Watchmen - Spoilers like a Psychic Undersea Gargant!

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Nyarlathotep
Not a god. Not even a titan.
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby Nyarlathotep » Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:28 am UTC

Re: the 90's batman movie look...

What I have heard is that this choice was done not becuase it "looks cool" but because Watchmen is a deconstruction of superhero tropes. The comic itself deconstructs Golden and Silver age style comics; what I heard is that the director chose the 90's superhero movie look of tight leather and overtopness as a deconstruction of the 90's superhero film. Honestly I feel the same way about the slow-mo. Watchmen may be about real human characters in a superhero world and how that would actually work, but it still uses superhero tropes both in its design (hypersaturated colors, ridiculous costumes, the panel format) and in its storytelling (zomg villain! zomg destroy the world plot! Avec une tweest). Again, we are talking a deconstruction, so the slow-mo may be used as that.

Then again the overuse is a little "oh come on this is not 300 it is bloody watchmen"

Even so, I like the costume design choices and I think it works. I would rather have this look than the candy-colored designs of some of the costumes from the comic.

*e* oh chriiist.

Spoiler:
What. they took out the squid? ... well, alright. as I said in the other Watchmen thread, I see a LOT of problems with the squid. a LOT. but they'd better keep the basic plot and ending the same - there has to be some threat that Ozymandias creates to save the world that fucks up a lot of people but ultimately maybe might create world peace but might not. That CAN be accomplished without the squid, and might cause less problems if he can feasibly repeat the issue...
...
But I'm just as worried that they'll remove that altogether in which case whaaaaaaat. oh geez.
'Gehȳrst þū, sǣlida, hwæt þis folc segeð?
hī willað ēow tō gafole gāras syllan,
ǣttrynne ord and ealde swurd,
þā heregeatu þe ēow æt hilde ne dēah.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jack Saladin » Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:52 am UTC

Top half: Which is exactly what I've been saying.

Second half:
Spoiler:
They've just replaced the squid with something less stupid*, not changed the entire plot.

*
Spoiler:
The less stupid thing is apparently framing Manhattan for the destruction. Which is so much better and means Manhattan's arc actually concludes and has a point.


I hope spoilers within spoilers work.

Edit: No, they don't.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby cephalopod9 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:59 am UTC

SecondTalon wrote:Also, in the comic, when Dr. Manhattan was going on television, they were wondering if they should put makeup on him, as his blue was too light to show up well.. so he darkened himself.

The yelling scene in the trailer is from that part of the story. Hence, he's darker. So.. not unique to the trailer, that's from the book.
Quite, quite. I was noticing and excited for the attention to detail. It wasn't entirely related to the other points I was making.
smw543 wrote:When you say the
Spoiler:
strength of the killer is discussed, are you referring to when the cops talk about it? Because they weren't exactly reliable sources. It isn't really clear what happened until late in the story, all that's known is that there was an attack, and ultimately, the assailant won the fight. The movie shows the fight as being one-sided. Any of the Watchmen would at least have a chance of beating The Comedian, but only Veidt could beat him so soundly.

In the opposite direction, it didn't make much sense when he said "Well, it was a matter of time" (paraphrased) upon seeing his attacker. Wouldn't he have recognized him? Veidt certainly wouldn't have worn a disguise, as a disguise would only be necessary if he failed, and he's a little too "confident" to consider the possibility of failure. As I recall, Blake doesn't say anything at all in the scene (again, don't have my copy at hand.)

Well yes, but
Spoiler:
the fact that he has been thrown through a window is hardly subjective. It's also mentioned that he's sort of past his prime. He's what, mid 50's early 60's?What would recognizing Veidt would change? While it doesn't seem Blake connects Veidt to the things he sees on the island in the book, that may change without the squid, and he was probably expecting someone to try and cover things up. I don't have my copy on hand either, but I don't recall seeing much of the fight at all. He got thrown into the mirror, and thrown out the window. I think that's about it.


Also regarding the slow-mo, Night Owl jumping down from his ship and Veidt hitting the guy with the ash tray were regular speed in the second trailer (or at least faster than they were in the first).
Image

User avatar
smw543
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:45 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby smw543 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:33 am UTC

Jack Saladin wrote:You've heard like two lines out of the guy. You can so very not judge whether or not he's "distant" enough from that.
It is my God-given right as a nerd on the internet to judge whoever or whatever I so choose, as long as it falls within the sphere of geekdom. [What's this? Firefox says "geekdom" isn't a word!]
cephalopod9 wrote:Well yes, but
Spoiler:
the fact that he has been thrown through a window is hardly subjective. It's also mentioned that he's sort of past his prime. He's what, mid 50's early 60's?What would recognizing Veidt would change? While it doesn't seem Blake connects Veidt to the things he sees on the island in the book, that may change without the squid, and he was probably expecting someone to try and cover things up. I don't have my copy on hand either, but I don't recall seeing much of the fight at all. He got thrown into the mirror, and thrown out the window. I think that's about it.
Point well taken. I think I was remembering part of the scene incorrectly. Still,
Spoiler:
we should probably continue keeping about 70% of our posts within spoiler tags, if only to make it look like we're saying something important.
And ST, if you remembered that without checking the book, I tip my hat to you. Impressive. (Granted, I've only read through it a paltry 1.5 times.)
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Now you know the difference between funny and sad.
Ubik wrote:But I'm too fond of the penis to let it go.
gmalivuk wrote:If you didn't want people to 'mis'understand you, then you probably should have tried saying something less stupid.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26508
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:23 pm UTC

Yeah, didn't have to check. I don't remember the particulars of the conversation, just something akin to the studio people saying that he wouldn't show up that well and needed make up or something, so he darkened himself and they, kinda stunned, said it'd be fine. I'm assuming the conversation about makeup was to darken his skin tone, hence him downshifting his color rather than upshifting, but like I said.. I don't recall the details. I think it was somewhat similar in tone to the atomic symbol conversation as well, but I could be mistaken on that.

Re: Ozy in Slow-Motion: I'm actually fine with his fight being in slow motion. He is a slick and stylish superhero. Rorschach is not. I'm hoping when Adrian fights the guy that parts of it are in slow motion. I'm hoping Rorschach bits are not. If nothing else, to help highlight the differences between those two.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
smw543
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:45 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby smw543 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:04 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:Re: Ozy in Slow-Motion: I'm actually fine with his fight being in slow motion. He is a slick and stylish superhero. Rorschach is not. I'm hoping when Adrian fights the guy that parts of it are in slow motion. I'm hoping Rorschach bits are not. If nothing else, to help highlight the differences between those two.
Spoiler:
Yeah. The fight near the end where Rorschach and Silk lady team up on him would probably work better with somewhat altered speed. Otherwise, it will have a Jackie Chan feel, only without a (chair/ladder/shopping cart) as a weapon, which is just ridiculous.
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Now you know the difference between funny and sad.
Ubik wrote:But I'm too fond of the penis to let it go.
gmalivuk wrote:If you didn't want people to 'mis'understand you, then you probably should have tried saying something less stupid.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:18 pm UTC

Can someone remind me/explain to me what Ozy's 'powers' were? Reading the comics I was under the impression he was just a disgustingly good planner/super genius who had some fun gizmos (Like metal plates or something on his hands to catch the bullet?) but come to think of it,
Spoiler:
he did throw the comedian from a window,
so... Yeah, someone fill me in.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26508
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:31 pm UTC

The Shortest Answer - He's Batman.

He didn't have powers. He just trained himself quite a bit, and engaged in as many mental exercises as he could. He's what Doc Savage would be in the world of computers.

Spoiler:
As far as throwing the Comedian from a window - you'd just need someone strong enough to, what, pick up 180-220 pounds and chuck it a short distance?
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
smw543
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:45 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby smw543 » Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:45 am UTC

The way I saw it, the question of his powers was intentionally vague. We're meant to question whether he is "superhuman," or merely at the peak of human ability.
Spoiler:
As was mentioned earlier in the thread, "he CAUGHT A FUCKING BULLET" (near the end, when Rorschach and SS try to stop him.) And he can watch a wall of televisions and not only gather information from all of them simultaneously, but actually synthesize the information (there's a scene where he suddenly says to an assistant that they should create some new product while watching the screens, or something like that, I don't remember exactly.) I personally am inclined to say a human couldn't do these things, but then I'm forced to question where the line should be drawn between human and superhuman.
The point is that he doesn't do anything that is clearly superhuman; he can't transmute materials or see neutrinos. He only does things that are fundamentally human in nature, at an arguably superhuman level.

If someone could reach 50mph on foot, would he be superhuman? (It would be nearly double the top speed of Usain Bolt's Godlike 100m performance.)
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Now you know the difference between funny and sad.
Ubik wrote:But I'm too fond of the penis to let it go.
gmalivuk wrote:If you didn't want people to 'mis'understand you, then you probably should have tried saying something less stupid.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby cephalopod9 » Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:23 am UTC

Ozymandias isn't super human, but he does have some superhuman abilities.
SecondTalon wrote:Yeah, didn't have to check. I don't remember the particulars of the conversation, just something akin to the studio people saying that he wouldn't show up that well and needed make up or something, so he darkened himself and they, kinda stunned, said it'd be fine. I'm assuming the conversation about makeup was to darken his skin tone, hence him downshifting his color rather than upshifting, but like I said.. I don't recall the details. I think it was somewhat similar in tone to the atomic symbol conversation as well, but I could be mistaken on that.

Totally just steal my nerd points why don't you :P
It's only for a split second around 2:08, but it pretty much looks exactly right.

I'm kind of digging on the cliche'd up trailer music. (Watchmen takes place in the 80's after all).
Anyone have opinions on his music choices for 300 and Dawn? All I remember from 300 is yelling, but Dawn of the Dead had some pretty rad stuff, like Johnny Cash.
I don't remember much, if any slow-motion in Dawn, now that I think about it...
Image

User avatar
smw543
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:45 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby smw543 » Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:09 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:Ozymandias isn't super human, but he does have some superhuman abilities.
Huh? I think we're saying the same thing here.
cephalopod9 wrote:Anyone have opinions on his music choices for 300 and Dawn? All I remember from 300 is yelling, but Dawn of the Dead had some pretty rad stuff, like Johnny Cash.
I don't remember much, if any slow-motion in Dawn, now that I think about it...
Dawn of the Dead's music was chosen extremely well; even the lounge music cover of "Down with the Sickness" fit perfectly. As for 300, I recall the music being mostly unobtrusive, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but you're not going to win any awards (it also didn't help that the composer apparently ripped off a few other recent films.)

It seems that Tyler Bates, the guy who did the music for both films, is also doing it for Watchmen, which could be a bad thing. Dawn of the Dead was fine because it used independently created music from other artists, and 300 was fine because it didn't require a strong soundtrack, but Watchmen has lots of dark scenes and periods without talking where a good score is essential. Of course, Bates may be entirely up to the job, I just don't think I've seen any indication as of yet.
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Now you know the difference between funny and sad.
Ubik wrote:But I'm too fond of the penis to let it go.
gmalivuk wrote:If you didn't want people to 'mis'understand you, then you probably should have tried saying something less stupid.

Ubik
Posts: 1016
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:43 pm UTC

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby Ubik » Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:36 pm UTC

Jack Saladin wrote:That fucking music! How can people seriously still use it for anything other than movie trailer parodies?

Do you mean the exact musical piece or just the style of it?

The music of the first part of the trailer - at least the part beginning from 0:27, when the company logos are shown - is from a opera called Akhnaten by Philip Glass. This YouTube clip is from the opera. That clip isn't unfortunately the closest match with the trailer's music, later parts of the opera match the music of the trailer much better. I like the piece (and the music in that opera in general), but I have to admit it got a bit too much bass boost in the trailer like a lot of music does these days. Bye bye, subtlety and differences in dynamics.

The opera is only a few years older than the comic, it had its premiere in 1984. It tells a story of a pharaoh, which almost makes it feel like a reference to Ozymandias. But I guess it could also be that the person who chose the music just shuffled the trailer music playlist and then chose the first result.

Edit: Hmmm (or should it be "Hurm."), I was wrong and I was right. Some sites say the music is actually piece called Pruit Igoe from Koyaanisqatsi, and that is believable: this clip from about 3:50 matches really well the trailer music. But as I said, I am also pretty much right when I said the music is from Akhnaten. Philip Glass apparently has stuck into repeat because the section of Pruit Igoe which was used in the trailer practically is part of Akhnaten too (in the Akhnaten YouTube clip the similar "pattern" should be pretty clear from around 4:20 onwards). I also saw a claim that music of Koyaanisqatsi is used in trailers these days, quite possibly the same part. I don't watch them that often so I had no idea. Overusing same music sucks.

I guess that it would be good to say at least something about the movie as well. I only just read the comic for the first time, and I think I get why it is respected even though I don't probably have enough experience on superhero comics in general. I hope that that the relation between Silk Spectre and Comedian gets treated well in the movie, without being made too black and white or truncated.

Klapaucius
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:00 pm UTC

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby Klapaucius » Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:33 pm UTC

smw543 wrote:
cephalopod9 wrote:Ozymandias isn't super human, but he does have some superhuman abilities.
Huh? I think we're saying the same thing here.


To put it more clearly: he's got Charles Atlas Superpowers.
500%!

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby cephalopod9 » Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:24 am UTC

Finally found me the Comic Con footage, uses the same music as the second trailer, and some more not very exciting stuff, but I think it's used well.

This month's video journalhas some good stuff.

There's also this snippet from MTV.
Image

User avatar
Macbi
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:32 am UTC
Location: UKvia

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby Macbi » Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:21 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:Finally found me the Comic Con footage, uses the same music as the second trailer, and some more not very exciting stuff, but I think it's used well.
That clip is awesome, the
Spoiler:
squid
may be out, but at least they got the earrings right.
    Indigo is a lie.
    Which idiot decided that websites can't go within 4cm of the edge of the screen?
    There should be a null word, for the question "Is anybody there?" and to see if microphones are on.

Joeldi
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:49 am UTC
Location: Central Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby Joeldi » Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:21 am UTC

That footage furthers my suspicion that this might turn out to be a really really good movie.
I already have a hate thread. Necromancy > redundancy here, so post there.

roc314 wrote:America is a police state that communicates in txt speak...

"i hav teh dissentors brb""¡This cheese is burning me! u pwnd them bff""thx ur cool 2"

tpd
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:26 am UTC

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby tpd » Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:18 am UTC

Zack Snyder was pretty amature on 300. I remember really liking the trailer for 300 and then discovering the movie was terrible. He's going to have to make an amazing leap if Watchmen is going to be anything like the comic. Don't forget, he's also doing a sequel to 300......

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby Endless Mike » Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:43 pm UTC

One thing I will say about this: It's getting a LOT of people to read the book. Anecdotally, I can think of three who are either currently reading it or have expressed interest in it.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby TheAmazingRando » Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:45 pm UTC

Endless Mike wrote:One thing I will say about this: It's getting a LOT of people to read the book. Anecdotally, I can think of three who are either currently reading it or have expressed interest in it.
Definitely. My dad hasn't read a comic book since he was 16, and he asked to borrow my copy.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby cephalopod9 » Tue Dec 16, 2008 6:38 am UTC

Ooh! Just noiticed, comic con footage:
Spoiler:
2:05-2:07 is that Nixon?
2:24-2:25, young Kovacs?


I gave my dad a copy to read. (He read it incredibly slowly) Seemed to like it.
Image

User avatar
Macbi
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:32 am UTC
Location: UKvia

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby Macbi » Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:30 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:
Spoiler:
2:05-2:07 is that Nixon?
2:24-2:25, young Kovacs?

Spoiler:
I think it is Nixon, but it doesn't look much like Kovacs.
    Indigo is a lie.
    Which idiot decided that websites can't go within 4cm of the edge of the screen?
    There should be a null word, for the question "Is anybody there?" and to see if microphones are on.

User avatar
3fj
Posts: 1715
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:13 pm UTC
Location: Land of Whisky and Bagpipes (LOWAB)
Contact:

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby 3fj » Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:10 am UTC

Endless Mike wrote:One thing I will say about this: It's getting a LOT of people to read the book. Anecdotally, I can think of three who are either currently reading it or have expressed interest in it.

Guilty. After seeing the general feeling of "Oh noes, theyre going to butcher it" plastered across the interwubz, i decided to see it per-butchering.
Everything's dead until it's alive. Man will exist, and then he will die. Just take the ride!

caje
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:01 am UTC

Re:

Postby caje » Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:18 am UTC

Malice wrote:Specifically, the guy who made 300.

He got some things right in that movie--like the visuals.

He got some things wrong in that movie--like everything that wasn't originally in the book.


... Technically 300 is an "historical" event. It shouldn't need to follow a book.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Re:

Postby Malice » Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:48 am UTC

caje wrote:
Malice wrote:Specifically, the guy who made 300.

He got some things right in that movie--like the visuals.

He got some things wrong in that movie--like everything that wasn't originally in the book.


... Technically 300 is an "historical" event. It shouldn't need to follow a book.


1) 300 is about as close to actual history as How the Grinch Stole Christmas. For example, in history, there were more than 300 fighters.
2) The movie is clearly trying to follow the book as closely as possible (for example, line for line dialogue, and recreating exact images found in the book), except when it diverges wildly.
3) To the best of my knowledge, the invented portions of the film have even less to do with actual history. Snyder didn't diverge to offer a more realistic account of the story; he diverged to shove in a sappy plot-line about politics.
Image

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jesse » Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:05 am UTC

I'm still blaming the studio for that. Not because there's any proof, just because I like Snyder's directing otherwise.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:02 pm UTC

Wait, there wasn't a fat dude with blades for arms? Nuh uh.

Malice wrote:2) The movie is clearly trying to follow the book as closely as possible (for example, line for line dialogue, and recreating exact images found in the book), except when it diverges wildly.


I remember reading the comic and thinking "DAMN these men are tough as nails". I remember seeing the movie and thinking "DAMN these men must love their situps." No where did 'badass' really come into play in the movie.Frank Millers Spartans would merely look at Zach Snyders Spartans disdainfully, and go back to sharpening their swords and cauterizing their wounds, Zach Snyders Spartans would prance around tossing their hair and wondering how to better love one another.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby cephalopod9 » Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:36 am UTC

I am trying not to start up my rant mode, but I will say I think what you are complaining about is that it was a movie. As I've said before, the added side plot(s) made things less monotonous and more watchable. 300 isn't really great literature or a wide range of emotional depth, I don't really see it as much of a crime to make it more extreme or add to it's marketability.

Although I do suppose it all raises the question of wether a movie adaptation should reflect the opinions and cultural inertia the source material has picked up over the years, or should it strive to be what the source material was in its original context?
Macbi wrote:
cephalopod9 wrote:
Spoiler:
2:05-2:07 is that Nixon?
2:24-2:25, young Kovacs?

Spoiler:
I think it is Nixon, but it doesn't look much like Kovacs.

Spoiler:
I can't tell, he doesn't seem quite scrawny and freckly enough, but I think he has a decent contempt-for-humanity glare, and having misplaced my copy, I can't check the comic for other angry children he might be.
Image

User avatar
scowdich
The Hedgehog
Posts: 771
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 4:55 am UTC
Location: University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign)
Contact:

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby scowdich » Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:24 am UTC

Something else to note about the Comic-con footage:
Spoiler:
They included the death of Dollar Bill! Looks like he's dangling from that revolving door from his cape, precisely as specified. And this isn't even a comic panel.
I am happy to have seen that. Thank you, movie.

Klapaucius
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:00 pm UTC

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby Klapaucius » Tue Dec 23, 2008 9:57 pm UTC

scowdich wrote:Something else to note about the Comic-con footage:
Spoiler:
They included the death of Dollar Bill! Looks like he's dangling from that revolving door from his cape, precisely as specified. And this isn't even a comic panel.
I am happy to have seen that. Thank you, movie.

So they're adapting some of the printed material? I wonder how far they're going to go with this.
Spoiler:
Massive foam bosoms, anyone?
500%!

User avatar
smw543
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:45 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby smw543 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:41 am UTC

Klapaucius wrote:
Spoiler:
Massive foam bosoms, anyone?

I was rather disappointed by the casting, actually. I really felt that in order to fully capture the satirical nature of the original (e.g.: comments about how absurd the costumes were), whoever played Silk Spectre (as well as the actress for Silk Spectre II, of course) should be sporting DD's (minimum) in reference to the stereotypical physique of female costumed heroes. My sense of artistry (read: my penis) is greatly upset by this failure on the part of the casting director.
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Now you know the difference between funny and sad.
Ubik wrote:But I'm too fond of the penis to let it go.
gmalivuk wrote:If you didn't want people to 'mis'understand you, then you probably should have tried saying something less stupid.

Ubik
Posts: 1016
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:43 pm UTC

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby Ubik » Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:56 pm UTC

How the Fox Stole Christmas: "Breaking News: Judge Says Fox Owns Rights to Watchmen!" As it is said behind the link, this is not yet the end, don't flip out yet. Of course, that still does not make it good news.

eugenen
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 8:10 pm UTC

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby eugenen » Thu Dec 25, 2008 8:20 pm UTC

They will settle. I promise you.

User avatar
kip
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:08 am UTC
Contact:

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby kip » Sat Dec 27, 2008 2:10 am UTC

Of course they'll settle. Fox would have moved this to court earlier if they'd ultimately wanted to make the movie themselves. Fox is using a deal they made with producer Lawrence Gordon back in 91 over a buyout, which would allow him to pursue filming the movie with another studio (which he did, moving to Warner Brothers in 2005). It's not even over copywrite as most people seem to be suggesting, as Warner Brothers has the best claim to it (as they own DC, which owns the publishing/copywrite of Watchmen). Fox was promised they'd be involved in the project should it ever enter production and they've been kept out.. they want compensation for not being allowed to invest and profit, and the movie will eventually be released.

Now, why anyone thought Zach Snyder was a good choice for the movie is beyond me. Terry Gilliam's plan to do a 5 hour miniseries was a better idea, but even then..

Alan Moore summed it up best, "I had to tell him that, frankly, I didn't think it was filmable. I didn't design it to show off the similarities between cinema and comics, which are there, but in my opinion are fairly unremarkable. It was designed to show off the things that comics could do that cinema and literature couldn't."

(To be fair, Snyder plans on releasing a 220 minute long "directors cut" that contains The Black Freighter story mixed in with the full movie, but I still don't think it'll work. The comic just doesn't work as a movie.)

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jesse » Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:44 am UTC

Alan Moore has hated every single movie adaptation of his stuff and he is generally a very grumpy man. It's not about whether you can recerate the tricks Watchmen uses. It's about whather you can either adapt it to your own medium and message, or even just get it up there in a way that entertains people.

I'm not going to get the same experience from this as I did when I read it. Firstly, because I've already read it and am familiar with the story, and secondly it's just not designed that way. That doesn't mean it can't be a good film in its own rights.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jack Saladin » Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:33 am UTC

I don't understand what people mean when they say "the comic can't be translated to film". Like what can't? The plot? The characters? You think the medium of films simply can't handle dudes in capes, or what? What is it about Watchmen that's so untranslatable - sure, the colour schemes, panel layout, but like, no fucking shit you can't put that into a film. They're not making Watchmen The Comic: The Film. You already have the comic. Now they're making a film with the same story. Where's the insurmountable wall here?

User avatar
kip
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:08 am UTC
Contact:

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby kip » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:05 pm UTC

Jack Saladin wrote:I don't understand what people mean when they say "the comic can't be translated to film". Like what can't? The plot? The characters? You think the medium of films simply can't handle dudes in capes, or what? What is it about Watchmen that's so untranslatable - sure, the colour schemes, panel layout, but like, no fucking shit you can't put that into a film. They're not making Watchmen The Comic: The Film. You already have the comic. Now they're making a film with the same story. Where's the insurmountable wall here?


One of Watchmen's strengths is it's density. There's clues, references, subtle cues, themes, etc, on nearly every page of the comic. The dialogue is thick. Some images only work if you can take a long moment and look at them, absorb them, and be enlightened to the plot or see an insight into a character. It works as a comic because you can take your time and you can move back a few pages, reread something, and move on. It works because you can reread whole issues and see what was going on only after a later revelation has been laid on you. And when you get tired, when you've taken in enough, you can bookmark your spot and put the comic down.

You can't do that with a movie. Watchmen was meant to be a shinning example of what you can do with a comic but cannot do with a book or movie. That's why we feel it wont translate well.

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jesse » Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:17 pm UTC

So all you're saying is that you can't get the same experience watching the film as you can reading the comic. Which is kind of obvious for every medium. That's no reason to say that Watchmen will be a bad film, just that it'll be different.

User avatar
kip
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:08 am UTC
Contact:

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby kip » Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:13 pm UTC

Jesse wrote:So all you're saying is that you can't get the same experience watching the film as you can reading the comic. Which is kind of obvious for every medium. That's no reason to say that Watchmen will be a bad film, just that it'll be different.


More specifically we're saying that the strengths of the comic can't be used in a movie, which is a more particular point than simply being different. Shrug. If you're looking forward to seeing the movie, that's good for you. I personally expect it to be more suck than awesome.

User avatar
Eleni
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:51 pm UTC
Location: Honolulu
Contact:

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby Eleni » Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:46 pm UTC

kip wrote:
Jack Saladin wrote:I don't understand what people mean when they say "the comic can't be translated to film". Like what can't? The plot? The characters? You think the medium of films simply can't handle dudes in capes, or what? What is it about Watchmen that's so untranslatable - sure, the colour schemes, panel layout, but like, no fucking shit you can't put that into a film. They're not making Watchmen The Comic: The Film. You already have the comic. Now they're making a film with the same story. Where's the insurmountable wall here?

One of Watchmen's strengths is it's density. There's clues, references, subtle cues, themes, etc, on nearly every page of the comic. The dialogue is thick. Some images only work if you can take a long moment and look at them, absorb them, and be enlightened to the plot or see an insight into a character. It works as a comic because you can take your time and you can move back a few pages, reread something, and move on. It works because you can reread whole issues and see what was going on only after a later revelation has been laid on you. And when you get tired, when you've taken in enough, you can bookmark your spot and put the comic down.

You can't do that with a movie. Watchmen was meant to be a shinning example of what you can do with a comic but cannot do with a book or movie. That's why we feel it wont translate well.

Sure, you can do plenty of things with comics that you can't do in film, and since Watchmen was designed with a mind to prove this fact, not every element of the comic can be translated into the film. Still, there are plenty of things that can be done with film but not in comics. The film has to cut a lot of stuff out, but if it makes effective use of the unique advantages of the film medium, it may be able to add enough to the story to validate the adaptation. I have no idea whether they have actually accomplished that with this movie. I'm just saying it's possible, as much as Alan Moore may like to think otherwise. And no matter how good or bad the movie turns out, the simple fact that it was made has brought enormous attention to the Watchmen comic, with sales of the graphic novel skyrocketing. People who had never even read comics before are picking up a copy and getting into graphic novels (e.g., me). Even Alan Moore can't protest that, can he?

kip wrote:Of course they'll settle. Fox would have moved this to court earlier if they'd ultimately wanted to make the movie themselves. Fox is using a deal they made with producer Lawrence Gordon back in 91 over a buyout, which would allow him to pursue filming the movie with another studio (which he did, moving to Warner Brothers in 2005). It's not even over copywrite as most people seem to be suggesting, as Warner Brothers has the best claim to it (as they own DC, which owns the publishing/copywrite of Watchmen). Fox was promised they'd be involved in the project should it ever enter production and they've been kept out.. they want compensation for not being allowed to invest and profit, and the movie will eventually be released.

I hope you're right that Fox will just take a big sum of money and let the film be released as planned. I can't imagine why they'd want to do anything else (lots of money, minimal effort), but still... In August, Fox said they weren't looking to make money off of the film but were just planning on shutting the movie down (Variety). Hopefully they were just trying to scare us. And I don't think you can knock people for calling it a copyright issue. It's not about the copyright to the whole Watchmen franchise or anything, but, to quote the ruling, “Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the ‘Watchmen’ motion picture.” If the official ruling uses the term, I believe it. Hopefully Fox will simply use its right to distribute the movie, earn lots of money, and make everybody (but Alan Moore) happy.
http://rpgcalledlife.blogspot.com/
(aka "Maybe if my blog is witty enough someone will finally love me")

User avatar
kip
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:08 am UTC
Contact:

Re: I am sad. (Watchmen.)

Postby kip » Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:56 pm UTC

Amusingly enough, Moore actually WANTED to see the movie back in 89, before the slew of terrible movies based on his works came out.


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests