View Full Version : The WATCHMEN
LiquidEagle
11-14-2008, 09:01 PM
I didn't see a thread for this one, so it's gotta happen! Anybody else who's seen Quantum of Solace has probably seen the new trailer, and I got all giddy when I heard the Philip Glass and saw The Comedian, but I blew up when I heard Muse in there!
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2008/11/new-watchmen-tr.html
That page has the new trailer, obviously not in the highest of quality, but it's impressive nonetheless. I really can't wait for this movie, especially after reading in Wizard that Kevin Smith saw an early cut of it and said the entire Dr. Manhattan chapter with the photograph is intact. Wowzas!
Just about a week ago, I finished reading through it a second time, this is one of the most amazing things ever written...
I'm at work and cant open up much of anything, but which song? I've been kinda getting into Muse recently
Cool, I wasn't expecting to see this one in a while, due to the trouble they were having over the rights to release it.
LiquidEagle
11-14-2008, 10:05 PM
I'm at work and cant open up much of anything, but which song? I've been kinda getting into Muse recently
Take a Bow, it works very well IMO
Gummy
11-14-2008, 11:14 PM
Awesome!
I really liked it and the muse song is a wise choice.
<3frosty
11-15-2008, 08:24 PM
They have done an excellent job of picking music in the trailers so far. God, this movie CANT come soon enough. And if Fox ultimately manages to end the release of this film, i will swear off any and all things Fox related. It might make life difficult, but that is how pissed i would be.
btw, Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre is looking HOT!
r33hash
11-16-2008, 11:23 PM
Hugely anticipating this movie.
The first trailer was great, but this one makes me worry... all the dialogue seems pretty poorly spoken.
Maybe that's just because the lines have been chopped up when they pieced together the trailer, but I hope the actors can coherently read their lines. It would be terrible if Snyder's faithful recreation is ruined by pretty faces who couldn't act their way out of a paper bag.
Media
11-18-2008, 09:47 PM
This movie looks really stupid. I know the graphic novel is well-liked, but some things aren't meant to be translated live.
Agreed, but it will still be worth watching, on the off chance that they nail it.
I will be seeing this; looks quite interesting.
But I bet the graphic novel is infinitely better.
It will undoubtedly be better. In all probability, the movie will be rejected by 90% of the people who see it.
I believe this movie will succeed 100% with only one demographic: avid fans of the graphic novel who simply want more Watchmen, in any form or fashion. And seeing as how Moore has no intention (unless I am mistaken, he said this in an interview after V For Vendetta was raped by Hollywood) of writing Watchmen 2 (how awesome would that be), seeing a movie of Watchmen will be exactly that: more of the source material, just in a different format.
Its kind of like fans of Fight Club or Brad Pitt in particular wanting to watch an interview with the actor, or with anyone involved with the film... its just more incite, more visceral imagery in that particular universe of entertainment.
<3frosty
11-19-2008, 03:48 PM
The first trailer was great, but this one makes me worry... all the dialogue seems pretty poorly spoken.
Maybe that's just because the lines have been chopped up when they pieced together the trailer, but I hope the actors can coherently read their lines. It would be terrible if Snyder's faithful recreation is ruined by pretty faces who couldn't act their way out of a paper bag.
You realize that alot of these actors are well known, and most for their acting abilities?
Jesus you have a poor outlook on this film. 90% rejection!?
I agree on your point about this film being another insight on the Watchmen universe, but all indications from critics that i have seen and read are that he is doing exactly what you said. Nailing it.
Kevin Smith gave a raving review, and although he is a fan of Watchmen, i believe alot of fans of Watchmen will be the most critical of this film because alot feel like Moore in that it shouldnt be translated. But i dont know many that wont see it. Unlike Moore.
Of course, if it sucks, you will definitely see the wrath of Watchmen fans in full force.
And Paz, im trying to figure out if you have been commenting on this adaptation without reading the source material.... not that it makes an enormous difference, but it does make a difference...
Yes, I read Watchmen as a tiny child, and again when I heard it was becoming a movie. I have the original series of comics, split into 12 (unless I am missing some) chapters.
The only reason I commented on the acting, is because of the lines provided in the trailer. Again, its probably just because they have been hacked and spliced to give the trailer a little more excitement, but it sounds worse than Zoey D (whatever the fuck her name is) from The Happening.
Also, Kevin Smith is a fucking turd, I stand behind that statement 100%. His opinion means less to me than a trampoline does to FDR.
LiquidEagle
11-19-2008, 07:43 PM
This movie looks really stupid. I know the graphic novel is well-liked, but some things aren't meant to be translated live.
Have you read the novel? If you have, then you should know that the Watchmen (and an adaptation as faithful as this) is anything but stupid.
Also I don't take Kevin Smith's opinion for a whole lot, but he did say in a recent issue of Wizard that the cut he saw of the film has the entire chapter about Dr. Manhattan & the photograph intact -- I can't fucking wait to see how they pull this off.
Of course, the novel will still be better than the film -- like Moore said himself (his vehement hatred for any Hollywood film aside), there are things he & Gibbons did with the Watchmen that you can only do with a graphic novel, that's part of what makes it so brilliant is that it uses the format to its full effect. Then again we also have to see things from Snyder's perspective: movie studios are going to make this movie, with or without the right people. If you're in a position to try and make that as faithful and as great as possible, why not go for it? It's better than watching a bunch of executives make some soul-less remake just to cash in on the novel's fanbase. Unfortunately there isn't room to discuss whether it should've been an HBO episodic movie or something like that, it's inevitable so good people who are big fans should do their best to make sure the movie is as faithful and as good as possible.
<3frosty
11-19-2008, 07:46 PM
Zoey Deschannel is the gist of her last name, though probably not spelled correctly.
I have no opinion on Kevin Smith, but many apparently put alot of stake in his early review of the 3 hour cut, so ill leave it at that.
You are probably right about the trailer making the lines sound funny, though ill watch it again to see if i see any of the spoken lines that you think they butchered (in the trailers cut, at least).
<3frosty
11-19-2008, 07:51 PM
Have you read the novel? If you have, then you should know that the Watchmen (and an adaptation as faithful as this) is anything but stupid.
Also I don't take Kevin Smith's opinion for a whole lot, but he did say in a recent issue of Wizard that the cut he saw of the film has the entire chapter about Dr. Manhattan & the photograph intact -- I can't fucking wait to see how they pull this off.
Of course, the novel will still be better than the film -- like Moore said himself (his vehement hatred for any Hollywood film aside), there are things he & Gibbons did with the Watchmen that you can only do with a graphic novel, that's part of what makes it so brilliant is that it uses the format to its full effect. Then again we also have to see things from Snyder's perspective: movie studios are going to make this movie, with or without the right people. If you're in a position to try and make that as faithful and as great as possible, why not go for it? It's better than watching a bunch of executives make some soul-less remake just to cash in on the novel's fanbase. Unfortunately there isn't room to discuss whether it should've been an HBO episodic movie or something like that, it's inevitable so good people who are big fans should do their best to make sure the movie is as faithful and as good as possible.
I couldnt agree more with everything you said. Especially the bold. People will decry the choice of Snyder, but he has been very honest about why he took on this enormous task and i stand behind his actions. If he didnt make this film, someone would have. And the script he saw had most of the story modernized. So he scrapped the script and made the movie he felt was the most faithful. And i applaud him for his responsibility in that position.
<3frosty
11-19-2008, 08:03 PM
Okay, after watching and mostly listening to the lines, its very apparent that you are probably taking issue mainly with Rorschach's lines, which i think you are probably right about. The delivery of them is questionable. I certainly imagined a more high-pitched voice delivering the lines, but they almost went the way of The Dark Knight with his guttural growl.
Overall though, i think the lines are delivered well. The trailer definitely shows more than it should, but you better have read the graphic novel before you plop your butt infront of the screen to see this movie.
Also, Liquid, it seems pretty apparent to me that Media hasnt read the graphic novel.
Media
11-19-2008, 10:39 PM
Nah, I haven't read it. But I reiterate that I understand it's widely acclaimed or being the most well-written graphic novel/comic ever. I'm just not sure how well it will look on the big screen with live actors.
It's like how I'm the biggest Dragonball/Z fan alive, and the movie looks ridiculous to me.
Gummy
11-19-2008, 10:51 PM
Looks awesome to me.
Probably because right now, I could careless and so tired that I'd watch anything. =D
LiquidEagle
11-19-2008, 11:00 PM
The only line that I had a problem with was Dr. Manhattan saying, "why should I save a world I no longer have a stake in?" He sounds too human and I always imagined his voice being very powerful and kind of otherworldly. As soon as I saw the other clip of him yelling "LEAVE ME ALONE!" I loved him again though :-D
I love Rorshach's voice. In the novel his dialogue had that scratchy outline to it, and he speaks in a very simple way, so I think his voice is great, he's going to be so cool!
Yes, Manhattan meditating on Mars should be interesting to see on film.
His "viewing all times at once" might confuse the living shit out of people... I had to read through a few boxes in the novel about 600 times before I finally understood he was experiencing multiple moments at once.
Gummy
11-20-2008, 01:24 AM
I watched the new trailer but with the smashing pumpkins "the beginning is the end is the beginning"
Made it more epic. =P
I honestly don't know much about the comic, well I never read it.
Maybe I'll read the comic first and understand what's its about, even though the movie is only an adaptation or whatever.
<3frosty
11-20-2008, 02:11 AM
I watched the new trailer but with the smashing pumpkins "the beginning is the end is the beginning"
Made it more epic. =P
I honestly don't know much about the comic, well I never read it.
Maybe I'll read the comic first and understand what's its about, even though the movie is only an adaptation or whatever.
you absolutely should read the comic.
And Media, its absolutely ridiculous to attempt to compare this adaptation to Dragonball Z.
People have been making comic book films for years, and The Dark Knight was amazing. I really dont think you understand this comic book as it really has nothing to do with these guys being super. They are all normal, save for Dr. Manhattan. And its mostly a tale of AFTER the hang up the uniform and how they cope.
You realize that alot of these actors are well known, and most for their acting abilities?
Not really sure that I agree with you on that one.
Carla Gugino and Malin Akerman are known because they showed their [beautiful] tits on film.
Jeffrey Dean Morgan is "the guy from Grey's Anatomy". Whoopty fucking doo.
Billy Crudup hasn't been around long enough to prove himself, although he has done decent work.
And the rest are no names.
I am not saying that they are bad actors, but saying they are well-known for their abilities to me just sounds plain wrong.
Also, the more I see of this movie, the more I doubt it will be worth the wait.
Hisham
01-12-2009, 07:19 AM
Yes, Manhattan meditating on Mars should be interesting to see on film.
His "viewing all times at once" might confuse the living shit out of people... I had to read through a few boxes in the novel about 600 times before I finally understood he was experiencing multiple moments at once.
I didn't really find that chapter confusing. It was actually pretty clearly done to me. What I didn't get right away was the dude reading the comic at the news stand. That took me a while to understand what was going on.
<3frosty
01-12-2009, 08:00 AM
I didn't really find that chapter confusing. It was actually pretty clearly done to me. What I didn't get right away was the dude reading the comic at the news stand. That took me a while to understand what was going on.
This for sure had me going, "Okay, wtf is going on with this? Am i missing something?". Then, it finally hit met and i was like, DUH. I was definitely confused every time they brought in the comic stand for the first few chapters.
Paz, i admit i went too far saying that the actors were well known and most for their acting abilities, but people are likely to RECOGNIZE alot of the actors if they see their faces not disguised as the characters in Watchmen. It's just like how people recognize Leana Heady even if they dont know why they do.
They have been small role actors for sure, but most have been in a decent amount of flicks/tv shows. And yes, their acting is definitely not something most are known for, but they certainly can act from the various things i have seen the actors in.
woundingchaney
01-12-2009, 11:09 AM
Having read the graphic novel Im worried about the movie. Watchmen never was an "action" oriented tale. All Im seeing from movie trailers and what information is available is that there is an emphasis on action. Im sure the movie will be well done, but it seems to be made for the summer blockbuster crowd and not for fans of the Watchmen. Simply using the characters and portions of the storyline for this movie is not enough to portray what the comic ultimately did with the storyline and how it impacted the genre.
If they wanted a retro great graphic novel/comic line to do an action oriented blockbuster about they should of chose Charlies War.
<3frosty
01-12-2009, 06:01 PM
Having read the graphic novel Im worried about the movie. Watchmen never was an "action" oriented tale. All Im seeing from movie trailers and what information is available is that there is an emphasis on action. Im sure the movie will be well done, but it seems to be made for the summer blockbuster crowd and not for fans of the Watchmen. Simply using the characters and portions of the storyline for this movie is not enough to portray what the comic ultimately did with the storyline and how it impacted the genre.
If they wanted a retro great graphic novel/comic line to do an action oriented blockbuster about they should of chose Charlies War.
I think you are forgetting what marketing is. Action is what sells. It's pretty much ALL they showed in The Dark Knight trailers and id venture to say that movie turned out pretty damn good. And it had alot of story. Both movies should have a similar run time.
I have seen quite a bit of story unfold in the trailers, almost too much in fact. But some of the scenes are so iconic, Snyder probably insisted they get on screen. The Comedian being thrown around like a rag doll is important, and then the iconic launching through the strong glass window of his apartment.
Similar things are Dr. Manhattan being transformed into, well, Dr. Manhattan. While trying to tell a story, action tells alot of things without expressly saying things. We need to see The Comedian burning VietCong and smiling about it to understand his darker side. We shouldn't be hand fed things through voice overs.
If they turn this into an action flick, i agree it will be an injustice to the source material. But i dont think Snyder will be doing that. If anything, i can see him cutting out action sequences to instead focus on the story and the iconic moments in the graphic novel. Regardless, i think the director's cut will be leaps and bounds better than the version we see in theaters.
WickedD365
01-12-2009, 06:13 PM
I saw an interview with Kevin Smith saying he has seen Watchmen 3 times now, and that all the fans of the novel will be very happy. He says there is no giant squid, but they have reworked that part of the story to work for the movie, but it will all work together.
I can't wait to see this. When I heard about it I was kinda on the fence about it, but after the first trailer I saw during Dark Knight, I fell in love.
r33hash
01-12-2009, 06:54 PM
Ya, they have said since the beginning that the movie will follow closely with the book. I believe them.
Harmony
01-12-2009, 08:35 PM
I've been meaning to read the graphic novel for a while now. Prob will before i see the film though.
I bought it the other day, gonna make my way through it before seeing the film.
r33hash
01-13-2009, 12:03 AM
I might do that as well. I have 300 in greek. Its pretty swell.
cubist
01-13-2009, 01:31 AM
I had the same thought about Dr Manhattan's voice in the trailer.. Snyder defended his reasoning well, saying he thought Dr M would rather put people at their ease instead of sounding like a robot or something, and that I can get behind. I don't think he should sound otherworldly either.. but I think his voice should be deeper, more powerful.. he doesn't exactly sound like a superbeing.
Fingers crossed this turns out marginally ok. Next they'll say they want to adapt Sandman!
<3frosty
01-14-2009, 07:26 PM
Okay, for those that have been keeping up, Fox and WB have been in settlement talks for 6 days or so. Last Friday's hearing was pushed back because reports were stating that talks between both camps were productive.
Now, according to a Hollywood Reporter article (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i8bd9b0da7b2e5cc5de1d69df6b80fcc4), the January 20th meeting between both camps' attorneys has been canceled, foreshadowing a settlement is very close.
"With 'Watchmen,' an adaptation of the Alan Moore graphic novel with a budget in the $130 million range, the financial stakes are higher. According to sources, Fox is asking for upfront fees as well as a percentage of the back-end."
woundingchaney
01-16-2009, 12:56 AM
I think you are forgetting what marketing is. Action is what sells. It's pretty much ALL they showed in The Dark Knight trailers and id venture to say that movie turned out pretty damn good. And it had alot of story. Both movies should have a similar run time.
I have seen quite a bit of story unfold in the trailers, almost too much in fact. But some of the scenes are so iconic, Snyder probably insisted they get on screen. The Comedian being thrown around like a rag doll is important, and then the iconic launching through the strong glass window of his apartment.
Similar things are Dr. Manhattan being transformed into, well, Dr. Manhattan. While trying to tell a story, action tells alot of things without expressly saying things. We need to see The Comedian burning VietCong and smiling about it to understand his darker side. We shouldn't be hand fed things through voice overs.
If they turn this into an action flick, i agree it will be an injustice to the source material. But i dont think Snyder will be doing that. If anything, i can see him cutting out action sequences to instead focus on the story and the iconic moments in the graphic novel. Regardless, i think the director's cut will be leaps and bounds better than the version we see in theaters.
I dont really think that Batman as a comic storyline is comparable to what we are familiar with in Watchmen (or course this can be better argued by pinpointing "eras" of Batman). I dont want to give the impression that I am writing off Watchmen at this point, just expressing concern. Watchmen of course doesnt have and never will have the general knowledge associated with it that Batman does. For a general audience to become familiarized with Watchmen there is going to have to be a considerably larger portion of the movie associated with the story than what we seen in the Dark Knight or the audience will of simply went to see a summer blockbuster rather than appreciating Watchmen for what it is/was.
From my point of view there must be a fine line maintained particularly for Watchmen between plot/character development and action. Watchmen is a story that must be told through interactions other than bing, bang, boom and I cant help but feel that this is going to be overlooked.
<3frosty
01-16-2009, 06:52 PM
http://cablebfg.blogspot.com/2009/01/fox-and-wb-agree-to-terms-over-watchmen.html
WB and Fox have agreed to terms and the March 6th date is set. Whether good or bad, the film will now release on time. Yay.
julps31
01-19-2009, 03:59 AM
I think you are forgetting what marketing is. Action is what sells. It's pretty much ALL they showed in The Dark Knight trailers and id venture to say that movie turned out pretty damn good. And it had alot of story. Both movies should have a similar run time.
I have seen quite a bit of story unfold in the trailers, almost too much in fact. But some of the scenes are so iconic, Snyder probably insisted they get on screen. The Comedian being thrown around like a rag doll is important, and then the iconic launching through the strong glass window of his apartment.
Similar things are Dr. Manhattan being transformed into, well, Dr. Manhattan. While trying to tell a story, action tells alot of things without expressly saying things. We need to see The Comedian burning VietCong and smiling about it to understand his darker side. We shouldn't be hand fed things through voice overs.
If they turn this into an action flick, i agree it will be an injustice to the source material. But i dont think Snyder will be doing that. If anything, i can see him cutting out action sequences to instead focus on the story and the iconic moments in the graphic novel. Regardless, i think the director's cut will be leaps and bounds better than the version we see in theaters.Exactly. Trailers are never a good way to measure the ultimate quality of a movie. Trailers are meant to capture the excitment to reel you in. From reading interviews and watching the trailers, i'm confident the film makers are intent on staying true to the book and condensing the most critical aspects into the film without losing the essence of the book.
I watched the new trailer but with the smashing pumpkins "the beginning is the end is the beginning"
Made it more epic. =P
I honestly don't know much about the comic, well I never read it.
Maybe I'll read the comic first and understand what's its about, even though the movie is only an adaptation or whatever.I've been meaning to read the graphic novel for a while now. Prob will before i see the film though. Trust me...read the comic before you go see the movie lol. I love it...
Not really sure that I agree with you on that one.
Carla Gugino and Malin Akerman are known because they showed their [beautiful] tits on film.
Jeffrey Dean Morgan is "the guy from Grey's Anatomy". Whoopty fucking doo.
Billy Crudup hasn't been around long enough to prove himself, although he has done decent work.
And the rest are no names.
I am not saying that they are bad actors, but saying they are well-known for their abilities to me just sounds plain wrong.
Also, the more I see of this movie, the more I doubt it will be worth the wait.Why all the pessimism?? From the sounds of it you don't even WANT the movie to be good lol. Sounds like your prepared to shoot the movie down regardless.
Bryan
01-19-2009, 04:19 AM
The Watchmen looks like it'll be cool. I just hope it isn't as much of a faux "search your feelings" bit as the previews make it seem. There are two or three ways they could go with it.
I'd hate for them to fuck it up completely.
LiquidEagle
01-20-2009, 08:18 AM
I'm so excited!! Fuck Fox though, I can't believe how goddamn greedy and useless they are in this whole thing. They don't even lift a finger and get money for everybody else's hard work.
Hisham
01-20-2009, 11:41 AM
There are laws for a reason. And while I don't particularly like fox, your anger is misplaced.
WB was in the wrong because they didn't attain the copywrite properly, so they were called out about it. You should be angry at the people who secured the copywrite for WB, and didn't foolproof it. Business law exists for a reason...
<3frosty
01-20-2009, 09:35 PM
I am over Fox right now. Had they blocked the release of the film, which is what they originally stated as their intention, i would have been enormously upset.
They finally came to their senses and realized that this is a pure win for them by getting money out of something they didnt actually produce. They may have spent around 1 million developing years ago, and maybe some ridiculous amount on law fees, but this is ultimately pure profit for a company that has many failures on the movie front in recent years.
Tickets for the movie have now gone on sale at Fandango (http://www.fandango.com/watchmen:theimaxexperience_120424/movietimes).
Gummy
02-17-2009, 06:45 AM
Jonas brothers?
lmao.
Jonas brothers?
lmao.
Yeah, I bought those for my little sister yesterday because she was convinced that it would sell out so she had to get the tickets asap. The movie looks retarded
Gummy
02-18-2009, 12:31 AM
...What?
They have a movie.
Concert movie, like Miley.
Media
02-18-2009, 02:59 AM
I just finished the graphic novel in one sitting. I've officially changed my stance from "this looks dumb" to "I really hope this doesn't fuck up something great."
I loved the story, and I hope they properly translate it.
curryking1
02-18-2009, 05:49 AM
I enjoyed most of the book but the ending was pretty lame to be honest.
I wasn't expecting a 'happy' ending but the way the story closed was so abrupt and....
Well frankly it didn't make sense that the smartest man in the world wouldn't recognize the insignificance of what he did and then everything affected by that action would all be temporary in the end.
Maybe on the DVD extras they will have Dr. Manhattan split himself and fill all of Silk Spectre II's holes.
<3frosty
02-18-2009, 06:35 PM
I enjoyed most of the book but the ending was pretty lame to be honest.
I wasn't expecting a 'happy' ending but the way the story closed was so abrupt and....
Well frankly it didn't make sense that the smartest man in the world wouldn't recognize the insignificance of what he did and then everything affected by that action would all be temporary in the end.
You are encroaching on spoiler territory completely, and why you didnt wrap it in spoiler tags is beyond me.
Almost every great leader has had his downfall. Is there EVER a perfect plan? One that takes into account EVERY variable possible? I dont think there is. His plan was incredibly original and i have seen the idea presented through many texts after the publishing date of Watchmen. Even "Ender's Game" takes some liberties with the idea.
I think you are on the opposite end of the spectrum from most people. In general, the ending is raved about from everything i have seen. It shows how something so insignificant can hold so much power, and gives the reader a chance to think about what he/she would do in that instance if they had possession of the journal.
Additionally, you act like the ending is written. It isnt. We never see The New Frontiersman publishing the story from what i can recall. You are coming to your own conclusions, and other readers can come to theirs as well. Personally, i dont think the plan is temporary. I think it would be a lasting phenomenon that later might end. Hell, the simple idea that an escaped psychopath wrote in his journal that the smartest man alive is behind all this would make people question the legitimacy of that journal.
After watching clips online, I am afraid his movie is going to be subpar at best.
I wish movies would start taking cues from director Paul Greengrass and cut the music to a bare minimum. Hopefully the scenes were awkward from being out of context.
LiquidEagle
02-23-2009, 10:22 AM
After watching clips online, I am afraid his movie is going to be subpar at best.
I wish movies would start taking cues from director Paul Greengrass and cut the music to a bare minimum. Hopefully the scenes were awkward from being out of context.
Don't you have a character from a Paul Greengrass film as your avatar? I didn't watch said clips because I want to wait, but I don't remember the music ever being pushed too low in any of the Bourne films, I thought it was just right.
I didn't watch said clips because I want to wait, but I don't remember the music ever being pushed too low in any of the Bourne films, I thought it was just right.
It was just right because you didn't notice it.
In every fight scene, music is nonexistent.
When every car chase gets to it's climax, there is complete silence on the score.
When two characters are having a conversation, all you can hear is dialogue.
In the clips from Yahoo! movies, Watchmen has music running through almost 100% of the scenes. And the acting is pretty bland too, with the exception of the voice over by Billy Crudup as Manhattan.
I like the novel as much as anyone, but if these scenes remain the same, then the movie is going to be a very pretty disappointment.
curryking1
02-23-2009, 05:01 PM
I haven't watched any scenes or whatever though, I'm not sure what I'd be able to pick up from there to say about the whole movie just yet I guess. From the adverts it at least looks like it has the production values and all the art down very well, but other than that I probably can't say about anything else.
I just wonder what the length of the film is. There's no way the film can really convey the best parts of Watchmen well in only regular feature length like an hour and 10 min or something. I mean... there's a lot of development to go through... I generally have a problem with short movies... they seem like they are never planned to really develop characters or advance the plot in an interesting way.
<3frosty
02-23-2009, 11:50 PM
I haven't watched any scenes or whatever though, I'm not sure what I'd be able to pick up from there to say about the whole movie just yet I guess. From the adverts it at least looks like it has the production values and all the art down very well, but other than that I probably can't say about anything else.
I just wonder what the length of the film is. There's no way the film can really convey the best parts of Watchmen well in only regular feature length like an hour and 10 min or something. I mean... there's a lot of development to go through... I generally have a problem with short movies... they seem like they are never planned to really develop characters or advance the plot in an interesting way.
If you look and keep up, the film's length has been well documented over its initial 3+ hour run to the final theatrical release, which is 2 hours, 37 minutes. The director's cut will be 3 hours, 10 minutes. And the extended version of THAT, with Tales of the Black Freighter cut in, will be 3 hours, 25 minutes.
http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/10993/tcid/1
curryking1
02-24-2009, 03:23 AM
If I look and keep up?
Do you want me to apologize?
I'm sorry I didn't know and I'm sorry I'm not following Watchmen on a day-to-day basis.
<3frosty
02-24-2009, 09:33 PM
If I look and keep up?
Do you want me to apologize?
I'm sorry I didn't know and I'm sorry I'm not following Watchmen on a day-to-day basis.
Im just letting you know its out there. Sorry i came off as a dick though. :wave:
Well, perhaps I was wrong.
Reviews are in (http://chud.com/articles/articles/18250/1/REVIEW-WATCHMEN/Page1.html)
<3frosty
02-25-2009, 08:30 PM
RT.com currently has it with an 89% fresh rating out of 9 reviews, only one being "rotten". None of these are "Cream of the Crop" critics though, so it should be interesting to see how USA Today, NYTimes, Dallas Morning News, etc etc view it. Im just curious to see how the reviews are, and then see if the critics got it right or wrong with this film when i see it.
I came into The Dark Knight with an amazing amount of expectations, and it managed to surpass those by a long shot. Which is absurd. I doubt i will have the same expectations going into this film, but it should be interesting to see if it surpasses those.
TrueVCU
02-28-2009, 06:01 AM
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/3356/alanmoorem.jpg
LiquidEagle
02-28-2009, 06:03 AM
That's awesome... btw I get to watch this movie on Wednesday night, the 4th :-D
My theatre brought Dark Knight back into IMAX, so I'm going to watch Dark Knight before I watch it as well, that's like 7 hours of absolute glory in IMAX :-D
curryking1
03-02-2009, 07:29 PM
The advertisements for this film are great. I'm seeing quite a few of them as well. I think my favourite looking guy in the adverts is The Comedian, he looks sick.
Btw, just want to ask, are there multiple versions of the book? Just wondering from that picture TrueVCU posted.
Edit - Also was wondering... since the movie is showing in IMAX as well does anyone know about how the film was produced for IMAX? I'm assuming there were some big action scenes which were shot with IMAX cameras?
I haven't seen a Hollywood film in IMAX yet, only those awesome documentaries that IMAX started off with, so I was kind of wonder what everyone thought of Dark Knight in IMAX vs. seeing it in their living room or in a regular theatre or something.
This movie will actually not contain as much action as you think, although what there is will be well directed.
As for IMAX... most effects are CG, so I would assume they are using some pretty high-res technology, probably up to IMAX standards.
<3frosty
03-03-2009, 05:25 PM
The advertisements for this film are great. I'm seeing quite a few of them as well. I think my favourite looking guy in the adverts is The Comedian, he looks sick.
Btw, just want to ask, are there multiple versions of the book? Just wondering from that picture TrueVCU posted.
Edit - Also was wondering... since the movie is showing in IMAX as well does anyone know about how the film was produced for IMAX? I'm assuming there were some big action scenes which were shot with IMAX cameras?
I haven't seen a Hollywood film in IMAX yet, only those awesome documentaries that IMAX started off with, so I was kind of wonder what everyone thought of Dark Knight in IMAX vs. seeing it in their living room or in a regular theatre or something.
The pic that TrueVCU posted is not from the comic. Its supposed to be funny...
None of this film was shot with IMAX cameras. As with all other movies that appear at IMAX that arent shot with IMAX, the 35mm film will be upconverted to near IMAX quality.
You will hear LOTS of noise if any movie has scenes shot with IMAX cameras.
Finally, The Dark Knight at IMAX (on a true sized screen, not some of the small screens that IMAX sometimes shows on) cannot be replicated in the home theater. The switching of aspect ratios for some of the location shots was truly breathtaking. The colors were incredibly vivid, the sound was astounding, and everything was crystal clear. It was like watching HD for the first time again.
I wish every movie was filmed with IMAX cameras, but the process is a hassle with huge cameras that eat through film and make lots of noise. It just isnt practical right now. But The Dark Knight showed that people are willing to flock to see the film in IMAX witht he incentive that some of the scenes are actually filmed with IMAX cameras.
To anyone seeing the movie at an AMC IMAX theatre: click here. (http://i39.tinypic.com/nxlx5g.jpg)
Friend of mine sent me the link, so I thought I'd post it here for anyone to use.
curryking1
03-04-2009, 05:14 AM
Finally, The Dark Knight at IMAX (on a true sized screen, not some of the small screens that IMAX sometimes shows on) cannot be replicated in the home theater. The switching of aspect ratios for some of the location shots was truly breathtaking. The colors were incredibly vivid, the sound was astounding, and everything was crystal clear. It was like watching HD for the first time again.
Wtf? I didn't know the difference was that noticeable lol. I guess I missed out on the IMAX for Dark Knight lol.
Gummy
03-04-2009, 05:33 AM
I'm down to see this movie. just not on opening.
Roger Ebert just gave it four stars (out of four), and I tend to agree with most of what he says about films.
Also, from what I have been reading so far, Malin Akerman is a dreadful actress whose body is the only reason she will ever be cast in a movie.
curryking1
03-05-2009, 05:37 AM
^Nice score... damn... I was almost going to go see it this weekend but it looks like it will have to wait 2 weeks more :(
Dark Knight, after rewatching it a few times, has left a kind of stale taste in my mouth. It's a really exciting movie the first few times... I just thought it would have a lot more rewatchability.
I feel like Watchmen could become a real classic down the line now. Maybe. Though I'm saying this without knowing much about the film at all, just the subject matter combined with awesome production value has me with high expectations... high expectations I think aren't that unrealistic to meet.
<3frosty
03-05-2009, 11:28 PM
Roger Ebert just gave it four stars (out of four), and I tend to agree with most of what he says about films.
Also, from what I have been reading so far, Malin Akerman is a dreadful actress whose body is the only reason she will ever be cast in a movie.
I have heard nothing but negative comments about Akerman in this movie. Girls dont like her; guys dont like her; no one seems to like her... sucks she is such a big part of the picture.
You could tell from the trailer... her line "Do it for me" stood out as simply awful. That one line was the reason I doubted this film... wouldn't be the first time a film with excellent production value was ruined by someone who couldn't act their way out of a paper fucking bag.
What was Snyder thinking.
Gummy
03-06-2009, 12:24 AM
Blame casting too man.
haha she's really ugly and annoying.
idk, i just can't find her attractive.
IvgsWM4A72g
She got attention for showing her chest in "Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle".
curryking1
03-06-2009, 03:58 AM
I have heard nothing but negative comments about Akerman in this movie. Girls dont like her; guys dont like her; no one seems to like her... sucks she is such a big part of the picture.
That does suck... what's up with that...? Not cool...
I think it is her line delivery. From what I can tell, she sounds like she is reading off of a god damned teleprompter.
curryking1
03-06-2009, 04:27 AM
I think they picked her because she looks very much like the character in the book. The shape of her head is very similar. From the little I remember from trailers she does look pretty much exactly the same...
Too bad someone else more talented didn't look more the part... or that the directors wouldn't be bothered by someone looking less the part...
How unfortunate... I shudder to think what a more capable actress could have done with the role, especially considering that the Silk Spectre I and II relationship (and their connection to the Comedian) is one of the most complex and satisfying subplots in the graphic novel.
So I just got back from the midnight showing and here are my general impressions
The good
- Manhattan, Comedian, and Rouscher (sp?) were all great characters and felt real. Their motives, their stories, and their personalities were conveyed pretty well on screen and were a joy to watch
- The first hour of the movie was a blast, it started off with a bang and kept the momentum going.
- The last half hour, with everything just finally clicking, was fantastic.
The Meh
- Owl and Pharaoh boy were “eh”. I didn’t care much for them but at the same time I wasn’t too put off by them either. It felt like they were just there to fill the holes in the plot until the very end of the movie but by then it was far too late.
The Bad
- Anything involving Specter really. Considering how important she is to the overall story and how interesting her back-story really is, the actress is just atrocious. You get pulled into the world and for a second begin to believe it-Rouscher’s revolving ink mask, Manhattan in general, and Nixon’s 4th term-you don’t really doubt them. And then she enters the scene and BAM! All sense of believability and captivation is gone. The whole hour and a half in the middle that revolves primarily on her and Owl boy was just so boring it was painful to watch.
- Manhattan’s penis everywhere. Really, wtf?
Overall I give it a 3/5 but I wonder just what an actual competent actress could do in that role.
Media
03-06-2009, 01:53 PM
I think that the Nite Owl and Ozymandias were the only two characters not properly translated to the screen, visually (actors and costumes), based on the trailers, so that may be why they were the "eh" characters to you. The Watchmen was a perfect illustration of Alan Moore's story -- visuals are important to achieving the goal of the story. For one, the picked a little, obviously heinous looking twat to play Ozymandias, and they picked a younger guy to play Nite Owl.
Media
03-06-2009, 01:57 PM
Another note to make -- I feel like the costumes of the heroes in The Watchmen novel were designed to look sort of cheesy and/or homemade. It could have easily been more accurately accomplished on film by simpler means. I don't understand why Nite Owl's costume turned out the way it did -- this still takes place in the 80's, right?
<3frosty
03-06-2009, 06:55 PM
Another note to make -- I feel like the costumes of the heroes in The Watchmen novel were designed to look sort of cheesy and/or homemade. It could have easily been more accurately accomplished on film by simpler means. I don't understand why Nite Owl's costume turned out the way it did -- this still takes place in the 80's, right?
Yes, but there are also electric cars if you dont remember. And hovering Nite Owl ships... Manhattan has helped push technology forward, it would only make sense that Dreiberg uses some of that tech on his suit. I cant remember EXACTLY why the suits were changed, but i didnt have a problem the changes when i originally read about them and saw them.
Media
03-06-2009, 06:57 PM
It just looks like they're trying to badass-ify a costume that was -- at least I think -- always intended to be a bit cheesey.
<3frosty
03-06-2009, 06:58 PM
As much as id like to rail on her as an actress, i still havent seen the movie yet. I will without opinions about her acting skills until after, but i thought she seemed to be a competent actress. It seems like Snyder hit all the right buttons for casting save for Akerman (Specter II) and Matthew Goode (Ozymandias)
<3frosty
03-06-2009, 06:59 PM
It just looks like they're trying to badass-ify a costume that was -- at least I think -- always intended to be a bit cheesey.
Well, the whole idea behind using an owl as your costume scheme is pretty humorous, in and of itself. So that was definitely intentional in the original. Ill try to find why they changed them.
<3frosty
03-06-2009, 07:05 PM
Although he intended to stay faithful to the look of the characters in the comic, Snyder intended Nite Owl to look scarier, and wanted Ozymandias to possess authentic Egyptian attire and artifacts.[71] Nite Owl and Silk Spectre changed most from the comic, as Snyder felt "audiences might not appreciate the naiveté of the original costumes. So, there has been some effort to give them a [...] modern look — and not modern in the sense of 2007, but modern in terms of the superhero aesthetic".[9] Costume designer Michael Wilkinson added the costumes had to look realistic and protective, and that the Nite Owl costume reflect Dan's interest in aerodynamics. The chain mail in his costume resemble a bird's feathers.[77] Snyder also wanted the costumes to "comment directly on many of today’s modern masked vigilantes":[9] The Ozymandias costume, with its molded muscles and nipples, parodies the costumes in Batman Forever (1995) and Batman & Robin (1997).[78]
Direct from Wiki. Ill pull up some of the sources.
<3frosty
03-06-2009, 07:14 PM
"Q: Zack has been trying to be as faithful to the graphic novel as possible, but clearly the costumes won't work. How do you balance that?
MW: There's all sorts of challenges. For example for the early superheroes we really wanted it to be as absolutely accurate as we could be to the graphic novel. Embracing the old costumes technology that go into putting those costumes together.
Basically, it's like whatever you have around, at your disposal to pull these costumes together, whether it's like exotic lingerie in the case of Sally Jupiter. Or like boiler suits and like clown Halloween costumes that you can throw together like The Comedian. But then we come to the costumes conceived in the 70s and 80s and 60s, we really wanted to show a progression of technology.
Then a different way looking at superheroes, like according to the social appearance at the times they were conceived and when you when you thrown in together, with that questions of fit, comfort, getting them dressed in time,in a practical way, things that will work on some people, harness/wire work - all that sort of thing,you're entering into a very complicated costume scenario.
Q: It seems like the Nite Owl and the Ozymandias costumes changed the most from the graphic novel
MW: Yeah, I'd say so. With the Nite Owl we really once again got inside Dan Dreiberg's brain when he was putting together the costume and he's a great fan of aerodynamics, and he's an amateur scientist/experimenter/tinkerer so we tried to imagine him down in the basement putting the costume together, so you'll see there's a sort of chain mesh protective surface that he's come up with,that sort of ... the feathers of a bird, he's got these six exposed zippers. We sort of looked at massive technologies things that might inspired him in putting the costume together.
We also decided to give him a certain amount of danger and sexiness because we have to tread that fine line between him being you know, past his prime, putting on a bit more weight around the middle, but at the same time, there are indications in the graphic novel, that when he's walking down the street, people are actually scared and intimidated by him.
When he puts his on his superhero costume on he feels sexy and dangerous, Laurie is attracted to him. We had to try to get both sides of the story for the costume."
That is a Q&A with the costume designer... http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6294&Itemid=99
I think the purpose of making the suits look modern makes sense. Especially since we are supposed to see the progression of the costumes from the old days to its present form.
Media
03-06-2009, 11:15 PM
Thanks for that, <3frosty, it actually made me more understanding towards it all. And my mind is hard to change, hahaha.
LiquidEagle
03-06-2009, 11:29 PM
I watched it on Wednesday night in our IMAX... my quick impressions below (nothing is actually spoiled, I'm just putting spoiler tags on it in case you don't want other peoples' opinions to affect your own before you watch it):
Malin Akerman was fine IMO, but it was a disappointment to me. It was missing too much from the graphic novel that I felt was essential
curryking1
03-06-2009, 11:31 PM
Great... Spectre is going to be a black hole for awesomeness... just like that Maggie/what's-her-face/Bruce's ex-girlfriend was in Dark Knight...
^Damn....
No, its actually worse then Maggie. She makes Katie Holmes in Begins look amazing in comparison.
Travis
03-07-2009, 01:27 AM
I thought it was great.
LaLiLuLeLo
03-07-2009, 03:50 PM
I thought it was excellent.
Pro A.
03-07-2009, 04:55 PM
I... well... here's my take from Cinephiliacs.
http://cinephiliacs.com/index.php?m=articles&oid=144
I'd give it a 4/5
One thing i enjoyed was that none of the actors were screen recognizable for me, so i wasn't thinking of who they were in past roles, allowing me to see the actors as the characters.
Overall I think it was well done, but I'm sure it will drop off the box office in short order. I don't know too many people who would stomach this kind of film. Thank God I didn't take my wife to see it.
woundingchaney
03-08-2009, 12:52 AM
My girlfriend and I loved it (she particularly liked seeing Dr. Manhattan's blue dork). I quite enjoyed the movie for what it was, though I am also a rather large fan of the graphic novel. The movie did an excellent job of recreating the pseudo 1980 American theme and brought most of the issues within the graphic novel to the screen. There is going to be a definite problem with people not familiar with the graphic novel and expecting the first action blockbuster of the year, quite simply because this is not the film for them. Watchmen is a movie created for the fans of the graphic novel and for us I believe it makes it a better film, but for the majority of viewers I cant help but feeling that they are going to miss so many of the subtle undertones that make the story deep and emotionally driven.
THE SOUNDTRACK KICKED ASS.
Manhattan and Rorschach were well done, as were the visuals... that's about all.
The opening credits were great, though.
I think that the Nite Owl and Ozymandias were the only two characters not properly translated to the screen, visually (actors and costumes), based on the trailers, so that may be why they were the "eh" characters to you. The Watchmen was a perfect illustration of Alan Moore's story -- visuals are important to achieving the goal of the story. For one, the picked a little, obviously heinous looking twat to play Ozymandias, and they picked a younger guy to play Nite Owl.
Yeah, the actor for Ozymandias just seemed wierd, and I couldn't stand his costume, it seemed too "super hero" like, if that makes sense. That and he looks like a pussy and yet he can destroy Owl and Rorschach without much problem. But, as glaring as that was it doesnt being to approach Specter's level of aweaful.
They need to make a movie that focuses entirely on Rorschach though, he is awesome.
curryking1
03-08-2009, 11:36 PM
I hear Nightowl is basically a carbon copy of Batman... even though that couldn't be farther from his awesome character in the book... :cry2:
Did you guys notice that Ozymandias had a folder called 'Boys' on his hard-drive?
Yes, I noticed his homosexuality was much less latent in the film.
Things that didn't need to be there:
Excessive soundtrack
Excessive Nixon
Excessive sex scene
Smiley on Mars (subtle, but still present)
Rorschach's bloodstain resembling his calling card inkblot
Ozzy's goddamned accent
Not enough of Manhattan making people explode
Media
03-09-2009, 02:09 AM
Smiley on Mars was in the graphic novel.
I know, but it is one of those things that looks cool on a page but looks stupid on the big screen.
Also, the opening credits have made me rediscover Bob Dylan... can that man write a goddamned song or what?
Bryan
03-09-2009, 05:13 AM
I thought it was fantastic, and I also think that you all have superb input on this subject, so I won't bore you.
Pro A.
03-09-2009, 05:33 AM
I wouldn't have minded Nixon so much if he were played by a better actor and if his nose didn't keep me distracting me so much. It's like a beacon that literally calls attention to itself. Anthony Hopkins and Frank Langella never had this problem.
Gummy
03-09-2009, 12:38 PM
Saw the flick, me and my buddy was impressed.
Rorschach was fucking awesome and probably the most memorable for me, the actor did an awesome job.
I liked him in that movie Breaking Away('79.)
Akerman didn't do as bad as I thought she would, she was okay.
The comedian was quite a character, lol.
the rest did great and I enjoyed it a lot.
Although, it wouldn't hurt to watch a 2nd time around.
Soundtrack was fucking wicked, no such thing as "excessive", since they used the songs on the right moments I suppose.
i gotta read the comic, like fully/
"The right moments"
It was song after song after song.
Also, the worst part to me was when Ozzy was kicking the shit out of everyone on the screen... there was a cliche action score blazing in the background... the Comedian's opening fight was done perfectly... no sounds except the place getting torn apart and Blake's body getting pummeled into oblivion.
Gummy
03-09-2009, 11:50 PM
lol think of it as a 3hour music video.
I wouldn't have minded Nixon so much if he were played by a better actor and if his nose didn't keep me distracting me so much. It's like a beacon that literally calls attention to itself. Anthony Hopkins and Frank Langella never had this problem.
It grows during the film at least thats how it looked like to me. For every wire tap he places, his nose gets longer.
Hisham
03-11-2009, 01:41 AM
I swear, nixon's nose was the most distracting thing ever.
That being said, it was okay. I generally thought Snyder was too faithful. It ended up being jerky and lacked proper transitioning. But I guess that is what you get when you have fans demanding you make it as faithful as possible. I really think he could have made the movie better if he had taken some more liberties with the story; the movie could have been more clear in the themes portrayed in the novel.
And the lack of the news stand made me sad :(. If he wanted to be so faithful, why did he remove some of the most integral parts to the theme and philosophy of the book.
Meh, a good movie, it was just too similar. I would have rather he reimaged the series because then he could have made stuff work for the big screen that wouldn't have worked in comic form.
And wtf was up with Rorschach's mask? Seriously, it was just supposed to be a regular fabric with an inkblot sorta design. Not a mask that is constantly changing. That annoyed me mildly when watching the movie.
Actually, read the novel again ;)... the material is a viscous black liquid caught between two layers of synthetic fabric, which constantly shift.
I think it is a symbol of his unwavering sense of right and wrong... how no matter how much things change, there is never any blurred "gray" area.
Hisham
03-11-2009, 01:55 AM
Actually, read the novel again ;)... the material is a viscous black liquid caught between two layers of synthetic fabric, which constantly shift.
I think it is a symbol of his unwavering sense of right and wrong... how no matter how much things change, there is never any blurred "gray" area.
I don't remember that being the case, but if it is, then I stand corrected.
It wasn't that big of an annoyance during the movie (and I did notice that it changed sometimes in the comic) but I thought it was simply because he moved his mouth or his face was moving or something.
Generally though, Rorschach's character was probably the best translation. The mask was just pissing me off though. But it does make sense.
I first noticed it when he is walking out of Dreiberg's apartment.... it shows three consecutive frames with different ink patterns.
I was like "nice".
Then I violently masturbated.
<3frosty
03-11-2009, 09:10 PM
I hear Nightowl is basically a carbon copy of Batman... even though that couldn't be farther from his awesome character in the book... :cry2:
Not at all. His suit might have similarities, but Dreiberg is nothing like Batman imo.
curryking1
03-11-2009, 09:35 PM
We're both meaning in the movie right? I haven't seen it yet so I'm just going on what I heard.
<3frosty
03-12-2009, 05:33 AM
We're both meaning in the movie right? I haven't seen it yet so I'm just going on what I heard.
Yea, im talking about in the movie...
curryking1
03-12-2009, 05:35 AM
Ok just checking lol. That's good news, someone told me his character was off.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.