[Big Mac]

I'm really surprised to see we don't have an Official Watchmen thread, so I guess I'm attempting to create one now. So, does anyone think Fox will kill it outright, or will we see an on-time release?

[waxcrash]

I don't think Fox will kill the movie. I think they realize by doing that, the backlash from fans and negative publicity could hurt any future releases from them. I just think Fox knows they have the upper hand in the situation so they longer they wait, the bigger the payout they'll get.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Let's see: the director did the new Dawn of the Dead, and 300. Both were mediocre movies which had promise but didn't deliver at all. Of course since the first was a remake of sorts, 300 seems to be his sole independent creation – and that movie, while popular for its action scenes, was really quite nonsensical and lacked any good qualities beyond gorgeous looks and gory action.

So, no, I must say I don't have much confidence in the outcome.

greg

[Chuckit]

No way Fox will kill it. You don't wait until the point of a big-budget IMAX film being released and then try to pull the plug. Fox just wants a slice of the pie.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

and that movie, while popular for its action scenes, was really quite nonsensical and lacked any good qualities beyond gorgeous looks and gory action.

Who's fault is that?

Honest question there, I didn't read it, I only saw the movie.

Still... he set himself up with a tough job on this one. He's got to deal with cramming 12 issues (with 3 or 4 pages of written text per issue) into a two issue bag, and compensate for how much the comic was a product of its period.

My prediction: this will end in flames.

Edit: trying to get a little BG on the studio kerfuffle, I saw a picture of The Comedian. He looks like Earl from My Name is Earl. Wow. This is really going to suck.

Edit2: on second thought, that could work. It will depend on whether that was supposed to be a current picture or a flashback picture. Either way, he doesn't look quite beefy enough. The Comedian should be built like a pro wrestler IMO.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Who's fault is that?

Honest question there, I didn't read it, I only saw the movie.

Still... he set himself up with a tough job on this one. He's got to deal with cramming 12 issues (with 3 or 4 pages of written text per issue) into a two issue bag, and compensate for how much the comic was a product of its period.

Uhhhh... I was talking about 300… maybe you are too, but I didn't know about/see the 300 comics, just the general historical background information. Not sure how these comics tie in with the movie, but I just thought it was poorly done overall. Perhaps you could elaborate?

greg

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Uhhhh... I was talking about 300… maybe you are too, but I didn't know about/see the 300 comics, just the general historical background information. Not sure how these comics tie in with the movie, but I just thought it was poorly done overall. Perhaps you could elaborate?

greg

300 was an adaptation of a comic by Frank Miller.

Since I didn't read the comic, I'm not sure whether the botched history/racism/etc. was Miller's or the people who made the movie.

Edit: The third paragraph was about Watchmen though, which I did read, and is smashing.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Ahhhhh yeah.

I didn't know about the comic per se, but there's a fiction book about it that I read years ago, as well as knowing about it from a historical standpoint.

I was thinking more along the lines of the horrible/cheesy acting, and totally nonsensical plot choices such as characters stressing the utmost importance in the disciplined Spartan hoplite way of fighting, and then immediately cutting to scenes of everyone going at it with crazy one-on-one battle action.

greg

[Jawbone54]

The "botched history/racism" is a load of crap, IMO. People were really stretching to pull the homophobic and racist card out, and the so-called botched history is an accusation thrown out by Alan Moore himself, who never has meshed well with Miller. It's not supposed to be a historically accurate film...it's a graphic friggin' novel with strong leanings towards the theatrical.

Back to Watchmen...(HUGE SPOILERS - BEWARE!)...

 

My wife bought me the graphic novel for Christmas, and I read through it in one sitting. I loved the art, loved the depth of the story, loved the characters...I especially love the Dr. Manhattan portion where it portrays his perspective of time. There's a wonderfully thought-out backstory, and loads of thought put into the story.

Rorschach's death at the end was kind of surprising for a first-time reader, but really moving.

The only issue I have with Alan Moore's writing is a lack of subtlety in his themes. The fact that most of his work is polarizing makes this stand out even more.

I'm afraid the Watchmen film is going to be crap. I don't see how they're going to portray a lot of the film without going the cheesy effects route.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

such as characters stressing the utmost importance in the disciplined Spartan hoplite way of fighting, and then immediately cutting to scenes of everyone going at it with crazy one-on-one battle action.

Well, that leaves me a little stuck, because the one-on-one, or specifically with the scene I'm thinking of, it was two-on-thirty, was the best part of the movie.

But yeah, my understanding is that a major contributor to the Spartans' loss was logistical, and hence decidedly uncinematic. It's made for a few good novels though. I highly recommend Gates of Fire, though it doesn't quite make the Spartans come off as vile as they actually were. This however, is going to be a problem in almost any telling of the story.

[Rumor]

I am looking forward to seeing it. Actually, there are a few movies I am looking forward to seeing: Unborn, My Bloody Valentine 3D, Wolverine: Origins, and Coraline. Hopefully, it will be a good start to the year for movies.

Edit: I have yet to see the Spirit, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and Valkyrie.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

The "botched history/racism" is a load of crap, IMO. People were really stretching to pull the homophobic and racist card out, and the so-called botched history is an accusation thrown out by Alan Moore himself, who never has meshed well with Miller. It's not supposed to be a historically accurate film...it's a graphic friggin' novel with strong leanings towards the theatrical.

As I alluded to in my reply to StM, it's an issue that has to be addressed by anyone who tells the story. IRL, the Spartans were total scumbags, and the Persians were, relatively speaking, not. Likewise, commensurate with their scumbag nature, the Spartans were a creepy kind of prison gay, and the Persians could (sadly) teach modern America a thing or two about an enlightened attitude towards homosexuality.

Miller chose to address this the way he chose to address it. Considering how he did so, it should be no surprise people take issue with it.

Note that I'm only going on the movie. As an aside, can you remark on how faithful an adaptation it was? That's probably more relevant to the topic anyways.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

(possible spoilers)...

You mean definite, big ass-spoilers.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by subego 

Miller chose to address this the way he chose to address it. Considering how he did so, it should be no surprise people take issue with it.

Note that I'm only going on the movie. As an aside, can you remark on how faithful an adaptation it was? That's probably more relevant to the topic anyways.

The movie was an extremely faithful adaptation, as far as I'm concerned. Many camera angles were exactly the same. The difference is that the movie added in the somewhat weaker political subplot. Leonidas' wife was much more prominent in the movie, and Leonidas himself is a bit chummier.

You mean definite, big ass-spoilers.

I meant to put in some slight spoilers, but then as I kept writing, they became bigger and bigger...

I re-read my post, and I should add that despite some issues I have with it, Watchmen is really just as incredible of a graphic novel as the critics have always said. I sound too harsh when I look back on it.

[Shaddim]

It's without a doubt my favorite comic series, right up there with Dark Knight Returns and Sandman.

I can't wait to see this film, but I'm a bit nervous too. Let's hope Hollywood doesn't destroy it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, that leaves me a little stuck, because the one-on-one, or specifically with the scene I'm thinking of, it was two-on-thirty, was the best part of the movie.

Well, yeah, it was great crazy action stuff. (Although I found it somewhat tiring after a while, and the head-lifting scene was just terrible.) It just didn't fit. Very unfortunate.

But yeah, my understanding is that a major contributor to the Spartans' loss was logistical, and hence decidedly uncinematic. It's made for a few good novels though. I highly recommend Gates of Fire, though it doesn't quite make the Spartans come off as vile as they actually were. This however, is going to be a problem in almost any telling of the story.

Yeah, Gates of Fire is the book I read, years and years ago. It was okay, although I'm not much for fictional re-tellings of historical events.

But yeah, anyway, I'm keeping expectations low for Watchmen, is my conclusion.

greg

[subego]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

The movie was an extremely faithful adaptation, as far as I'm concerned. Many camera angles were exactly the same.

That's good at least. I always chuckled when people talk about how Watchmen had a reputation for being unfilmable. Ummm... The thing is written in frigging storyboards.

There are still the issues of two tons of [noun] in a one pound bag, and the very specific Cold War politics Watchmen refers to. The obvious solution that comes to mind is to axe most of the themes covered in the book. If that's the solution they take, it prompts one to wonder: what's the point?

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I re-read my post, and I should add that despite some issues I have with it, Watchmen is really just as incredible of a graphic novel as the critics have always said. I sound too harsh when I look back on it.

[checks to make sure no one else is reading]

I have to say, Gibbons' artwork left me, for the most part, cold. I was going to compare him as an artist to Jonathan Frakes as an actor but that's a bit too harsh as well. I want to connect them since they both grew on me as a result of the quality of the projects they were associated.

Mind you, the art direction was pretty amazing in Watchmen, but I'm not sure who's responsible for that.

Either way though, Gibbons is no Frank Miller.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's without a doubt my favorite comic series, right up there with Dark Knight Returns and Sandman.

You misspelled Tank Girl and Maus.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

You misspelled Tank Girl and Maus.

Meh.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Meh.

I'm just messing with ya.

The Dark Night Returns was a truly brilliant piece of work. I have first printings of all the issues not because I'm a collector, but because I actually walked my fat ass out to the comic store to buy them the day they came out (Christ, I'm getting old). I have to admit though, Sandman didn't do it for me. Part of that may have been that I started in the middle (the one where the gods from all the ancient religions send emissaries).

I should also note that when I put Tank Girl in the rarified air we're talking about, I mean the first four issues (i.e. the first compilation). It was only downhill from there.

[Rev-O]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Let's see: the director did the new Dawn of the Dead, and 300. Both were mediocre movies which had promise but didn't deliver at all. Of course since the first was a remake of sorts, 300 seems to be his sole independent creation – and that movie, while popular for its action scenes, was really quite nonsensical and lacked any good qualities beyond gorgeous looks and gory action.

So, no, I must say I don't have much confidence in the outcome.

greg

You give 300 much credit. A tepid comic made into a sophomoric movie. Fine example of Crap Begets Crap.
This too has me worried about Watchmen. The trailers and previews look really good, but that just makes me suspicious knowing what a coprophile delight 300 was.

[voodoo]

300 made for a damn fine trailer. Then it turned out the entire movie was a trailer.

Too bad, it could have been good. This watchmen thing is going to be a forgettable movie. Just a hunch.

[Dakar V]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=51975

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=51975

About time. Now FOX can finally fist-pump over the fact that they'll be making a ton of money without having to do any work at all.

It's frustrating to see someone sit on something for twenty years and still benefit from it.

[Rumor]

Rated R. It's about damn time they make a comic (read graphic novel to the anal) into a R rated movie. It allows for a much better recreation of the original story.

[andreas_g4]

I never read any grapic novels, and I kinda feel like I'm trespassing when watching a movie version of one, but I enjoyed 300 thoroughly and I am anticipating Watchmen since I first saw the trailer.

/bragmode: living in Berlin, I was at the world premier of 300… :-)

[andreas_g4]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

300 made for a damn fine trailer. Then it turned out the entire movie was a trailer.

You could also read that as that the whole movie was damn fine

It was eye-candy entertainment for grown up kids, and if you expected that, it delivered.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Rated R. It's about damn time they make a comic (read graphic novel to the anal) into a R rated movie. It allows for a much better recreation of the original story.

Watchmen is both a comic (it was originally published serially) and a graphic novel.

I'm looking forward to the movie. I reread the story every few years.

[Big Mac]

Just saw the movie. They took some liberties with the source material, but overall as a casual fan of the novel I was very impressed. The film isn't for everyone, but the same can be said for the novel.

Rating: 4.5/5

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Saw it as well. Some Matrix-y Philosophy 101 preaching at times but overall pretty solid.

greg

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Never read the book/comic. Saw the movie last night which I was excited for. Hated it. Slow, boring, bad special effects, corny. There was so little action and so much yapping and backstories I wanted to leave half way through.

Shame as I wanted to like it.

[Big Mac]

The funny thing is that to fans, it was too short and there wasn't enough back story and detail. But to the uninitiated, it may not be very entertaining.

Anyone like all the Mac references?

[Shaddim]

It was entirely too short, but it was entertaining. I would have preferred another hour of film, dedicated to flashbacks and newspaper clippings. The movie really needed a better connection to the past lives of the heros.

Given the time limitations, though, I think they did they best they could.

4/5

[lpkmckenna]

Haven't seen it yet, but will in the next few days. I flipped thru the comic the other day - lots and lots of flashbacks. Did they keep every flashback from the book? Must have made for a confusing experience.

I'm planning to wear my Dr Manhattan costume to the theatre. Hope I don't get arrested.

[Shaddim]

As long as you put some skivvies on under it, you should be fine.

I saw a few costumes when we went; a Comedian, a pair of Rorschachs, and a very impressive Silk Spectre.

[lpkmckenna]

I was kidding.

[iM@k]

I have this tendency of seeing a movie before reading the books. Whereas most people find the film adaptation bad as they have read the the book prior, I find that reading the book second makes the story better,

That being said, I really liked this movie, mainly for the reason a lot of people say they don't, ie: there's an actual story and it's not just 120 mins of things blowing up (Yet this movie has plenty of it).

I'm really looking forward to reading the book.

[Big Mac]

Very glad to read your review, iM@k, even if your experience represents the minority view among those who are new to the story. You'll be happy to know that the movie gave me a clarified view of the book in certain respects, and now I'm going back through it with more appreciation of the fine details.

[lavar78]

I'm a huge fan of the book and I thought the movie was absolutely fantastic! I think the few changes and omissions all worked extremely well. Rorschach, Nite Owl, and the Comedian were all perfect. Other than the very bad choice of "Hallelujah" for the soundtrack, I wouldn't change a thing. Best movie I've seen in years.

[Shaddim]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

[G Barnett]

I'm going to state this very simply:

Jackie Earle Haley:Rorschach::Heath Ledger:Joker

Yes, he really was that good.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Oh come on now. He played it well, but not Joker well.

greg

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

That's awesome. Every single character backwards ("I'm nutty!"). It's actually frighteningly believable.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

I'm going to state this very simply:

Jackie Earle Haley:Rorschach::Heath Ledger:Joker

Yes, he really was that good.

I'd have to disagree. Jackie's voice got really annoying, he sounded like Bale doing Batman. Ugh.

[Dakar V]

That's a good comparison, but I never found his voice irritating like Bale's.

I thought when he was panicking in the apartment his NO! was perfect.

[Chuckit]

Haley's voice was just what I'd pictured for Rorschach. He just had to talk the way he did.

I still don't think it's on the same level as the Joker, though. Heath Ledger's Joker made me feel dumb for expecting so little, whereas Haley did a very good job playing Rorschach but didn't really go far beyond that.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

That's a good comparison, but I never found his voice irritating like Bale's.

I thought when he was panicking in the apartment his NO! was perfect.

Hands down one of the greatest scenes in a movie that I can recall. Can't count the number of times I've been in that spot.

[Big Mac]

Let's cite the Mac references:

1. The Veidt Computer that Nightowl hacks into is supposed to be running an early version of the Mac OS (System 5). Obviously, in that universe Veidt bought out Apple. Btw, this wasn't an innovation done in the movie - that computer technology was Apple based was shown in the novel.

2. One of the monitors in Veidt's throne room shows the 1984 Commercial.

What else?

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Never read the book/comic. Saw the movie last night which I was excited for. Hated it. Slow, boring, bad special effects, corny. There was so little action and so much yapping and backstories I wanted to leave half way through.

Shame as I wanted to like it.

my thoughts exactly.

[badidea]

Watched it yesterday. I think it was an almost perfect movie!
It just reminded me why I never was a huge fan of superhero comics in the first place.
So I didn't enjoy it as much as I hoped I would!

[Moderator]

I enjoyed it tremendously (read the book).

A few major problems took me out of it:

1. Ozymandias. Terrible casting. Terrible acting. He had this evil nemesis thing going right from the start and that is not how he was portrayed in the book. Plus he was very feminine. Nothing like the book. Just bad all around.

2. Manhattan's voice: Again...too feminine. This is subjective but it took me right out of it. This big strapping guy talking like a 13 year old.

3. Manhattan's shlong: Just too much. Way more in your face than the book. Couldn't they have added a little haze or some glow to conceal it a little?

4. Bad acting all around during dialogue scenes.

5. Nixon - WTF? Are they joking with that. The guy has so much makeup he cant move his lips.


I'll see it again though. Overall I thought it was very very good. Action scenes just rocked. Unreal.