Slashdot Mirror
Watchmen Movie Trailer Is Out
I forgot to mention the other bit of exciting comic book movie news this week: DaSpudMan noted that the Watchmen trailer is out — from the Director of 300, which spawns mixed feelings at our office. But it looks pretty good.
IF you saw The Dark Knight and IF you are from a country where they are showing this trailer. I surely didn'y saw it.
The trailer for Watchmen got the E.T. treatment.
Just in case you were afraid that the character on screen was going to shoot you, his gun has been replaced by a walkie-talkie.
Considering that my major complaint of Watchmen is the ending, I think changing it could only help. See my review at the Amazon listing for Watchmen , but basically I felt Moore could have created a much more refreshing plot than having the supervillian ultimately explain his whole scheme in dialogue to the heroes before doing them in, like the James Bond trope. I liked so much of the series, which really did move the comic tradition forward, but the last book was a letdown.
I love that ending exactly because the heroes think that he is just monologuing, when that is not exactly what happens. I was pretty much vague to avoid spoilers. Watchmen is definitely one of the best comics there is, so it is a big challenge to bring it to the screen. Even more if you consider the parallel stories and subplots.
It is like nothing else out there and it's worth knowing the story before seeing the film. The comic's author is adamant that it's a different art-form and should be considered as a comic so it's worth seeing the comic first so that your first impression is of the story in its intended form. That said, I'm going to see the movie of course!
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Could anyone tell about Rorshach's mask? I always pictured it continually in (slow) motion, almost like a lava lamp... but it looks like the blots were unchanging. Maybe it just changes from scene to scene?
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
> Ozymandius's costume looks completely different (I miss his purple one!), and Silk Spectre's costume is pretty generic looking.
Personally, I thought Ozymandius's costume in the comic book was kind of silly, and was somewhat relieved when they changed it for the movie. I'd tend to agree on silk spectre, except those faux garters are a little edgy.
> Nite Owl looks too much like Batman. (Sure they are similar characters, but very different also. I feel Nite Owl is not a very "dark" character, and making him into a 2nd rate Batman would not be doing his character justice.)
This is from memory way back in the eighties, but I seem to remember that Moore originally wanted to do this as a "parallel world" using the DC characters, but the company said no. I could be misremembering. But Night Owl was supposed to be this world's batman, and Dan Dreiberg struck me as the only really decent character of the whole bunch. As such, I'd expect him to be less "dark" than the other characters.
> Also I thought Rorshach's voice was a more distinctive monotone. He sounds just like any random guy whispering in this.
Did anyone else have trouble listening to Rorshach in the trailer? I could hear him fine in the "standard resolution" trailer, but his voice is drowned out by the music in the HD version. I wasn't expecting anything particularly different there -- Rorshach is a normal human, after all.
> But based on the production clips it seems like the director is really trying to be true to the story and look of the comic, so as long as they don't change the ending I don't see that it could be THAT horrible, no matter if Alan Moore has already disowned it (he disowns like ALL his movie adaptations, doesn't he?)
Agreed. The look is amazingly like the comic. And I applaud them for keeping it in 1985 instead of trying to twist the plot so it would fit in current times.
I'm not familiar with Smashing Pumpkins... what song was that?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Thought the trailer looked quite good - although given how iconic the bloody smiley is, I was surprised I didn't see it there, unless I missed it.
Given the complexity and layers of the book, I don't expect it to be slavishly followed by the movie - in fact I hope it doesn't, and neither should any of the books fans as there's no way a movie could successfully manage that.
I want a good Watchmen movie, one that has the themes and idea of the book, one that always has something new to discover in it and one that entertains.
Simply copying the book would be even worse than van Sant's duplication of Psycho. I want the spirit to be kept true to, not the actual pages.
"Realistic" in the sense that it's closer to how the world would react to super heroes/villains and how those super heroes/villains would probably react to the real world. In the real world, we're not going to be ok with some masked vigilantes running around enforcing justice. And the world's problems aren't going to be solved by someone just because they can fly or are super strong.
But there is no massively oversimplifying Eastern philosophy in the guise of a kung-fu movie so it's not really that similar to a Matrix sequel even if it might look that way to someone.
Bingo. Although the "03/06/09" thing is probably a nice coincidence, I think this is a combination of Snyder's previous success with "300" and with Hollywood seeing that a movie like this doesn't need to - or possibly want to open in the summertime to open big.
Because Memorial Day weekend is known as a time for Big Movie Releases, the schedule that weekend may be becoming too crowded, or the studios fear releasing that weekend raises expectations beyond what is reasonable.
Regardless, not opening in the summer means you can see it three months sooner, so stop complaining!
I'll create an amusing sig when I have something meaningful to post.
There's a scene by scene comparison of the trailer and the relevant panels from the graphic novel here. It looks remarkably similar and I'm quite hopeful that this will be a credible conversion now.
Input error. Replace user and press any key to continue.
... the entire point of that scene is to send up the comic book trope.
In particular: A major issue with comic heroes is the ends/means issue. Comic "heroes" regularly "fight crime" using methods that are forbidden for that purpose. Warrantless surveillance (such as Superman's hearing and vision), terroristic threats (such as Batman's whole schtick), etc.
Ozy's plan just scales up the moral quandary to a global, survival of humanity, scale, and rubs the heroes' noses in it.
Ozzy made his choice. But he isn't sure he made the right one. So he wants a sanity check from his peer group - and suitable punishment if they decide he did wrong: "... on the mercy of the court.". To keep them honest he puts them in the same position he was in. If they decide the other way they can punish him - and in the process undo what he did. If they decide the same way they're accessories after the fact. And if some decide each way the ones that side with him are left with murder of the others as the only way to maintain the achievement of the "good end".
And thus are they enlightened - about him, about each other, and about themselves. Big shock.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Also SPOILERS:
Ozzy made his choice. But he isn't sure he made the right one. So he wants a sanity check from his peer group - and suitable punishment if they decide he did wrong: "... on the mercy of the court.". To keep them honest he puts them in the same position he was in. If they decide the other way they can punish him - and in the process undo what he did. If they decide the same way they're accessories after the fact. And if some decide each way the ones that side with him are left with murder of the others as the only way to maintain the achievement of the "good end".
Not just that. They can either undo what he did, or keep quiet and effectively be accomplices. They all are now in the same boat.
Understandably, Rorschach realizes this and refuses to be complicit in Ozy's crime. He's a zero-tolerance type. Burn the world down if you must, but crime must be punished. That is why he refuses.
It's also probably why he dares Dr. Manhattan to destroy him. He knows he has to go public and that will most likely be the end of the world. Better he should die than bring about Armageddon.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I know, heresy. But I always thought Watchmen was vastly overrated.
In its day, it may have been novel - though the groundbreakingness is overrated. But I think it's coasting on the teenage memories of a lot of people who haven't read it in 20 years.
The writing isn't that great. The stories aren't that good. The characters are not that interesting. Everything is overdone - in fact, to me it reads like high school prose. Not much subtlety to anything and quite a bit of boring violence. I have nothing against violence, but for example the rape scene is reminiscent of what a young teenage writer would think about if he was trying to write a rape scene. That is one example of many.
And God if there isn't a lot of really tedious exposition!
It's not tripe. It's just not nearly as impressive as everyone thinks.
Side note: I've noticed that the things people remember about the Watchmen are mostly the artwork - Rorschach, the Owl's craft, Doc Manhattan, etc. The art is much better than the writing...I will be nice and refrain from extending that analysis to the rest of Alan Moore's work ;-)
Advice: on VPS providers
You know, it suddenly occurs to me that Rorschach is the closest thing in Watchmen to a classic comic-book character; four colour morality, only kind of in the opposite direction. Where Superman is always good and right, Rorschach is the mirror image of that; black and white, the negative side of utter uncompromise.
And he dies for it. It's all a metaphor for the old style of comics being killed off for being utterly unable to adapt.
Or something.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
You know, it suddenly occurs to me that Rorschach is the closest thing in Watchmen to a classic comic-book character; four colour morality, only kind of in the opposite direction.
Rorschach is a Psychopath, attempting to compensate by becoming rule-bound (and doing it poorly). Moore has the personality dead-on.
(It's interesting that the inspirations for Rorschach were apparently Steve Ditko's "Mr. A" and "The Question" - attempts at Objectivist superheros. Objectivism is a philosophy that starts from pure selfishness and derives the nonaggression principle and motivation for other behavior traits that keep its adherents within the law and make them people who, while often not likable, can be gotten along with. As such it's accessible to psychopaths. Teaching Objectivism to career criminals, motivating them to adopt its behavioral ruleset as a compensation, may be the only consistently successful rehabilitation program that has ever been studied.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The sad fact is that authors rarely have any input in the film-ification of their work.
Indeed, Ms Le Guin has it spot-on. Having been involved with writing a few screenplays, I can tell everyone who's never been there, You Have No Idea. Seriously, on a project that makes it to the screen, there are a dozen or so self-important hacks between the writer and the final edit, all trying to "exercise their creativity" on the work. And the less clout you have as an established writer, the more talentless hacks will screw it up. It used to be that producers and other studio execs would take care of the business side and leave the filmmaking to the filmmakers. The modern studio system is rife with slick dolts who got into the business because their fathers, uncles, or other relatives "handed down" the job to them. These guys don't understand that it's not their job to "reimagine" your script. I've actually had these morons interrupt my pitch to to interject their "creative input". One instance: a story about a group of adventurers led by an old, but very wise and experienced man. One of the party is a young, good-looking, braggart prick. They're intentional polar opposites. The guy I was pitching to said "I think it'd be better if you got rid of the old guy and made the young guy the leader". His own assistant tried to explain why that'd be dumb, but the guy just kept basically saying "young heroes market better". What he was suggesting was the equivalent of getting rid of Picard and replacing him with Wesley or Barkley! In the end, he offered to buy the script outright--- which means he'd get some hack to rewrite the script with the young guy as the leader, and I'd see it on the USA Network at 3am and have to shoot myself over how bad it was. My co-writer and I insisted on full control, though, so (like all our projects) they option it for a nominal sum and it will never see the screen unless they get really desperate. S'ok. We get those option checks every year, and that's better than a single lump sum and an embarrassment on the screen. That was the last thing we pitched. We have better things to do with our time.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.