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.

Comments

Mixed Feelings definitely

[Izabael_DaJinn]

Mixed feelings sums it up for me as well!

I have fond memories of my first boyfriend reading me the Watchmen, and many scenes in the trailer looked like they were taken right from the comic panels so I should be excited--but I don't know...

The Comedian didn't look like quite like the vicious rascal I had hoped he would (but I only saw him for a few seconds so we'll see.)

Ozymandius's costume looks completely different (I miss his purple one!), and Silk Spectre's costume is pretty generic looking.

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.)

Also I thought Rorshach's voice was a more distinctive monotone. He sounds just like any random guy whispering in this.

And they didn't show any footage of the "vintage" comic book characters (i.e. the first generation Watchmen) so bummer on that.

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?)

That said, I still wish Darren Aronofsky had taken over the directorial reigns.

Btw, is Smashing Pumpkins doing the soundtrack or is that just for the trailer?

Re:Mixed Feelings definitely

[SuiteSisterMary]

I think you missed the point. Spoilers ahoy.

Ozy isn't uttering forth a monologue; he's distracting everybody. He's already won. Further, he's not trying to show them how smart he is, daring them to outthink him, Riddler-style; he's giving himself up for judgement. He wouldn't have stopped any of the heroes had they decided to go reveal the plan; you'll note that he lets Rorshach go. Further, he seeks absolution from Dr. Manhattan.

In other words, the entire point of that scene is to send up the comic book trope.

Re:Mixed Feelings definitely

[Czarf]

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.

The Watchmen characters were originally supposed to be the characters DC purchased from Charlton Comics. When DC decided to use them in their universe instead, Alan Moore created new characters based on them. Nite Owl is his version of the Blue Beetle.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[jollyreaper]

Who watches the Watchmen trailer?

Oh, right. That would be us.

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[imipak]

Oh man, I've not waited so eagerly for a film since, ooh, Matrix Reloaded, or Phantom Menace... or possibly Scanner, Darkly.

This is not a good sign.

Why, oh why, are all the films of Alan Moore stories made to date been so lame? (Let's see, Constantine - total turkey; V for Vendetta - probably the least bad so far, scrupulously faithful to surface texture whilst completely missing the point; League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - almost as bad as Constantine;... From Hell - well I've not seen that, but as us cricket fans would say, it returned to the pavilion without troubling the scorer.

I know he's got his name pulled for reasons of principle, but really if it were purely down to "how good a film is it?" that would also be a good move.

If anyone out there's only seen the crappy films but not read the books, do yourself a favour and pick them up. Start with Watchmen. It's one of those works that seems to get more relevant every year.

Personally, I'm waiting for "D.R. And Quinch" or "Halo Jones" to be filmed =)

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[the phantom]

I would suggest that you read through these essays by Ms. Le Guin. The sad fact is that authors rarely have any input in the film-ification of their work.

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Dun Malg]

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.

Re:If you'd seen The Dark Knight...

[edbulldog]

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.

MPAA keeps you safe again

[ThanatosMinor]

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.

Re:Loved it

[oahazmatt]

I saw the Trailer during the midnight showing of Batman, and though I've never read the comic, It looked amazing.

Hey now. Read the comic, otherwise you may actually watch the movie without a sense of bitterness and outrage. :)

Re:Read the comic!

[Kelbear]

This is an important aspect that I think is critical for successful adaptations. The writer/developer/director needs to understand and capitalize on the advantages of the medium, rather than simply regurgitate the material in the same form as it was received.

The Watchmen did some interesting things by supporting the main comic format with letters, articles, and prose in order to flesh out the background of the world. In a book, brevity can be sacrificed for extensive levels of detail. In a movie, you've got the full focus of the audience onto the screen in order to present the director's imagining of the story. This can enable an inspired accounting of the material, but is a double-edged sword since he must take the reins of imagination from the audience and guide it in the most entertaining fashion possible in a 1.5-2.5 hour timespan. He's armed with both visual and auditory effects to bring the story to life...as long as he has the budget.

There are particular advantages and disadvantages to each medium that really need to be taken into consideration to provide the most entertaining experience possible. The presenter must recognize what was used in the original medium and what must be done to successfully execute the material in the presenter's medium. If the best aspects of the comic fail to carry over to the movie he'd damn well better find another way to make it succeed or it's just a cheap knock-off that never needed to be made in the first place.

In this particular case, the Watchmen is some pretty heavy material in a dense comic-book form. He's already been supplied with the storyboards, but he'll need to nail the right look and sound, while preserving the key aspects of the storyline. The storyboard should carry over fairly easily, but he won't have the supporting stories and reading material, which he may need to replace by squeezing in brief and/or subtle moments of insight in the course of the movie.

Most importantly, the movie better not have a happy ending.

Re:re Slashdot's Hunger For Comic Strip News

[Toonol]

When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.

c. s. Lewis

Re:Mixed Feelings definitely (& more spoils)

[SuiteSisterMary]

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.

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.