'Watchmen' unmasked for Par, Aronofsky
Source: Hollywood Reporter
"Watchmen," the seminal DC Comics limited series, has landed at Paramount Pictures. Darren Aronofsky will develop and direct the project, which is being written by David Hayter. Aronofsky's producing partner Eric Watson will produce with Larry Gordon and Lloyd Levin. "Watchmen," created by writer Alan Moore and artist Dave Gibbons, was released as a 12-issue comic book in 1986 and is one of the most critically acclaimed series in the genre. The comic is credited for redefining the superhero genre and is often referred to as the "War and Peace" of comic books. It is a crime-conspiracy story that provided the first realistic look at the behind-the-heroics lives of superhero archetypes.
Darren Aronofsky is officially off WATCHMEN as director
Now, the good news here is that the reason he left involves timing issues. See, THE FOUNTAIN is about to start principal photography. We're talking about a matter of days here. And I love THE FOUNTAIN as a project. Paramount just couldn't wait, though. They want to have WATCHMEN in a theater by the summer of '06, no matter what. That means they need a filmmaker who can be ready to shoot long before Aronofsky would be ready.
aintitcool.com
Quote from: EEz28Darren Aronofsky is officially off WATCHMEN as director
Now, the good news here is that the reason he left involves timing issues. See, THE FOUNTAIN is about to start principal photography. We're talking about a matter of days here. And I love THE FOUNTAIN as a project. Paramount just couldn't wait, though. They want to have WATCHMEN in a theater by the summer of '06, no matter what. That means they need a filmmaker who can be ready to shoot long before Aronofsky would be ready.
aintitcool.com
awful news
Quote from: aintitcoolnews in 2004
Paramount just couldn't wait, though. They want to have WATCHMEN in a theater by the summer of '06, no matter what.
HAHAHAHAHA!
Good thing I wasn't holding my breath.
Quote from: polkablues on March 14, 2006, 08:36:46 PM
This, combined with the Watchmen movie that is bound to happen someday, and bound to be directed by somebody who cares passionately about it, is a good sign for Alan Moore fans.
Snyder in Talks to Direct Watchmen Source: Ain't-It-Cool-News March 25, 2006
Ain't-It-Cool-News reports that Dawn of the Dead and 300 director Zack Snyder is in talks with Warner Bros. to helm the big screen adaptation of Watchmen, produced by Lloyd Levin and Lawrence Gordon.
Darren Aronofsky and Paul Greengrass were previously attached to direct the project when it was at Paramount Pictures. The film was put into turnaround by Paramount in the summer of 2005 and picked up by Warners later that year. Warner Bros. is the third studio the movie has been at - Universal Pictures originally had the rights.
Watchmen, created by writer Alan Moore and artist Dave Gibbons, was released as a 12-issue comic book in 1986 and is one of the most critically acclaimed series in the genre.
The comic is a crime-conspiracy story that provided the first realistic look at the behind-the-heroics lives of superhero archetypes.
Watchmen timeline:
Darren Aronofsky - :yabbse-grin:
Paul Greengrass - :yabbse-smiley:
Zack Snyder - :yabbse-undecided:
Future predictions:
Brett Ratner - :brickwall:
Uwe Boll - (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2FMissileSmilie_anim.gif&hash=cb5c79f5d77d0d4f39627c0e0606c83639173178)
Quote from: polkablues on March 26, 2006, 09:47:04 PM
Watchmen timeline:
Darren Aronofsky - :yabbse-grin:
Paul Greengrass - :yabbse-smiley:
Zack Snyder - :yabbse-undecided:
Future predictions:
Brett Ratner - :brickwall:
Uwe Boll - (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2FMissileSmilie_anim.gif&hash=cb5c79f5d77d0d4f39627c0e0606c83639173178)
genius
Horror flick director on duty for 'Watchmen'
Zach Snyder, who made his feature filmmaking debut with 2004's "Dawn of the Dead," has come aboard to develop and direct "Watchmen," based on the seminal DC Comics saga of a vigilante superhero.
Alex Tse, who worked with director Spike Lee on the Showtime cable network production "Sucker Free City," is writing a script for the long-gestating "Watchmen" project, now in the pipeline at Warner Bros. Pictures.
"Watchmen" is one of the most critically acclaimed comic book titles, credited with redefining the superhero genre by exploring the private lives of its costumed crime-fighting protagonists.
In November, "Watchmen" appeared as the only graphic novel on Time magazine's list of the 100 best novels since 1923.
Set in an alternate America, "Watchmen" follows the costumed hero Rorschach, who is living a vigilante lifestyle because most masked crime-fighters have retired or been outlawed. While investigating a murder, he learns that a former masked-hero colleague has been killed, prompting him to begin investigating a possible conspiracy.
"Watchmen" has a Hollywood development history almost as epic as the story the comic tells.
The project has seen such studios as Fox, Universal and Paramount come and go and has seduced and vexed such filmmakers as Terry Gilliam, Darren Aronofsky, Paul Greengrass and screenwriter David Hayter.
Sources say Snyder impressed Warner Bros. with his work on "300," an upcoming adaptation of a Frank Miller graphic novel that he directed and co-wrote.
Snyder shot the movie -- a Greek epic about the battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. -- on soundstages in Montreal using partial sets and greenscreens, similar in technique to Robert Rodriguez's "Sin City." The film is slated for release in 2007.
Exclusive: Snyder Says No Sequels for Watchmen
The entire tale will unfold in one film.
Source: IGN
Director Zack Snyder has made a feature-film name for himself with genre projects, debuting on the big screen with 2004's Dawn of the Dead remake and currently putting the finishing touches on his sophomore effort, an adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel 300. In New York this week to discuss that film, Snyder also sat down with IGN to talk about his next movie — another comic book adaptation — this time of DC Comics' Watchmen. He says that he expects that film to get underway very soon.
"It's the only thing I'm really working on right now, so if I don't do that I've got to find something else!" he laughs, adding that once he completes 300 he will go directly into full gear on Watchmen. "There's no break, hopefully none, between 300 and Watchmen. They'll just roll us right over. We'll probably start Watchmen and then come back and do publicity for 300. Right now we're still finishing 300, so I'd say I've got another three weeks of shots waiting to come in. And then in the meantime I'm trying to maybe make a commercial, maybe make some money, which is cool!"
The original comic book, written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, told an epic superhero story that many in the industry have long thought to be un-filmable (the movie project has undergone several permutations in its years in development). Snyder believes that the key to the movie is to stay true to Moore's original vision, even if by necessity certain aspects of the story must be cut due to running time constraints. His Watchmen will not be stretched over a series of films with sequels and the like, despite the trend of other comic-to-film adaptations like Spider-Man and X-Men.
"It's a labor of love, and I've wanted to try to get back to the source material as much as I could without it being, of course, a six-hour long movie. And I would say the fans are probably going, 'What do you mean? You say that like it's a bad thing!'" he smiles. "I will tell you that the draft of the script is long. It's so long in fact that when we turned it in, we turned 'The Black Freighter' stuff in as a separate script so as not to scare them too much. We were like, 'Here's your script. Oh, here's your other script!' They were like, 'Oh, great!'"
"The Black Freighter" elements of Watchmen are one aspect that could be cut from the film if need be, though Snyder is already investigating avenues of release for an extended cut of the film.
"I want 'The Black Freighter' stuff in it," he says. "It will all depend on how [the studio] likes it. I feel like they don't really question it, like, 'Why, what is this?' But we've designed the movie so that it works without it. We have the places designed where that story would go and then if they want it, [they have it] for like extended theatrical or limited theatrical, or definitely for DVD. That's the one cool thing we have is DVD, and in my opinion it's not exploited nearly enough. [We could use that] to create the three-hour version of Watchmen. And [as a director] I'm totally fine with that, but I feel like that's a battle I haven't lost yet, so I'm not going to concede to it yet."
Like 300 and Sin City before it, Watchmen will likely utilize green screen backgrounds at times, with the final scenes being rendered in CGI. But unlike those earlier films, it will also feature standard scenes with real backgrounds and sets.
"We're doing some conceptual discussions about production methodology, things of that nature, things like, 'Will it be a green screen movie or will it be a real movie?' And I think that we have kind of found the reality of the movie," the director explains. "There are moments that are green screen, moments that are real. Basically I think with Watchmen it'll take every trick, every tool to get this world, this Watchmen world. I feel like probably the green screen stuff is going to be [the] Mars and Antarctica [scenes], and — of course — Vietnam. All that stuff is in the movie right now, absolutely."
Snyder and his production team are also discussing what technology they should use when depicting Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who in the world of Watchmen are still running the country in the mid-'80s, when the comic takes place.
"The whole trick to me is how do you do Nixon and Kissinger," he says. "It's like that fine line. I do like the idea of using some newsreel footage, but I also like the idea of making history into cinema, and trying to get someone and make him look as much like Nixon as I can, get someone and make him look as much like Kissinger as I can, so you sort of feel this cinematic version of reality, if that makes sense. One of the early battles I had [with the studio] was getting it set in 1985, getting them to stay with the Cold War, getting them to feel like Nixon is an asset to the movie, to feel like those elements match, and I'm a huge advocate of that approach. I think I have [won that battle] right now. They told me when we first talked about it, 'It's going to be the war on terror, it's going to be 2007, blah, blah, blah.' And I agreed, and I went off to do it, and of course I came back and it was 1985. I didn't try to be subversive, but that's what wound up being right."
So while Snyder and his writer Alex Tse have made strides on the project, they continue to tinker with the script and dance the dance with the studio until production starts.
"You know how it works," laughs Snyder. "The studio says, 'Make us a movie,' we give them a script, and they go, 'Hmmm, really?' And we have to go, 'Really!' So that's the part that we're at right now. And I think, honestly, I'm really happy with the version of the script we have right now. Alex has killed it and done an amazing job writing this script."
Zack Snyder on Watchmen's Progress
Source: Superhero Hype!
With less than a month to go until Zack Snyder's movie based on Frank Miller's 300 hits theatres, Snyder and his cast gathered in L.A. for the ubiquitous press junket, where the director answered some of Superhero Hype!'s questions about his next comic adaptation, based on Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' Watchmen:
SHH!: What's going on with "Watchmen?"
Zack Snyder: We're trying to get a budget together now that I feel like the movie is in a very cool place. I think the script is starting to become pretty cool. I've been talking to some actors--I'm not going to say who--but it's cool, because in some ways you can get real actors. You don't have to go Hollywood. So that's all going along. I've been drawing away, so I think it's coming along. They have talked about maybe shooting in the summer.
SHH!: Is the budget for "Watchmen" set right now or is there some sort of plus or minus depending on how well "300" does?
Snyder: That's theoretical. I believe that is probably reflecting reality. I don't know that for sure. It's not set right now. Maybe that's a coincidence, maybe not.
SHH!: What's been the delay with the movie? 10 years ago it was a Joel Silver film.
Snyder: I can only thank God that they haven't gotten it together yet. I think the delay is that they haven't known what it was. I set the movie in 1985 and I have the luxury of being far enough away from 1985 so that that is a viable idea. I think what happened in the past was that when you're only five years away from 1985, it's a weird time to make a period piece that took place three years ago, but studios don't get that. There has been a push I think on the other scripts that exist about trying to update the movie or trying to make it take place in present day and things of that nature. I think by setting it 1985, by having the Cold War, having Nixon, having all that stuff, you sort of reinvigorate what the story is about. It allows all the metaphors to sort of erect. But, if you set the movie in modern times, you're basically saying it's the war on terror right is the thing. Then the movie is asking me, "oh Zack, what do you think of the war on terror? What's your take on it?" Who gives a f**k about what I think about the war on terror? That's not why people go to the movies. I think that what Alan in his book, the comment he's made about authority and government and all those things, maybe if you make that movie right what that has to say makes people think about what's happening maybe now or in their own lives. That's my hope for what the movie could be.
SHH!: How has the universal praise for "300" assisted you with making "Watchmen" and possibly other projects?
Snyder: I can't say it hasn't helped a lot. What it does do [is that] people have said to me, "What's going on with "Watchmen?" You've got to make sure you don't f**k that up. What can I do to help?" And I said, "Go see '300.'" The truth is, "300" to the studio is a graphic novel movie. It's not a movie that they necessarily understand exactly when I pitch it on paper. They feel in some ways the same about "Watchmen." They don't understand why it's not "Fantastic 4." I have to remind them that it's much more "Strangelove" than it is "Fantastic 4" which they don't like hearing, but they believe that I know, and in that way, it helps. When they finally saw this movie, I think they felt, "Wow, we didn't know this was the movie you were necessarily making, but we like this movie." Maybe that will apply to "Watchmen."
Test Image from Watchmen hidden in 300 Uncut trailer...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages2007%2Frorshach_badge_sm.jpg&hash=00481546645bfb3869e332812b2c81cc9612d22d)
VIEW IT IN ALL ITS GLORY HERE (http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007/rorshach_badge.jpg)
somehow seeing this unrated 300 trailer and this fullblown incredible Rorshach image, Watchmen just jumped into like the Top 5 movies i would die to see.
yeah, he is probably capable of making it LOOK adequately awesome, but it could still be 90% slow motion with all the characters watered down to a couple of monologues and a nipple or two for each Silk Spectre.
show me dr manhattan and a structure as mind blowing as the graphic novel (including tales of the black freighter) and i'll wash snyder's feet with my tears.
Quote from: Pubrick on March 10, 2007, 12:13:48 AM
(including tales of the black freighter)
Word is, Snyder's dead set on including the Tales of the Black Freighter stuff. The question is, will those sections still serve their original purpose when translated to film, or will they just end up as DVD extras, stripped from the theatrical cut after test audiences shout "WE DON'T GET IT"?
WonderCon 07: Watchmen Start Date
But will the adaptation be sanitized for the mainstream?
It's been known for quite some time now that director Zack Snyder would be following up his adaptation of the Frank Miller graphic novel 300 with yet another graphic novel adaptation, Watchmen. And as the publicity tour for the "sword and sandals" actioner nears its end, production on the latter film may finally get underway.
While promoting 300 at WonderCon 2007, Snyder let loose—albeit rather vaguely—his intended start date for the Watchmen production.
"I want to make it into a movie. The studio wants me to make it into a movie. We're going to try and make it into a movie," said Snyder, playfully. "We're talking about shooting it at the end of the summer. So that's as good as I can give you — it's trying to happen. It's a process."
The biggest obstacle Snyder must overcome, aside from adapting the rather dense comic book source material into live-action, is the ignorance of Hollywood executives.
"The studio says, 'R-rated superhero movie. What the hell is that? There's no such thing,'" revealed Snyder. Obviously, they haven't read Watchmen.
'Watchmen' feeding off '300' spoils
Source: Hollywood Reporter
"Who watches the Watchmen?" was the tagline of the seminal 1986 Alan Moore miniseries about a group of heroes investigating the murder of one of their own. In 2007, in the warm glow of "300's" blockbuster opening, the answer could be "everybody."
Zack Snyder, the director of Warner Bros. Pictures' "300," has been developing "Watchmen" at Warners since June, and during the recent press tour for the Spartan epic, he has openly said he is aiming for a summer shoot for "Watchmen."
Snyder's enthusiasm for the project spilled out online late last week when a Snyder-created image of one of the "Watchmen" characters was discovered embedded in a DVD trailer distributed by marketing street teams and was posted all over the Web.
Street Wise Marketing was charged with running a campaign using tactics from a community Web site to handing out Spartan condoms ("Prepare for glory," read the packaging) and a DVD of the "300" trailer that was a sensation at last year's Comic-Con International in San Diego. Inserted at the 1:52 mark is an image of Rorschach, the hero with an inkblot mask, a trench coat and hat, with a gray city behind him. According to sources, the shot is a test image of what that character might look like. At this point, the movie is not greenlighted, nor is it cast.
Street Wise knew of the insert but was asked not to disclose it. The trailer was in the hands of viewers for about a week before someone noticed it and posted it on YouTube.
Adapting "Watchmen" has stymied such filmmakers as Darren Aronofsky and Paul Greengrass and such studios as Universal and Paramount. The scope and density of the source material -- the only graphic novel Time Magazine listed among the 100 best novels since 1923 -- is vast and budgetary concerns were among the reasons the project was put into turnaround by Paramount in early 2005.
"To do it right, you need a huge budget," an insider said.
Sources said Snyder's vision for the movie would have the project in the $150 million range. The studio, on the other hand, wants to keep it less than $100 million. Snyder's "300," based on another award-winning comic book, cost about $65 million to make and grossed $70 million during the weekend, breaking records and surprising many at the studio.
Snyder on Watchmen
Helmer talks budget, costumes and changes.
300 director Zack Snyder's next film will indeed be the long-awaited feature adaptation of the Alan Moore/Dave Gibbons graphic novel classic Watchmen, although the budget on the film is reportedly looming towards $150 million. That's quite a hefty price tag for a dark, adult comic book movie without sequel or franchise potential.
Snyder believes that he and the producers can bring the Warners film in for less than that. "I think it can. We have ideas and I think there's a way to do it," Snyder told ComicBookResources.com. "I really don't know yet. We're trying to get something together to show the studio right now and we're hoping to get that as low as we can."
The helmer cautions, however, that "none of this is real yet. The reality is that it's still an R rated movie, it's an R rated super hero movie, something that's never been tested before and no one knows what the hell that means. But I think if you went to see 300, I would hope that you'd go see Watchmen."
Snyder also commented on those recent reports that Tom Cruise was interested at one point in playing Ozymandias, saying simply, "I don't think he's doing it."
The helmer also advised fans that, while he expects his film to be faithful to the source material, they should expect some minor alterations to Watchmen when it comes to the silver screen.
"A lot of what we're doing will look exactly as it does in the book, but there are a couple of things we'll update, like the girls. Not update in the sense that it won't be 1985, it'll still be 1985, but to give them a little sexier look or to update the outfits a bit," he explained. "I think Rorschach will look exactly as he does. Dr. Manhattan will look probably exactly as he does. Night Owl will be pretty close, but we're trying to make him look a little scarier."
Quote from: MacGuffin on March 16, 2007, 04:00:45 AM
"A lot of what we're doing will look exactly as it does in the book, but there are a couple of things we'll update, like the girls. Not update in the sense that it won't be 1985, it'll still be 1985, but to give them a little sexier look or to update the outfits a bit," he explained. "I think Rorschach will look exactly as he does. Dr. Manhattan will look probably exactly as he does. Night Owl will be pretty close, but we're trying to make him look a little scarier."
i can live with that. as long as halle berry doesn't get involved somehow.
let's speculate who should play who!
actually, it's easier to say who shouldn't be in it: the cast of Bobby.
Snyder Talks Rorschach Glimpse
"A start," says director.
A couple of weeks ago, keen-eyed fans noticed that director Zack Snyder had slipped a glimpse of his much-anticipated Watchmen feature into an extended trailer for his hit film 300. The sneak peek was of a live-action Rorschach, the masked vigilante from the classic graphic novel. Empire caught up with Snyder this week and asked him about the test image.
"That's actually Wes Coller who's one of the associate producers on 300," the helmer says. "So, we were knocking around the office and I told him to put an overcoat on and I took a picture. We then took it outside to Grant Freckelton [300's visual effects art director] who was having his lunch, and I asked him to knock it up for me. Put the Empire State Building there, put the moon there... it's a start, but it was really just for fun."
Empire also asked Snyder about recent talk that Ron Perlman might take on the role of the Comedian in the film. His non-committal response: "Awesome! I love Ron Perlman. I don't know if that's going to happen, but it would be cool. Awesome!"
WizardUniverse.com, meanwhile, has posited that 300 star Gerard Butler is also up for the role of the Comedian.
Keanu Reeves and Jude Law Offered 'Watchmen' Roles, Source Says
Source: Cinematical
Last week, I posted about Keanu Reeves' new movie Night Watch. Its title recently changed from The Night Watchman to Night Watch to avoid confusion with Zack Snyder's upcoming superhero movie called Watchmen. I found it odd at the time that the filmmakers aren't concerned about getting mixed up with Night Watch, Nightwatch, or Nightwatch. Believe it or not, this title hopping is about to get even more complicated -- Keanu Reeves has been offered a role in Watchmen! My head hurts. Sources say Reeves has been offered the role of Doctor Manhattan, AKA Dr. Jon Osterman -- the "big blue superbeing" with god-like powers like superhuman strength, telekenesis, the ability to teleport, and clairvoyance. In the immortal words of Reeves himself: "Whoa!"
Jude Law is expected to take on the role of Adrien Veidt, or Ozymandias -- "the smartest man on the planet." Law is a longtime Watchmen fan, and was expected to get the role, although Chris reported a couple months ago on rumors that fellow fan Tom Cruise was interested. Little Children's Patrick Wilson is expected to play Dan Drieberg -- Nite Owl, a hero similar to Batman. Watchmen is a twelve issue graphic novel written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, and is considered by many to be the pinnacle of the form. It is the only graphic novel to have been featured on Time Magazine's 2005 list of the 100 best English language novels from 1923 to the present. Zack Snyder is directing Watchmen as his follow-up to the smash hit 300. The star of that film, Gerard Butler, has been linked to Watchmen as well, but now that three of the leads seem to be nearly finalized, that may not come to pass. What do you guys think -- are these good choices?There are still a lot of Watchmen roles up for grabs, who would you want to see round out the cast?
whoa. i'm on mars.
nothing against keanu but
KILL THIS MOVIE NOW!!
Keanu is great... but how the hell is Jude Law going to play the 'smartest guy on the planet'?
Zack Snyder Assures He'll 'Find A Spot' For Gerard Butler In 'Watchmen'
Director won't deny rumors of Jude Law, Keanu Reeves and Patrick Wilson being offered roles in comic book flick.
UNIVERSAL CITY, California — A few weeks back, we broke the bad news from Gerard Butler on the MTV Movies Blog that his post-"300" schedule was looking too tight to squeeze in an appearance in "The Watchmen." But this week, director Zack Snyder assured us that he'll get his Spartan leading man into the highly anticipated comic book flick somehow.
"Yeah, we'll find a spot for him," Snyder told us on the red carpet at the MTV Movie Awards. "They'll let him [off the other sets for a while]; he's not gonna get out that easy."
The red-hot director, intent on using his newfound Hollywood clout to stay true to Alan Moore's refreshingly dark comic classic, also offered a promising non-denial regarding rumors that names like Jude Law, Keanu Reeves and Patrick Wilson had been offered roles. "Um — you know what? I would say 'No,' but then you'd call me later and go like, 'Dude, what are you doing?' " Snyder laughed. "I don't know who's leaking this stuff, but they're good."
Snyder is hard at work finalizing his shooting script, casting A-list stars and defending his vision against the suits who'd make the story of hunted superheroes somewhat cheerier. As he does so, he told us that he's most looking forward to shooting the opening scene of the flick. "At the beginning of the movie there's a character called the Comedian," Snyder said of the ill-fated former hero whose murder begins the story. "He gets in a fight with a guy that we don't know who it is, and [the Comedian] gets thrown out a window. That's what I'm working on right now, and it's pretty intense."
"[We'll be shooting] up in Canada, starting in September," Snyder said of the film, which Hollywood has been trying to get off the ground for a decade and a half, under directors ranging from Terry Gilliam to Paul Greengrass. "[We'll be shooting] real soon."
Snyder also commented on those pesky rumors about a "300" sequel, saying that he'll leave the door open for whatever Frank Miller has in mind. "Hey — if Frank wrote it, and drew something cool, absolutely."
But until then, Snyder is focused on the only comic to make Time's 100 best English-language novels list, a book that many consider the greatest graphic novel ever written. "We're drawing and getting everything together, and I think it's looking pretty cool," he said, promising that we'll soon be watching the "Watchmen" movie. "It's gonna be awesome."
I've two chapters left in the book and unfortunately I just don't see how this can be a movie. I just don't see it.
Watchmen? Whoa!
Keanu passes on playing Dr. Manhattan.
Although Keanu Reeves was rumored to be the frontrunner to play the god-like Dr. Manhattan in director Zack Snyder's movie adaptation of the classic graphic novel Watchmen, word has arrived that The Matrix star will not be in the long-awaited film after all.
In an email to the fansite Club-Keanu.com, Reeves' longtime manager Erwin Stoff revealed that the Speed actor "was offered it and turned it down." No reason was given for Reeves' decision to pass on the film. It should be noted that Reeves is a self-professed comic book fan, which makes his decision all the more curious.
Other rumored Watchmen cast members include Jude Law as Ozymandias and Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl, respectively. No word yet on how far along their potential casting may be or if they have also passed.
Gerard Butler, who starred in Snyder's 300, has long been expected to appear in Watchmen -- possibly as the doomed Comedian -- but he recently cast doubt on that possibility due to scheduling. Snyder, however, has countered that by saying that he'll make sure Butler is in the film, which begins shooting this fall in Vancouver.
Quote from: MacGuffin on June 16, 2007, 12:24:37 PM
It should be noted that Reeves is a self-professed comic book fan, which makes his decision all the more curious.
It makes sense. He's enough of a comic book fan to not want to be single-handedly responsible for ruining the Watchmen movie.
Haley is Rorschach in Snyder's Watchmen?
Source: SuperheroHype!
Actor Paddy Considine, who was attached to play masked vigilante Rorschach in Watchmen back when Paul Greengrass was directing, has revealed on his official fan site that Warner Bros. has now gone out to Jackie Earle Haley for the role.
Haley received an Oscar nomination for his role in Little Children. He also recently starred in All the King's Men and played Kelly Leak in the "Bad News Bears" films in the '70s.
Zack Snyder (300) is directing the big screen adaptation, based on the 12-issue comic book created by writer Alan Moore and artist Dave Gibbons. The comic is a crime-conspiracy story that provided the first realistic look at the behind-the-heroics lives of superhero archetypes.
Larry Gordon and Lloyd Levin are producing.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff149%2Fsquints06%2F163429__haley_l.jpg&hash=bf3e6e71e73ed7b7b5a5ba09cf02feb5b90a2921)
link to a motherfucking spoiler image (http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f149/squints06/r2.jpg)
I could buy it. Maybe if he grew some hair.
is that image a spoiler?
i still recommend ppl read the book before this movie ruins the book.
its the truth. i just read v for vendetta in a couple of days having never seen the movie. i just watched the movie last night and holy shit what a disgrace.
Quote from: Pubrick on June 19, 2007, 06:59:44 AM
i still recommend ppl read the book before this movie casting ruins the book.
JESUS' (BIG BLUE) SON
Source: CHUD
This morning Comic Con revealed the full line-up of events, and one of the movies being presented by Warner Bros is Watchmen. Zack Snyder will be on hand, and will most likely be making some casting announcements... and one of them will be Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan.
A very reliable source tells me that Snyder has settled on Crudup for the role of Watchmen's only super-powered character, a scientist who accidentally gets annihilated on an atomic level and reconstructs himself into a big, naked, blue, floating demigod.
There have been a number of names going around for Dr. Manhattan, including Keanu Reeves (who supposedly wanted more money than Snyder et al would offer) and Jason Patric (the guy you get when Keanu turns you down), but I think Crudup is the best name yet associated with the role. Not only is the guy a truly gifted, terrific actor, he has long deserved a potential break-out role like this; Billy Crudup should really be much more famous than he is. And once you think of Crudup in the role, you can easily see how he'll nail the humanity of Dr. Jon Osterman before the accident and the detached posthumanity of Dr. Manhattan.
Again, I would expect an official announcement at Comic Con, or the days leading up to it, but in the meantime, go rent Almost Famous and Jesus' Son to get a look at who Dr. Manhattan is.
Quote from: MacGuffin on July 09, 2007, 02:22:51 PM
in the meantime, go rent Almost Famous and Jesus' Son to get a look at who Dr. Manhattan is.
or read the fucking book by alan moore.
How fucking depressing is it that Billy Crudup is the third choice (at least)? That's like Tool being your third choice of concerts, right after Hinder and Godsmack.
Patrick Wilson Talks And Co-Stars Confirm: 'Watchmen' Is Next
Source: MTV
As the final days on his current film wind down, fast-rising actor Patrick Wilson has become known as a nice guy, a solid thespian, and a consummate professional. And he's also being called one other thing around the set: The Nite-Owl.
"Isn't that exciting?" Wilson's co-star Kerry Washington grinned last night. "It's what he goes into next!"
For those of you who recently emerged from a deep coma, Wilson's name has been rumored for weeks as a possible star for "Watchmen" – the big-budget superhero flick that will serve as director Zack Snyder's follow-up to "300." So when the "Little Children" star met with reporters Monday evening on the set of his Samuel L. Jackson thriller "Lakeview Terrace," he addressed the Internet chatter publicly for the first time.
"I'm not a good liar," he laughed, refusing to deny it, "so I really shouldn't go into it."
During the interview in – of all places – an elementary school auditorium, Wilson's laughs and giggles left no doubt that he would soon be announced officially. "I'm not going there," he said playfully.
In a separate interview, however, his co-star Washington revealed that Wilson has already shared the news with his current co-workers. "I keep teasing him," she laughed. "Whenever he eats candy or something, I go: 'You're playing a superhero! I don't think you should be eating pretzels!'"
Reminded that Wilson's Nite-Owl actually has a sizable gut in Alan Moore's classic tale of what happens when heroes go beyond their super years, Washington responded: "He is [supposed to be out of shape], yes. That's what [Wilson] always says. But I always go 'Yeah, but you still want to be defined!"
Making matters even clearer, Wilson interrupted his own dodgy responses to point out a child's artwork that he kept eyeballing on the wall nearby. "Look at the thing I'm reading," he said, motioning to a painting entitled "Owl's Hollow." With a grin, he added: "But, I didn't say anything."
Adding "Yes yes, I know the [book], I know it all," Wilson (who was drinking a pounds-packing protein smoothie during the interview) allowed himself the following statement on his impending journey alongside Snyder and arguably the most well-respected comic book title of all time.
"This is the truth, whether it's ha ha ha - the film you're talking about - or whatever other big studio films lie ahead in the path," he said. "The weird thing is, as an actor you usually feel more comfortable on a big studio set."
"You have a lot of time, you've got a cushy gig where everybody likes you, and you don't have that stress," he said of such blockbusters. "I've never been scared by the big-budget thing - because if the script is good it doesn't matter."
Well, Time Magazine did famously choose "Watchmen" as the only comic in its list of the 100 Best American Novels at the end of the century, which would seem to indicate that such a script is in order. The Owl is due to take flight once the film begins shooting in Canada in September, and we'll continue watching the Watchmen closely as they build to a late '08 release.
Six conspire in casting of 'Watchmen'
Source: Hollywood Reporter
"Watchmen," the long-gestating big-screen adaptation of the seminal DC Comics limited series, has finally found its superheroes.
Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, Matthew Goode, Billy Crudup, Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Malin Akerman have been cast in the Warner Bros. movie, which Zack Snyder is directing. Larry Gordon, Lloyd Levin and Deborah Snyder are producing.
Set in an alternate America, "Watchmen" follows costumed hero Rorschach, who is living a vigilante lifestyle because most masked heroes have retired or been outlawed. While investigating a murder, Rorschach learns that a former masked-hero colleague has been killed, prompting him to begin investigating a possible conspiracy.
Haley will play Walter Kovacs, aka Rorschach, who ignores the ban on costumed vigilantes.
Crudup will play Dr. Manhattan, a superpowered being with godlike powers and temperament.
Akerman will play Laurie Juspeczyk/the Silk Spectre, who is involved with Dr. Manhattan -- but that relationship begins to fall apart as he becomes more disconnected from humanity.
Goode will play Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, a costume adventurer who retired voluntarily, disclosed his identity and built a large fortune. He hatches a plot to avert a global catastrophe he believes will be caused by Dr. Manhattan.
Wilson will play the Nite-Owl, a crime-figher who uses technical wizardry and has an owl-shaped flying vehicle.
Morgan will play the Comedian, a cigar-chomping, gun-toting vigilante-turned-paramilitary agent.
"Watchmen," created by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, is one of the most critically acclaimed series in the genre. The comic is credited for redefining the superhero genre and often is referred to as the "War and Peace" of comic books. It is a crime-conspiracy story that provided the first realistic look at the behind-the-heroics lives of superhero archetypes. "Watchmen" appeared as the only graphic novel on Time magazine's list of the 100 best novels since 1923.
A feature adaptation was in preproduction at Paramount with director Paul Greengrass at the helm. Casting was under way when the studio pulled the plug in June 2005 and let go of the project.
Tom Cruise, Keanu Reeves and Jude Law were interested in the Snyder incarnation, though they balked when it became clear that the studio was holding the line on the budget.
Shooting is set to start in the fall in Vancouver, with Snyder employing many of the filming techniques he used for his boxoffice success "300."
Legendary is co-financing the picture.
The cast is rumored to make an appearance at Warners' Comic-Con presentation Friday.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviesblog.mtv.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F07%2Fwatchmen_poster.jpg&hash=91df3ecfa74d2ba637b291f78352bbd169f66515)
Comic-Con: 'Watchmen' Release Date Announced, Dr. Manhattan Will Be All CG
Source: MTV
Our guys at the panel, Shawn Adler and Larry Carroll, just sent in the following info and quotes from "Watchmen" director Zack Snyder, talking at length about his hugely anticipated flick.
The film's release date? March 6, 2009.
Some quotes from Snyder:
-"Is 'Watchmen' better if it's updated, more accessible? I don't think so. I don't think 'Watchmen' should come to the people, but the people to 'Watchmen.'"
-"We have real actors. It's not an exercise in marketing. I made a movie called '300′ and it had no stars in it either. A couple people saw that."
-"The idea for the Manhattan character — when he becomes Manhattan he's going to be a full CG version of Billy [Crudup], 'Pirates of the Caribbean'-style. The last thing I want is to see some guy with blue paint."
-"I want to see the ['Tales of the Black Freighter'] story. I think it's really important. People have talked a lot about what it means, but I think it's really cool and would be fun to do. I want to do it."
Carla Gugino is Sally Jupiter in Watchmen
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
Carla Gugino (Sin City) has joined the cast of Watchmen, the Warner Bros. adaptation of the DC Comics limited series.
She joins Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, Matthew Goode, Billy Crudup, Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Malin Akerman in the Warner Bros. movie, which is set in an alternate America that has passed a law banning costumed crime fighters. When one is murdered, the remaining members set out to solve the mystery.
Gugino will play Sally Jupiter, a burlesque dancer-turned-costumed heroine and sex symbol the Silk Spectre who is part of the Minutemen, a group of heroes who preceded the Watchmen. She also is the mother of the new Silk Spectre (Akerman). Gugino is expected to portray Jupiter in varying eras, playing different ages throughout the movie.
Zack Snyder (300) will direct the film, which is set to start shooting in the fall in Vancouver.
Zach Snyder Talks Watchmen!
Source: Warner Bros. Pictures
Watchmen director Zack Snyder (300) has sent a message to fans from the set of the anticipated comic book adaptation which you can watch here! (http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/watchmen/zack_greeting/watchmen_greeting.mov) In the video, Snyder talks about what they have done so far, what the experience has been like and what's ahead.
Opening March 6, 2009, the Warner Bros. release stars Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, Matthew Goode, Billy Crudup, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Malin Akerman, Carla Gugino and Stephen McHattie.
awesome set pics here...
http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/
Quote from: modage on November 27, 2007, 10:13:29 AM
awesome set pics here...
http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/
click to enlarge(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frss.warnerbros.com%2Fwatchmen%2Fwatch-1317_select-thumb.jpg&hash=82710e8cf137b7b629a9453705350dfdab57396e) (http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/watch-1317_select.jpg)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frss.warnerbros.com%2Fwatchmen%2FWMD-21550_select-thumb.jpg&hash=3e5bbf459828779038665fe9ecc0ec8c66c3c6a2) (http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/WMD-21550_select.jpg)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frss.warnerbros.com%2Fwatchmen%2FWMD-22669_select-thumb.jpg&hash=2374c7d4c31dbfbacf3c47eec217f1177b970ae2) (http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/WMD-22669_select.jpg)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frss.warnerbros.com%2Fwatchmen%2FWMD-22648_select-thumb.jpg&hash=308daff2c25a201e9b719f8a53a2115e8184bf26) (http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/WMD-22648_select.jpg)
even if the whole thing is in slow motion: best achievement in art direction, costume design.
those are BEAUTIFUL. holy shit. that's the best i could hope for in bringing that city to life.
i wish the movie could always exist in this state, where cool pictures and (hopefully) awesome teasers are all we have, and the idea of Watchmen actually being a movie remains an idea, something i dream about. eventually it will be released, i will see it, i'll feel weird about it, maybe a couple parts will be ok and Rorschach will look cool... and then i'll have to accept that the movie is a wasted opportunity. i try to be hopeful but i can't really say i'm "looking forward" to seeing this. it's more like i just want to get it over with.
in other non-news, here's something fun: Watchmen cast guide. (http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a175/Leven321/watchmencastingguide.jpg)
Those pics are awesome, but this is still going to suck and will ruin the gn. It's impossible.
I hope the whole set burns down. Except for the ones those pictures were taken on.
One Year to Midnight
Here we are, officially one year and counting until the release of Watchmen on 03.06.09. Being a fan that follows production blogs, I know that the time a film is in post can often seem like an eternity with interesting bits of information few and far between. So to help pass the time, here is your first look at some of the Watchmen characters.
-Zack
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frss.warnerbros.com%2Fwatchmen%2FComedianFull.jpg&hash=469cdfdc7b5b8002eece642d0619467b07e87760)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frss.warnerbros.com%2Fwatchmen%2FNIteOwlFull.jpg&hash=a182a747f46d7d7933f5a12d34fbe92f77459b94)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frss.warnerbros.com%2Fwatchmen%2FOzymandiasFull.jpg&hash=d56efcde25a9b744a71a7dba3e87f0ca42c1e80b)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frss.warnerbros.com%2Fwatchmen%2FRorschachFull.jpg&hash=3a6ad5ba2572da612a9a0ec6f81e81a0da2fd4b1)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frss.warnerbros.com%2Fwatchmen%2FSilkSpectreFull.jpg&hash=eee257501ecc45cb15076f15eece6968c19cddbd)
Matthew Goode looks like a completely different person in each movie I've seen him in.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Fcharliebrownwatchmen.jpg&hash=6b859b6b85ab84ad8a2657b36c93721c50407ea0)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages2008%2Fmmpic.jpg&hash=1346fee8f695e81cc475d52fb32ff246986704a1)
Watchmen's "Black Freighter" DVD Update
Source: (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=45439) Duff Drinker
Originally thought to be coming as part of the Watchmen DVD, the New York Times now reports that the Zack Snyder-directed animated side story "Tales of the Black Freighter" will get released on DVD five days after the Watchmen movie hits theaters on May 6, 2009 (we're guessing on March 10, 2009 - which is actually four days after the release, depending how you look at it).
The "Black Freighter" DVD will include a documentary-style film called "Under the Hood" that delves into the characters' backstories. The Watchmen movie is expected to hit DVD itself four months later, followed by an "ultimate" edition in which the two are edited together into one megamovie.
In addition, the studio plans a dozen 22- to 26-minute Webisodes to help make the complex story easier for the uninitiated to digest. Called "The Watchmen Motion Comic," it will be a panel-by-panel slide show of the graphic novel narrated by an actor. Those together might get a DVD release as well in the future.
that's insulting.
Why? Like I have the time to actually read the word that go with the pictures myself!
Can I coin the phrase "to do a Lucas"?
I'm down with the whole idea. Don't get me wrong, I'm fairly sure Snyder is still going to fuck it all up big time but at least this way we get to see the entire Black Freighter story since they obviously would have made him cut it way back if it were to stay in the theatrical cut. I'm fine as long as they let you know what they are up to now instead of after you've bought the first shitty disc...but he will still fuck this up...and that my friend is "doing a Lucas." There you go Sleepless...it's officially coined.
i still think it's insulting.
so first we get the truncated film. five days later, we get the black freighter. four months later, we get the truncated film on dvd. and then EVEN LATER we finally get the definitive film on dvd. and each of those will probably be released in two editions, single and double-disc, the latter being ridiculously overpriced. it's brilliant and it's evil. what, are they gonna give the "ultimate megamovie" its own theatrical release too? it'll end up as a Kill Bill situation. nobody will care anymore.
also, i don't get the motion comic thing. i knew they were gonna have to dumb it down but JESUS CHRIST. this sort of mentality does not bode well for the film. i'm expecting a lot of boring expository dialogue. sigh.
Quote from: Hedwig on November 27, 2007, 10:00:40 PM
i try to be hopeful but i can't really say i'm "looking forward" to seeing this. it's more like i just want to get it over with.
I think it's insulting that they told us how it's going to happen. The least they could do is keep it a secret so that no one realizes that they have to buy three things.
It's like saying, "We going to screw you, and here's how we're going to screw you. And now that you know, we still think you're gonna give us the money."
If this were happening with Nolan and Batman Begins would anyone here feel any differently?
I think it's good they've said up front. End of the day it's not the film-makers making these decisions is it? It's the execs. I'm really looking forward to seeing this in the theaters, but them I'm gonna hold off and get the ultimate platinum extended unrated smiley-face edition DVDs when they come. I appreciate knowing that's gonna be coming in advance.
The reason no-one cares about KB:TWBA anymore is QT built it up so much, but then got distracted by a foot fetish website, and probably just can't be bothered anymore.
In the end,
Quote from: cinemanarchist on May 28, 2008, 10:44:54 PM
Snyder is still going to fuck it all up big time
is all that really matters.
Teaser Trailer here. (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1670081657)
edit: RELINK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H2R50ONT-Q
FINAL LINK: http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/watchmen/
I don't want to admit it. But that looks good.
aaaaaaand relink: http://www.movieweb.com/video/V08G4asxyEIKST
Another link: http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/watchmen/
fuck this movie and its thus far impeccable production.
Wowowow !
This looks great ! I always taught the original story was great but the art was a bit lame since I'm a new-generation-guy so I guess this will be good
trailer's not that good.
it's 300. slow motion overkill, even has a shot of a character screaming..
everything "looks" good but whatever, this movie is gonna hurt to watch.
i love this trailer. seeing it in imax was a great start to dark knight. the only fairly shitty part is the faux slo mo owl fall and perhaps the american flag. everything else is stupendous. it actually improves the original song. crudup gives a great trailer performance in the first few seconds. i have to know what could lead a man (patrick wilson!) in an owl suit to scream like that. i'm disturbed by the vaporization of an innocent vietnamese man. the voice of rorshach is pretty damn perfect. as is his subtle shape shifting mask. and how can you not be awed by the floating glass palace emerging from the sand?? this trailer has inspired me to finally finish the book (which i was half way through and don't know why i stopped). 9/10.
BREAKING: My Chemical Romance To Perform Bob Dylan Cover In 'Watchmen' Movie
Source: MTV
Now that we've all seen the dazzling first trailer for next year's "Watchmen" flick, it has officially become my most-anticipated movie of 2009. And the news just keeps getting better, as director Zack Snyder has revealed exclusively to MTV News that the only post-1985 song in the film will feature one of today's hottest bands.
"My Chemical Romance is absolutely awesome," the "300" director revealed. "And Gerard [Way] is a huge fan of 'Watchmen'."
Like the classic graphic novel, Snyder's "Watchmen" film will span the decades utilizing a "Forrest Gump"-like soundtrack of period-evocative music from the turbulent Sixties, the me-decade Seventies and the awesome Eighties. But since the film ends in 1985, Snyder's music needs to be capped after his Hendrix, Dylan and Simon & Garfunkel tracks have had their moments. Finding a way around the limitation, Snyder has launched plans to head into the studio with the emo-punk powergroup behind such hits as "Helena" and "Welcome to the Black Parade."
"[Frontman Way] is a super-great guy, and an awesome musician, and so we're trying to work with them right now to put together possibly a song for the end titles," he revealed, adding that he wants MCR to revisit a classic Bob Dylan song. "[They'll perform] like a cover of "Desolation Row," or something like that."
The track will close out the film, and will be the only modern composition making up the movie's soundtrack. "I've talked with him and I've heard a little bit of some stuff that's he's done," Snyder said of Way's early attempts to take on Bob Dylan. "And it's pretty freaking cool."
The MCR singer is a lifelong comic book geek who attended the School of Visual Arts in New York City with plans to join the industry. Comic fans know him as the creator of "The Umbrella Academy," a successful superhero series that he's poured his spare time into recently, and could possibly be turned into its own movie eventually.
"Honestly, he contacted me, just as a fan," Snyder remembered of his first contact with Gerard Way. "[He wanted] to say like: "I hope the movie's cool." And then we went, "Hey, maybe we can do something." So it's worked out pretty cool."
For now, Snyder and Way will continue working on the Dylan cover for the film's end titles; in the meantime, however, the director said he's still being surprised every day as celebrities come out of the woodwork revealing themselves to be fans of the 20-year-old Alan Moore-Dave Gibbons classic. "You find out there's a Watchmen geek in there somewhere, like in any organization," he grinned. "It's like a secret government group. You can sneak in by going, "Come on, I'm a 'Watchmen' fan."
stop raping my soul, zack snyder. stop.
Quote from: Hedwig on July 25, 2008, 10:08:42 AM
stop raping my soul, zack snyder. stop.
haha, seriously... So many people are being fooled by this trailer.
My wife hasn't read the comic AND she's an intelligent person and she hated the trailer because of it's cheap tricks and generic super-hero look... I just think it's ridiculous that they're trying to exploit the slickness that doesn't really exist in the comic book. This will be terrible.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2.timeinc.net%2Few%2Fcovergallery%2Fimg%2F2008%2Fjul252008_1003_lg.jpg&hash=360100bef8b4c8f7609939f3d54c4eeb64922d94)
'Watchmen': An Exclusive First Look
''300'' director Zack Snyder is taking on the shocking antiheroes of that great and supposedly unfilmable graphic novel ''Watchmen.'' Fans at this year's Comic-Con will get an early look at the movie -- but not before you do
In his bungalow on the Warner Bros. lot, Zack Snyder keeps a suitcase large enough to hold a rocket launcher. It doesn't. Popping open the lid reveals a set of finely crafted action figures encased in black foam: Dr. Manhattan. Rorschach. Ozymandias. Nite Owl. Silk Spectre. The Comedian. They're based on comic-book superheroes that aren't exactly household names, but if the director of the sword-and-sandals smash 300 has his way, these characters will become icons as explosive as any state-of-the-art weapon. ''In my movie, Superman doesn't care about humanity, Batman can't get it up, and the bad guy wants world peace,'' Snyder says with a smirk. ''Will Watchmen be the end of superhero movies? Probably not. But it sure will kick them in the gut.''
Watchmen won't hit theaters till March 6, 2009, but Snyder and his cast are about to face a trial by fire: On July 25, they're screening special teaser footage for thousands in San Diego at the annual summit of cult pop, Comic-Con. The movie is no kid-safe funny-book flick. It's an R-rated, $100 million adaptation of the smartest, most subversive superhero story ever created. Published by DC Comics in 1986 and routinely hailed by even mainstream critics as a literary masterpiece, Watchmen is many things — a jittery expression of Cold War anxiety, a chilling meditation on human nature, an intricate murder mystery. But at its heart this sexy, violent, and politically charged 12-issue saga, written by Alan Moore (click to see our Q&A with him) and drawn by Dave Gibbons, is an epic love letter to colorfully clad superpeople and a wicked satire about them. Set in 1985, but in an alternate reality where Richard Nixon is serving his fifth term as president and costumed crime-fighting has been outlawed, the story begins with the brutal murder of a retired superhero named the Comedian. Another ex-superhero, the inkblot-masked Rorschach, believes that someone is trying to assassinate his former colleagues. Is it a serial killer at work, or is there a global conspiracy involved? A twisty plot unfolds, enveloping an array of bizarre, damaged, and bracingly human fantasy people. ''We wanted to explore simple questions with not-so-simple answers,'' Gibbons says. ''What if superheroes really existed? How would they really think? And how would they really affect the world?''
The result was a piercing deconstruction of superhero mythology told with a sophistication unprecedented for the genre. ''At the time, comic books had hit the ceiling,'' Snyder says. ''Superman had done everything he could do; the X-Men and Fantastic Four had faced every possible bad guy and end-of-the-world scenario. And then Watchmen came along and took it to the next level by breaking all the rules.'' Snyder — who was into naughty sci-fi/fantasy comics like Heavy Metal magazine as a teen and discovered Watchmen during college — believes the global multiplex is now ripe for a similar revolution. ''The average movie audience has seen so many superhero movies,'' he says. ''And some of this stuff is hard to take seriously. I mean, The Hulk? Come on.'' Snyder remembers screening some Watchmen footage for an unnamed studio executive. Afterward, Snyder says, the exec turned to him and said, ''This makes Superman look stupid.''
Superhero movies have taken a serious turn lately, with The Dark Knight and Hancock. Still, the odds of Snyder making a fantastic, faithful adaptation of Watchmen are against him. Until recently, the director belonged to a school of thought that believed this dense, dark jewel — the fanboy's Catcher in the Rye, the rite-of-passage text for any serious geek — couldn't and maybe shouldn't be made into a movie. That school still includes Watchmen creator Moore, who has disavowed the film because of his general disdain for Hollywood, and his long-standing conflicts with DC Comics, a Warner Bros. sister company. ''Watchmen works perfectly fine as a comic,'' says the British scribe, who has scrubbed his name from the film's credits and abdicated his royalty check to Gibbons. ''There are things we did that could only work in a comic, and were indeed designed to show off the things that comics can do that other media can't.''
So far, no other media have. Many in Hollywood have tried to get Watchmen on the screen and failed, including directors Terry Gilliam (Brazil), Darren Aronofsky (The Fountain), and, most recently, Bourne Supremacy director Paul Greengrass. In 2005, Greengrass was deep into preproduction on a present-day, war-on-terror-themed adaptation by David Hayter (X-Men), when a regime change at Paramount Pictures led to its demise. Enter Warner Bros., which acquired the rights in late 2005. Snyder was working on 300 for the studio at the time, and he was alarmed when he heard about the deal. After some soul-searching, his fear of seeing a bad Watchmen movie trumped his fear of trying to make a great one. ''They were going to do it anyway,'' he says. ''And that made me nervous.'' Over many months, and many meetings, Snyder persuaded Warner Bros. to abandon the Greengrass/Hayter script and hew as faithfully as possible to the comic. The key battles: retaining the '80s milieu, keeping Richard Nixon (Moore did consider using an era-appropriate Ronald Reagan, but worried it would alienate American readers), and preserving the villain-doesn't-pay-for-his-crimes climax. ''It was clear that Zack felt an intense obligation to the fans and the book,'' says Warner Bros. Picture Group president Jeff Robinov. ''There was definitely a conversation about the best way to make it contemporary and relevant to today. Zack felt the best way was to go back to the roots of the novel.'' It didn't hurt Snyder's case that by then 300 — another R-rated movie based on a hardcore graphic novel — was making a killing at the box office. ''Little by little, we got the studio on board,'' says Deborah Snyder, the director's producer, chief collaborator, and wife. ''300 really helped. It created a level of trust in Zack's vision.''
That trust extended to casting. Daniel Craig, Jude Law, and Sigourney Weaver were said to be interested in or attached to the Greengrass production, but Snyder felt celebrity would detract from Watchmen's substance. There's barely a brand-name star among his cast, and none were Watchmen fans when they were hired. Patrick Wilson (Angels in America) came aboard first and immediately started packing on weight to play the potbellied, middle-aged Nite Owl. Oscar nominee Jackie Earle Haley (Little Children) campaigned for the role of Rorschach — the comic's most popular character, despite his sociopathic, sadistic vigilantism — by recruiting 14 friends to help produce a video of himself performing sequences from the comic book. ''It was a little labor of love, man,'' he says. ''Kind of cheesy, but for an audition piece, it sufficed.''
When the six-month shoot commenced in Vancouver last summer, some of the actors struggled with fleshing out their complex, often corrupt characters. Jeffrey Dean Morgan (TV's Supernatural), who plays the Comedian, must carry out repellent acts of violence, but still manage to make the audience care about his death — and his big secrets. ''Some of the things this guy does, you can't make excuses for, even as an actor,'' Morgan says. ''Your instinct is to just play the guy as a bastard, but you can't.'' For Billy Crudup (Jesus' Son), the challenges were both physical and mental. His CG-rendered Dr. Manhattan is bald, blue, and often buck naked. Not only did he have to play an omniscient embodiment of quantum physics, but he had to do it wearing a white motion-capture suit blinged with tiny blue lights, his face covered with 140 black dots. ''It's really hard to feel like the master of all matter when the other actor can do little more than laugh in your face,'' Crudup says. ''I had to constantly reference the picture of the character, because if I caught the slightest glimpse of myself in any reflective surface, the illusion was crushed.''
Based on footage Snyder screened for EW, at least, the work seems to have been worth it. Multiple scenes — the Comedian's murder, Rorschach's introduction, Dr. Manhattan's origin, and a hypnotic title sequence that shutter-flies through the history of Watchmen America, set to Bob Dylan's ''The Times They Are A-Changin''' — suggest a film that may capture more of Watchmen than anyone thought possible. Sure, there have been changes. The catastrophic climax is different. Provocative bits, like a timely subplot about alternative fuels, have been added. And a pirate/horror comic book that was threaded ironically throughout the Moore/Gibbons narrative is set to become a separate animated DVD. But Snyder's film clearly seeks to emulate the comic's arch-yet-dramatic tenor, its time-shifting, perspective-switching storytelling, and its richly realized alterna-New York. The Gunga Diner, the ''Who Watches the Watchmen?'' graffiti, the blood-splashed smiley-face button evoking a doomsday clock — it's all there.
Now comes the hard part: keeping it there. Snyder's current three-hour cut won't be unspooling in theaters next March. Robinov says two hours and 25 minutes is more realistic. ''Running time is dictated by how you are engaged,'' Robinov says. The studio might be gutsy enough to back Watchmen, but it wants to make a profit too. ''The challenge is to make a movie that can satisfy the fan but engage the typical moviegoer,'' he says. ''I think that's how Zack feels too.''
He does, but it won't be easy. ''I keep telling them, 'Guys, I can't take this out!''' Snyder says. '''Don't you understand?! If I f--- this up, I might as well start making romantic comedies!''' On July 18, Watchmen first trailer's hits theaters, hooked to The Dark Knight. Snyder hopes the fanboys understand that even with these changes, no other version of the film that preceded him dared to be this faithful. And as he spends the next eight months slicing and fine-tuning, he prays his fellow Watchmenphiles will cut him a little slack. ''They have a chance to support something that I think legitimizes the superhero-movie genre for everyone who says superhero movies are stupid, popcorn bulls---,'' he says. ''Hopefully, Watchmen can get in their faces and change their minds.''
Quote from: RegularKarate on July 25, 2008, 05:00:10 PM
Quote from: Hedwig on July 25, 2008, 10:08:42 AM
stop raping my soul, zack snyder. stop.
haha, seriously... So many people are being fooled by this trailer.
My wife hasn't read the comic AND she's an intelligent person and she hated the trailer because of it's cheap tricks and generic super-hero look... I just think it's ridiculous that they're trying to exploit the slickness that doesn't really exist in the comic book. This will be terrible.
one of my favorites posts ever in the world.
how do you guys feel about the fact that this stuff will be super mainstream now?
Those blue dudes are cool, at least.
Studio War Involving 'Watchmen' Heats Up
Source: New York Times
LOS ANGELES — The legal brawl over "Watchmen" is about to get rougher.
Lawyers for Warner Brothers, which has already shot a movie of this graphic novel about the seamier side of superhero life, and lawyers for 20th Century Fox, which claims it owns the rights to the material, laid plans for a frenzied fight in a joint report submitted to the federal court here on Friday.
Fox has said it will seek an injunction blocking Warner's planned release of the film next March. Warner has argued that Fox should not be allowed to stop the movie, after standing by while Warner and its partners on the film, Paramount Pictures and Legendary Pictures, spent more than $100 million on the production, directed by Zack Snyder ("300").
In a summary of its position in Friday's report, Warner said Fox "sat silently" as one of the producers of "Watchmen," Lawrence Gordon, took the project "to studio after studio with Fox's express knowledge."
Fox, which filed a lawsuit in February, has claimed in its own filings that Mr. Gordon did not keep the studio apprised of his plans, as required by a 1994 agreement. That deal granted Mr. Gordon rights to "Watchmen" in "turnaround" — an industry term for arrangements under which producers can move a project from one studio to another under certain conditions.
In Warner's version of events, Mr. Gordon, who is not named as a defendant in the Fox suit, actually offered the project to Fox in 2005, shortly before bringing it to Warner after years of trying to make the movie with Paramount. "Fox simply rejected it," Warner said in the Friday filing.
On Friday Warner said Fox had gone so far as to grant it rights to the title "Watchmen," which Fox had earlier registered with the Motion Picture Association of America.
Fox, moreover, was paid $320,000 by one of Mr. Gordon's companies for rights to "Watchmen" as early as 1991, Warner lawyers said in the report. Fox has said that agreement was superseded by a later deal, under which Mr. Gordon was supposed to deliver a much larger buyout price that has never been paid.
The report also outlined conflicting requests for a trial date: as early as next June, if Fox has its way, or April, if Warner prevails.
Friday's filing makes it clear that not only Mr. Gordon, but also Paramount, Legendary and even Universal Pictures can expect to be drawn into the fray. Universal had tried to make a version of the film in 2001, before Paramount took over. And though Paramount dropped its plans for the movie, it became involved as a partner when Warner teamed up with the director Mr. Snyder in the wake of the box office success of "300."
That should be a movie. I hear Leo's attached.
There is no way Warners is not going to release this on schedule. Fox is just giving them free publicity. All this legal hoo-hah is just going to distract from how much the finished film is going to be criticized by the fans once it's released but no-ones gonna care by then cos they'll al have made shitloads a la Crystal Skull.
Alan Moore on 'Watchmen' movie: 'I will be spitting venom all over it'
For the record, Alan Moore has not softened his view on Hollywood nor its plan to bring his classic graphic novel "Watchmen" to the screen next March.
Source: Los Angeles Times
"I find film in its modern form to be quite bullying," Moore told me during an hour-long phone call from his home in England. "It spoon-feeds us, which has the effect of watering down our collective cultural imagination. It is as if we are freshly hatched birds looking up with our mouths open waiting for Hollywood to feed us more regurgitated worms. The 'Watchmen' film sounds like more regurgitated worms. I for one am sick of worms. Can't we get something else? Perhaps some takeout? Even Chinese worms would be a nice change."
Moore is often described as a recluse but, really, I think it's more precise to say he is simply too busy at his writing desk. "Yes, perhaps I should get out more," he said with a chuckle. In conversation, the 54-year-old iconoclast is everything his longtime readers would expect -- articulate, witty, obstinate and selectively enigmatic. Far from grouchy, he only gets an edge in his voice when he talks about the effect of Hollywood on the comics medium that he so memorably energized in the 1980s with "Saga of the Swamp Thing," "V for Vendetta," "Marvelman" and, of course, "Watchmen," his 1986 masterpiece. The Warner Bros. film version of "Watchmen" is due in theaters in March although the project has encountered some turbulence with a lawsuit filed by 20th Century Fox over who has the rights to the property. Moore has no intention of seeing the film and, in fact, he hints that he has put a magical curse on the entire endeavor.
"Will the film even be coming out? There are these legal problems now, which I find wonderfully ironic. Perhaps it's been cursed from afar, from England. And I can tell you that I will also be spitting venom all over it for months to come."
Moore said all that with more mischievous glee than true malice, but I know it will still pain "Watchmen" director Zack Snyder when he reads it. The director of "300" absolutely adores the work of Moore and has been laboring intensely to bring "Watchmen" to the screen with faithful sophistication. But I don't think there's any way to win Moore over, he simply detests Hollywood. Moore said he has never watched any of the film adaptations of his comics creations (which have included "V for Vendetta," "From Hell," "Constantine" and "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen") and that he believes "Watchmen" is "inherently unfilmable." He also rues the effect of Hollywood's siren call on the contemporary comics scene.
"There are three or four companies now that exist for the sole purpose of creating not comics, but storyboards for films. It may be true that the only reason the comic book industry now exists is for this purpose, to create characters for movies, board games and other types of merchandise. Comics are just a sort of pumpkin patch growing franchises that might be profitable for the ailing movie industry."
There is one film that Moore is supporting right now. It's the new DVD release entitled "The Mindscape of Alan Moore" and it's an artfully executed documentary that is built entirely around Moore sitting in his somewhat spooky living room and ruminating about art, storytelling, magic and culture. The movie was made by Dez Vylenz, who was still a student at the London International Film School when he sent Moore a letter expressing interest in creating a documentary film on the writer as his senior project.
That project went well and, several years ago, the filmmaker and the author decided to do it again for a film that would be released to the public. Vylenz has intercut images and used visual effects that give the film a psychedelic swirl and shamanistic textures (it reminded me a bit of the sensibilities of a Godfrey Reggio film, such as "Koyaanisqatsi," but on a far, far smaller scale production-wise).
"It was very enjoyable to sit there in a chair and talking and talking and talking because, as anyone who knows me for even an hour will tell you, that is my second nature. The idea of it -- just me talking -- sounded incredibly boring to me but Dez Vylenz is very talented and if there is anything about the film that is not a success, I would blame the flaws of its central character." The film was made in 2003 but is just now reaching stores, with a Sept. 30 on-sale date as a two-disc DVD from Shadowsnake Films.
In the film, Moore makes it clear that he believes magic and storytelling are clearly linked and that, upon closer examination, the definitions of what is real and what is imagined are far more slippery than generally considered. This documentary is not the compelling success that "Crumb" was but, like that 1994 film by Terry Zwigoff, this one will leave casual viewers with the impression that some of the more peculiar geniuses of our day tend to gravitate to comics.
Moore sometimes wears metallic talons, describes himself as an anarchist and, in the past, has told interviewers that he worships an ancient Roman snake god. But what's really unusual about him is that he seems to be the very last creator in comics who would hang up on Hollywood anytime it calls.
"I got into comics because I thought it was a good and useful medium that had not been explored to its fullest potential," Moore told me.
He went on to explain that it was the late Will Eisner who brought a cinematic approach to comics in the 1940s after watching "Citizen Kane" dozens of times and transferring its visual style and approach to transitions to the pages of "The Spirit." "As much as I admire Eisner, I think maintaining that approach in recent history has done more harm than good. If you approach comics as a poor relation to film, you are left with a movie that does not move, has no soundtrack and lacks the benefit of having a recognizable movie star in the lead role."
Moore said that with "Watchmen," he told the epic tale of a large number of characters over decades of history with "a range of techniques" that cannot be translated to the movie screen, among them the "book within a book" technique, which took readers through a second, interior story as well as documents and the writings of characters. He also said he was offended by the amount of money and resources that go into the Hollywood projects. "They take an idea, bowdlerize it, blow it up, make it infantile and spend $100 million to give people a brief escape from their boring and often demeaning lives at work. It's obscene and it's offensive. This is not the culture I signed up for. I'm sure I sound like Bobby Fischer talking about chess "
Moore said he is now working on new installments in his marvelous comics series "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," which is far more nuanced and daring than the forgettable film of the same title. The new stories take the narrative to the moon where there is a war underway between the giant insects (inspired by the H.G. Wells 1901 book "The First Men in the Moon") and nude lunar amazons. "The idea, it pretty much sells itself, doesn't it?"
He is also at work on a massive, 750,000-word novel. "It's the grown-up kind, with no pictures at all," he said. "Although modern binding technology may be overwhelmed by the size of it. It's a huge mad fantasy called 'Jerusalem.' "
The story is partially a history of his native Northampton that dates back to its Saxon settlement days in AD 700, but it is also a "demented children's story" that features Charlie Chaplin, Oliver Cromwell and "an explanation of the afterlife that conforms to all known laws of physics."
There's also a huge sort of reference book of magic that he is toiling on with contributions from notable artists and writing peers. It delves into Kabbalah, astral projection, seance, tarot, practical applications of magic and deep research into the origins of magic history, such as the true beginnings of the Faust tales. Talking about the book, the skeptical shaman of comics sounded positively giddy, especially for a parchment wizard trapped in a crass digital age.
"Magic is a state of mind. It is often portrayed as very black and gothic and that is because certain practitioners played that up for a sense of power and prestige. That is a disservice. Magic is very colorful. Of this, I am sure."
oh but he has no problem taking hollywood's money.
ass.
Quote from: ©onzo on September 19, 2008, 08:46:53 AM
oh but he has no problem taking hollywood's money.
ass.
what are you talking about? moore doesn't own the rights to watchmen.
he's refusing to accept any of the royalties and forbids his name from being used in the credits/marketing. he's pretty much doing everything he can to divorce himself from this project. good for him.
ps. that article was brilliant. this is up there with the best moore quotes:
Quote from: MacGuffin on September 18, 2008, 11:53:45 PM
"I find film in its modern form to be quite bullying," Moore told me during an hour-long phone call from his home in England. "It spoon-feeds us, which has the effect of watering down our collective cultural imagination. It is as if we are freshly hatched birds looking up with our mouths open waiting for Hollywood to feed us more regurgitated worms. The 'Watchmen' film sounds like more regurgitated worms. I for one am sick of worms. Can't we get something else? Perhaps some takeout? Even Chinese worms would be a nice change."
.. and holy SHIT: Jerusalem sounds like the book to end all books. very exciting.
Quote from: Hedwig on September 19, 2008, 02:21:51 PM
Quote from: ©onzo on September 19, 2008, 08:46:53 AM
oh but he has no problem taking hollywood's money.
ass.
what are you talking about? moore doesn't own the rights to watchmen.
he's refusing to accept any of the royalties and forbids his name from being used in the credits/marketing. he's pretty much doing everything he can to divorce himself from this project. good for him.
welllll obviously i didn't know that, but at some point during the series of transactions the man got paid at least once. and regardless, as a cinephile, i don't find his vitriol against all that is hollywood particularly admirable. yes i would be rightfully pissed if someone took my comic masterpiece and turned it into some ratner-esque piece of overbloated bullshit. but even if that happens, it doesn't denigrate the original work. if anything it brings more people to it. and i'm sorry but an artist who deems his work "inherently unfilmable" is a pretentious stubborn prick.
Quote from: ©brad on September 22, 2008, 08:20:33 PM
if anything it brings more people to it. and i'm sorry but an artist who deems his work "inherently unfilmable" is a pretentious stubborn prick.
Even Finnegan's Wake was adapted to film with some success so I'm with you there. The adaptation of a tough work will never be perfect and it will never be the original work, but it can still be something of substance.
Quote from: ©brad on September 22, 2008, 08:20:33 PM
as a cinephile, i don't find his vitriol against all that is hollywood particularly admirable.
that's funny. as a cinephile, i do.
Quote from: ©brad on September 22, 2008, 08:20:33 PM
if anything it brings more people to it. and i'm sorry but an artist who deems his work "inherently unfilmable" is a pretentious stubborn prick.
he's reacting to the destructive effect of hollywood on the comics industry and the fact that every adaptation of his work has been horrible.
Watchmen Footage Sneaked
Source: SciFi Wire
Zack Snyder, director of the upcoming Watchmen movie, screened about 30 minutes of heretofore unseen footage from the epic superhero saga to groups of reporters on Oct. 1 at Warner studios in West Hollywood, Calif., and also announced that the film will have a running time of two hours and 43 minutes.
Snyder screened three clips. The first showed the attack on Edward Blake, aka The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), followed by the title sequence that sets up the Watchmen universe. The second clip is the transformation of physicist Jon Osterman (Billy Crudup) into the superhuman blue Dr. Manhattan. The final clip was the assault by Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman) and Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson) on the prison to free Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley).
When asked if the stars' contracts have a sequel clause, Snyder winced. "I don't know, I have to be honest," he told an audience. "That would be interesting but, there can't be a sequel. There can't be a prequel. Not with me involved, anyway. I have no idea if they could find someone to do it, but it wouldn't be me. That's crazy talk."
Perhaps the most impressive footage of the day was the film's title sequence, a montage of slow-motion scenes that took viewers from the 1930s and the origin of the alternate-universe United States in which costumed adventurers actually exist, to 1977, when a law is passed outlawing superheroes. The sequence, which took its inspiration from Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' original graphic novel, is nevertheless mostly Snyder's creation and mines pop-culture images, newsreels, movies and TV to create its alternate universe, played out to Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are a-Changin.'" In quick succession, the audience sees some of the original superheroes--the original Nite Owl, Carla Gugino's Silk Spectre in her yellow skirted costume, the Comedian in an early costume--and the fateful 1940 meeting of the Minutemen. Then a World War II bomber with "Miss Jupiter" on its nose, dropping a nuclear weapon on Japan; Dr. Manhattan shaking hands with John F. Kennedy on the White House lawn; a recreation of the Zapruder film assassination of Kennedy, which pans to the Comedian cradling a rifle on the grassy knoll; Andy Warhol with a painting of Nite Owl II; the Apollo II moon landing, with Dr. Manhattan holding a camera; Ozymandias on the red carpet outside Studio 54; a protest in the 1970s against the costumed adventurers in which someone spray paints "Who Watches the Watchmen?"
Preceding the title sequence, the film opens in the film's 1985 present in a scene in which a masked attacker enters Edward Blake's apartment in New York as he's watching The McLaughlin Group, who argue about the nuclear crisis brewing between the United States and Soviet Union. Blake switches the TV to an ad for Veidt Enterprises' "Nostalgia" perfume when his door is kicked in: "Just a matter of time, I suppose," Blake says. As the music of Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable" plays, the assailant brutally attacks Blake, who nevertheless fights back, though he's slower, heavier and dressed in a bathrobe. The fight is intense and violent: At one point, the assailant smashes Blake's head through a granite kitchen counter, shattering it. At another, the assailaint heaves Blake over his head like a sack of grain and throws him across the room. At the end, as the assailant stands a bleeding Blake on his feet, Blake laughs: "It's all a joke." Blood drips from his face onto his ever-present smiley-face button, and the assailant heaves him through the plate glass window and into space. The camera follows Blake out the window, lingers on the now-free smiley-face button and watches as Blake plummets to his death on the sidewalk below.
The second clip was dedicated to Osterman/Dr. Manhattan and tracked Moore/Gibbons' novel closely. We begin with Dr. Manhattan's appearance on Mars, then jump around with him in time: to the 1950s, with his first date with Janey Slater (Laura Mennell); the accident in the nuclear lab's intrinsic field chamber that deconstructs Osterman into atoms; Jon as a child, repairing a watch; Osterman's first meeting with Janey in a bar; Osterman's first appearance as Dr. Manhattan, rising godlike in the lab's lunchroom. In a bar, Dr. Manhattan raises his hand to armed gangsters, who simply explode into gobbets of blood, flesh and bone. At the end, Dr. Manhattan on Mars intones, "I am tired of Earth. These people. I am tired of being constantly in the tangle of their lives." He floats above the Martian surface in a lotus position as his clockwork crystal palace erupts from the Martian plain.
The final clip begins with a post-coital Laurie Juspeczyk (Akerman) and Dan Dreiberg (Wilson) in the cruising Owl Ship. They decide to break Rorschach out of prison. As the Owl Ship flies in, Juspeczyk as Silk Spectre II drops out of the hovering craft and neatly rolls onto the prison's roof. Dreiberg's Nite Owl jumps out, arms oustretched, gliding down on his cape.
The prison is in riot; inmates trying to break into the guard's station. Silk Spectre and Nite Owl enter the cell block. As inmates attack, the heroes easily parry their blows, striking, kicking and dispatching them all with roundhouse kicks and brutal punches. The duo make a plausibly badass pair of superheroes. At the end, they find Rorschach, in full costume, as he takes a moment to deal with a small bothersome inmate in the men's room before leaving.
Watchmen opens March 6, 2009.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2008%2F10%2Fwatchmenposter-%283%29.jpg&hash=6628555c29ae297401f9bcf9495683f88100542b)
New Teaser:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GUmgQHvqqc&fmt=18 (admin-edit: better quality without silly stuff at the beginning)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5EXW2-Fj9Q (with silly)
That motherfucker loves him some slow-motion.
I read the novel a few weeks ago and was totally engrossed. It lives up to the hype.
I wish a better director could have taken a crack at this.
Quote from: nix on November 04, 2008, 01:16:08 AM
I read the novel a few weeks ago and was totally engrossed. It lives up to the hype.
I wish a better director could have taken a crack at this.
Fincher would have been ideal. Michael Mann also could have been very interesting and I pretty much want Terrence Malick to direct anything, just to see what it would look like.
Wasn't Aronofsky attached at one point? That seems like a natural fit. Fincher would've been great as well, but I can't really see a Mann or Malick version.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2008%2F11%2Fwatchmenposter2.jpg&hash=bdc771588f1392ee6c47a3227b61e42e2e6c9806)
New Trailer here. (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/watchmen.html?showVideo=1)
A super battle over 'Watchmen'
The watershed graphic novel 'Watchmen' has been called 'unfilmable,' but Hollywood execs have been trying for decades. Now that it's shot, they're engaged in a . . .
By John Horn
The iconic image from " Watchmen," Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' ground-breaking graphic novel, is a yellow button sporting the familiar happy-face design. Next to the cheerful smile, though, you'll find a foreboding splatter of blood. ¶ That good-news-bad-news contradiction also fits the high-stakes legal tussle surrounding the movie version of the novel -- a film that holds great creative and financial promise but is now being overshadowed by a bitter copyright- infringement lawsuit that threatens "Watchmen's" distribution. ¶ Directed by Zack Snyder and starring Billy Crudup, Patrick Wilson and Jackie Earle Haley, "Watchmen" is one of the spring's most anticipated releases, and fan interest exploded after Snyder showed his film's trailer at July's Comic-Con in San Diego. The sprawling Cold War-era drama about a band of masked crime fighters is scheduled to arrive in theaters March 6, almost two years to the day after Snyder's global blockbuster "300" premiered. ¶ It's taken more than 20 years and any number of false starts to bring "Watchmen" this far along: Forsaken film adaptations include versions from directors Terry Gilliam ("Brazil"), Paul Greengrass ("The Bourne Ultimatum") and screenwriter David Hayter ("X-Men"), with countless script revisions along the way. Joaquin Phoenix was once considered for Crudup's starring part as Dr. Manhattan, the all-powerful but tortured soul at the center of the "Watchmen" story. Early screenplay costs and abandoned preproduction fees total close to $10 million, and no fewer than four studios have worked on the movie over the decades, including 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros., Paramount and Universal.
The film's long path to the screen factors prominently in the litigation and is at the center of another, far less public, "Watchmen" dispute between Paramount and Warners.
In the main case, 20th Century Fox believes that no matter how many hands "Watchmen" has passed through, Fox controls the right to make or, at the very least, distribute "Watchmen," even though Warners is currently producing and distributing the film.
As Fox sees it, Warners infringed on Fox's rights, and "Watchmen" producer Lawrence Gordon gave Warners rights he didn't possess. Warners says Fox's claim is baseless and, as one of its court filing says, "opportunistic" -- a last-minute, backdoor attempt to cash in on another studio's potential hit.
In Warners' view, Fox repeatedly declined to exercise any purported rights to become involved in the film during its various incarnations over the years, and in an e-mail even bad-mouthed the script that Warners greenlighted. The "Watchmen" case dramatizes the complex deal making that surrounds many high-profile projects and underscores how movie studios have grown addicted to comic-book franchises. In an era where "The Dark Knight" can generate $1 billion in global theatrical revenue, the well-executed superhero story has turned into Hollywood's Holy Grail. It's not just the box-office returns that are so meaningful to these kind of properties. A hit film can also sell truckloads of DVDs, help launch a theme-park ride, or generate millions in television sales. Fox, which has suffered through a demoralizing string of box-office flops this year, could desperately use such a movie. It felt its case against Warners was so strong it had no choice but to take the matter to court.
"They are not just fighting over 'Watchmen,' " entertainment attorney Mel Avanzado, who is not involved in the litigation, said of the duel between Fox and Warners. "They are also fighting over sequel rights. Whoever controls the franchise probably controls quite a bit."
As part of its legal strategy against Warners, Fox is trying to block "Watchmen's" theatrical release, claiming that it would cause the studio irreparable harm. The case has been scheduled for trial in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles in early January, but Fox and Warners are set to enter a non-binding mediation toward the end of November.
So far, though, the parties have not participated in any settlement talks, evidence that the legal skirmish -- just like the mysterious murders of key characters in "Watchmen" -- could grow more brutal before it gets better.
Living up to its 'unfilmable' tag
When DC Comics began publishing Moore (the writer) and Gibbons' (the illustrator) 12-part series in 1986, "Watchmen" took the comic book from the domain of pop entertainment into the realm of literary fiction. The comics were combined into a graphic novel that won the prestigious science-fiction Hugo Award and was listed by Time magazine among the top 100 modern English-language novels.
But everything that made "Watchmen" a landmark moment in the comic-book world also made it a daunting property for Hollywood. A story that unfolds over four decades with nearly a dozen major characters, "Watchmen" also takes place in an alternative reality where Richard M. Nixon was president well into the 1980s. The graphic novel told its story not just with illustrated panels and dialogue, but with faux primary documents, such as medical reports and excerpts from one character's autobiography. "Watchmen's" darkness was another issue: Was America ready to watch one superhero rape another?
While the visual style and interconnecting story lines of the "Watchmen" comics made it among the most cinematic comics of its era, the conventional wisdom was that its story was "unfilmable," as Snyder himself has often pointed out.
Nevertheless, not long after its publication, Fox acquired "Watchmen's" motion picture rights, and brought Joel Silver (who would later make "The Matrix") in as a producer. The studio hired several screenwriters to adapt the story, including Sam Hamm (" Batman") and Gilliam's "Brazil" collaborator, Charles McKeown, but the movie stalled in development.
The lawsuit hinges on what happened next, and the following is a summary of what Fox and Warner Bros. are alleging.
In 1991, Fox entered into an agreement with Gordon, a former Fox studio chief, under which Fox transferred some of its "Watchmen" rights to Gordon. The studio believes the 1991 deal gave Fox distribution rights to the film and a share of "Watchmen" and any sequel's profits if Gordon made the film elsewhere. Three years later, Fox entered into another agreement with Gordon, this time saying that Fox was putting the film in turnaround (meaning the studio would not be making it at the time and Gordon could try to sell the project to someone else), according to court documents and people close to the dispute. As Fox interprets that 1994 deal, Gordon wouldn't fully control "Watchmen's" production rights until he reimbursed Fox its development costs (with interest, now in excess of $1 million, Fox says), a payment Fox says Gordon never made. Furthermore, if Gordon changed any of the key creative elements behind "Watchmen" (such as director, screenwriter or principal cast), he was obligated to resubmit the movie to Fox, which would have a few days to rejoin the production if it wanted, the studio maintains. (Fox says Gordon never informed Fox of the change when Snyder came aboard.)
This "changed elements" clause is crucial to many turnaround deals, because it protects the studio that is walking away from a movie from being burned if the film is reincarnated as a more appealing production elsewhere. If a studio, for example, puts into turnaround some spy thriller starring Gary Coleman only to see a competitor recast the film with Will Smith, it's natural it would immediately want back in.
Changed elements clauses "have been around as long as I can remember," said entertainment attorney Daniel H. Black of Greenberg Traurig, a firm that is not involved in the "Watchmen" litigation. "The studio is saying, 'Look, as this project is currently configured, we are not going to pursue it.' But the changed elements clause is going to obligate me to come back to you and offer you a chance to come back in."
After "Watchmen" left Fox, it went through a number of changes.
Gordon brought the movie to Universal in 2001 with Hayter set to write and direct the film. Universal knew the film would be an expensive, visual-effects-heavy production, and never felt fully confident in its merits, according to a person familiar with "Watchmen's" time at Universal.
In 2004, the project migrated from Universal to Paramount, which (as is industry custom) paid Universal 10% of its "Watchmen" development costs for the chance to put the movie together, according to two people familiar with the deal; had Paramount made the movie, it would have been obligated to reimburse Universal the remaining 90% of the studio's expenses on the film's screenplay drafts.
At Paramount, "Watchmen" finally came to life. The studio was searching desperately for a way to cash in on the comic-book craze, having missed out on the boom that was generating profitable franchises at Sony (" Spider-Man"), Warners ("Batman Begins," " Superman Returns") and Fox ("X-Men").
Greengrass, who wanted Phoenix in the starring role, personally reworked Hayter's script, budgets were assembled and millions spent on scouting locations and building sets. But then Brad Grey took over as studio chief, and, concerned about "Watchmen's" script and $100-million-plus budget, shut the production down in June 2005, firing studio executive Donald DeLine while he was in London to meet with Greengrass to discuss the film's budget and script, according to people involved in the Paramount production.
The movie was homeless yet again.
In December 2005, around the time Fox allegedly passed on Hayter's script, Warners picked the movie up, and six months later named Snyder as its director. The fighting was set to begin. But it wasn't Fox and Warners that were clashing.
Paramount had allowed Warners to develop "Watchmen" without paying any of Paramount's development and preproduction costs (totaling close to $7 million) for a chance to co-finance the movie, several people close to the deal say.
But then Warners claimed that because Paramount had never fully reimbursed Universal for Universal's "Watchmen" costs, Paramount wasn't entitled to co-finance the movie with Warners, as it didn't control any rights to transfer, two people familiar with the matter say. After a skirmish of conversations between Paramount and Warners, the two studios agreed that Paramount would own 25% of the film and distribute it overseas.
Warners had no interest in making any such deal with Fox, both studios say. Fox sued Warners for copyright infringement in February of this year.
Fox's lawyers say they contacted Warners before production on the film began, with Fox telling Warners that its "Watchmen" deal violated Fox's 1991 and 1994 agreements with Gordon. But that was about as far as the discussion went, and there were no negotiations: whatever Fox was selling, Warners wasn't buying.
Warners says that it was unaware of the 1994 deal when it chose to produce the movie in 2006, and that Gordon may have forgotten to tell them earlier about the 1991 deal. Gordon's lawyer, Tom Hunter, who is among those being deposed in the case, did not respond to interview requests. While he is a key witness in the case, Gordon is not a party in the lawsuit.
Warners says Fox passed on the Hayter screenplay that Snyder filmed (with a rewrite by "Sucker Free City" TV writer Alex Tse), dismissing the script in an internal e-mail as "unintelligible" and with an even less flattering expletive. Warners also says that the 1994 agreement does not confer Fox any distribution rights and that Gordon ended up with all the "Watchmen" rights he needed.
U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess isn't so sure. In denying a Warners motion to dismiss the case last August, Feess said a key Warners argument "ignored a number of facts" and that "nothing on the face of the complaint or the documents . . . establishes that Gordon . . . ever acquired any rights in 'Watchmen.' "
Fox executives and lawyers point to another chain-of-title case they say proves Warners plays fast and loose with its movie rights. In a dispute before Feess over 2005's "The Dukes of Hazzard," Warners failed to get the underlying rights to the obscure movie (1975's "Moonrunners") upon which the TV show was based. Warners settled the case for $17.5 million after Feess said he would block the movie's release.
Where it goes from here
"They haven't stopped us," Snyder said in early October, after he had shown dozens of journalists some footage from his film and was asked about the lawsuit. "We are just acting like we're making a movie."
Even now that the movie is in postproduction and is stirring intense anticipation, "Watchmen" presents other challenges for its distributor. Its R rating will keep out some younger moviegoers who made multiple trips to the PG-13-rated "The Dark Knight."
And it very well may be hard to build a franchise like "X-Men"; the "Watchmen" movie has an ending that, like a comic-book version of "Titanic," hardly encourages a sequel no matter how good the grosses. A prequel certainly could be made but Snyder, a devoted fan of the graphic novel, has called it a terrible idea and vowed to oppose it.
As Snyder hurries to finish the film and "Watchmen's" release date approaches, the Fox and Warners lawyers continue battling over documents, depositions and the film's script, which Fox says Warners won't share.
It's unclear if Fox can really prevent Warners from releasing the film. Warners will likely ask Feess to dismiss the case once all the evidence is collected, a motion Fox is certain to oppose. The more likely outcome is Fox studio chief Tom Rothman or Warners' head Alan Horn striking some sort of compromise deal in which the studios share the movie's costs and proceeds. But because Warners already is sharing the portion of the film it didn't sell to Paramount with financing partner Legendary Pictures, the studio doesn't have that much to divvy up.
The Roman poet Juvenal centuries ago asked, "Who watches the watchmen?," his way of asking who controls those in authority. It's a central idea in Moore and Gibbons' graphic novel, but it has taken on a different meaning with the "Watchmen" lawsuit. Now lawyers and studio executives all over town are watching the "Watchmen," curious to see if Fox can somehow get back into what looks like Hollywood's next superhero blockbuster.
International Trailer here. (http://movies.sky.com/world-exclusive-brand-new-watchmen-trailer)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/business/media/25fox.html?_r=1
Judge Says Fox Owns Rights to a Warner Movie
By MICHAEL CIEPLY
Published: December 24, 2008
LOS ANGELES — In a surprise ruling, a federal judge in Los Angeles said he intended to grant 20th Century Fox's claim that it owns a copyright interest in the "Watchmen," a movie shot by Warner Brothers and Legendary Pictures and set for release in March.
The decision was disclosed in a five-page written order issued on Wednesday. Gary A. Feess, a judge in the United States District Court for Central California, said he would provide a more detailed order soon.
Fox has been seeking to prevent Warner from releasing the film. The superhero adventure, based on the "Watchmen" graphic novel, is being directed by Zack Snyder (who also directed "300") and has shaped up as one of most eagerly anticipated releases for next year.
A Warner spokesman, Scott Rowe, declined to comment on the ruling and the studio's plans.
At an earlier hearing, the judge said he believed that issues in the case could be settled only at a trial, which was scheduled for late January. On Wednesday, however, Judge Feess said he had reconsidered and concluded that Fox should prevail on crucial issues.
"Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the 'Watchmen' motion picture," the ruling said.
Fox acquired rights to the "Watchmen" graphic novel in the late 1980s for the producer Lawrence Gordon, but eventually dropped its own plan to make a movie from its story, about the underside of life for superbeings.
Mr. Gordon later pursued the project with Universal Pictures, and then with Paramount Pictures, before shooting it with Warner and Legendary under an arrangement that allows Paramount to distribute the film abroad.
In ruling on Wednesday, Judge Feess advised both Fox and Warner to look toward a settlement or an appeal.
"The parties may wish to turn their efforts from preparing for trial to negotiating a resolution of this dispute or positioning the case for review," he said.
Fox will fight for 'Watchmen' delay
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Warner Bros.' message to Fox regarding "Watchmen" copyright infringement can be summed up this way: Bring it on.
In a defiant statement issued Monday, Warners said it was prepared to go to trial or to appeal last week's ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess, who stated that the studio had infringed on Fox's copyright in making the adaptation of the Alan Moore superhero graphic novel.
"We respectfully but vigorously disagree with the court's ruling and are exploring all of our appellate options," the studio said. "We continue to believe that Fox's claims have no merit and that we will ultimately prevail, whether at trial or in the Court of Appeals."
Fox, meanwhile, is looking for an injunction against the March 6, 2009, release of the movie.
"Watchmen," directed by Zack Snyder ("300"), is one of Warners' tentpoles for next year, with a budget well north of the $120 million. While it is considered a seminal piece of literature with an appeal beyond the geek community, Warners has been carefully implementing a publicity campaign to generate word-of-mouth and awareness of the movie.
Both sides met Monday morning at the Los Angeles federal court, where Feess said he stands by the Christmas Eve ruling and also said he plans to hold a trial Jan. 20 to decide remaining issues such as damages, how far Fox's rights extend, and if to actually block the release of the movie.
Monday's events seem to be a speed bump to a costly settlement, with the hardline postures likely a strategic move for both sides more than anything else. Fox, which finally snapped a long boxoffice losing streak with "Marley & Me," gains most with a settlement, not a blocked release; the studio is already taking a beating in the geek blogosphere for messing with a fan-favorite property. Warners, meanwhile, could be on the hook for millions for developing and then filming a movie in which the film's producer, Larry Gordon, didn't pay Fox turnaround fees after allegedly reacquiring rights to the property.
"We are gratified by the recognition of our rights in the Judge's order, which speaks for itself," Fox said in a statement
Warners, Fox settle over 'Watchmen'
Under the agreement, Fox will not be co-distributor
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Geeks can now rejoice.
Warner Bros. and Fox have resolved their dispute over "Watchmen," with the studios scheduled to present a likely settlement to Judge Gary Feess on Friday morning and request that the case be dismissed.
Terms of the agreement will not be disclosed, but it is said to involve a sizable cash payment to Fox and a percentage of the film's boxoffice. Fox will not be a co-distributor on the film, nor will it own a piece of the "Watchmen" property going forward. The studios are set to release a joint statement announcing the agreement Friday.
A Warners spokesperson would not comment on the settlement. A Fox spokesman said no final deal had been reached.
Fox sued Warners in February, claiming copyright infringement based on agreements the studio had with producer Larry Gordon. Feess ruled on Dec. 24 that Gordon did not secure the proper rights to "Watchmen" from Fox before shopping the project and eventually setting it up with Warners. Feess' decision prompted settlement talks to heat up because Warners faced the prospect of an injunction stopping its March 6 release of the $130 million comic book adaptation.
While Gordon is not a party to the case, Warners is said to be pursuing the producer and his attorneys to reimburse it for the costs of the settlement. During the course of the litigation, Gordon's then-attorney admitted that he negotiated Gordon's 1994 separation from Fox without knowing about a pre-existing 1991 agreement on which Fox has based its lawsuit.
The rare showdown between studios became particularly nasty in recent weeks, with Gordon and the film's other producer, Lloyd Levin, lashing out at Fox for making a claim on the film. Fox repeatedly has stated that it asserted its "Watchmen" rights before Warners began production on the film and that it sued only when its assertions were ignored.
With the settlement giving Fox a piece of "Watchmen's" revenue, the studio now has a rooting interest in the film's success.
Dr. Manhattan retrospective circa 1970
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5cInmK6LQ
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifiwire.com%2Fpics%2Fwatchmen_finalonesheet.jpg&hash=ed751a1940256bb247f762bf078dfb045f6cd45a)
Visionary director.
Is that just another way of saying he makes pretty pictures, but that's about it?
Yes....yes it does.
Quote from: Stefen on January 28, 2009, 05:35:39 PM
Visionary director.
Is that just another way of saying he makes pretty pictures, but that's about it?
When I saw the words 'visionary' next to the title '300' I actually choked on a little bit of saliva in the back of my throat and spent the next several minutes coughing trying to get it out.
Quote from: private witt on January 29, 2009, 03:05:46 AM
Quote from: Stefen on January 28, 2009, 05:35:39 PM
Visionary director.
Is that just another way of saying he makes pretty pictures, but that's about it?
When I saw the words 'visionary' next to the title '300' I actually choked on a little bit of saliva in the back of my throat and spent the next several minutes coughing trying to get it out.
i dont know who you are but a large chunk of your 80 posts came in the past hour or so... you need to relax brotha
Aren't you all complaining that xixax is dead? You wouldn't tell me to relax if you agreed with me, would you?
Quote from: kal on January 29, 2009, 03:08:54 AM
i dont know who you are but a large chunk of your 80 posts came in the past hour or so... you need to relax brotha
aw, leave him be. post count is important these days. plus, his comment in the clive owen thread was pretty much a stroke of genius.
i agree with Jefferwho. rock on, witty.
Completely unrelated side note, I checked the xixax general stats and it says that in the last three months over 1,000 new users have signed up here. That's more than the last three years combined. Is this an anomaly, or did a bunch of people sign up and then forget about it?
Quote from: Jefferson on January 29, 2009, 01:12:00 PMpost count is important these days.
I don't we've ever stressed that. I think we are of the general concensus that one smart post is better than a series of dumb ones.
Not saying this is the case with Pvt. Witt. But I think since xixax started, we've always wanted valid and honest reviews and opinions rather than a bunch of "This was good" quips if that is all that one is providing.
Quote from: private witt on January 29, 2009, 02:50:45 PM
Completely unrelated side note, I checked the xixax general stats and it says that in the last three months over 1,000 new users have signed up here. That's more than the last three years combined. Is this an anomaly, or did a bunch of people sign up and then forget about it?
Spam.
Understood.
Quote from: private witt on January 29, 2009, 02:59:09 PM
Understood.
I was just playing brother. But if you have more posts that MacGuffin in a week our server will crash.
El ohh el. Does he actually write all those or is copying and pasting his lady of the night?
Macguffin makes it so that we don't have to visit any other site on the web to get the news we want.
Quote from: Stefen on January 30, 2009, 11:10:26 AM
Macguffin makes it so that we don't have to visit any other site on the web to get the news we want.
It really is nice. I love the irony of that name: MacGuffn.
90 sec clip: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/article2246642.ece
dammit. that's one of my favourite scenes in the book and he did it exactly the way i thought he would. 100% heroic. not a trace of awkwardness. :yabbse-sad:
Watchmen will come in long, extra-long and really extra long
Source: SciFi Wire
When Watchmen hits theaters on March 6, it will run about 2 hours and 37 minutes. But that will be only the first of several versions of the movie, which is envisioned for eventual home-video release on DVD and Blu-ray disc, director Zack Snyder and his wife/producer, Deborah Snyder, told reporters on Wednesday in Beverly Hills, Calif.
After the theatrical and IMAX release of the movie will come a "director's cut" home-video release, which restores scenes cut from the theatrical release and will run about 3 hours and 10 minutes, Zack Snyder said in a group interview. "There's a lot more like just connective tissue," he said.
"The 3-hour director's-cut version ... will be released actually as the first release of the DVD, probably around Comic-Con of this year [in July]," Deborah Snyder added.
Next will come a Blu-ray release that will have a special feature in which Zack Snyder pops up in video boxes on demand during a scene to illustrate the behind-the-scenes process of making the shot. "It's like a director's commentary, but it's actually him, and there's all these, like, boxes, right?" Deborah Snyder said. "They'll play the movie, and he'll point to a scene, and then they'll deconstruct the scene on all these monitors behind him ... where you can see, you know, the green-screen version of it, or, ... if it's Dr. Manhattan, you can see some great effects."
Accompanying the March theatrical release is the DVD release of the companion animated movie Tales of the Black Freighter, an adaptation of Watchmen's comic-within-a-comic.
Finally, in the fall will come the "ultimate Watchmen cut," which will interpolate the Black Freighter into the movie, much as the graphic novel incorporates it into the book's narrative, including special scenes shot to take viewers into the animation and out of it again. That version could run as long as 3 hours and 25 minutes, Zack Snyder said. "It's pretty ginormous," he added.
"[For] that version of the movie, ... when we were up there [in Vancouver], we physically shot the ins and outs scenes at the newsstand that go into the movie," Zack Snyder said. "There's ... scenes where our characters pass the newsstand, and then we pick up action at the newsstand that gets us into ... The Black Freighter. And then ... shots where you, like, go into it, and then it comes to life, and you start following the Black Freighter story. And then come back into the movie."
And after that? Special commemorative packaging? Discs packaged with the graphic novel? "I know that they're planning a lot of things," Deborah Snyder said. "And I did see—I'll share it—I did see these, like, crazy Rorschach cases and Owl Ship cases that may come. I mean, it's kind of insane, some of the things. ... There's also some other material. There's a really great documentary that we've been working on ... that talks about vigilantism, and it talks about [real] people, ... like, it talks about Bernhard Goetz, and it talks about the Guardian Angels, and it talks about also some people that are dressing up and going out and fighting crime, like in the country, like, that's what they do. Like, one's a bounty hunter. It's pretty interesting. So there are some fun things."
VERY SPOILERY RUMOR/SPECULATION ABOUT MOVIE'S ENDING
i've been hearing that snyder has removed the squid from the ending of the book and replaced it with a series of bombs or something boring like that. what the fuck? i felt like i was believing an idiotic rumor, and then i saw this:
"The fans, god love 'em, they're all up in arms about the squid," said Snyder. "What they should be up in arms about are things like shooting the pregnant woman, 'God is real and he's American', whether THAT'S in the movie. That's my point of view, maybe I'm crazy."
"The squid was not in the movie when I got the script, the squid was never in any draft that I saw," continued Snyder. "My point is only that there was this elegant solution to the squid problem that I kind of embraced. I'm a fan of the thing as much as anyone, I was saying what are we going to do about this before I even read the script."
more here http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/11/10/zack-snyder-confirms-watchmen-ending-to-be-changed/
this is a bunch of bullshit. it doesn't matter if it's a joke because even if he DOES include the squid, the movie is still going to end with the soul-crushing sounds of MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE COVERING BOB DYLAN'S DESOLATION ROW.
fuck this movie.
Quote from: modage on February 18, 2009, 09:57:35 AM
90 sec clip: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/article2246642.ece
as bad as i'm expecting this to be, that scene makes me feel worse about the money i'm inevitably going to spend to see it.
agreed. midnight imax here i come!
This flick was doomed from the beginning. It was especially doomed once it was confirmed it was being helmed by a hack who values style over substance.
I predict it'll win a lot of MTV Movie Awards so it's got that going for it at least.
Rorschach in action (http://www.latinoreview.com/news/cool-film-clip-from-watchmen-6219)
Quote from: MacGuffin on February 19, 2009, 10:32:50 AM
Watchmen will come in long, extra-long and really extra long
No shit, 95% of every damn thing I've seen is in slo-moe...
haha.
I don't know if it'll be good, but I think Snyder's a better choice than either Aronofsky or Greengrass. With the exception of excessive slow motion, I think it'll be as good an adaptation as it probably could be (excepting an HBO mini-series), and I'm fine with the lack of squid too.
This will probably suck and I'm sick of it already... too many ads everywhere...
So yesterday I saw this, well the firsts 4 chapters of the animated (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1322240/) thingy they did last year and it's pretty good (so far).
some spoils
It's a verbatim adaptation of the book and has every single frame of the comic, the images have little movement (like those old marvel cartoons) and it's narrated by one guy, at first it bothered me a little that he also did the female voices, but got over that pretty fast, the thing is pretty long, the four chapters I saw lasted almost two hours and they went by pretty quick, the best here is the 1st chapter that has a lot of Rorschach and the dawn of doc Manhattan, that part where he talks about time while in mars and all that is amazing. All in all, I can't believe how good is this, when I first heard about it thought wouldn't work at all but it really does.
We'll see if the feature is as good as this.
the motion comics ARE really great. i just finished today. the way they handled the last two chapters was near-perfect. the opening of chapter 12.. i don't think snyder has it in him to take that incredible but simple approach. i wish they'd gotten rid of the speech bubbles altogether and yeah hired at least ONE actress, but i'm pretty sure based on the clips of the movie this'll be the better adaptation. it's stupid that some unknown may have adapted the material better but.. at least we got these.
I have never read Watchmen, though I've borrowed it on multiple occasions. This seems like a good way to rectify that... and get a free movie ticket, too.
I wouldn't expect something like this to work, so I'm very happy for this recommendation.
I got it on blu-ray and its spectacular. I heard over and over again that the ending in the film is tamer than the comic. I'm seeing it friday morning at 3:25AM at a IMAX theatre. So I'll tell ya soon.
impressive that this was worse than i anticipated it being. will say more once more people have seen it.
Exactly as I expected. A loud yawn, minus two sequences that I thought were pretty cool. Hollywood had to get this out of its system, and this is probably the least offensive version they could muster. It'll pass quietly.
Quote from: Ghostboy on March 06, 2009, 03:27:37 AM
A loud yawn
a sleeper for me. literally. when i woke up at the end tho, those about, in and out of my party seemed to enjoy it quite much.
Quote from: samsong on March 06, 2009, 02:48:31 AM
impressive that this was worse than i anticipated it being. will say more once more people have seen it.
did you see it across the street at Lincoln Square too?
nope. went to the regal at union square.
So. Much. Anticipation. I started watching the Watchmen 5 years ago, following news of the film and wondering what shape it would take. The short version: I liked it. It was not without its flaws, but I did respect it.
The opening credits are the highlight of the film. As much as you may have heard about them, you still have to see it. They are stunning. While at first the music choices did seem odd to me, a few bars into Simon & Garfunkel's The Sound of Silence something struck me and I began to love it because the music did stick out. It made me think about what I was watching, not as a superhero movie, but as a satire of pop culture of the last 40 years. It's hard to hate on any of the changes from the book, mostly because outside of the "squid controversy" (which didn't bother me), I didn't notice them. I did think the story needed a little more adapting to make sense as a film. Some of Rorshach's voiceover a little too hard boiled, the chronology is sometimes confusing and the characters emotions take a backseat to the action sequences. But the movie did a great job for the first 2 hours convincing me I was not going to be seeing the superhero film I was used to. Until the last act, when the film started to resemble exactly that kind of movie. A fistfight between heroes and villains is not a satisfying ending to a film about ideas. It's climax fails where The Dark Knight succeeded. But even before the end of the film I spent a little bit of time with this question circling in my head: Will I care about what has happened to any of these characters by the time I leave the theater? Unfortunately, if the film has a central problem, this is it.
I wonder what kind of film Christopher Nolan would have made. Or previously attached directors Darren Aronofsky, Paul Greengrass or even Terry Gilliam. While the version we got was almost certainly the most faithful, and visually stunning, it was likely the least involving emotionally. These characters are supposed to be human, just like us, but seem to be invincible when they put on their costumes. This is not a Spider-Man film about a hero strugging to deal with his superhuman responsibilities. These people have no superpowers or special abilities. What kind of person chooses to put on a costume and fight crime? This is one of the central ideas explored in the book that I felt was mostly overlooked in the film. Sure Nightowl is impotent and Silk Spectre has Mommy issues, but even Peter Parker is a nerdy outside of his suit. Watchmen was supposed to dig deeper into the psychology of these flawed characters and show us why they chose to put on these costumes. Seeing them fight awkwardly and fail instead of with assurance and with superstrength could've given the film the humanity it needed to feel closer to the characters. At 2 hours 40 minutes the film is certainly epic, but not always involving. It must be admired from a distance.
spoils
- the first 2/3rds of this almost had me convinced they could pull off the story in a different/distilled way with almost the same kind of resonance (+ or - a few bad choices), then in the last 3rd (prison break onward) they utterly drop the ball on some of the most important stuff.
- but right off the bat they RUINED silk spectre and they RUINED ozy. silk spectre is an idiot. there's no reason manhattan would be interested in her. she's just a vapid, totally not mysterious, sexed-up woman. it's disgraceful this shit is still happening today. ozy meanwhile is THE MOST OBVIOUS VILLAIN EVER. the genius of that character is how collected and unflappable he is. how he considers himself the good guy through and through. there is not one 'literal' thing about the translation of that character. he couldn't be more opposite. it is amazing how much they ruined those characters, yet got others spot-on or close. the plight of dr. manhattan was reflected pretty well. and his look and voice and the sound design around him was wonderful, and kind of original even, in crudup's voice/physicality. hailey KILLS as rorschach. near-perfect performance. it's unfortunate how edited for time his backstory is. his motivation, so delicately and wonderfully described in the book, is lacking. no explanation of the mask either. the comedian is also very well-delivered.. nite owl lies in the center of the messed-up to great spectrum. he's well-acted and his look/attitude is just about right, but they turn him into more of a buffoon and since spectre is an idiot, his arc is less interesting.
- i agree with mod about the opening credits. i was astounded.
- i found myself looking at my watch a lot in the final hour. not out of boredom, but out of oh-shit-they-only-have-this-much-time-left-to-convey-all-this-information!!! i still believe there could be a way to distill this story. but they stretched out so many unnecessary parts. mainly extended fight scenes. and owl sex. and naturally other things suffered because of these odd choices. for example...
- the mars argument is BUTCHERRRRRRRRED hard. it's one of the most powerful sequences in the book, but because they've made spectre into such an idiot, she can't have this wonderful argument with manhattan, at first showing how supremely annoying he can be, and then getting him to change his mind by being true to herself and reflecting the preciousness of humanity... that and it's obviously being edited for time. all this adds up to make manhattan's mind-change fall sooooo flat, like it's an arbitrary thing he just made up. and the comedian-father reveal is extremely unclear at first and feels like a tacked-on revelation.
- the ending is severely messed-up. the decision to replace the squid with manhattan isn't bad and gives manhattan better motivation to leave. i'm not knocking that. the presentation of the 'evil' scheme is extremely unclear in the new way its written because the use of manhattan is never stated until afterwards. so he's not explaining his 'masterstroke' at all anymore really. the decision to make all the tv's play one news clip is dumb. there must be a cacophony of news sources gradually confirming world peace! the pure nixon address is silly and unreal. and nite owl trying to save shach and coming back and having ANOTHER fight sequence.. UGH. eveyone must be in SHOCK! at how brilliant ozy's plan was and how many people died!!!!! instead it's just so.. messy. everything about it lacks the precision of the original final act. and flat-out cutting the final love scene and the last confrontation between ozy and manhattan... it's just bad storytelling. it's garbled. the amazingness is lost because it's so confused and poorly revealed..... the other big problem with the last act of the film is because we've lost all these secondary characters or they've been reduced to almost nothing, we don't feel like the WORLD is at stake. it's more like these bunch of crazy people playing a game with each other. we know nothing of the real people they're fighting for. the real sense of dread/danger/scope is lost because of this.
maybe i'll write more later. i really thought this was going to be a cool/adequate version more than halfway through. but i left feeling more negative than mixed. even though there's so much in those first 2/3rds that feels so right.
Saw this last night - very hit and miss for all the reasons already stated.
The opening credits really do happen to be the most shining moment of the film (just like Snyder's Dawn of the Dead opening/closing credits) ... I've watched them two more times since last night.
http://chud.com/articles/articles/18407/1/THE-AMAZING-WATCHMEN-OPENING-CREDITS-ARE-ONLINE/Page1.html
I might be in the minority who loved this film....like when GT hated 'There will be blood'...and maybe this review (since its so long) should be in the green screen area, but screw it.
I'm not a huge fan of most comics. The only ones I read though as a kid was 'Batman' and 'The Flash'. I was very attached to them. They were my favorite. I need to get back into them. There was a certain smell to comics in general that always appealed to me. Two week ago, right after I thought I was going to read 'The Straw Men', I suddenly felt the urge (since I read all about 'Watchmen') to buy the Graphic Novel and the complete motion comic. I was engaged. I was involved. I was officially hooked on comics again. A side note, I need to read Frank Miller's comics to see if he really just stick to doing his own comics.
I've always found that most Comic Book Movies aren't really grounded in reality, not the way I wanted them to be and they had such on the nose dialogue. ('Watchmen' does too, but it makes up for it being ballsy in other areas.) Thats why I got rid of my 'spider-man' DVD's. After rewatching them I wondered why I had them...Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker is such a whiny bitch...I like Tobey though. 'X men', while above average, weren't my cup of tea. I'm just saying that flat out.
The first 'Superman' had an iconic touch to it. It felt so right that Christopher Reeves was Superman. It was perfect. He even had the look and since it was such a touchtone role, I could understand the frustration from fanboys when they heard of this Brandon Routhe playing him in 'superman returns'. On the other hand, you had to go with an unknown in the film. No other star in Contemporary Cinema could trump Reeves and rightly so...so no other actor would touch it with a ten foot pole. I won't touch the sequel's because aside from the second one that came out two years later, the rest are dismal. The only reason why I have 'superman returns' on Blu-ray is because kevin spacey is in it and I consider him one of the greatest actors of his or any generation.
The First two 'Batman' movies by Burton brought a okay campy-ness that way overdone in the 'Spider-man' movies. And we all knew Jack stole the show, turning his performance in the 1989 into a humorous, extremely memorable one. The same goes to Danny Devito and Michelle Phieffer but to a lesser extent. I won't mention the third and fourth Batman because they are utterly terrible as we all know. When I heard the news that a new Batman film was in the works, I was hesitantly excited, knowing how much I cherished the first two. 'Batman begins' was an origin story that was less focused on any villians and more of how Bruce became batman. Maybe I'm alone here but I felt there was too much back story. It didn't entirely feel like a batman story. It spend way too much time building Bruce's training. 'The Dark Knight' was such a huge feat in that it had everything you wanted in a superhero film and yet it really wasn't one. Not in the conventional sense. 'Heat' was the best comparison. So, while 'The Dark Knight' had some flaws (the overtly technical gizmos didn't work for me), its a 95% perfect film.
My actual review:
Some people I have talked to over the day today were comparing 'TDK' to 'Watchmen' and while I see the similarities I can't condone or comprehend the fights and the anger I saw in people's eyes. You could feel the complacent frustration in the air between two such geeks and before I had to bolt out of there I felt a very fat man and a very skrawny kid were going to through down. A really strange image. The only heavy similarities that I could pick up on were that one they were trying to have full realized characters the other being trying to bring the absurd and the rediculous to a more grounded reality. 'TDK' achieves those two requirements. 'Watchmen' however does not, although not for lack of trying.
The characters were there, just not fully flexed as they could have been. There's always going to be the heavy comparison between the book, which everyone should read and the film. While I agree that that the graphic novel is a bit better and has a slightly different ending, the film is a entire entity unto itself. Thats what those geeks in the street didn't realize when they were muttering to themselves. Its also what Stephen King could never understand about what Kubrick did with 'the shining'. Turning his story about a alcoholic novelist failed teacher battling with inner demons and outer ghosts into THE epic freudian horror film. Getting back to the characters...Laurie Jupiter, the older incarnation of Sally Jupiter (I love you Carla Gugino, but your makeup sucks) the characterization of Richard Nixon are the only weak characters. The rest of the actors do what they can with their characters. Rorshock (Jackie Earle Haley) and Nite Owl (patrick wilson), are quite amazing when they are portrayed by their respected actors.
Its overstylized but it works on a visual level because its so identical to the comic and therein lies the other problem. Some of the dialogue is exactly what Alan moore wrote in the comic and some of what he wrote in the comic is stilted but I was expecting that since I'm so used to bad dialogue in comic book films.
I think Snyder was the only guy who could have done this comic book film but he gave it so much justice that it felt out of place in some parts. Some obsessive freaks and fan boys were pissed about the differences in the ending. Frankly I think its fine but I have a problem that if Zack was so faithful to almost everything else, why go and change the ending? Maybe it wasn't his say and we will see something different in the director's cut.
Overall, I loved it. Its a step in the right direction as far as comic book films go, along with the 'the dark knight', not that I'm comparing, as to what I mentioned above.
A great spectacle of a film thats as hollow as all hell.
P.S. The credit sequence was one of the highlights of the whole 163 minutes.
What? No one wants to say that I'm completely fucking wrong?? Debate me? Debase me? Huh? Huh?...I Miss Pubrick
Saw this on friday and thought it was a pretty great time at the movies. I think this compares favorably to every post-millenial comic book movie other than the Hulk. Yeah Dark Knight included.
I went in with very low expectations (I actually thought I'd just take a look and get a refund in the first half hour) and was pleasantly surprised by how much it didn't suck. The book has been a favorite since I read it in 2001, and I've probably read it once more since then, but not recently, and I wasn't particularly concerned with the faithfulness of the adaptation, though if I were I can't imagine I could've been much happier. It seemed like a pretty faithful retelling, save for the Alien/Manhattan switch, which I thought made good sense and fit quite nicely. The book is obviously a much more fascinating and perfect beast than the movie but I think both are successful in their own way. The book is a masterpiece of super-hero conspiracy fiction, the movie is a kick-ass sprawling summer blockbuster.
This movie was just the right blend of action, drama, humor, envelope pushing, and stylistic daring for a big budget tentpole extravaganza. Almost all of which have left me completely bored in the last many years. Sure the ending was a little crappy but certainly no crappier than we're used to for this kinda film, and the first three quarters are pretty much bang-on.
Sure Silk Spectre was a little boring, performance and character-wise, but I thought that was a small price to pay for some genuine sex appeal in a super-hero movie, which has been missing almost completely since Tim Burton stopped making them. And I mean seriously there was even titties and a full blown sex scene. Which was just goofy enough and just hot enough to be totally enjoyable for me. I also have to say it seemed like Dr. Manhattan's schlong was making a lot of people uncomfortable, but I was very glad to see this much penis in a movie for once. I can't think of a movie with more penis shots, and I've gotta give props there too.
I thought most of the performance were quite fine, Rorshach and Nite Owl and Dr. Manhattan especially. The Dr. Manhattan origin flashback with all the philip glass going on was very effective, I thought.
The action was well choreographed and easy to follow. The structure of the story was a bit of a mess but respectably ambitious. The musical selections were goofy at times but generally brought some (maybe unintentional) humor to those scenes which was much appreciated, given the probability that this was going to take itself way too seriously. I can gladly say that that was almost never a problem. I can imagine what Nolan would've done with this and if it were anything like his Batman movies I'm very glad we don't live in that reality.
Some complaints: the old-age make up was almost embarrasingly bad, the climax was a under-whelming, etc. But honestly I can't think of many things that bothered me during this. I don't think it's top 10 material but I can safely say I'll enjoy watching this again.
And yeah the opening credits were off the hook. That JFK bit, I was like :shock: :bravo:
Quote from: New Feeling on March 08, 2009, 01:20:04 AM
Sure Silk Spectre was a little boring, performance and character-wise, but I thought that was a small price to pay for some genuine sex appeal in a super-hero movie
why did we have to pay that price? just because you cast someone attractive-looking and put her in revealing latex doesn't mean you have to turn her character into a dolt as well. there are plenty of attractive actresses who can act, and sexy characters who can think.
i really just wanted to post this:
Watchmen Trailer: Sexy Editionhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CON1VkpRWRE
it's hilarious AND it predicted ebert's review! AAAAAAUGH!! is the best thing i've seen since the opening credits
Quote from: picolas on March 08, 2009, 04:06:20 PM
why did we have to pay that price? just because you cast someone attractive-looking and put her in revealing latex doesn't mean you have to turn her character into a dolt as well. there are plenty of attractive actresses who can act, and sexy characters who can think.
i really just wanted to post this:
Watchmen Trailer: Sexy Edition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CON1VkpRWRE
it's hilarious AND it predicted ebert's review! AAAAAAUGH!! is the best thing i've seen since the opening credits
Yeah, look at Natalie Portman. She's an attractive actress who can act like a sexy character who thinks.....I love that tobias funke was in the trailer.
Having not read the comic at all, I pretty much agree with mod's review. It didn't blow me away. A lot of emotion and themes were lost in transition. Characters should have been fleshed out more; some storylines/flashbacks, especially the structuring of them, came off as semi-confusing and distracting which lessened what the film was trying to say about us and our world. And, yes, the ending came down to what The Incredibles would call "monologuing." But any scene with Rorshach were the exception. His sequences without the mask were the movie's high points. The film, however, will not, should not, win any awards for make-up because Nixon and old Silk Spectre had awful prosthetics. Anthony Hopkins looked more like Nixon than this guy did. Overall, I did admire the film. It's unconventionality did make me go get the DVD comic to get the whole story.
I really liked it. It's the first film I've seen in IMAX, so that was really cool. It's fucking immaculate, and the sound is incredible. I feel like Zach Snyder sort of had an impossible task. For me, it was just like a living, breathing version of the book, which is why I left liking it. Even if that means it's not a good movie, and I'm pretty sure it's a subpar movie, but a great version of the book. Without deconstructing the text at all, it works pretty well. This would only be perfect in a mini series.
I think that the new ending is not only fine, but I like the elegance of it. I prefer it to the book, honestly. The squid felt more like a curveball, where as this really ties in elements for an audience that may not have read the book in a way that really works.
The actors are a joy to watch. Except Spectre. She's pretty awful, and hasn't got an ass whatsoever. My wife, who hasn't read the book, asked why the women were all slutty. At first, I said "you have to consider what kind of person would where that outfit to begin with." But then maybe that's giving them too much credit. I loved Patrick Wilson, just like I thought I would. I never thought of Dr. Manhattan the way he's voiced in the film, but it went beyond just depicting what's in the book. Dr. M is the one thing I think that made it beyond a basic translation.
The use of music was pretty off-putting at times. Leonard Cohen? Over a too-long sex scene? Hm.
Oh, and Nixon was so awful-looking it was distracting.
i might end up waiting until this movie is playing at the dollar theatre. i just can't bring myself to pay more than a buck to see it.
anyway, i'd rather be watching this: Watchmen Saturday Morning Cartoon (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/52ebda7fe1/watchmen-saturday).
Well, I thought I would hate it and I didn't hate it.
Could've/Should've been much better though.
Spoilers
Patton Oswalt recently posted a blog defending the movie (without having seen it yet), saying that the angry nerds need to calm down because there's no way the movie could be 100% like the book... but some of the real problems of this film are that it tries to be too much like the comic, which while fighting against the comic world still understands that's the world in which it exists. The movie seems to think that's where IT exists as well.
My main complaint about this movie is that it's basically a bunch of scenes from the comic poorly stitched into one big movie. Some of the scenes really work (almost everything Rorschach and when Dr. M first gets to Mars), but some fall really flat.
I can't decide which was more atrocious, the make-up or the needle-drops. Why couldn't they just get an older actress to play Sally Jupiter? That was ridiculous!
Also, the weight of the ending didn't work because the film was so distracted with cooling-up the characters that we didn't really see the what-if universe that existed around them. It just seemed like a straight-forward eighties instead of the nightmare that was portrayed in the book.
I guess I'll just reiterate what everyone else has said here... Nixon's makeup was so bad I thought they were trying to make it look comical on purpose, and the old Silk Spectre was such fucking terrible acting that it was obvious it was a young person playing an old person. I don't think I've ever even seen Carla Gugino in anything else and it was still obvious she was some 30something playing an old woman. I've never read the comic book at all so I don't have any gripes about the translation from comic to movie, I just thought the movie itself was bad. Everything apart from most of the parts with Doctor Manhattan and everything with Rorschach was just pretty pathetic and most of it had the audience laughing. The opening credits were awesome as most people have said... I don't have permission to post spoilers apparently:
SPOILER
At the part when Rorschach escapes from the prison and we see him follow the midget into the bathroom, when the camera pans back to the bathroom door I was thinking, "Please don't let there be blood spilling out the bottom of the door, Jesus Christ please don't it's too fucking predictable and obvious" and that's exactly what happened. That's how most of the movie went for me.
SPOILER
ugh.
I absolutely love the book, but I told myself I'd walk into the theatre excited for the movie. I was disappointed. Honestly, I was upset during the Comedian murder fight scene. That sequence should be quick and brutal, instead if was extremely stylized and silly. I guess that's my criticism of the whole film, the aesthetic was just too new and shiny, and not gritty and brutal the way the story plays out. There were moments where I was enjoying myself (most everything with Rosharch, opening credits), but the rest of the time I was surprisingly bored. This movie should have either been 2 hours and really a reimagined version of the story, or a 12 hour mini series on HBO that remained true to the book.
Whoa. A SHAFTR sighting?
Why is it that the movies we love (aside from films done by premiere directors) have such a short amount of pages and yet 'crash', 'boondock saints', 'donnie darko' and 'watchmen' have too many?
Quote from: Stefen on March 09, 2009, 07:37:19 PM
Whoa. A SHAFTR sighting?
It's been a long time, but I feel my knowledge of film is slipping, so I'm back for a re-education.
Quote from: SiliasRuby on March 09, 2009, 08:24:24 PM
Why is it that the movies we love (aside from films done by premiere directors) have such a short amount of pages and yet 'crash', 'boondock saints', 'donnie darko' and 'watchmen' have too many?
because it's more fun to bitch?
Quote from: ©brad on March 09, 2009, 10:12:08 PM
Quote from: SiliasRuby on March 09, 2009, 08:24:24 PM
Why is it that the movies we love (aside from films done by premiere directors) have such a short amount of pages and yet 'crash', 'boondock saints', 'donnie darko' and 'watchmen' have too many?
because it's more fun to bitch?
Possibly or maybe its because there many more ways to bitch about a film than to fawn over one.
Quote from: SHAFTR on March 09, 2009, 09:25:26 PM
Quote from: Stefen on March 09, 2009, 07:37:19 PM
Whoa. A SHAFTR sighting?
It's been a long time, but I feel my knowledge of film is slipping, so I'm back for a re-education.
And The 2009 Xixax Awards!!!
other than profit/spectacle/entertainment, what's the point in making this movie? i don't mean to talk too much shit because i enjoyed it, but why make a movie that is taken almost scene for scene, word for word from a comic? it's fun on a base level to see something you like on the big screen, but is there any art to the movie other than replicating things?
i don't wonder this about movies like revolutionary road (which i've seen and read) because, even though it follows the plot and dialogue pretty closely, you can tell someone still had to put some thought into it (messing with the time frame, minor changes in dialogue, actually visualizing the world of the novel, etc). but with the watchmen (haven't read, but my friend said it was about 98% like the book) it's just taking the comic, casting actors, and replicating scenes from the comic.
can anyone explain that to me?
the short answer is money.
watchmen the movie is lifeless and, well, retarded. first, the two or three things that i even remotely enjoyed. the opening credits were pretty beautiful until it entered the realm of the overtly and irresponsibly political. liked the dr. manhattan sequence replete with koyannisqatsi score and billy crudup's mastercard voiceover, and jackie earle haley was pretty awesome. my friends complained about rorsharch having christian bale's batman voice but i saw a video of alan moore reading from the book as rorsharch and he uses that exact voice, so whatever. not that it needs justification--it works.
the movie's only faithful to the book in that it replicates images/words and maintains plot, but it's so incredibly off in terms of ideology. the violence is absurdly gratuitous for no particular reason. for a movie with such high production value, i'm perplexed as to why the make-up is so horrendous. malin akerman should be banned from movies where she isn't the token nudity girl who gets no more than 2 minutes of screen time. matthew goode as ozymandias was always a stupid choice to me and it's as plain as day in the movie. patrick wilson's talented but seems to have the most limited range ever. he does the same whiny bitch shtick in every movie.
save for the dark knight, i haven't seen a big hollywood movie in recent years that didn't leave me underwhelmed and profoundly bored. this was certainly no exception.
Quote from: Stefen on February 19, 2009, 11:07:40 AM
This flick was doomed from the beginning. It was especially doomed once it was confirmed it was being helmed by a hack who values style over substance.
I predict it'll win a lot of MTV Movie Awards so it's got that going for it at least.
CALLED IT.
Quote from: RegularKarate on March 09, 2009, 12:09:32 PM
Patton Oswalt recently posted a blog defending the movie (without having seen it yet), saying that the angry nerds need to calm down because there's no way the movie could be 100% like the book...
Just read that blog and for the lazy I'll link it because it's awesome, not only what he says about Watchmen but he gives us wisdom on what's the real deal now on TV, and because he kept rooting for the wire all these years I'll believe anything this man recommends.
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=67077201&blogId=475266763
Quote from: samsong on March 10, 2009, 11:09:13 AM
save for the dark knight, i haven't seen a big hollywood movie that didn't leave me underwhelmed and profoundly bored.
like,
ever?
in recent years*
It was great visually but too fucking long and pointless. I would have enjoyed it more if it wasn't so long, or if I had any clue of what I was watching. I never read anything related or knew anything about the characters, which probably puts me in the same place as most people who are going to the movies to watch this.
As cliche as most of the dialogue was and the bad acting, I did like how the story fits with historical events and culture, and what they did with the music throughout the movie. It seemed so out of place sometimes that it was great.
Quote from: Fernando on March 10, 2009, 05:28:45 PM
Quote from: RegularKarate on March 09, 2009, 12:09:32 PM
Patton Oswalt recently posted a blog defending the movie (without having seen it yet), saying that the angry nerds need to calm down because there's no way the movie could be 100% like the book...
Just read that blog and for the lazy I'll link it because it's awesome, not only what he says about Watchmen but he gives us wisdom on what's the real deal now on TV, and because he kept rooting for the wire all these years I'll believe anything this man recommends.
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=67077201&blogId=475266763
Quote from: Patton OswaltSpeaking of the Nerd Mafia, where the fuck were you when Joss Whedon's terrific new series DOLLHOUSE premiered on, of course, Friday, February 13th? It's the THIRD time he's come up with a brilliant, kick-ass concept, broke his back bringing it to light, and then had a network a) put it in the death slot and b) shuffle the episode order. GET HIS BACK, people. Besides, I'm on it in two weeks. Do you really want to let the show get canceled, and miss Tahmoh Penikett kick the living crap out of me? The fuck else are you doing on a Friday night?
thaaaaat's right. WATCH IT!
watchmen was okay. the makeup looked a little too purposefully cartoonish to be called "bad." i hate IMAX.
What if Woody Allen had directed Watchmen?
http://www.slate.com/id/2212953/slideshow/2212955/fs/0//entry/2212956/
admin-edit: click the pic for more directors.
***Possible spoiler***
I enjoyed the film until the 80% mark then it went downhill. sure i have a problem with the ending, not the changes that were made regarding the major plot point that everyone bitches and moans about, in truth the ending that's in the movie kinda makes sense in a different way then the book, it exists on it's own which is nice.
my problem is with the tone and attitude of the characters. in the book the characters seem to all have a certain acceptance for reality that doesn't exist in the movie, like their pragmatic outlook at the end of the book is bleak and overflowing with a jaded apathy. the only character at the end of the books that has any good nature is Rorschach, who stands by his convictions regardless of the social and political climate. in the movie the others seem to side with him in their tone... it's a tricky subversion on the film makers part, that even though they don't state they side with Rorschach, they sit quietly in his corner. i don't like this, it's sneaky because the film maker or anyone defending this point could easily rely on subjectivity... and part of the finale was lost due to their now more moral dispositions.
anyway with all the bitching and moaning, it was a good movie, and realistically probably the best adaptation that any studio would have let happen. rather then everyone saying it's shit as a knee jerk reaction, maybe they should look it over again. i just wished it kept it's anticlimax mood, and somehow tried to get that very point across.
-sl-
this was my first imax experience...they built a new one here and its very nice...it even has that stacker game in the arcade section..you know the game where you gotta stack the blocks that are moving on top of each other to the top to win a prize..its fun and it reminds me of when i was a kid and going to showbiz pizza...i was one stack away from winning a Wii...well, enough of the lobby...the screen is fucking huge! i was not prepared for it...we sat in the second to last row in the rear....i can't believe how far back you have to sit to feel 'level'...but the stadium seating is awesome and the seats them selves are comfortable...
as for the film..ive never read the graphic novel...but i knew that the graphic novel has a huge cult of followers..and i new of the mystique of watchmen...but having not been familiar with the novel i wasnt sure what type of (disa)vantage point that would put me in...but i was excited to see some slick looking shit..(at least from the trailers)...and im a big fan of crudup and wilson...and i try to support their films...i even watch lakeview terrace :yabbse-undecided:.....anyways..i enjoyed this so much! this is one that stuck with me and i enjoyed that...i thought the look was incredible and very cool..the opening credits deserve all the praise they are getting..and the song choice was so out of place-spot on....and the Rorschach solo scenes are the film's highlist...i thought the story was interesting and i was completely SPOILERS>>>>>>>caught of guard by the ending, i was thinking of the typical hero saves the day<<<<<<<<<<<END SPOILERS...............from reading the posts here it seems to be a very negative view on the film...i guess its because all you can/could never translate something of this cult status onto the screen and please the majority...i guess i might feel the dame as you guys if the john woo metroid film ever sees the light of day.....but then i read comments where the film was very faithfully translated from novel to screen...i cant wait for the triple dip on blu-ray
Quote from: pyramid machine on March 19, 2009, 10:03:12 PM
i cant wait for the triple dip on blu-ray
You and me both buddy, you and me both.
There's a very interesting article in the current issue of Creative Screenwriting looking at how they went about adapting Watchmen for the screen, and it seems a lot of the changes made do make sense from a screenwriting perspective. I have yet to see the film, so I can't give a personal opinion yet. To be honest, I've been put off by the reviews on here. I'd like to see it soon though, just to look at how they managed to translate it from the novel. Btw, for those really unhappy with the translation, it could have been a lot worse: one executive wanted it to become a buddy movie between Dreilberg and Rorschach. On the whole, it seems everyone involved in crafting the screenplay was a fan of the source material first, and wanted to be as faithful as possible to the source, whilst trying to make it effective as a film. As for the new ending, after reading how they came to that point it makes total sense from a theoretical perspective.
spoils!
it's not the theory behind the new ending that's fucked up. it's the incredibly sloppy execution. you never really get the sense MILLIONS of people have died. they go back into a crazy slo-mo fight after. no overwhelming sense of shock like in the book. just another opening for a fight. it's incredibly bad taste. yes it could've been worse, and some parts i loved. but the ending is a piece of shit. aside from rorshach's last lines. and the big 'splosion.
Yeah, Rorschach's reaction was the only sign that the filmmakers even gave a thought to the actual implications of the ending. I liked the movie all in all, but Jackie Earl Haley really had to carry a lot of the thing on his back.
Personally, I thought that despite all they had cut out, there was nothing substantially missing. If anything, I thought the film could have been much leaner. There is so much going on, whilst other might consider it sacrilege to suggest further cutting, I think it would have been possible. The many, oh so many, transitions into various characters' backstories, flashbacks to the 40's, to Vietnam, inevitably slowed the film down. So much so, that by the time were done with them, it feels like we're just about getting going, whereas in fact the climax is upon us. I understand that much of the information garnered from those flashbacks is essential to inform us of things we need to know to understand the larger mechanics of the story.
But adaptation is not that simple. It's not an easy task, I know that. But just because you're adapting from a medium that looks like a movie storyboard doesn't mean that you can just follow that exactly. Cuts that will anger the fans of the source material have to be main in order to preserve the integrity of the story so that it works in this new medium of film. As it is, you have to strain to pay attention and understand how all the pieces fit together. Lots of the pieces shown are largely irrelevant. There are multiple ways of showing character. We don't need to see one of Rorschach's previous investigations, or - hell - even his childhood, to understand that he has a rigid moral code which he will live by until his death. No matter what. Yes, it might help the audience sympathize with him to learn of details from when he was growing up, but do we really benefit from any of those visions? Could the same effect of sympathy not have been created by some other means for the sake of it working better within the medium of film? I propose that it could have been far more efficient to show the adult Walter Kovacs before we know that he is Rorschach, as we do in the novel. A pathetic doom-obsessed loner. The revelation then, that he is Rorschach resonates far more effectively in the book because we have seen his existence outside of the mask. That is what makes us feel empathy for him most greatly. Yes, the glimpses of his childhood are informative, but we don't need to know. They don't add anything. I'm just using the Rorschach elements here as an example. There are many more characters and flashback elements which could have been handled far more succinctly for Watchmen to work better as a film.
The problem is one that we come across time and again. Look at the Harry Potter movies. You can just take an article from one medium and transplant it into another. It doesn't work that way. It's not that simple. The result, as with Watchmen, is that it is a disappointment. Of course, I completely understand, having read the graphic novel, that Watchmen is a particularly difficult article to adapt to the screen. And as with any beloved book (or cartoon, or TV show) you're gonna anger some fans by the changes you make. But the final product will be all the better for it. As it is, although it had its faults, I didn't hate Watchmen the movie, but I doubt I'll ever watch it again in my life.
One aspect of the film, though, I feel I must champion is the change made to the ending. Without spoiling anything, let's just say in the book the climax pivots on an alien element which is introduced only within the final pages of the story. In the film they've done away with that concept completely, and instead reframed the denouement on an element already firmly established within the world of the Watchmen. It works. It covers all the bases, leaves the larger framework intact, and satisfies the movie audience far more successfully than introducing a brand new thing right at the end of the movie. In a recent interview for Creative Screenwriting magazine, the two writers defended the change for the film version. "It was a solution that happened to fit in perfectly with the puzzle pieces that had to be there," Hayter said. "The result is the same, which is important," said Tse. "I can defend it a million different ways as to why it still accomplishes exactly the same thing."
It's a shame neither extended that attitude to the rest of the picture.
When are you clowns gonna stop wasting your money on shitty hollywood adaptations of graphic novels and comic books? Face it, THEY ALL FUCKING SUCK. Dark Knight was good, but only the parts with Heath Ledger. The rest was boring as watching Lost and 24 at the same fucking time.
Man shoots himself during "Watchmen" movie
Eugene (KMTR) – A man shot himself to death in a Eugene movie theater just after midnight Monday morning.
Police say about 10 patrons were in an auditorium at Regal Cinemas watching the movie "Watchmen." About midway through the film some of the moviegoers told the manager they heard a "popping" noise like a gunshot. A 24-year-old man was found in the rear of the auditorium with a gunshot wound to the head.
Police say the man shot himself and was dead when they arrived.
The patron closest to the man was sitting two rows away.
R.I.P. Alan Moore.
hahaha :bravo:
Yeah, that was perfect Stefan.
well that is one movie I would've loved as a teenager.
that sex scene was pretty funny with Leonard Cohen playing in the background. Also WTF Sound of Silence during the Comedian's funeral ???? weird soundtrack.
Too bad they chose Snyder, the fight scenes sucked it looked as though the heroes had super-powers.
Dr Manhattan was really cool though, lots of good lines. Especially the termite line near the end, good stuff.
I'm probably gonna watch the director's cut when it comes out, just to say how much further to the right this one can go ! It's gonna be funny to see college kids who fancy themselves as leftists/liberals claim they love this and 300, really far right movies.
Quote from: Pas Rap on April 09, 2009, 11:12:00 PM
I'm probably gonna watch the director's cut when it comes out, just to say how much further to the right this one can go !
could you elaborate? that sounds terrible.
i can't say i'm surprised. the
V for Vendetta movie was a shameful misrepresentation of anarchism and
From Hell's philosophical content was practically excluded outright to convert the book into a whodunit mystery movie.
a while back, before he went off to explore the universe, cronopio posed this question..
Quote from: cron on July 26, 2008, 04:04:48 AM
how do you guys feel about the fact that this stuff will be super mainstream now?
recently i saw the latest issue of Maxim: "WATCHMEN'S SEXIEST SUPERHERO UNMASKED" - with a free poster inside!
a few weeks back, i went into Hot Topic to search for the ultimate piece of Watchmen merchandise. i looked at the action figures on the stands.. the t-shirts and the posters.. i thought "wow, Zach Snyder is the Ozymandias to Alan Moore's Rorschach" and then, hanging on the wall by the Greenday and AFI shirts, i spotted this:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Fwatchmenrecord1.jpg&hash=b594ce6e8986a0b26eb3c7fa6c8fac73f8969c07)
My Chemical Romance's
Desolation Row, on vinyl.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2F20090225-ozymandias.jpg&hash=7319f53f71b15556c335122b65de83edd6750c2e)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Fiiu.jpg&hash=d36827ac2005cb1e0c6cba888bda1a187a1adc1d)
i still kinda want that rorshach figure.
Oh golly, i hate it when things go 'mainstream'
or even worse "super mainstream"
what a travesty...poor poor over sensitive fan boys, that can't let anything go...
I am so so sorry,
i would love to post how i feel about this film, but unfortunatly it doesn't belong here...
Quote from: Neil on May 12, 2009, 12:02:31 PMi would love to post how i feel about this film, but unfortunatly it doesn't belong here...
you do realize that's an incredibly, undeniably shitty attitude, right? what an obvious pile of shit.
Quote from: picolas on May 12, 2009, 12:46:11 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 12, 2009, 12:02:31 PMi would love to post how i feel about this film, but unfortunately it doesn't belong here...
you do realize that's an incredibly, undeniably shitty attitude, right? what an obvious pile of shit.
you got me.
and undeniably inspired me to change my
life attitude attitude and my life.
Awe inspiring
I just like the film, and am reading the graphic novel.
The graphic novel is fucking amazing, probably one of the best things I've ever read(less than 20 pgs to go!!!).
The movie obviously cannot hold a candle to the graphic novel, and maybe some of us are jealous because we wish we could have made the film(hopefully "better"?). However, with one viewing in IMAX, I'm still with ghostboy(maybe?) in the idea that this is the best attempt at the beautiful story hollywood could shit out, but the movie is not the graphic novel, and where this may not a groundbreaking concept, i have no desire to compare the two. To me it seems comparing the two is what is going on here mostly. That's why it "wouldn't belong" nothing personal, no need to wear your heart on-line here. The novel exists as something untouchable, or separate from this film THAT THE CREATOR LEFT HIS NAME OFF. sure, they left out a great deal of good story, but that's why the graphic novel came first, it was a real artists idea. I doubt i would have enjoyed regurgitation of dialogue, that entire idea catches hell too, and even though this film is a bit long, and lacks the things mentioned in this thread. For a "hollywood" film, i personally feel this movie achieved many things that most "popular" films haven't even contemplated.
it doesn't belong anywhere, I'm not collegiate, i cannot be articulate enough with my words, most of you are much sharper with your chops. That's why it doesn't belong, it may not fit some criteria. i don't really agree or connect with 85% of the things expressed. i don't dislike them, i consider them informative, just don't feel the same way, which is fine, I'm just not very good at getting my thoughts out yet.
now look what you've done. A bunch of words with no content. you.
okay good. but eliminating the graphic novel from your mind, the mars argument is still soooo poorly handled, and the ending is still soooo confused, and the fact that these people are seemingly indestructible fighters makes them non-human, no? i think you can separate the talk of the book from the criticism and still have a valid criticism of the film itself.
Quote from: picolas on May 12, 2009, 01:37:44 PM
okay good. but eliminating the graphic novel from your mind, the mars argument is still soooo poorly handled, and the ending is still soooo confused, and the fact that these people are seemingly indestructible fighters makes them non-human, no? i think you can separate the talk of the book from the criticism and still have a valid criticism of the film itself.
i feel like eliminating the graphic novel from my mind allows the mars argument to not exist. and yes.the whole "why would a person with normal human attributes take up crime fighting, and how do they do this" was poorly handled. but the themes other than superheroes' shit were tackled better. i think at least more so.
i completely agree with most of the criticisms with the book and the film, but like previously discussed. the character of silk spector makes Dr Manhattan look like a douche of a human, more so than the so called "non-superhuman" heroes. and that is why the mars scene had to be butchered.not a justification, just a point of, had they made the mars convo up to it's full potential, it would have been melodrama or some thing like that, ya know, you can't bring depth into a situation with a one dimensional piece of eye candy and the genius to top all brilliant minds, does that make sense?
Every statement that is saying the movie lacked something from the novel is 100% accurate, but we have to understand the complexity that the graphic novel tackles. and i believe this film can be under serious scrutiny, i mean anyone who can take my chemical romance seriously in a cinematic moment like that one needs fired, or burned at the stake, if i was an exec and someone said MCR IS GOING TO COVER DYLAN (and desolation row no less) i would have told him or her they had five minutes to gather their things before i called security. I just feel like the majority of the criticism of the film is under the light of the novel, so you're totally right, the film isn't perfect, i personally think it could've been about 3 movies. however.
Warner has just officially announced the DVD and Blu-ray Disc release of Watchmen for 7/28. Available will be single-disc DVD, 2-disc DVD special edition and 2-disc Blu-ray versions (SRP $28.99, $22.95 and $35.99). The single-disc DVD will include just the theatrical cut of the film. The 2-disc DVD will feature a new cut of the film that's 25-minutes longer, along with The Phenomenon: The Comic That Changed Comics documentary, 11 "making of" webisodes and My Chemical Romance's Desolation Row music video. You'll also get a Digital Copy version of the film. The Blu-ray will include all of the 2-disc material, along with a BonusView Immersive Maximum Movie Mode of the film hosted by director Zack Snyder, as well as BD-Live features that can be shared with friends on Facebook.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedigitalbits.com%2Farticles%2Fmiscgfx%2Fcovers5%2Fwatchmen2discsedvd.jpg&hash=ce89a1a93043301569900e9112ff502dc8b68c00)
Quote from: Neil on May 12, 2009, 12:02:31 PM
Oh golly, i hate it when things go 'mainstream'
or even worse "super mainstream"
what a travesty...poor poor over sensitive fan boys, that can't let anything go...
I am so so sorry,
i would love to post how i feel about this film, but unfortunatly it doesn't belong here...
dude. you missed the point of my post. i wasn't even critiquing the film itself. cronopio asked that question before the film was released and i still haven't seen the stupid thing. i was observing contradictions between the ideas expressed in watchmen the book and the ideas exemplified by the film's production/mass marketing. i think you'd have understood this if you read the post more carefully. no need to sell yourself short by saying shit like "it doesn't belong anywhere, I'm not collegiate."
Quote from: MacGuffin on May 12, 2009, 09:15:41 PM
Warner has just officially announced the DVD and Blu-ray Disc release of Watchmen for 7/28. Available will be single-disc DVD, 2-disc DVD special edition and 2-disc Blu-ray versions (SRP $28.99, $22.95 and $35.99). The single-disc DVD will include just the theatrical cut of the film. The 2-disc DVD will feature a new cut of the film that's 25-minutes longer, along with The Phenomenon: The Comic That Changed Comics documentary, 11 "making of" webisodes and My Chemical Romance's Desolation Row music video. You'll also get a Digital Copy version of the film. The Blu-ray will include all of the 2-disc material, along with a BonusView Immersive Maximum Movie Mode of the film hosted by director Zack Snyder, as well as BD-Live features that can be shared with friends on Facebook.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedigitalbits.com%2Farticles%2Fmiscgfx%2Fcovers5%2Fwatchmen2discsedvd.jpg&hash=ce89a1a93043301569900e9112ff502dc8b68c00)
there's a double-dip a few months later though right?
Upon finishing the graphic novel, I had a few thoughts right off the get go. I can't believe the chose that little bitch for adrian, and this could not have been done as one film if you want to capture its full potential. So it really boils down to the fact that few things do what the Watchmen graphic novel is able to do, and the same goes for an on screen adaptation. Personally, it would have been difficult not to jack the entire story verbatim, i mean moore gives the reader amazing dialogue from so many characters. So, to try anything better, dialogue wise, is almost immediately knocked out of the question. Since I have only had one sitting with the film, i'll need to watch it again to see what exactly was taken from the original story.
---------------------------------------------SPOILER--------------------------------------
I think it's a bizarre idea the way they changed the ending, i mean ozy kind of covers his tracks in the GN, but in the film, i'm not sure how he can get away with that. Plus like i said, fuck that little dude playing him.
Confirmed! WATCHMEN Director's Cut to Show In Select Theaters For One Weekend in July
Source: Collider
Just an hour ago I attended an amazing Blu-ray presentation at Warner Bros. in Burbank to help promote "Watchmen: The Director's Cut" and "300″ on Blu-ray. Based on the footage I saw and how interactive the discs are, these are seriously must own Blu-ray's. The "Watchmen" Blu-ray has over three hours of extras and the "300″ Blu-ray over two hours. I was really blown away.
But the highlight of the day was director Zack Snyder confirming the news that the "Watchmen Director's Cut" would be playing in select movie theaters next month! If you remember, he talked about a possibly release when the film first came out.
Zack said the movie would show in theaters "the weekend before Comic-Con in Los Angeles, Dallas, Minneapolis, and New York." He said the release would only be for one weekend and in one theater. He also said they made a new "Watchmen" movie poster to help promote the release.
Quote from: Sleepless on March 30, 2009, 09:23:41 AM
One aspect of the film, though, I feel I must champion is the change made to the ending. Without spoiling anything, let's just say in the book the climax pivots on an alien element which is introduced only within the final pages of the story. In the film they've done away with that concept completely, and instead reframed the denouement on an element already firmly established within the world of the Watchmen. It works. It covers all the bases, leaves the larger framework intact, and satisfies the movie audience far more successfully than introducing a brand new thing right at the end of the movie. In a recent interview for Creative Screenwriting magazine, the two writers defended the change for the film version. "It was a solution that happened to fit in perfectly with the puzzle pieces that had to be there," Hayter said. "The result is the same, which is important," said Tse. "I can defend it a million different ways as to why it still accomplishes exactly the same thing."
It's a shame neither extended that attitude to the rest of the picture.
i agree, as i posted before my gripe is with the tone of the ending not the events that take place. people often complain when actions, characters and tangible elements are changed from the original source material. i personally don't care about that. i get pissed off when they change the sentiment of the original author, like in the case with this film making the owl guy and other characters more empathetic. in the book everyone alive at the end feels passive aggressive and somewhat sociopathic, snyder made them pensive, and therefore redeemable.
-sl-
Finally saw this last night. Directors cut. I'm this flicks biggest detractor and I hadn't even seen it. I was familiar with the comic. I didn't know EVERYTHING about it, but I was familiar with the story and what happens.
Um, this was pretty fucking awesome. I don't know if it was just the directors cut (which is a pretty hard R) or if my expectations were just so low, but this was awesome.
I can definitely see where some people not familiar with the material would get frustrated and confused, but for anyone who's familiar with the story, I can't see how you can be that disappointed. It's got some shortcomings but doesn't everything? Most of the casting was spot-on. I especially liked the casting of Nite Owl II and Rorschach. When reading the GN, I remember thinking about how much of a fucking sweetheart Dreiberg is. I didn't think Patrick Wilson could pull it off, but he did. Like a bumbling Clark Kent. Only problem I had was the dude who played Adrian. He kind of came off as a wimpy pussy.
Gotta hand it to Snyder. This could have been a disaster and before I saw it, I thought it was but he pulled it off better than I could have ever imagined. I'll take him off my hack list (for now).
Quote from: Stefen on July 08, 2009, 09:40:42 AM
Finally saw this last night. Directors cut. I'm this flicks biggest detractor and I hadn't even seen it. I was familiar with the comic. I didn't know EVERYTHING about it, but I was familiar with the story and what happens.
Um, this was pretty fucking awesome. I don't know if it was just the directors cut (which is a pretty hard R) or if my expectations were just so low, but this was awesome.
I can definitely see where some people not familiar with the material would get frustrated and confused, but for anyone who's familiar with the story, I can't see how you can be that disappointed. It's got some shortcomings but doesn't everything? Most of the casting was spot-on. I especially liked the casting of Nite Owl II and Rorschach. When reading the GN, I remember thinking about how much of a fucking sweetheart Dreiberg is. I didn't think Patrick Wilson could pull it off, but he did. Like a bumbling Clark Kent. Only problem I had was the dude who played Adrian. He kind of came off as a wimpy pussy.
Gotta hand it to Snyder. This could have been a disaster and before I saw it, I thought it was but he pulled it off better than I could have ever imagined. I'll take him off my hack list (for now).
Although i'm confident "everyhing has shortcomings" is not a valid premise, I agree with this 100% The themes that get carried into the film (despite the fact they didn't all make it in) are a few steps ahead of anything with a budget of this size. Obviously with a story that contains this much complexity, things will be lost, but even with some of that negativity, this fucking movie is a swing for the fences.
Fuck it, I'm going to go all the way out to the end of the limb and say that I really liked Matthew Goode as Adrian Veldt. I think the foppishness was actually kind of a bold character choice, and one that made perfect sense for a bored rich guy obsessed with Alexander the Great.
*Caution inner turmoil*
I can dig on those feelings. Very Valid conception of a character, i hadn't considered that. I'm solely basing my outlook off of the comic which will tell you (from previous posts) that i'm one giant contradiction. Bold is the correct call on that maneuver, however, although he is arrogant, I just cannot picture that man/character as an icon to rebuild the human race. I mean fuck, this post has already went on too long, but the depth of a character like adrien, where he's like all vulnerable for some 'answer' from john, mixed with being the "smartest man alive"... i think in that regard Goode maybe pulled off the right thing, but as a leader? Maybe i'm putting too much into the idea of muscles, however we all know when it comes to the core basic bullshit, those kind of things can be intimidating, and i think that's a characteristic the original Veidt had in tact. To me the muscles in the comic are pretty much on the level with "smartest man alive" if you dig what I'm sayin...
His American accent was pretty off, though. I MEAN COME ON.
EDIT: Oh nevermind. I just read that he was doing a "subtle German accent."
Quote from: picolas on May 13, 2009, 02:09:14 PMthere's a double-dip a few months later though right?
'Watchmen: Ultimate Collector's Edition' Blu-ray in December The ultimate gift for 'Watchmen' fans is coming for the holidays.
A flyer included with the 'Watchmen: Director's Cut' Blu-ray (available in stores July 21) reveals that a 5-disc 'Watchmen: Ultimate Collector's Edition' will head to Blu-ray this December.
This monolithic edition will present Zack Snyder's Director's Cut with the "Tales of the Black Freighter" comic-within-a-comic actually woven into the film for a complete 'Watchmen' experience.
While it's worth noting this release will be missing most of the supplements (like the awesome maximum movie mode) found on the version due to hit stores in a couple of weeks, it will contain a new commentary by Dave Gibbons and Zack Snyder and two hours of bonus material, including the "Under the Hood" mockumentary. It appears the 'Watchmen: The Complete Motion Comic' will be included as well.
The final bit of info is that the insert makes mention of $10.00 off for those who register with WB Insider Rewards.
The flyer can be seen below:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.highdefdigest.com%2Fimages%2Fpost%2F9%2F9395%2Foriginal.pjpeg&hash=ab17c42ab97a9dd4f14a35f75c3dee7874ffef1b)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.highdefdigest.com%2Fimages%2Fpost%2F9%2F9396%2Foriginal.pjpeg&hash=702b0b64edc03a938d99b6bcf62b5e1e735b28f1)
in toronto best buy has the rorsach SE, HMV's got the dr. M. SE and future shop's got the SE steelbook... all are blu-ray releases.
seems like america doesn't have the steelbook (or any steelbooks beyond james bond for that matter), which will probably end up being the most valuable because of this rarity (if such things matter to you). either way i'd rather have the steelbook over the other two kinda shitty looking releases. steelbook is classy, the other two are cheese.
-sl-
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/3d3180d242/nobody-watches-the-watchmen#player (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/3d3180d242/nobody-watches-the-watchmen#player)
I don't remember it the first time, so maybe it's just in the Director's Cut, but the ping-pong room from The Man Who Fell To Earth was a nice nod.
usually i notice every additional moment in a directors cut but besides the hollis mason sequence i couldn't tell what the extra 25 minutes were.
I didn't stand a chance to like this movie. It's main belief that super heroes are worthy of high drama and their fictional dilemmas should resonate with my emotions was just silly to me. I wanted to enjoy the portions of this film that were meant to be entertaining, but to do so, it meant weeding through all the stiff and drab talk about things that are important in a super heroe's universe. You have to care about those exterior details to really emerge yourself into the emotions of this story. If you can do that, fine, but it's not my bag.
I know people are fans of comic books and graphic novels on here. I'm not, but I find it interesting that the best film to really encompass the possibilities of what comic books can be on film was Dark City. As far as I know, it has no comic book origins, but it's masterful approach to mis en scene and fantasy seems to really lay out the possibilities of the comic book structure. I think the film could have been a good start for other films to emulate (considering its technical qualities), but the progression since Dark City has been to legitimize the content in comic books. People want to make comic book character as normal for films as magical realism has become in literature.
I don't like it much because Watchmen just seems to imitate a lot of other dramas. It has stylistic touches, but its style seems to exist to make all the multiple stories more compact for telling in one film. There isn't an organic touch to the style like in Dark City where the drama really takes on the form of the storytelling.
that's a GT I've known and loved.
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on September 23, 2009, 04:26:41 AM
the best film to really encompass the possibilities of what comic books can be on film was Dark City.
Pretty spot on, man. I never really thought of it like that, but I totally see it.
Quote from: Walrus on September 24, 2009, 01:58:55 AM
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on September 23, 2009, 04:26:41 AM
the best film to really encompass the possibilities of what comic books can be on film was Dark City.
Pretty spot on, man. I never really thought of it like that, but I totally see it.
or is it just film noir meets science fiction? i fail to see the comic book element.
Quote from: socketlevel on November 01, 2009, 09:19:29 PM
Quote from: Walrus on September 24, 2009, 01:58:55 AM
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on September 23, 2009, 04:26:41 AM
the best film to really encompass the possibilities of what comic books can be on film was Dark City.
Pretty spot on, man. I never really thought of it like that, but I totally see it.
or is it just film noir meets science fiction? i fail to see the comic book element.
It can be attributed to all actually. See, the comic book element comes into play because the film is based on an elaborate visual structure. The constant repitition of the camera going in circlular motion at the beginning relates back to the importance of circles in the story. The detective who has figured out things are amiss and kills himself is obsessed with circles and draws them everywhere. The film taps into his paranoia by continually editing at jarring speed and always rotating the camera in a circular motion. His paranoia is our paranoia because we too understand not everything is right, but we don't understand exactly what. The film doesn't calm itself until the world is fully revealed.
The reason comic books can be implicated in this is because the action of the story is set to a
moving visual identity. No comic book is the same, but the action oriented comics are always about the motion of the scenes and how they play out in dramatic moments. The quiet scenes are quiet, but the action scenes are about expelling the drama out in a specifically visual way. Dark City is less action oriented in what actually happens, but it finds a visual structure where the drama reveals itself at a constant visual movement. The elaborate design work in the editing, composing and tone of the camera work relates back to what a comic book would look like when adapted to film.
The noir and science fiction influences are there too, but they have to deal with other things. Science fiction you find in the story and world while noir you find in the look and set design production mainly. None of those things intrinsically relate to the filmmaking of Dark City, but comic books, in a lot of ways, do.
I didn't get a comic book feel from Dark City, either. Maybe in hindsight it is, since it seems to have inspired more comic books than it was initially inspired by.
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on November 01, 2009, 10:11:02 PM
Quote from: socketlevel on November 01, 2009, 09:19:29 PM
Quote from: Walrus on September 24, 2009, 01:58:55 AM
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on September 23, 2009, 04:26:41 AM
the best film to really encompass the possibilities of what comic books can be on film was Dark City.
Pretty spot on, man. I never really thought of it like that, but I totally see it.
or is it just film noir meets science fiction? i fail to see the comic book element.
See, the comic book element comes into play because the film is based on an elaborate visual structure.
Wasn't that more German expressionist than comic book?
Quote from: Stefen on November 01, 2009, 10:12:29 PM
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on November 01, 2009, 10:11:02 PM
Quote from: socketlevel on November 01, 2009, 09:19:29 PM
Quote from: Walrus on September 24, 2009, 01:58:55 AM
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on September 23, 2009, 04:26:41 AM
the best film to really encompass the possibilities of what comic books can be on film was Dark City.
Pretty spot on, man. I never really thought of it like that, but I totally see it.
or is it just film noir meets science fiction? i fail to see the comic book element.
See, the comic book element comes into play because the film is based on an elaborate visual structure.
Wasn't that more German expressionist than comic book?
you've just come around full circle to film noir by mentioning German expressionism. you'll get the same answer i got due to the lineage of the two genres.
i think watchmen is a message story more than it is anything else. i don't like (as stated in a previous post) what the film did to the message. too bad you don't like the book GT.
I don't use German Expressionism because it doesn't fully compliment what makes Dark City good. When the style became widely used in Hollywood, it went so many different routes. Few were experimental routes, but most normal extension of German Expressionism became visuals and moving camera to show storytelling. Dark City has moving camerawork, but it doesn't litter its story with them the same way Martin Scorsese and Stanley Kubrick do. Those filmmakers are better products of German Expressionism, but they became products of that style by being influenced by filmmakers who were influenced by it themselves. So they are closer to cousins of the movement.
I also don't use German Expressionism because it was never noted for its high attention to editing. The Soviet filmmakers like Eisenstein and Pudovkin were better with basing their films in editing techniques, but their editing techniques were also philosophies that they taught at schools so it became rigid for them. You can't just attribute intricate editing to them because each filmmaker had a different idea of what was most interesting about editing.
I use comic books not because Dark City feels like a comic book, but because it is a conceptual design of what comic books can be when adapted into film. Comic books are open ended about their visual nature, but the important thing is that are based on visual structure in how scenes are specifically told. They are more aware of the sense of movement and composition when telling a story than the standard film which is based in a style that is meant to come off as invisible to the viewer. Thus I feel confident in designing a general philosophy based on a general idea of comic books. Both aspects are meant to evolve and grow.
Quote from: socketlevel on November 01, 2009, 10:26:34 PM
i think watchmen is a message story more than it is anything else. i don't like (as stated in a previous post) what the film did to the message. too bad you don't like the book GT.
I never read the book so cannot say.
I totally got the comicbook feel, so did the few kids in my little high school who saw it. I remember some unsophisticated friend of mine saying outloud that he wished Batman looked like that.
it was gothic in a hip way, noir in a lavish way, hoaky in a stylized way - I guess that's how I see it as being comicbook-like. Because in essence, it alters the artifices of the said genres - noir, german expressionism, sci-fi - and makes them more intentionally "artificial" (not in the sense that they're man-made but in the sense that they're sets in an alternate world), and that's something quite evolved in American comicbooks. the noir and sci-fi aesthetics have been quite ingrained and intertwined in the comicbook world anyways, so you can't exclude one genre by naming the other two.
ah what's the use, if you didn't see if you didn't see it. fuck you and get some eyes.
lol wowza.
i guess i can see the comic book element, i just thought that aesthetic existed before comics. kinda like giving credit to the art that was influenced not influential. but this is beyond a moot point, i will go fuck myself and get some eyes.
Terry Gilliam on Zack Snyder's Watchmen: 'It Needed a Kick in the Ass'
Source: Movieline
I spoke to director Terry Gilliam yesterday, and while our interview will run much closer to the Christmas Day release date of his newest film, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, I couldn't help but ask him about Watchmen. Gilliam twice attempted to mount Watchmen for the screen (even going so far as to pitch it as a television miniseries) but could never make it work, so I was curious what he thought of Zack Snyder's theatrical adaptation of the graphic novel, which came out earlier this year.
"I felt a lot of it was so good," Gilliam began. "It got the look of it brilliantly. But it suffered from some of the things I was having problems with when I was trying to write a script. It's too short. It's also too long! It's a very weird thing and they had to make so many compromises and changes. I was always saying it should be a five-part miniseries. I still believe that."
As Gilliam continued, he echoed the prevailing critique of the film: "But he got the look right, and the Rorshach stuff is really, really great. I think I felt if there was any fault, it was almost too respectful of the original." Gilliam laughed. "It needed a kick in the ass, frankly."
Quote from: socketlevel on November 02, 2009, 09:09:38 PM
i guess i can see the comic book element, i just thought that aesthetic existed before comics.
Comics existed before Dark City.
Quote from: Walrus on November 06, 2009, 12:14:01 PM
Quote from: socketlevel on November 02, 2009, 09:09:38 PM
i guess i can see the comic book element, i just thought that aesthetic existed before comics.
Comics existed before Dark City.
huh?
no the aesthetic of this "comic book" feel the thread has been trying to pinpoint (or at least i have). My guess would have been that sci-fi and film noir influenced comic books and not vice versa in the case of dark city. that the aesthetic of comic books was borrowed from other sources. and not passively borrowed like casual influence (as all things are), but more directly.
like the movie this conversation is becoming a spiral.
Haven't seen Dark City but I saw Watchmen a little bit but the violence got a bit tiresome. But I'm deciding to give it another try. Is the Ultimate Cut the best one? And is also Dark City a recommend (blind) buy?
Quote from: Mogwai on January 30, 2010, 12:45:39 AM
And is also Dark City a recommend (blind) buy?
Yes because it's generally cheap, but don't get the director's cut.
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on January 30, 2010, 02:13:25 AM
Quote from: Mogwai on January 30, 2010, 12:45:39 AM
And is also Dark City a recommend (blind) buy?
Yes because it's generally cheap, but don't get the director's cut.
The reason being?
Quote from: Mogwai on January 30, 2010, 04:34:05 AM
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on January 30, 2010, 02:13:25 AM
Quote from: Mogwai on January 30, 2010, 12:45:39 AM
And is also Dark City a recommend (blind) buy?
Yes because it's generally cheap, but don't get the director's cut.
The reason being?
In the director's cut, the main difference is that there are little add ons to numerous scenes. The structure of the film is the same, but there are scenes that just go a little haywire and break with the flow of the scene. The difference may seem minute, but all the good praise of the film came from the original theatrical cut. Since it's the shorter version, the best bet is to start there and if you are curious enough, watch the director's cut afterward to see if the small differences affect the viewing. They did for me.
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on January 30, 2010, 05:01:40 AM
Quote from: Mogwai on January 30, 2010, 04:34:05 AM
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on January 30, 2010, 02:13:25 AM
Quote from: Mogwai on January 30, 2010, 12:45:39 AM
And is also Dark City a recommend (blind) buy?
Yes because it's generally cheap, but don't get the director's cut.
The reason being?
In the director's cut, the main difference is that there are little add ons to numerous scenes. The structure of the film is the same, but there are scenes that just go a little haywire and break with the flow of the scene. The difference may seem minute, but all the good praise of the film came from the original theatrical cut. Since it's the shorter version, the best bet is to start there and if you are curious enough, watch the director's cut afterward to see if the small differences affect the viewing. They did for me.
the blu ray has both cuts on the same disc i believe
Quote from: Mogwai on January 30, 2010, 12:45:39 AM
But I'm deciding to give it another try. Is the Ultimate Cut the best one?
my recommendation is to read the book instead.
don't know about the ultimate cunt but if you want to see the story told in the best way the easy solution is to seek out the graphic novel.
^agreed. still the truth and always will be. i'm gonna take the alan moore purist standpoint here and say that no amount of slow-motion special effects will ever outdo the experience of turning the pages and absorbing each mind-blowing image on its own terms.
P and Hedwig are probably right. Thanks.
Is this the comic I should buy? Hell, it's been 20 years since I read my last comic.
http://www.bokus.com/b/9780930289232.html?pt=search_result&search_term=watchmen
Well the story is better in the comic, but the drawing is not that great and the inking is actually just bad. The colors suck and sometimes the ink goes over the lines. I always wished there was a re-coloring job done for the launch of the film, but it didn't happen. The sales must not have been very high because I can't see any kid taking this comic and not screaming in horror. The coloring of today's comics is too computer-y, that's for sure. But it's still better than the 80s. The best was the mid nineties.
I think the film complements to book well, I would advise reading it first but seeing it is also pretty cool.
Quote from: Mogwai on February 01, 2010, 12:04:46 PM
Is this the comic I should buy? Hell, it's been 20 years since I read my last comic.
http://www.bokus.com/b/9780930289232.html?pt=search_result&search_term=watchmen
yep that's the one.
pas is right too, in a way. the movie that was made is probly the best movie that could hav been made. a mini series would hav been great. but with something as well-put together as the novel (story wise) there's very little you can take out or change without losing what was special. this is crap for adapting into a movie. kubrick knew it, that the best books are rarely the best films. partly because they hav literary appeal, they work perfectly in their own medium, but also cos they don't give u room to move.
the movie's cool it just forgets that ppl loved the book for its structure, style, characters, and just how wild it felt. every chapter could make it an entirely different story. in a way zack snyder was the best and the WORST person for the job. he loves the images so he's very faithful to them, and definitely brings them to life. but he loves them so much he just can't pull away from them. this needed extreme economy in filmmaking to work in one chunk, not extended slow motion shots of shit breaking.
*sorta spoils for the book, but if you've seen the movie i dunno..*
Quote from: ρ on February 01, 2010, 12:42:26 PMthe movie that was made is probly the best movie that could hav been made. a mini series would hav been great.
the animated graphic novel version is actually better and clocks in at six hours. the two major issues are the speech bubbles, which get a tad annoying after a bit, and the lack of a female voiceover. i still don't understand how they could've afforded a six hour animated version with frame warping technology but not an actress.
Quote from: ρ on February 01, 2010, 12:42:26 PMhe loves the images so he's very faithful to them, and definitely brings them to life. but he loves them so much he just can't pull away from them. this needed extreme economy in filmmaking to work in one chunk, not extended slow motion shots of shit breaking.
yeah he spends far too much time on things that don't matter at all, but i hate this argument that his flaw was that he was TOO faithful. in a lot of ways that's true. he didn't change much so you feel like pieces are missing. BUT he did change a couple of things which a. take up a lot of time and b. show how little he understood the book. for one he turns everyone into a superhuman, untouchable fighter. the fights in the prison/alleyways are such bullshit. the idea that silk spectre loves fighting is quite off the mark.
then he makes ozy the OBVIOUS villian and has him played with this scowling, moustache twisting quality. this is major bullshit. ozy is supposed to seem gallant and kind of charming. he's the world's smartest man with infinite money!! he's not going to be this weird scowler. the twist that ozy is the villain becomes obvious and makes the good guys look dumb, and it seriously blunts his point. the idea that the world would put aside their qualms only to unite against an enemy is actually kind of right. does it justify the killing of millions of people? this is a fantastic question that the movie completely sidesteps by making ozy an EVVVVVVIL guy and having nite owl continue to beat him after his plan is revealed rather than having him stand in awe like he should because millions of people have JUST died.
he also shortens the mars scene to the point where it becomes stupid. manhattan just flip-flops rather than being convinced by spectre. in the book she captures how annoying someone like manhattan could be. in the movie she's just flailing and he just changes his mind cause she's upset. in the book (and animated graphic novel) this is an AMAZING scene. in the movie it's utter crap because it should have been at least 20 minutes long but those minutes were used up on, yes, shit breaking.
Ya, know just for what it's worth Snyder didn't write it, and I did not have a problem with the art in the original Graphic Novel. I understand the advances in technology brought a new type of imagery and cartooning, but I don't consider that the criteria for objective standards... I don't know, just read the graphic novel. It's totally worth the experience. I'm also certain that the elements of philosophy in the film are evident still although they were executed poorly. His motive to save the world is quite clear, but I had some problems with Ozy too. I agree with most of those critiques though. But seriously, the art in the graphic novel is badass.
Quote from: picolas on February 01, 2010, 02:38:04 PM
the animated graphic novel version is actually better and clocks in at six hours. the two major issues are the speech bubbles, which get a tad annoying after a bit, and the lack of a female voiceover. i still don't understand how they could've afforded a six hour animated version with frame warping technology but not an actress.
haha yes i remember starting to watch that once, i couldn't get over the actress thing. my theory is that it was made by total nerds and they were just too scared to approach a girl.
Quote from: picolas on February 01, 2010, 02:38:04 PM
yeah he spends far too much time on things that don't matter at all, but i hate this argument that his flaw was that he was TOO faithful. in a lot of ways that's true. he didn't change much so you feel like pieces are missing. BUT he did change a couple of things which a. take up a lot of time and b. show how little he understood the book. for one he turns everyone into a superhuman, untouchable fighter. the fights in the prison/alleyways are such bullshit. the idea that silk spectre loves fighting is quite off the mark.
then he makes ozy the OBVIOUS villian and has him played with this scowling, moustache twisting quality. this is major bullshit. ozy is supposed to seem gallant and kind of charming. he's the world's smartest man with infinite money!! he's not going to be this weird scowler. the twist that ozy is the villain becomes obvious and makes the good guys look dumb, and it seriously blunts his point. the idea that the world would put aside their qualms only to unite against an enemy is actually kind of right. does it justify the killing of millions of people? this is a fantastic question that the movie completely sidesteps by making ozy an EVVVVVVIL guy and having nite owl continue to beat him after his plan is revealed rather than having him stand in awe like he should because millions of people have JUST died.
he also shortens the mars scene to the point where it becomes stupid. manhattan just flip-flops rather than being convinced by spectre. in the book she captures how annoying someone like manhattan could be. in the movie she's just flailing and he just changes his mind cause she's upset. in the book (and animated graphic novel) this is an AMAZING scene. in the movie it's utter crap because it should have been at least 20 minutes long but those minutes were used up on, yes, shit breaking.
oh, i agree with all of that. i was just talking visually.
"Not A Chance" Of 'Watchmen' Film Sequel
By Nikki Finke; Deadline Hollywood
The Internet is filling up with chatter here and here about how Dan DiDio, the SVP/Executive Editor for DC Comics, is determined to push not only a sequel to the Watchmen graphic novel, but a multiple prequel comic book miniseries and other spin-offs to his new bosses. And how he's already looking for creators to do them. This is because of -- what else? -- money: Watchmen has become DC's bestselling comic book of all time. Naturally, everyone's now speculating about a sequel to Zach Snyder's underperforming Watchmen movie from Warner Bros/20th Century Fox/Paramount, especially because there's contract language for that possibility. (No matter how impossible storywise.) But a well-placed insider tells me: "There is no truth to anything related to a movie sequel. Not a chance by a longshot. With regards to the comics, well, I guess anything is possible. I'll keep my opinion to myself as to whether it's a smart idea to do so."
DC announced a series of comic books which will serve as a prequel to Watchmen, showing the various heroes in their prime. Presumably there'll be news about a movie prequel within a year?
http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2012/02/01/dc-entertainment-officially-announces-%E2%80%9Cbefore-watchmen%E2%80%9D/ (http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2012/02/01/dc-entertainment-officially-announces-%E2%80%9Cbefore-watchmen%E2%80%9D/)