Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 10:44:08 PM

Login with username, password and session length

"THE WATCHMEN" MOVIE - FINALLY?

Started by Ballad of Ballard Berkley, July 26, 2007, 11:07:12 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

CaledonianGonzo

Quote from: Ocho on July 17, 2008, 11:53:10 PM
Isn't that a remix of the Smashing Pumpkins song from Batman & Robin?

It's the b-side, "The Beginning Is the End Is the Beginning".  Though why it's used here, I've no idea (unless the concept is to subvert the pre-existing theme of a superhero movie, in this case the theme from the movie commonly regarded as one of the worst, i.e. Batman & Robin).

Anyway, I have to say I was impressed by that.  The effects will obviously still be works-in-progress, but I think we're all at the point now where we're bright enough to realise that what appears in trailers is usually improved upon by the time the film rolls around.

I also agree with the updates of the costumes, cf. the points about X-Men and the archetypes moving on, etc.

More importantly, for a trailer, I think it'll do a good job of bringing in the people who haven't read the comic book (as well as the long-term Moore fans).  For who knows what other intriguing comic properties might be greenlit on the back of a phenomenly successful Watchmen movie?

Catalogue Trousers

Hmmm. Well, to be a miserable old fart, I still prefer the old costumes from the comic - Ozymandias's included. The original had a simple, classical starkness to it. The film's is more moulded plastic six-pack rubbish, which is the sort of thing that Ozzy himself (super-intelligent, super-fit, all of that) would find so laughable as to simply forget about.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

And as we know, he doesn't particularly need armour anyway.

Blumf

Ozzy is smart enough to know how to market himself. If he thought a plastic six-pack style outfit would appeal to the masses and/or help sales, he'd wear it.

Xander

Just noticed Rorschach uses 'Veidt' spray to torch the building. Can't remember off the top of my head - is that in the comic? If not, nice touch.

no_offenc

Yeah it is.

The guy over at SA also says they have "full control over his penis size", so I assume along with the more realistic explosions/violence in the film we'll wind up with his junk being visible at some points.

kidsick5000

Quote from: Still Not George on July 18, 2008, 01:31:59 AM
Yeah. I think some people are missing the point - with the exception of Doc Manhattan, all the characters in Watchmen aren't really superheroes... they're wannabe superheroes. Like an incredibly dangerous Mystery Men. Of course Ozymandias looks like Batman, cos that's kinda who he thinks he is...

Yep. Veidt should look like a man clinging on to his youth. His vanity and outwardly ridiculous appearance is something I dont think came across too well in the book, because its a comic and everything is more outlandish. Veidt's special power, if anything was marketing. His whole reason for doing things in the book can be put down to the fact compared to Doc Manhatten all his crime fighting abilities amount to nothing more than parlour tricks with little effect.

mothman

#127
I think if they'd done Ozymandias'  costume in the comic style then he'd have ended up looking a bit like the Blue Raja. His movie costume IS ridiculous but maybe that's the point - you have this rather weedy-looking fellow (which I suppose is a let-down - Veidt was a bit of a nerd, yes, but he wasn't weedy) wearing an overblown modern superhero muscle suit - which is how the "modern" public expect a superhero to look. We'll just have to wait and see whether the full extent of his strength (as depicted in the comic in his acrobatics routine, as well as bullet-catching) is made clear in the film.

So, just one of those things. But time will tell whether more and more of "those things" crop up to the point where it's not a viable or faithful or good adaptation.

For instance, I'd chalk the Silk Specter costume down as another one of those things! It was just a skimpy outfit in the comic, and not a very memorable one either. Her outfit was imposed on her boy her mother, under the sway of a PR agent. I can well imagine the movie version resulting from such a set of circumstances, and Laurie Juspeczyk finding it ridiculous to wear.

Catalogue Trousers

Yes, but in the comic Veidt is also - thanks to his monumental arrogance - a man of great self-awareness and dignity (in the public eye at least). He's also about as well-developed mentally and physically as a human can get without becoming superhuman (sort of Batman with a few more university degrees).

In the comic, it's possible to take Veidt seriously, which is surely what he's all about. Note how he only rarely dons the full Ozzy rig, usually preferring Master-type business suits etc. Whereas if I were to see the plastic Mr Apollo, I wouldn't be able to take the guy seriously at all. And then, of course, he'd probably have to kill me.

(Hey - maybe this is an incredibly subtle idea. Since the film Ozzy is obviously not the hyper-toned and tuned physical specimen that the comic's is, maybe his outfit is a desperate way of trying to compensate which gets it wrong. Somehow, though, I doubt it.)

Heh - Sally doesn't look at all as though she's finding that rig ridiculous to wear. She seems uncomfortably at home in it, to be honest. The comic's outfit isn't particularly memorable, but that's paradoxically part of its charm. It's pretty much identical to her Mum's costume from the Minutemen days, isn't it? Which looks almost nostalgic and innocent in the 1980s Watchmen setting. It's certainly more interesting than more thongs and "whoopee-look-at-my-tits" bustiers/straps/pasties/etc.

MojoJojo

Quote from: Still Not George on July 18, 2008, 01:31:59 AM
Yeah. I think some people are missing the point - with the exception of Doc Manhattan, all the characters in Watchmen aren't really superheroes... they're wannabe superheroes. Like an incredibly dangerous Mystery Men. Of course Ozymandias looks like Batman, cos that's kinda who he thinks he is...

Dr. Manhatten is the only true superhero in the comic book sense, but Ozymandias is a sort of Nazi Ubermensh -physically human but with exceptional levels of intelligence and athletic ability, putting him as close to superhuman as possible while still being human, unlike Dr. Manhatten. And it's this idea of him being a superior human that gives him the arrogance to use such terrible means to justify his end.

So I don't think he's a comic book archetype or a superhero wannabe, he's something else. And his costume makes him look like a wimp - the armour in particular is like an oversized suit.


Marv Orange

If its all set in the mid eighties why do most of them look like they're from the 90's?

Goldentony

I thought it looked incredible, unfortunately not everyone's going to be happy though. About the costumes though - nothing like that is ever going to be completely spot in any film with the exception of something like Iron Man. To have Ozymandias wandering around in a bright purple poncho and gold headband wouldn't make him look like some Caligula incarnate science god type figure, he'd just look like on overzealous Pricne fan. It's like the complaints about Wolverine not wandering around in yellow spandex in the X Men films - it wouldn't work!!

Anyway - one day into the trailer being up and i've already read someone calling the original comic book awful. Hopefully there wont be months and months of 'AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO FINDS WATCHMEN OVERRATED?!?!?!?!?!?! OMG PEOPLE!! LETS BE SERIOUS NOW ADMIT TO YOURSELF ITS AWFUL' opinion as fact bullshit flying round.

I demand such people be strung up by their arse.

QuoteIf its all set in the mid eighties why do most of them look like they're from the 90's?

How do you distinguish that?

Marv Orange

They mostly look like they stepped out of a 90's film especially that ozzy guy with the moulded plastic look. I've never read the watchmen but it was my first reaction on watching the trailer.

CaledonianGonzo

It is set in 1985, but in an alternate, slightly-different, pseudo-futuristic 1985.  The year is important in locating the action in a viable cold war context, but I don't think they need to resort to having people wear legwarmers and deely-boppers to establish the era.  I, for one, hope it steers clear of such LOL the Eighteez, Calvin Harris-style rose-tinted specs nostalgia.

Jemble Fred

Quote from: Goldentony on July 18, 2008, 12:56:46 PM
Anyway - one day into the trailer being up and i've already read someone calling the original comic book awful. Hopefully there wont be months and months of 'AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO FINDS WATCHMEN OVERRATED?!?!?!?!?!?! OMG PEOPLE!! LETS BE SERIOUS NOW ADMIT TO YOURSELF ITS AWFUL' opinion as fact bullshit flying round.

Well I thought it was alright, I very much enjoyed reading it. A great overall plot, only slightly marred by a bit of self-indulgence in its leisurely pacing and occasional verbosity.

But this is exactly why any fans of the comicbook who are liable to get even slightly precious about the adaptation are just masochists – it's an insanely dense book, and has to be slashed down wildly to make it work for the cinema. A mini-series would have been easier, true, but as it's a film, you just have to accept that huge swathes of the comic won't make it to screen.

The question is, whether it will still work. No reasons to presume it won't, thus far.

Deadman97

I just saw someone with no knowledge of the book watching this trailer. "Looks like X-Men" he said to his friend, with a shrug of the shoulders. Marketing this one to the uninitiated is going to be a challenge.

Trailer looks fucking great, by the way.

Blumf

Does anybody think the trailer focuses a bit too much on Dr. Manhattan? It's not a harsh complaint but makes me wonder about the focus of the story they'll take with the film as a whole.

Goldentony

Quote from: Blumf on July 18, 2008, 01:39:29 PM
Does anybody think the trailer focuses a bit too much on Dr. Manhattan? It's not a harsh complaint but makes me wonder about the focus of the story they'll take with the film as a whole.

They've kept his look secret until now so i guess it'd make sense to show him off in the first big trailer.

terminallyrelaxed

I think it looks fantabulous, and am looking forward to it immensely.
Anyone who expects any film adaptation to be absolutely note-perfect to the original work really doesn't understand the practicalities of, well, anything, and really should have been drowned at birth to free up oxygen for the worthwhile.

samadriel

#140
Quote from: Catalogue Trousers on July 18, 2008, 10:08:28 AM
Hmmm. Well, to be a miserable old fart, I still prefer the old costumes from the comic - Ozymandias's included. The original had a simple, classical starkness to it. The film's is more moulded plastic six-pack rubbish, which is the sort of thing that Ozzy himself (super-intelligent, super-fit, all of that) would find so laughable as to simply forget about.
Yeah, I think the new Nite Owl one is great as an 'analogue' of movie-version superheroes like the X-Men and Batman, who he echoed in their original medium, but Ozzy just looks a twat for twatness's sake.  Why should a designer's first logical step after seeing Gibbons' design be to hurl himself into Joel Schumacher territory?

Quote from: Deadman97 on July 18, 2008, 01:21:58 PM
I just saw someone with no knowledge of the book watching this trailer. "Looks like X-Men" he said to his friend, with a shrug of the shoulders. Marketing this one to the uninitiated is going to be a challenge.
I think if they pushed the 'alternate history' angle, it'd help give newcomers a better idea of why Watchmen is worth a damn -- y'know, "In 1959, the first superhuman was born, in 1974 the United States conquers Vietnam, in 1977, the masked crimefighters who kept us safe were outlawed, it's 1986, Nixon is President, we're on the brink of nuclear Armageddon, and last night, a comedian died in New York" *cue flashy stuff*  Present it as just an X-Men style action ensemble piece, and its strengths don't show at all.

This trailer does kinda try to pique interest through brute oddity (after all, what's a newcomer to make of the Martian glass monument, or Dr Manhattan de-multiplying, or Rorschach with a spraycan?), but that's largely because of how they've packaged it -- most of what's actually on display is just costumed goons punching and so on, which a lot of other movies can do a lot more prettily.

mothman

Most people, seeing the Martian glass monument, probably wondered what the Ministry of Sound had to do with it all. . .

mikeyg27

Quite liked that trailer, I think the design work appears to be appropriate adaptations for the most part. Just a few gripes:

1) It seemed at little stylized a la 300 in places (particularly The Comedian being chucked out of the window), which I hope is just for the trailer. That style doesn't really suit Watchmen at all.
2) Since when the fuck did Zack Snyder become a 'visionary' director?

Cerys

Quote from: mikeyg27 date=1216405322
2) Since when the fuck did Zack Snyder become a 'visionary' director?
Presumably when he chose to attempt Watchmen....

kidsick5000

Quote from: mikeyg27 on July 18, 2008, 07:22:02 PM
2) Since when the fuck did Zack Snyder become a 'visionary' director?

Probably when he made 300 for little (in film terms) money in a stylised way that few believed would work and got a massive return at the box office.

mikeyg27

Quote from: kidsick5000 on July 18, 2008, 09:10:01 PM
Probably when he made 300 for little (in film terms) money in a stylised way that few believed would work and got a massive return at the box office.

So it's 'visionary' to steal working methods from Robert Rodriguez?

gmoney

Quote from: mikeyg27 on July 18, 2008, 11:36:44 PM
So it's 'visionary' to steal working methods from Robert Rodriguez?

How so? I can't see a connection, other than violence and they've both done Frank Miller adaptations.

kidsick5000

Quote from: mikeyg27 on July 18, 2008, 11:36:44 PM
So it's 'visionary' to steal working methods from Robert Rodriguez?

He made 2 films for relatively cheap terms. It gave huge returns, and with 300 it had a particular visual style that looked very different to most, and had more iconic memorable scenes than Sin City.
So in Hollywood terms, that visionary. I'm not saying its a good thing or deserved. Its marketing.

mikeyg27

Quote from: gmoney on July 18, 2008, 11:40:09 PM
How so? I can't see a connection, other than violence and they've both done Frank Miller adaptations.

300 used the same digital backlot method as Sin City, which is why both films are so faithful to the look of their respective comics. Admittedly saying he ripped Rodriguez off was a tad overblown (and I think RR got the idea from somewhere else himself), but Snyder wasn't the first director to popularize CGI enhanced, Frank Miller-stylized ultra-violence*, he merely consolidated its presence.

kidsick, I guess you're right. I just don't see why the word 'visionary' has to be there. Take it out and it would still attract the same number of people. For someone who couldn't really give a fuck, I'm finding it hard to let it go...


*which reminds me, where is my Dark Knight Returns film with Powers Boothe as Batman? Somebody make it happen!

Viero_Berlotti

This is who I'd have liked to see play the Silk Spectre:



It's a shame we can't have time machines. I blame the Tories.