard the revelation of Ozymandias' plot, she reacts in lock-step with Dan. Prior to that, she humanises Doctor Manhattan's dilemma rather than experiencing one of her own. You could argue her need to seek out her own identity, and escape from the roles she is forced into by her mother and as an adjunct to Manhattan, is an internal conflict: but it's not on the scale of what the Comedian or Manhattan himself experience.

Rorschach, of course, doesn't really experience an internal conflict at all. His dramatic tension comes from pitting that absolutist view against the more nuanced ones.

Shryke: that's an interesting view, and possibly there's something to it - but again, I just hope that the film is not going to go too far down the road of drawing parallels with Batman. He's not Batman, but he's not particularly an anti-Batman either.

[Guy Kilmore]

That's disappointing. That's a really banal feminist point he's making then. I'm not saying that it's not worth making, but it's really just a translation of arguments made by other writers in other mediums, and he doesn't add anything to it other than to note that this hyper-sexualization of women is common in comic books. And then when you compare it to Dr. Manhattan or Rorschach or the Comedian, as an internal conflict it doesn't really measure up at all.

I also thought he was making a comment regarding sex and violence, how those feelings can get interconnected and frequently are in our society.

SPOILER: Watchmen

SS1 and the Comedian had an odd relationship. He raped her and fathered SS2. SS2 and Nite Owl passionately and in a way that satisfies both when he dons the Nite Owl Person. As Dan, it didn't work, but as Nite Owl, he could ring her bell.

[Dinsdale!]

I also thought he was making a comment regarding sex and violence, how those feelings can get interconnected and frequently are in our society.

´

It's more like, Watchmen can be understood as comment on philosophy post-nihlism. And the other characters all relate to these abstractions somehow, but SS doesn't really seem to. And that puzzles me.

[Dinsdale!]

But you're the one saying I need parts clarified. I think I understand it fine.

:looks at Mormont sideways:

I clarified what I meant to clarify.