[MOD EDIT] Merged 3 other Watchmen related topics to create one central thread. Enjoy. [/MOD EDIT]
Confirmed Watchmen Casting
By Rafe Telsch: 2007-07-25 19:57:49
After weeks of speculation and months of mindless rumors, it's finally official: Watchmen has a cast. Both of the major Hollywood rags are reporting what's been all but confirmed by websites over the last few weeks, making this Watchmen story the first completely official thing since the project got picked back up from abandonment a few years ago.
Jeffrey Dean Morgan has been confirmed as The Comedian, the former masked crime-fighter whose murder initiates the story.
Jackie Earle Haley has been confirmed for Rorschach, the vigilante who ignores the ban on costumed characters and continues to fight crime, leading to his discovery of the threat against masked characters, which is essentially the starting point for Watchmen's story.
Billy Crudup has been confirmed as Dr. Manhattan, the single super-powered member of the story. Due to a scientific accident, Manhattan has the ability to control matter on a molecular level, among other super-powers, but suffers from reduced humanity.
Malin Akerman has been confirmed as Laurie Juspeczyk, aka The Silk Spectre. Not only a former mask, Laurie is in a rapidly unwinding relationship with Dr. Manhattan.
Patrick Wilson has been confirmed for Dan Dreiberg, aka The Nite-Owl (we knew this yesterday), a masked character who flies around in an owl themed ship. He is the character Laurie turns to as her relationship with Dr. Manhattan deteriorates.
Finally, Matthew Goode, and not Jue Law, has been confirmed as Adrien Veidt, aka Ozymandias, a billionaire who turns to more philanthropic pursuits after the ban on masks goes into effect.
Expect more news to come from Comic-Con, where, frankly, I expect they'll probably haul a lot of these actors out for the first time, together.
Shooting on The Watchmen will begin in the fall.
Hmm....seems like a pretty solid cast...although I don't think the Silk Spectre looks the part...then again, neither does Nite-Owl, he seems much too put together.
If Ozymandias sticks to the graphic novel, Matthew Goode will be excellent ... watch Match Point, the dude can ACT.
The only one I'm not sure of is Jeffrey Dean Morgan. He looks like The Comedian, but ... wasn't he the dying guy in Grey's Anatomy? I absolutely hate that show, perhaps to the extent where it'll distract me during Watchmen.
Otherwise, a nice selection of great actors who aren't big 'names'.
I just don't see Watchmen making a good 2 to 3 hour film... a high budget mini-series sort of like HBO's Rome, maybe... it's just that the source material is so packed with information that I think a lot of the little details and nuances that made Watchmen much more than a typical "mature readers" comic book might be lost in the translation to film.
Thank the divine spaghetti monster they didn't use Keanu Reeves as Dr. Manhattan!!! :thumbup:
Quote from: zuludelta on July 25, 2007, 08:10:14 PM
I just don't see Watchmen making a good 2 to 3 hour film... a high budget mini-series sort of like HBO's Rome, maybe... it's just that the source material is so packed with information that I think a lot of the little details and nuances that made Watchmen much more than a typical "mature readers" comic book might be lost in the translation to film.
My fears exactly.
Quote from: psychopanda on July 25, 2007, 08:13:21 PM
Thank the divine spaghetti monster they didn't use Keanu Reeves as Dr. Manhattan!!! :thumbup:
Agreed. Because that would only have worked if they had signed Alex Winter as Ozymandias, George Carlin as the Comedian, and Patrick Swayze as Nite Owl. :P
This cast is shaping up nicely. No "big" named stars that will drive the script into the dirt. I hope Snyder can pull it off.
-MJB
Quote from: GhostMachine on July 25, 2007, 10:57:53 PM
Quote from: psychopanda on July 25, 2007, 08:13:21 PM
Thank the divine spaghetti monster they didn't use Keanu Reeves as Dr. Manhattan!!! :thumbup:
Agreed. Because that would only have worked if they had signed Alex Winter as Ozymandias, George Carlin as the Comedian, and Patrick Swayze as Nite Owl. :P
and Mel Brooks directing. "Watchmen! the Musical!" ;)
Watchmen pics from the set:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Watchmen-Set-Photos-6847.html
I'll third zuludelta's and BentonGrey's fears. This series was far too grand a piece of postmodern literature to be forced to suffer the blockbuster Hollywood treatment. At least break the story up into several detail-rich installments instead of condensing it into an impoverished single sitting.
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and The Prat in the Hat
An HBO miniseries would be the best case scenario for Watchmen. Oh well. I can always hope everything works out.
Max Headroom is playing Moloch
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Matt-Frewer-Faces-Off-With-The-Watchmen-6919.html
Good choice.
i don't have a problem with the casting.
as for the fears of some of you.
I believe the movie will be focusing largely on the comic portion with the prose portion woven in where possible. (my paraphrasing what was said) In addition, there are plans to do at least one short film in conjunction with Watchmen that will be made available with the DVD.
Carrot Top didn't get Rorschach?
Outrage!
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/A-Flaming-First-Pic-From-Watchmen-7895.html
:thumbup:
*drools*
*faints*
Beautiful
That looks darn good. Man, Rorschach is awesome.
Despite the fact that I know Watchmen is going to be incredibly hard to do well as a film, seeing pics like this still gives me tingles.
Yaaaaay. :wub:
Have there been any decisions made on the ratio of screen time to blue penis? Will it be 3:1 like in the book?
Quote from: BWPS on February 23, 2008, 08:21:33 AM
Have there been any decisions made on the ratio of screen time to blue penis? Will it be 3:1 like in the book?
LOL? Has that word ever been used at FR? Too funny..
As for the adaptation--I don't expect this movie to be just like the book. In fact, I hope it's somewhat different. If I wanted the book, I'd just read the book.
*Looks at Absolute Watchmen on top of desk* *Smiles*
Quote from: Figure Fan on February 23, 2008, 08:33:03 AM
Quote from: BWPS on February 23, 2008, 08:21:33 AM
Have there been any decisions made on the ratio of screen time to blue penis? Will it be 3:1 like in the book?
LOL? Has that word ever been used at FR? Too funny..
As for the adaptation--I don't expect this movie to be just like the book. In fact, I hope it's somewhat different. If I wanted the book, I'd just read the book.
*Looks at Absolute Watchmen on top of desk* *Smiles*
Heh. I'm just the opposite. If you want changes, write something original and direct that.
If you're adapting
Watchmen, I expect to see as much of
Watchmen on the screen as realistically possible; down to the point where I can freeze-frame the DVD, pull out my TP, and go- "Hey! There's the panel they got that shot from."
I agree with Figure Fan. Watchmen's great, and interpreting it to the screen will still be great. I like new stuff that's brilliant and innovative in new ways, not just rehashes of old brilliance.
So, do these costumes work for the diehard fans?
http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/2008/03/one_year_to_go_1.html
Oh, no. They're making a superhero movie. :(
Ozymandias doesn't wear spandex. He dresses in Greek Prince Formal.
*sigh*
I'm no die hard but....
they look too.....modern to me?
I only read the Watchmen once, back in college, so it was a while back, but I seem to remember being more "Pulp Fiction"-ish and less "spawn"-sh.
I read the Watchmen as a post-modern super hero deconstruction (does that make sense?) which took the shine and the luster out of the "golden" age comics. Much like Clint Eastwood's spaghetti westerns -where good guys never wore white hats and bad guys never wore black hats - the Watchmen was more grimy, seedy, and "real" than the other comics (way more than Frank Miller's Dark Knight). For example, Rorshach's costume should look like it came from a second-hand store. Night Owl and Ozymandias, on the other hand, have way too much definition...they shouldn't have "muscles" (or abs of steel) built into the costume.
Don't get me wrong, they look flashy, but just a little to stylelized to me.
IMHO of course. And, yes, I'll probably go and see it (just to see how they pull off the Alien "invasion").
B92
I'm ok with everything except Ozymandis.
The modernized costumes are a bit of pandering to a contemporary movie audience. That's....ok with me, even if I'd be happier with the rougher look. I agree that Night Owl and Ozy are way too shiny and "Gotham", but Rorschach and the Comedian are reasonably schlubby enough. Silk Spectre's outfit is a little obscured, but it actually looks like the right amount of retro.
EC
Quote from: El Condor on March 06, 2008, 08:20:46 AM
The modernized costumes are a bit of pandering to a contemporary movie audience. That's....ok with me, even if I'd be happier with the rougher look. I agree that Night Owl and Ozy are way too shiny and "Gotham", but Rorschach and the Comedian are reasonably schlubby enough. Silk Spectre's outfit is a little obscured, but it actually looks like the right amount of retro.
EC
I'm tending to agree - the Comedian looks right on, but Ozymadius and the Owl are all wrong - I mean, shouldn't the Owl be a little . . tubbier?
I can live with Nite Owl, but Ozy looks ridiculous. That's a friggin Schumacher rubber suit.
It has nipples, for FSM's sake!
Quote from: captainspud on March 06, 2008, 09:39:30 AM
I can live with Nite Owl, but Ozy looks ridiculous. That's a friggin Schumacher rubber suit.
It has nipples, for FSM's sake!
You should also take a gander at that "nether eye," as Chaucer might say. ;)
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning
i can see peoples point, i havn't read the book only just started it. but i get the feeling that the comedian and Rorschac are more street level hence the gritter look. where as ozy seems like a poster boy for all thats good in superheros, kinda a punisher/ superman comparison.
I like the costumes. They could NEVER make the costumes identical to the comic book, because they simply wouldn't work / look intimidating in real life ... Nite Owl II and Silk Specter being the two main offenders. I think they've fixed this nicely in the movie, and also made spot-on verions of Roscharch and The Comedian.
But, I do agree that the black sculpted plastic Ozymandias doesn't look that good ... his original purple and yellow costume wouldn't have been a winner either. I was hoping they'd just get the actor really muscular and then put a tunic on him ... ala Rambo, where he wore a shirt for the entire movie, but you could tell he built like a powerhouse.
Yeah Ozy's costume is the only one that throws me off. The guy looks tiny, when he should be a huge buff Arnold type physique. Have to say Silk Spectre's is my favorite of the "new" versions. Nite Owl should have, like was mentioned, a gut. He's supposed to be out of shape and middle aged, not ripped like an athlete. Hopefully it's only the costume making him look like that, and outside of it he's a bit flabby. Comedian and Rorschach are pretty much dead on to the comics, and I assume the bad wig is just bad photoshopping.
But so far, this movie looks like it'll be passable. It'll be damn near impossible to translate the book, but if they come half as close as Sin City did, it'll be worth my money.
Also, did anyone else hear something about the "The Black Freighter" being released as an "animatrix" type animated movie?
Yep ... Gerard Butler is doing the voice-over of the main guy.
They all look pretty good, except for Ozy. The Owl isn't perfect, but his is much less wrong than Ozy's.
Nite Owl looked pretty buff in costume in the book as well. Honestly, people I dont think Ozy is THAT bad. Is it as good as it could've and shouldve been? No. But it wasn't anywhere near as bad as they couldve done it, so I'm ok with that.
The pic of the Comedian blew my socks off.
As for Nite Owl, this may be how he looks in one of the flash backs. The reason I say this is look how clean Archie looks. Either way I like the design.
I don't understand why Ozymandias torso has a Schumacher design. Eww. Just eww. Brings back too many painful memories. That beign said, I can deal with it.
Rorschach? Perfect from what I can see and from the other couple images that have been relesed.
Silk Specters costume is obscured by the lame/cheesy pose so It's hard to say for sure. It does have elements of the original, the black "bikini" type suit is still there and the yellow is present. The yellow isn't a sheer fabric draped over a swim suit but it does look familiar.
Overall, Meejub like.
-MJB
Ok. I like it.
The Comedian looks really good, but I'm surprised they went with the eye mask. I wonder if we'll be seeing his full-headed mask? In my opinion, the eye mask should have been omitted. But it looks good, and you can't deny its similarity to the source material, which I suppose could be considered a plus.
Rorshach looks really, really good. He is a hard one to screw up, considering you could purchase his costume for under $20 at any thrift store on the planet.
I really, REALLY like Nite Owl. I was hoping they'd have him be in a little better shape, and have a tech suit. This makes me happy. It reminds me of one of his rarely used suits down in his basement. They did a good job with it. Archie looks pretty snazzy, too.
Silk Spectre looks awesome. It takes quite a bit from the original, but makes it more practical. She practically didn't have clothes on in the book, and those shoes were a potential hazard. I like that she's decked out in shiny black gloves and leggings. The straps from the gloves lead up to a choke-like collar, I'd be willing to bet. I hope she has a little skull on it. They could do away with the "S" earrings and give her skulls instead. That'd work. Still, they pulled off her outfit. Kudos to them. The hair looks good too, though a little on the wacky side. Still, 80's hair was pretty wacky..
Ozymandias is probably one of the most difficult to translate, but I think they did pretty good with it. I like that they used a grey-black for the armor. The purple and gold accent pieces are a nice nod to the original. It is very ornate looking, very much like an Egyptian tomb. I don't know about the headband, but anymore of one on his forehead and you've got a tiara, so I'm glad they stopped. Ozy is a character that I need to see in action before I comment any further. He's one of those characters..
This has been a good first look. I like that we are seeing some changes. I want this to be different from the book to a degree, and it looks like we're getting it in the costume department. I do have difficulty keeping in mind that this movie is set in the 1980's. I wasn't even born until 1988, so I don't have quite the same perspective some of you do. Another thing to remember is that this movie is likely to see some sepia-ish work in post-production, so you won't be seeing half of these characters in true daylight.
I'm excited!
correct me if i am wrong, but didn't Ozymandias dress in a superhero costume similar to that "back in the day" in the comic. by "back in the day" i mean when they were actually all super-heroing. not the present day time of the comic. (that make sense?) If that is the case then I am rather happy all things considered.
As for Night Owl, again there were two Night Owls and I could see this being the "generic" look for the character as oppose to the actual costume.
just a thought
Hrmmm...
Costumes OK. Rorchach's perfect, Comedian pretty good (hoping for gimp mask for scene or two, not long), close a Silk Spectre's gonna get (half- nekked in book).
(Like my Rorchach impression?)
Owl's suit is probably holding the gut in. It better be. Other than that, I'm kinda torn. He needed a more "tech" suit, but he looks too much like Batman from Batman Begins. I dunno why, but he gives off that vibe to me.
Ozy... hrmmmm... I can understand... I can understand why they went with this look, I just... hrmmmm... I'm glad he's not all beefy. Oz was lean and acrobatic, the way I read him.
Keep in mind, though, I'm not a fan of this movie being made. I just don't think it can be done successfully. But I've said that before, I'll keep an open mind, and I'll reserve final judgement for when I see it.
*blows dust off thread*
It's been awhile since anyone posted any news from the set of Watchmen...
But I came across this link from the main website which goes into details about the costumes for the movie.
And you do get to see various superhero costumes designs toward the end.. including the villians.
Go take a look: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1551055138/bclid1551048139/bctid1552694732 (http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1551055138/bclid1551048139/bctid1552694732)
- CrimsonQuill
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Watchmen-Video-Journal-Number-2-8825.html
It's cool ... you can see clips featuring the original Silk Spectre, the Topknots, Big Figure and his two thugs, etc. Veidt looks particularly slick.
Pictures of the Minutemen all posing together during the Christmas party.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36885
You have to admit, it's pretty cool, although .... Eddie is no longer a teenager when he tries to
:spoiler:
attack Sally Jupiter.
And I have a new desktop.
RTT
EDIT: WORKING LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3orQKBxiEg
The trailer for the Watchmen. It is unbelievably phenomenal. Enjoy!
I was going to say--
No one posted this yet??
I've been watching it repeatedly. My thoughts will be posted at a later date.
QuoteNo one posted this yet??
All the original posts were yanked a couple of hours ago so a lot of the links that people had went dead, they supposedly will be "officially" reposted tomorrow... I knew someone would get it to YouTube eventually though.
Im just gonna wait and watch it tonight with the Dark knight on the big screen... I'll scrutinize it tomorrow online.
Wow, I've been watching it on Empire Online, which was supposed to be the official release site of the trailer.
It was working not even 10 minutes ago, and now it's down.
Looks like someone made a woopsy..
WOW. That looks awesome. THis is gonna be fun! :thumbup:
QuoteLooks like someone made a woopsy..
If by woopsy you mean the studio leaked it online early for a couple of hours then pulled it to generate a fever pitch of buzz and word of mouth?
Then yes, I would agree it was an woopsy... ;)
For those who missed it:
http://www.geektyrant.com/2008/07/images-from-the-watchman-movie-trailer-that-will-hit-tomorrow/
Oh. Wow.
:eek2:
-MJB
:drool:
It's impossible not to be excited by this. It looks epic! (although I hope the guy doesn't overuse the slo-mo like in Dawn Of The Dead and 300).
My only query is: the guy punching a chunk out of the wall ... what is that supposed to be from?
Am cautiously optomistic that they might not have screwed this up.
Was worried about the costumes..but that trailer..wow.
Quote from: Jakew on July 17, 2008, 05:42:06 PM
My only query is: the guy punching a chunk out of the wall ... what is that supposed to be from?
That's a scene from the beginning of the book. It's where the Comedian is attacked by someone.
-MJB
**
EDIT**
The official trailer is now online. No more hunting for it on youtube. :P
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/watchmen/ (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/watchmen/)
This looks amazing. I can't wait to see the end product.
Visually, it looks amazing. The costumes, vehicles, and recreation of the setting show incredible devotion to the original source material, and has been accomplished in a fashion that looks great. It deserves kudos for those facts alone.
But I'll confess that I absolutely hated the background music that played through the video montage. It grated on my ears. Music should not hurt to listen to.
Yeah, I just played it back ... it looks like the Comedian fights back in the movie rather than
:spoiler: :spoiler: :spoiler:
[spoiler]letting Veidt kill him in a one-sided beatdown.[/spoiler]
Edit: added spoiler code - BG
Quote from: Viking on July 17, 2008, 09:04:48 PM
Visually, it looks amazing. The costumes, vehicles, and recreation of the setting show incredible devotion to the original source material, and has been accomplished in a fashion that looks great. It deserves kudos for those facts alone.
But I'll confess that I absolutely hated the background music that played through the video montage. It grated on my ears. Music should not hurt to listen to.
That music is the Smashing Pumpkins song from the soundtrack for Batman and Robin.....
Ominous no?
A song being in a trailer is a good sign that that song will not be in the movie.
I have to say, this looks like it might be pretty good. I'm thinking that some action sequences might have been elaborated on when translated from the book to the movie. Watchmen is my favorite book of all time and I've gone from having a slight curiosity to an eager anticipation.
Also, I didn't see a single blue penis!
Looks nifty! It's such a great story -- it would be a shame for it to be a lackluster movie.
I actually liked that song. Thought it was very fitting.
I am just now realizing this is a DC/WARNER movie, restoring some of my faith in the pairing (besides Batman I mean). I hope somebody can apply this level of faithfulness to some good vertigo titles...
Changes: instead of a bunch of jaded and overweight grownups complaining it looks like you can expect some real action, which I will admit is different from the graphic novel but if they HAVE to change something having people be badasses is not that bad.
Quote from: Verfall on July 17, 2008, 09:28:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 17, 2008, 09:04:48 PM
Visually, it looks amazing. The costumes, vehicles, and recreation of the setting show incredible devotion to the original source material, and has been accomplished in a fashion that looks great. It deserves kudos for those facts alone.
But I'll confess that I absolutely hated the background music that played through the video montage. It grated on my ears. Music should not hurt to listen to.
That music is the Smashing Pumpkins song from the soundtrack for Batman and Robin.....
Ominous no?
Was going to mention the same thing now that I've finally seen it. (true, it was probably the only halfway decent thing about Batman & Robin, which isn't sayng much) Interesting choice.
Trailer looks amazing. I'm surprised how good they made Dr. Manhattan look. Got me interested to say the least. Here's hoping the actual script is solid, though juding from the clips, it seems they are following (at least visually) the source material pretty well.
Saw the trailer while watching the Dark Knight and I am sooooo going to see this movie. I'm going to read the graphic novel again, that trailer was so good
gotta admit, that trailer was pretty damn cool
Saw the trailer for the first time yesterday, during the previews before The Dark Knight.
That was ... incredible.
Wonder what the rating for this movie will be?
Quote from: AncientSpirit on July 21, 2008, 10:01:42 AM
Saw the trailer for the first time yesterday, during the previews before The Dark Knight.
That was ... incredible.
Wonder what the rating for this movie will be?
Well I'd assume it would be a definite R if it follows the book at all. From stills I've seen, I'm fairly sure there will still be defile in the story and they had to cut even a mild scene of that out of Hancock for a PG-13 rating. I can't imagine a Watchmen movie being any other rating...
I'm gonna say hard R, easily.
300 was, so this probably will be.
I am pretty sure it's R. See http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/07/17/exclusive-zack-snyder-reveals-secrets-in-watchmen-trailer/
Also, there is an amusing note in that piece that, to make the trailer PG-13 or whatever, they had to edit a one-half second shot where an assassin points a gun at the camera. Apparently, TPTB think that would freak people out. :rolleyes: So, they edited it into a walkie-talkie. :lol:
Quote from: BWPS on July 17, 2008, 09:41:04 PM
Also, I didn't see a single blue penis!
Then you didn't look hard enough ;)
Its in there.
Can anyone tell me what the name of that song was on the trailer? I'd like to buy it.
Quote from: ips on July 22, 2008, 05:38:09 AM
Quote from: Jakew on July 17, 2008, 09:06:32 PM
Yeah, I just played it back ... it looks like the Comedian fights back in the movie rather than
:spoiler: :spoiler: :spoiler:
[spoiler]letting Veidt kill him in a one-sided beatdown.[/spoiler]
Edit: added spoiler code - BG
thanks jake. (read b4 the mod edit)
I'd argue that that isn't a spoiler at all, since it's the very action that sets off the entire story.
The trailer looked alright, yeah. We'll see if the movie holds up.
Quote from: UnkoMan on July 23, 2008, 09:20:57 AM
Quote from: ips on July 22, 2008, 05:38:09 AM
Quote from: Jakew on July 17, 2008, 09:06:32 PM
Yeah, I just played it back ... it looks like the Comedian fights back in the movie rather than
:spoiler: :spoiler: :spoiler:
[spoiler]letting Veidt kill him in a one-sided beatdown.[/spoiler]
Edit: added spoiler code - BG
thanks jake. (read b4 the mod edit)
I'd argue that that isn't a spoiler at all, since it's the very action that sets off the entire story.
Actually, Unko, it kind of is, because they never show the killer's face in that part. It is only revealed at the very end of the story, because you arent supposed to know who set this giant plan in motion.
Just sayin'..
Quote from: Carravaggio on July 23, 2008, 06:36:23 AM
Quote from: BWPS on July 17, 2008, 09:41:04 PM
Also, I didn't see a single blue penis!
Then you didn't look hard enough ;)
Its in there.
Can anyone tell me what the name of that song was on the trailer? I'd like to buy it.
I believe it's called The End of the Beginning of the End (or something close to that) and it's by the Smashing Pumpkins. From what I've read, there's a couple different versions of that song, one is faster, and the slower one featured on the trailer here is also featured on the Batman & Robin soundtrack (believe it or not...)
i'm pretty sure everyone has seen this when they were watching the dark knight.
Quote from: TheMarvell on July 23, 2008, 06:36:05 PM
Quote from: Carravaggio on July 23, 2008, 06:36:23 AM
Quote from: BWPS on July 17, 2008, 09:41:04 PM
Also, I didn't see a single blue penis!
Then you didn't look hard enough ;)
Its in there.
Can anyone tell me what the name of that song was on the trailer? I'd like to buy it.
I believe it's called The End of the Beginning of the End (or something close to that) and it's by the Smashing Pumpkins. From what I've read, there's a couple different versions of that song, one is faster, and the slower one featured on the trailer here is also featured on the Batman & Robin soundtrack (believe it or not...)
There's 2 version:
The slow version is called the Beginning of the End
The fast version is called the End of the Beginning
(I think that's right, it could be reverse?)
Here are some awesome new promotional posters for the movie:
http://www.omelete.com.br/cine/100014038/Watchmen.aspx
:cool:
I have to confess, I haven't read Watchmen yet (a problem I'm going to soon remedy). But this trailer looks amazing! I totally want to see this.
Also I love the song they chose. It created such a prefect atmosphere for the trailer.
It's a haunting gn, and that Pumpkins song seems so perfect. I find myself watching the trailer every other day or so... In HD of course..
This looks really cool.
So many of the scenes from the trailer were ripped right off of the page!
And now, we may not get to see it:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=17752
Quote from: Nikki Finke
In February of this year, Fox filed a lawsuit to prevent the WB project from going forward, claiming Fox had the exclusive rights to develop, produce and distribute a film based on the hugely popular DC Comics graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Warner Bros. motioned for a dismissal of the lawsuit, and U.S. District Court Judge Gary Allen Feess denied WB's motion last Friday. No decision has yet been made regarding Fox's desire for an injunction of the entire WB project.
A Fox source told Finke, ""While the Judge's opinion is preliminary and his views could change in the course of the litigation, his current take on the facts is consistent with our position."
Rumor has it that Alan Moore didn't want the movie to be made. Anybody else heard this?
Quote from: JeyNyce on August 20, 2008, 06:58:02 AM
Rumor has it that Alan Moore didn't want the movie to be made. Anybody else heard this?
Moore doesn't want anything to do with any of the movies made from his books. He doesn't want his name in the credits, and lets the artist have all the royalty money. This is due to his falling out with DC Comics in general, plus some bad experiences he had with the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie. He talks a little bit about it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/movies/12itzk.html
Quote from: Figure Fan on July 23, 2008, 09:22:41 AM
Quote from: UnkoMan on July 23, 2008, 09:20:57 AM
I'd argue that that isn't a spoiler at all, since it's the very action that sets off the entire story.
Actually, Unko, it kind of is, because they never show the killer's face in that part. It is only revealed at the very end of the story, because you arent supposed to know who set this giant plan in motion.
Just sayin'..
Oh, oops. You're totally right. I glazed over that he said who did what. Whoops.
Anyhow, what's this Fox business? I gosh darn better be able to see this movie. They would be dissapointing so many people I would have to assume it would even cause their business to suffer somewhat.
And, yeah, Moore hates Hollywood AND DC. It's really a darn shame how they jerked him around so much. You'd think they'd treat one of, if not the greatest writer in comic book history with a little more respect. It's true that some things he doesn't like are him being a bit whiney, but come on. He's just such a fantastic talent you should really do anything in your power to keep him happy.
Alan Moore is a great writer, but he even admits to being really selfish. And weird, whiny, and oh-so-very creepy.
Some news on the Watchmen legal battle.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=18162
Hm, interesting. I'm actually willing to believe this, because I have heard about the long-lasting battle for the rights to the show.
I've never for a second believed that FOX wanted to stop the release of the film. They just want something else, and they're using it as huge leverage.
Well, I must say, if they do use this to get the old Batman show released on DVD, a lot of people will be happy with that, so this might all turn out for the best.
Quote from: JKCarrier on August 20, 2008, 07:26:30 AM
Quote from: JeyNyce on August 20, 2008, 06:58:02 AM
Rumor has it that Alan Moore didn't want the movie to be made. Anybody else heard this?
Moore doesn't want anything to do with any of the movies made from his books. He doesn't want his name in the credits, and lets the artist have all the royalty money. This is due to his falling out with DC Comics in general, plus some bad experiences he had with the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie. He talks a little bit about it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/movies/12itzk.html
Works for me. I like the movies way better than his comics, which I tolerate at best. If I can get a film that I like out of a comic I hate, that works for me. The reverse seems to happen just as often though. Comic or books I love becomes movies I hate. I really liked the league movie. I own the DVD.
{MOD EDIT}
QuoteWorks for me. I like the movies way better than his comics which O tolerate at best. If I can gey a film I like out of a comic I hate works for me. The reverse seems to happen just as often though. Coinic or book I love becomes movie I hate. I really liked the league movie. I own the DVD.
:o
I like a lot of the movies based off of Moore's work, but Moore himself sounds like a complete and utter jerk bag...
Why does he sound like a "jerk-bag"? :huh:
I'd say he definitely sounds more like a nut-job, but that's another matter.
I don't know about the trailer. I watched it when it appeared, watched it again and didn't cry at any point (apart from the shot of Ozy vs man in lobby where they screwed up the composition). But it's just visuals and there's little indication of how much of Moore's dialogue will remain. Colour me cautiously optimistic (the Sin City adaptation was a very good adaptation, but it mostly suffered the same problems as the source material). I do, however, understand Moore's reluctance to be involved. From Hell was average as a film at best and pretty poor as an adaptation, LXG was beyond terrible, even when I hadn't read the source material and V For Vendetta got a great many things wrong by changing them for no real reason, and was not more than an ok film itself. I understand that slavish adaptations make for poor films (Sin City, 300) but that change will only upset me. Moore (and Gilliam) is probably right in that it is 'unfilmable'. Maybe a 13-part TV series would be the way to go, but then the budget has to be higher again... *shrug*
Quote from: Jakew on September 24, 2008, 05:37:17 PM
Why does he sound like a "jerk-bag"? :huh:
because he's so full of himself. He acts like such a pompous arse when it comes to movies. I understand he's had plenty of falling-outs with DC and movie producers, but acting like a pretentious a-hole doesn't make him any better.
Quotepoor films (Sin City, 300)
I really enjoyed both of those movies. And I hate Frank Miller with all my heart.
Quotebecause he's so full of himself. He acts like such a pompous arse when it comes to movies. I understand he's had plenty of falling-outs with DC and movie producers, but acting like a pretentious a-hole doesn't make him any better.
Can you direct me to an interview, article or clip which shows him being "a pompous arse when it comes to movies"?
read any of the links posted above about him. But here's an example:
"In a telephone interview, Mr. Silver said he had misconstrued a meeting he had with Mr. Moore and Dave Gibbons nearly 20 years ago, when Mr. Silver first acquired the film rights to "Watchmen" and "V for Vendetta." (Mr. Silver no longer owns the rights to "Watchmen," though Warner Brothers is still planning an adaptation.) "I had a nice little lunch with them," he said, "and Alan was odd, but he was enthusiastic and encouraging us to do this. I had foolishly thought that he would continue feeling that way today, not realizing that he wouldn't."
Mr. Silver said he called Mr. Moore to apologize for his statement at the press conference, but that Mr. Moore was unmoved. "He said to me, 'I'm going to hang up on you if you don't stop talking to me,' " Mr. Silver recalled. "It was like a conversation with a tape recording."
Plus, you know, there's the fact that he has nothing but really negative things to say about movies based on his work even when he hasn't seen them. I thought V for Vendetta was an awesome movie and it got great reviews, but from what little he saw he merely nitpicked it like a whiney internet fanboy (one of his comments was about the breakfast V makes. I mean come on...) I also liked League, but I could see why he might have a problem with that film, and I've never seen From Hell.
It just seems like he's this bitter old man. I don't even know why anyone wants to know what he has to say about films based on his work when it's always something negative. He has reason to be bitter, sure, but not wanting his name credited because of his bitterness is what I consider pretty pretentious and full of himself.
Quote from: TheMarvell on September 28, 2008, 12:48:10 AMHe has reason to be bitter, sure, but not wanting his name credited because of his bitterness is what I consider pretty pretentious and full of himself.
"America is one of the few places where the failure to promote oneself is widely regarded as arrogance." -- Gary Trudeau
TheMarvell ... I don't think you can even compare Moore's written work and the movies that have been based on them. From Hell, LXG, and V For Vendetta largely don't even use his writing ... they just use the artists character design and the loose framework of the plot.
The comics From Hell, LXG, and V For Vendetta were all really well researched and written. The films threw all of that out the window. Now imagine being a writer who has written something pretty amazing but largely being known internationally as the guy whose name was on the credits of that awful movie with Johnny Depp playing an psychic Irish Opium-addict detective, very loosely based on your own work.
Besides, Alan Moore not only takes his name off the credits but signs over the $$$ to the artists involved. How is that not cool?
I agree. Again, I'm admittedly a huge Moore fan, but I think he was just screwed over one too many times and now he simply wishes to not be involved in that sort of stuff in any way. It's like if you went to a restaurant but kept getting punched in the face instead of a sandwich, and this was your general experience with all restaurants. Then, later in life, somebody asks you if you want to go to a restaurant. Okay, that's a terrible metaphor, but whatever.
Anyhow, I think this arguement is just about done. Some people say yay, and some say nay. We'll all have to agree to disagree and then get back to hoping this movie turns out to be actually good, since Watchmen is pretty much still THE epic super hero opus that people use to give comic books legitimacy in the mainstream public.
How is V for Vendetta that different from the book? I've managed to read parts of the book, and I just don't see a tremendous amount of change from the source material besides the obvious ones, like Eve's profession, ect.
I don't doubt that there is a discernible difference, though. Does anyone have a link for a comparison or something?
He doesn't sign over the money to the writers because he's a nice guy, he signs it over because of his bitterness. If he never had a falling out with DC or Hollywood, you can guarantee he wouldn't be signing over any money. He's not some martyr of comic book writers. He's just a bitter guy who wants nothing to do with the "filthy money" he'd normally get.
Like I said, he has reason to be bitter, but I think at this point he's just being petty by holding a grudge. Even when people apologize to him, he lifts his nose and turns away. And I guarantee he isn't the only writer who's work was misrepresented on the big screen. I mean, really, how many other comic book stories have come to the screen and were absolutely terrible adaptations? Or better yet: they're good movies but hardly at all follow the original source? I'll throw Spider-Man out there. Does Stan Lee act the same way? Not that I know of.
I don't want to "argue" about this, but I'm just explaining what I originally said about Moore. He has written some great stories and I DO think it's good that he's giving his earnings to the writers (regardless of actual reason behind it) but his behavior is immature.
Quote from: Figure Fan on October 01, 2008, 04:57:33 PM
How is V for Vendetta that different from the book? I've managed to read parts of the book, and I just don't see a tremendous amount of change from the source material besides the obvious ones, like Eve's profession, ect.
I don't doubt that there is a discernible difference, though. Does anyone have a link for a comparison or something?
You probably didn't notice the changes because you haven't read the entire book ... the movie is a skeleton of the book, with paper-thin characters and slow-motion kung-fu scenes. From Wikipedia:
Differences between the film and graphic novel
The film's story was adapted from an Alan Moore comic originally published between 1982 and 1985 in the British comic anthology Warrior, and then reprinted and completed by DC. These comics were later compiled into a graphic novel and published again in the United States under DC's Vertigo imprint and in the United Kingdom under Titan Books.
Alan Moore's original story is darker, with a greater emphasis on anarchist themes.There are several fundamental differences between the film and the original source material. For example, the comic is set in the '90s, while the film is set in 2038: Alan Moore's original story was created as a response to British Thatcherism in the early 80s and was set as a conflict between a fascist state and anarchism, whereas the film's story has been changed by the Wachowskis to fit a modern political context.[15] Alan Moore charges that in doing so, the story has turned into an American-centric conflict between liberalism and neo-conservatism, and abandons the original anarchist-fascist themes. Moore states, "There wasn't a mention of anarchy as far as I could see. The fascism had been completely defanged. I mean, I think that any references to racial purity had been excised, whereas actually, fascists are quite big on racial purity."[15] Furthermore, in the original story, Moore attempted to maintain moral ambiguity, and not to portray the fascists as caricatures, but as realistic, rounded characters.[15] The time limitations of a film meant that the story had to omit or streamline some of the characters, details, and plotlines from the original story.[4] Chiefly, whereas the original graphic novel has the fascists elected legally and kept in power through the general apathy of the public, the film introduces the "St. Mary's virus," a biological weapon engineered and released by the Norsefire party as a means of clandestinely gaining control over their own country.
Many of the characters from the graphic novel underwent significant changes for the film. For example, V is characterized in the film as a romantic freedom fighter who shows concern over the loss of innocent life. However, in the graphic novel, he is portrayed as ruthless, willing to kill anyone who gets in his way. Evey Hammond's transformation as V's protégé is also much more drastic in the novel than in the film. At the beginning of the film, she is already a confident woman with a hint of rebellion in her, whereas in the graphic novel she starts off as an insecure, desperate young woman forced into prostitution. V and Evey's relationship, strictly platonic in the original novel, develops romantically in the film, ending with mutual pledges of love. In the graphic novel's finale, she not only carries out V's plans as she does in the film, but also clearly takes on V's identity.[5] Whereas in the film Inspector Finch sympathizes with V, in the graphic novel he is determined to stop V and goes as far as taking LSD in order to enter into a criminal's state of mind.[5] Characters who were completely omitted from the film or had a significantly reduced role include Rose Almond, Alistair Harper, and Mrs. Heyer.
The graphic novel's main villains also underwent changes in the film adaptation. While the Chancellor within Moore's text is a brutal dictator, he is also a lonely, socially inept man who truly believes in fascism, and, in the end, wishes merely to be accepted and loved by his people. The film, however, presents none of these human qualities. Creedy, meanwhile, evolves from a relatively minor character in the graphic novel to one of the chief characters of the film adaptation; in the film, he is revealed to have been the brains behind the bioterror attack that Norsefire used to seize power. His personality is also somewhat revamped in the film; whereas he is a coarse, petty opportunist in the graphic novel, in the film he is an icy sociopath whom V calls "a man seemingly without a conscience, for whom the ends always justify the means."
The setting and plot of the film were also changed from the original story. Whereas the film only mentions the United States' civil war and collapse, in the graphic novel, it is mentioned that a global nuclear war has destroyed much of the world outside of Britain. With a nuclear winter causing famine and massive flooding, there is a real fear that a collapse of the Norsefire government would lead to disaster. Whereas the film ends in a relatively peaceful overthrow, in the graphic novel there is a violent collapse of authority. Other differences include the computer system "Fate", which is completely missing from the film. (In the original story, Fate was a Big Brother-like computer which served as Norsefire's eyes and ears and also helped explain how V could see and hear the things he did) V's terrorist targets are also different in the graphic novel, as he destroys Parliament and the Old Bailey in the beginning, and destroys 10 Downing Street for the finale.
Quote from: TheMarvell on October 01, 2008, 05:47:22 PM
He doesn't sign over the money to the writers because he's a nice guy, he signs it over because of his bitterness. If he never had a falling out with DC or Hollywood, you can guarantee he wouldn't be signing over any money. He's not some martyr of comic book writers. He's just a bitter guy who wants nothing to do with the "filthy money" he'd normally get.
Oh yeah, he's awful for signing over that money :rolleyes:
QuoteLike I said, he has reason to be bitter, but I think at this point he's just being petty by holding a grudge. Even when people apologize to him, he lifts his nose and turns away. And I guarantee he isn't the only writer who's work was misrepresented on the big screen. I mean, really, how many other comic book stories have come to the screen and were absolutely terrible adaptations? Or better yet: they're good movies but hardly at all follow the original source? I'll throw Spider-Man out there. Does Stan Lee act the same way? Not that I know of.
You're comparing the Spider-Man films to From Hell, LXG and V For Vendetta? I really don't even want to touch that one, because if you can't recognise that Sam Raimi treated Spider-Man (a character created in 1962 with a HUGE amount of stories and history to sift through) with a ton of respect, then I dunno ... I don't want to be the one to explain the difference to you.
QuoteI don't want to "argue" about this, but I'm just explaining what I originally said about Moore. He has written some great stories and I DO think it's good that he's giving his earnings to the writers (regardless of actual reason behind it) but his behavior is immature.
As I said, he doesn't want to have anything to do with the people who keep mangling his painstakingly detailed work into crappy films. He doesn't talk about the movies, have his name on the credits or collect $$$. Big deal. I don't see anything wrong with that. Anyway, if the film is good or bad, let it stand on its own merits without slapping "created by Alan Moore" on it.
Quote from: Jakew on October 01, 2008, 07:28:26 PM
Oh yeah, he's awful for signing over that money :rolleyes:
when did I ever say or imply that? I thought I made it pretty clear that despite his reasons, giving the money to the writers was a good thing. But that doesn't make him a "cool person" when he's only doing that because of his past grudges.
Quote from: Jakew on October 01, 2008, 07:28:26 PM
You're comparing the Spider-Man films to From Hell, LXG and V For Vendetta? I really don't even want to touch that one, because if you can't recognise that Sam Raimi treated Spider-Man (a character created in 1962 with a HUGE amount of stories and history to sift through) with a ton of respect, then I dunno ... I don't want to be the one to explain the difference to you.
No, I was giving an example that even the best of current comic book movies aren't perfect, and their creators don't gripe and nitpick about it as much as Moore does. Again, I thought I was pretty clear on that too. Any kind of entertainment that shifts from one form of media to another goes through changes because it has to adapt. Now, I've never seen From Hell, and LXG had it's moments, but V for Vendetta was still a great film whether or not it follows the book. Jurassic Park hardly followed the book at all either, but still managed to be a great film. Does Michael Crichton make snide remarks like Alan Moore? Nope. That's all I was comparing.
Quote from: Jakew on October 01, 2008, 07:28:26 PM
As I said, he doesn't want to have anything to do with the people who keep mangling his painstakingly detailed work into crappy films. He doesn't talk about the movies, have his name on the credits or collect $$$. Big deal. I don't see anything wrong with that. Anyway, if the film is good or bad, let it stand on its own merits without slapping "created by Alan Moore" on it.
You were the one who asked me why I thought Alan Moore sounded like a jackass, and I gave my reasons. You don't agree, and that's fine. But every time I read about Moore in an article, he sounds more and more pretentious, and don't understand why there's so many who worship him.
To be honest, I see Marvell's point. I really respect Moore's work and I see his point of view, but him signing over the money is certainly not out of the goodness of his heart. At least, not totally.
Also, I thought V for Vendetta was an amazing movie. Based on the differences between the book and the film, according to Wikipedia, there are parts I like in each. I just think that saying V for Vendetta is a terrible movie is simply a case of "I read the book and now every other interpretation sucks". From a film standpoint, it was actually very well done. Adaptation or not.
Oh, and Marvell: I see what you're saying about people being in love with Moore, but I think it's more about loving his work, not the man behind the work. I think he's quite 'out there' to be honest, but his stories are very good. Watchmen is a masterpiece.
Quote from: TheMarvell on October 01, 2008, 08:32:37 PM
Quote from: Jakew on October 01, 2008, 07:28:26 PM
Oh yeah, he's awful for signing over that money :rolleyes:
when did I ever say or imply that? I thought I made it pretty clear that despite his reasons, giving the money to the writers was a good thing. But that doesn't make him a "cool person" when he's only doing that because of his past grudges.
Er, no... you said: "He doesn't sign over the money to the writers because he's a nice guy, he signs it over because of his bitterness... He's just a bitter guy who wants nothing to do with the "filthy money" he'd normally get." ie, he's giving the artist's "filthy money" just to spite the studio. I'm not sure why you think that would spite the studio, because he can keep the money and still complain, but anyway....
Also ... I said signing the cash over was "cool". I didn't say that act made Alan Moore a "cool person". You misread me.
Quote from: Jakew on October 01, 2008, 07:28:26 PM
You're comparing the Spider-Man films to From Hell, LXG and V For Vendetta? I really don't even want to touch that one, because if you can't recognise that Sam Raimi treated Spider-Man (a character created in 1962 with a HUGE amount of stories and history to sift through) with a ton of respect, then I dunno ... I don't want to be the one to explain the difference to you.
QuoteNo, I was giving an example that even the best of current comic book movies aren't perfect, and their creators don't gripe and nitpick about it as much as Moore does. Again, I thought I was pretty clear on that too. Any kind of entertainment that shifts from one form of media to another goes through changes because it has to adapt. Now, I've never seen From Hell, and LXG had it's moments, but V for Vendetta was still a great film whether or not it follows the book. Jurassic Park hardly followed the book at all either, but still managed to be a great film. Does Michael Crichton make snide remarks like Alan Moore? Nope. That's all I was comparing.
Apples and oranges. LXG = six-issue series. spider-man has been published for 46 years. Jurassic Park was a detailed science fiction novel. Some need to be changed more, updated, excised, abbrevited, condensed, whatever ... some more than others, obviously. Regarding V, Moore's complaint was that the film ran contrary to the theme of his original work, which was to place two political extremes (fascism and anarchism) against one another. He argued his work had been recast as a story about "current American neo-conservatism vs. current American liberalism". That changes the CORE of his Moore's work ... imagine Jurassic Park ending with Sam Neill going "yeah, it's cool to play God after all". Of course an adaptation from one media to the other is going to change the piece of work ... but you're using selective examples of some decent adaptations. I could name just as many crappy novel-to-film adaptations.
Quote from: Jakew on October 01, 2008, 07:28:26 PM
As I said, he doesn't want to have anything to do with the people who keep mangling his painstakingly detailed work into crappy films. He doesn't talk about the movies, have his name on the credits or collect $$$. Big deal. I don't see anything wrong with that. Anyway, if the film is good or bad, let it stand on its own merits without slapping "created by Alan Moore" on it.
QuoteYou were the one who asked me why I thought Alan Moore sounded like a jackass, and I gave my reasons. You don't agree, and that's fine. But every time I read about Moore in an article, he sounds more and more pretentious, and don't understand why there's so many who worship him.
Yes, that certainly is your opinion. I think we have different definitions for "pretentious". And by Alan Moore sounding like a jack-arse, you mean the way Hollywood studios have described him, not ACTUAL interviews WITH Alan Moore. Maybe you should read some interviews with the guy himself, or why he doesn't like the films based on his movies ... or even just the guy's actual comics. They're pretty good.
Also, bwaha at Unko!
Quote from: UnkoMan on October 01, 2008, 04:45:17 PM
I agree. Again, I'm admittedly a huge Moore fan, but I think he was just screwed over one too many times and now he simply wishes to not be involved in that sort of stuff in any way. It's like if you went to a restaurant but kept getting punched in the face instead of a sandwich, and this was your general experience with all restaurants. Then, later in life, somebody asks you if you want to go to a restaurant. Okay, that's a terrible metaphor, but whatever.
I do want to point out that fascism and anarchism are still very much alive in the film adaptation of V for Vendetta. While the film's fascist characters are quite apparent, the anarchic characters are romanticized--and not just in terms of character relationships--which might be why the anarchy theme could be misinterpreted. It is definitely still there, though. I mean, V seeks to cause chaos within the British people, which is usually the main goal of an anarchist. It is then up to the people to decide on whether or not to be inspired by his message or to follow the current rule, however strict and harsh it may be.
But they don't use the word 'anarchist', they use the word 'terrorist'. V might well be that as well as an anarchist, but the implication is that he's no different from Muslim extremists or IRA members or whoever. Maybe he isn't, but in the current political climate, it's a very highly charged word. I appreciate that a book set in the 1980s might be less politically relevant in the 2000s and that the Wachowskis might have wanted to change things as a result, but to go from a subtle analysis of fascism and anarchism to a simple good vs. evil story was not their best move.
It should be noted that Moore's bitterness about the movie business isn't just about the quality of the films. 20th Century Fox was sued over League of Extraordinary Gentlemen by a writer who claimed that the story was plagiarized from a script he'd pitched years earlier. Moore got caught up in this, and had to testify in a deposition. In the end, Fox decided to settle out of court. This infuriated Moore, because he took it as an admission of guilt. The upshot of this, and various other major and minor disputes he's had, is that Moore felt that he and his work were being treated with contempt. Therefore, he doesn't want anything to do with these people, and doesn't want to put himself in a position where he's beholden to them in any way.
You can argue that he's being overly sensitive or whatever, but at least he's putting his money where his mouth is. It would be easy for him to gripe and moan, and then cash the check anyway. Most people in comics would kill their grandma for a chance to get into movies, and I think it's kind of refreshing to see someone who isn't so completely starstruck.
While I don't really care to carry this conversation any further, I feel I have to respond to the last response directed at me.
Quote from: Jakew on October 01, 2008, 10:26:21 PM
Apples and oranges. LXG = six-issue series. spider-man has been published for 46 years. Jurassic Park was a detailed science fiction novel. Some need to be changed more, updated, excised, abbrevited, condensed, whatever ... some more than others, obviously. Regarding V, Moore's complaint was that the film ran contrary to the theme of his original work, which was to place two political extremes (fascism and anarchism) against one another. He argued his work had been recast as a story about "current American neo-conservatism vs. current American liberalism". That changes the CORE of his Moore's work ... imagine Jurassic Park ending with Sam Neill going "yeah, it's cool to play God after all". Of course an adaptation from one media to the other is going to change the piece of work ... but you're using selective examples of some decent adaptations. I could name just as many crappy novel-to-film adaptations.
While I might be stretching this a bit, one could say that this change for the film isn't that drastic as neo-conservatism vs current American liberalism could easily be considered two political extremes. While certainly not along the same lines as fascism vs anarchy, I think the change for the film was actually for the better, especially considering the demographic. It doesn't change the core completely, especially when it's only an underlying aspect. Jurassic Park ending that way WOULD completely change the theme of the movie, but your comparison isn't the same when applied to V. And of course I'm going to be selective with my examples. I'm not going to pick bad examples to make my point, as that would make it completely void. My original point still stands that was basically even though the movie might not follow the book closely at all (Jurassic Park), it could still be a great movie.
Quote from: Jakew on October 01, 2008, 10:26:21 PM
Yes, that certainly is your opinion. I think we have different definitions for "pretentious". And by Alan Moore sounding like a jack-arse, you mean the way Hollywood studios have described him, not ACTUAL interviews WITH Alan Moore. Maybe you should read some interviews with the guy himself, or why he doesn't like the films based on his movies ... or even just the guy's actual comics. They're pretty good.
I might be completely misreading this last part directed at me, but there seems to be some pretty snide insinuations here, and I don't really appreciate it. You're putting words into my mouth and assuming I've only read one or two articles recently about Moore because of the example I posted above regarding his rude behavior. I've read about Moore over the last few years around the time LXG came out because I've never heard of him and liked the movie enough to be interested in him. No, I don't know the guy or am in any way some expert on his history (not even close), but I've read actual interviews with him AND about him and that's where my opinion is stemming from. Just because I didn't supply enough links for you to be satisfied doesn't mean I'm just spouting off an uninformed opinion (and at this point, I'm not going to supply the links of the interviews I've read, as A) it was a long time ago, and B) I don't think it matters at this point). And you're also assuming I've never read anything by him either, even though I've said multiple times that he's a great writer. From the complaints I've seen about the movies based on his work FROM HIM seem mostly petty to me, like what V made Evey for breakfast and what they called it. Or him prematurely bad mouthing the Watchmen movie. They could make the most faithful adaptation of his work and he'd still hate it. That's what I find immature, pretentious, and silly about him. Alan Moore could be the nicest guy on earth, but you'd never know that just by going by his interviews.
If that isn't what you meant with that last paragraph, then I apologize. I don't care to get into internet bickering, but I just don't like it when it's an assumed "you don't know what you're talking about" when it's just a different opinion.
No, the comment wasn't intended to be snide. But it does seem like you're slagging Moore off when you haven't even read the books AND movie adaptations yourself. So you don't really know what Moore's complaining about, but you're calling him "immature, pretentious, and silly" for doing so.
:huh:
Quote from: Jakew on October 06, 2008, 04:32:12 PM
No, the comment wasn't intended to be snide. But it does seem like you're slagging Moore off when you haven't even read the books AND movie adaptations yourself. So you don't really know what Moore's complaining about, but you're calling him "immature, pretentious, and silly" for doing so.
:huh:
No, you're only assuming I haven't read anything by him because you disagree with me. Regardless though, whether or not I've read all his books is besides the point. Most of his complaints that I've read about I think are just nitpicky or I plain just disagree with. Being a great writer doesn't justify rude behavior. Going back to Watchmen, Zack Snyder approached him with respect because he understood his issues and loves his work, but Moore wrote him off as just another dumb Hollywood exec because he associates Zack with 300, and he didn't like 300, not because he didn't like the movie, but because he didn't like the graphic novel it was based on. He said himself he's never seen the movie, so he dislikes Zack Snyder because he doesn't like the comic that the movie was based on, completely ignoring how faithful the movie is to the book. How is that not silly? :huh:
So have you read LXG, From Hell and V For Vendetta, as well as seen the respective movie versions?
Because, from your posts, it doesn't seem like it.
As I said, you seem to be criticising Moore without actually knowing what his problem is with films made from his work.
What difference does it make? Whether or not I've read anything by him doesn't change my opinion on his rude behavior - which is the sole reason why I said he seemed like a "jerk bag" to begin with. He doesn't have to like the movies his work is based on, but that doesn't justify rude and immature behavior either.
There is only one way to resolve this.
I propose an arm-wrestle in Shibuya, Tokyo, in two weeks time. Winner take all. :D
:P Sounds good to me. We'll just have to agree to disagree, but agree that Moore has some great stories. His newest one - the borderline pornographic one - just sounds too bizarre to me, lol.
Yeah, man ... I love Moore's stuff but I haven't bothered to pick up his recent Lost Girls (the porn one), League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Black Dossier, Promethea etc. He's in his own world at the moment :wacko:
I think my favourite stuff of his is probably Top Ten, for some reason. V for Vendetta, Watchmen and From Hell were all epic (From Hell is a REALLY impressively researched book), but Top Ten is a fun little comic, and his writing works beautifully with Gene Ha.
Never read the graphic novel... But I rank the movie , V for Vendetta, among my favorites of all time. Whatever chaanges they made worked on myself and a lot of people who never read the graphic novel to begin with.
Some times I think that a problem exist with people who read a book athen watch the movie. They expect to see what they read and when they don't they will often say the movie sucked because it wasn't true to the book. When in fact the movie may have been a good movie and well liked by many.
Moore does come across as some what... odd.
Quote from: House Quake on October 15, 2008, 11:32:04 PM
Never read the graphic novel... But I rank the movie , V for Vendetta, among my favorites of all time. Whatever chaanges they made worked on myself and a lot of people who never read the graphic novel to begin with.
Some times I think that a problem exist with people who read a book athen watch the movie. They expect to see what they read and when they don't they will often say the movie sucked because it wasn't true to the book. When in fact the movie may have been a good movie and well liked by many.
This is how I feel as well, HQ. Whenever I plan to watch a comic movie I've never read, I hold off on checking the book out until after I see the movie so that I don't make unfair and obviously biased opinions by comparing mediums right off the back.
I'm reading the trade now. I got it because it's supposed to be a classic and the trailer got me really interested, and...I'm really enjoying it. Looking forward to the movie.
The original maxi-series was dubbed "classic" for a reason. Each and every comic fan out there owes it to themselves to at least read the trade.
Admittedly the trade is not for everyone but it is one great read if you have an open mind.
-MJB
Well, Alan Moore was optimistic about a Watchmen movie once.....
http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/mwop/moviefile/2008/10/alan-moore-endorsed-watchmen-m.php
I read the Sam Hamm script (it's around on the intertubes if you're willing to look. I think it's even linked in the article Jakew posted) and was so disappointed. Apart from completely changing the plot and especially the ending, it completely lacked the style and feel of Moore's work. I can understand why Moore, too, felt disappointed. If the guy you think can really do your work justice butchers it like Hamm did then being a bit jaded when the next guy comes along is fair enough. David Hayter's script is not as bad, but the messing around with time periods for what seems like no good reason irritated me.
Quote from: Jakew on October 15, 2008, 05:44:47 PM
So have you read LXG, as well as seen the respective movie version?
Not to get into this BUT ,I tried to read LXG because I liked the movie so much but Moore seemed to "get" the characters I remembered so much less than the screen version, I couldn't finish the series.
Here's a link to a NEW Watchmen trailer.
http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/10/22/must-watch-watchmen-footage-from-the-scream-awards/
:blink:
Looks pretty awesome.
That scene where Doc Manhattan takes the tank apart... :thumbup:
-MJB
I liked the Nite Owl / Laurie / nuclear explosion scene. I'm glad they included that.
AND the giant Dr Manhattan hand crashing through the skylight at Karnak.
I really like how Snyder is cutting together some cool scenes from the comic for his trailers. He's a canny guy.
Not sure if this was posted... but here is some Watchmen goodies up on Yahoo
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808406490/video/10658091 (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808406490/video/10658091)
I just finished the graphic novel the other day. All set and excited for the movie.
I'm glad the talk of Alan Moore is done now, although I was going to show this interview (http://www.avclub.com/content/node/24222). Still... Leaving it alone is nice.
As to the movie... I noticed that every single voice sounds weird to me, and not like I imagined them at all. I'm not the sort who usually gets this sensation, although I have often been told of it. Now I know how it feels. A little unsettling.
I also wonder if all this random slow motion stuff is going to be infesting the movie, or if it was simply done for the trailers.
But I keep sounding too hard on it. I mean my next statement was going to be "Even if it is terrible at least we know it is going to make a ton of money... will this entice hollywood into making a sequel?"
I don't mean to sound bleak though! I really am exciting and cannot wait for this to open. I will, most likely, see it opening night. Horray! Epic! I hope they make a longer version for the DVD, no matter how long the theatrical version is!
Was reading an interview yesterday (which I don't have the link to off hand) where the director said he expects the theatrical version to be about 2 hours and 40 mins, the Directors cut DVD will be over 3 hours, and there will be a Black Freighter version that integrates the short film into the main movie which is supposed to be almost 4 hours.
So, as shown in the second trailer, it looks there is now a superhero team made up of The Comedian, Dr Manhattan, Silk Spectre, Nite Owl, Ozymandias and Rorscharch, called "The Watchmen" (I'm still wondering what the point of that is?). Which is totally new and never happened in the comic.
It also looks the original ending has been changed to the long rumoured new ending.
Um.... :blink: I know certain adjustments have to made for comic-to-film, but the adjustments are starting to add up into V For Vendetta territory.
Quote from: Jakew on November 18, 2008, 01:12:37 AM
So, as shown in the second trailer, it looks there is now a superhero team made up of The Comedian, Dr Manhattan, Silk Spectre, Nite Owl, Ozymandias and Rorscharch, called "The Watchmen" (I'm still wondering what the point of that is?). Which is totally new and never happened in the comic.
Actually, it looks like they took the team that Captain Metropolis tried to put together about halfway through the book, and renamed it The Watchmen. That's not a big deal to me.
Quote from: Jakew on November 18, 2008, 01:12:37 AM
It also looks the original ending has been changed to the long rumoured new ending.
a) What new ending?
b) [spoiler]
From the trailer alone, there are several elements of the graphic novel ending that seem to be intact
- The devastation of NY when the thing gets teleported in
- Jon's giant hand crashing through the skylight of Karnak
- Jon's disintegration of Rorshach
[/spoiler]
Not sure what you're seeing- care to explain?
Here's what I've heard about the ending:
[spoiler]The squid has been removed. Something else will replace it in the story. Someone, I think Lying In the Gutters, said that the threat would be Dr. Manhatten that the world rallies against. But the squid seems to definitely be removed from the finished film, supposedly because a mainstream audience wouldn't find it believable. It was modelled though. [/spoiler]
Grrrrr.... *gnaws on stress/chew toy*
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning
QuoteActually, it looks like they took the team that Captain Metropolis tried to put together about halfway through the book, and renamed it The Watchmen. That's not a big deal to me.
Yeah, but it looks they actually BECAME a team, as opposed to that single Crimbusters meeting. Just like in the *shudder* Sam Hamm "It's the Godamn Watchmen" script. Silk Spectre II and The Comedian working side by side? Um...
As for the ending:
[spoiler]Apparently it's been changed so that, instead of the alien, Veidt shoots a satellite laser with Dr Manhattan's energy signature into New York. Thus the world rallies together to defend the planet against Dr Manhattan[/spoiler]
Words cannot express how badly those ending rumors best not be true. It will destroy the entire movie if they are.
Although I haven't read the book (yet), me thinks I've already spoiled myself way too much by reading this thread and glimpsing at spoiler territory. Damn my curiosity. :doh:
Quote from: TheMarvell on November 19, 2008, 04:41:33 PM
Although I haven't read the book (yet), me thinks I've already spoiled myself way too much by reading this thread and glimpsing at spoiler territory. Damn my curiosity. :doh:
What are you waiting for? Haha!
Yeah, AVOID AVOID these threads if you haven't read the book. For goodness sake, man!
I don't know...while I don't see any real reason to change that part of the story, the Dr. Manhattan angle fits surprisingly well. I think it would be better unchanged, but at least that actually makes sense, story wise. Still, it does make me nervous about what else they might change.
My feelings exactly, BG.
The interview I read with Synder seemed to imply that was the only major change. And yes Bredon it seems very much that it is true.
Synder made a lot more changes than he let on, apparently.
25 Minutes of Watchmen
WatchmenComicMovie.com was at the press event that screened several scenes of the movie
http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/100708-watchmen-movie-footage.php (http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/100708-watchmen-movie-footage.php)
A few things in the article which made me sigh in exasperation a little. I knew they were probably going to happen but still ...
[spoiler]"Snyder told the audience that he got interested in comics by way of a subscription to the über sexy and violent Heavy Metal magazine. After that, he explained that whenever he picked up a regular comic book he would think, "nobody's really fuckin' or dyin' in this, so I don't get it." So when he saw Watchmen, it immediately appealed to him."
"Blake looks down and sees that his gun is on the coffee table, resting atop a copy of "Hustler" magazine. He slowly pours the tea out of his cup, then quickly hurls it at the intruder. The intruder ducks, and the cup smashes onto the open door busting the apartment number which was 3002, to now read 300 (easter egg!)"
"Basically, I liked everything I saw. At first, though, I thought Blake's battle with his "assailant" was a bit overdone and there attacks were very exaggerated and unrealistic. I mean, these are not real superheros with powers, just strong men with great fighting skills. I even brought this concern up with Dave Gibbons after the event and he explained to me that even though they aren't real superheros, they are incredible people in their own right who have the best of any man's fighting skills. So, if it's good enough for Dave..."
"Yes, we have some added action, and Snyder adds on a layer of his slow-motion/speed-up techniques on these sequences, but you can tell he's showing restraint — using these techniques sparingly and only to add tension and heighten the drama where it fits."[/spoiler]
Something I did like:
[spoiler]
— Adrian Veidt (a.k.a. Ozymandias) hanging out in front of New York City's famous Studio 54 with the Village People and David Bowie.[/spoiler]
I'm kinda glad I haven't read the book... or tried to read too many of the spoilers here. :(
I'm not trying to be argumentative... but geez guys... is there EVER going to be a movie you don't nit pick or turn into negative Nancys on before it even comes out?
One thing I believe most of you miss... 95% of the people who may see this movie will have never read any comic about this movie prior. 80% will have never picked up a comic in thier life. While comic based movies often throw in enough to cater to the fan boyz... they have to be more conscious about catering to the masses. And in most cases... what worked in the comic doesn't translate well into what will work on film.. or what most people may enjoy.
Sure we want them to stay true to the characters and storylines... but producers, directors, screen writers, etc aren't always just trying to re-create a carbon copy of what some one else has done already with out any of thier own creative input involved. They want to take what was previously true and add thier own wrinkles to it so they can surprise and give people something new.
The only times you get movies which stay true to thier source material is when the person who made the source is directly involved... and even then that is only seldom ly true.
Sorry, you don't get to change Major Plot Points. I knew there were going to be minor changes, and I was ok with that (for example the naming of the team, 'The Watchmen'), but that ending (if true, and I refuse to believe its true until I see the finished product) is a complete and utter deal breaker.
You want to make a change like that? Go write your own <bleeping> novel and film THAT, instead. If you're adapting something, your job is to stay as close to the source material as possible. Period. End of Story.
(Yes, this is a bit ranty, but this has gotten on my nerves for years - especially after the first Harry Potter movie proved just how possible it was to do exactly what I thought an adapatation should do)
You are comparing The Watchmen to Harry Potter?! Eww...
-MJB
Yeah why would you compare a film adaptation of one of the coolest books of all time to one film adaptation of the coolest books of all time?
Let me say this in closing, before this gets off subject, my "ew" is my opinion. It is neither wrong nor right. I say this because I feel that way, not to influence anyone.
Let us not derail this subject any longer. Back to talking about the Watchmen...
-MJB
the first Harry Potter movie actually almost put me to sleep, which proves, to me at least, that even the most faithful of adaptations can still make for poor movies.
So where is the best place to get a copy of Watchmen? Is the one on Amazon a good one?
Wherever you can find a copy of the complete series on the cheap is a good place.
-MJB
Quote from: TheMarvell on November 20, 2008, 10:36:36 PM
So where is the best place to get a copy of Watchmen? Is the one on Amazon a good one?
I bought mine from Amazon a month or so ago. About $15 Canadian. It's the normal current paperback volume, but the hardcover should be out now or soon. There's also the expensive Absolute Edition.
Kinda wish I'd gotten a hardcover version if only because my cat bit my paperback :(
Quote from: bredon7777 on November 20, 2008, 09:11:46 PM
Sorry, you don't get to change Major Plot Points. I knew there were going to be minor changes, and I was ok with that (for example the naming of the team, 'The Watchmen'), but that ending (if true, and I refuse to believe its true until I see the finished product) is a complete and utter deal breaker.
You want to make a change like that? Go write your own <bleeping> novel and film THAT, instead. If you're adapting something, your job is to stay as close to the source material as possible. Period. End of Story.
(Yes, this is a bit ranty, but this has gotten on my nerves for years - especially after the first Harry Potter movie proved just how possible it was to do exactly what I thought an adapatation should do)
Quote from: JuvenalSed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Ego mos non, si illa vicissitudo subsisto.ow_tiobe_sb
Bunburyistis Phasmatis et Fossor Oriens
Very clever tiobe.
Bravo, tiobe. Well said.
Ok, translation for those of us without big brains?
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who watches the watchmen?
Ego mos non, si illa vicissitudo subsisto
I will not , if you wish that change to stand
ego partis idem eadem idem sensus
Also, a new Total Film article regarding the previews:
http://www.totalfilm.com/features/first-reaction-watchmen (http://www.totalfilm.com/features/first-reaction-watchmen)
It did upset me the way that they were referred to as "the watchmen". One of the best bits is that it's constantly implied in the graphic novel, but never outright said (save in the title). The Crimebusters meeting proved how all the heroes are too different to work together, especially The Comedian and Rorschach (more so later on for the latter) and although the Juvenal graffiti appears all over the place, it's never shown in its entirety. We as comic readers come to the text with preconceived notions about hero teams and, after X-Men etc., so will film audiences. I think to cater to what people expect (random heroes with powarz get together because they have powarz and the plot demands it) is oversimplifying what Moore was trying to do.
What I expect we will see is Watchmen as Zack Snyder reads it and thinks about it. This will not be Watchmen as I read it and think about it and may or may not overlap with my view or with yours. That does not preclude it from being a good film. Peter Jackson's LotR films were good films, even though they were far from how I read and think about the book (especially the latter two) and I enjoyed them for what they were. I will try and do the same for Watchmen, knowing always that I can go back to the text whenever I need to.
i just finished the book, so if the alien has been changed have we been told what it's been changed too? [spoiler] if it's still an "alien invasion" it's the same message that moore was putting across of the fake threat to unite a warring world[/spoiler]
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on November 26, 2008, 02:26:01 PM
i just finished the book, so if the alien has been changed have we been told what it's been changed too? [spoiler] if it's still an "alien invasion" it's the same message that moore was putting across of the fake threat to unite a warring world[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Rumor is it that the 'threat' has been changed to Dr. Manhatten.
And unless there's misdirection being put out, it seems a certainty that the squid is not part of the ending.[/spoiler]
New trailer / Comicon footage ... we see Moloch, Janey Slater, Dollar Bill, Silk Spectre I, etc
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/watchmen/comic-con-footage (http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/watchmen/comic-con-footage)
This looks great ... easily the best trailer so far. I think this trailer was designed to keep the fans onboard after Trailer 2 (which showed a few major alterations to a film that had been hyped as a faithful adaptation of the comic).
Also, this is the new French trailer ... we see Roscharch as a kid, Archie in Antarctica, some more action, etc.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/International-Watchmen-Trailer-11194.html (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/International-Watchmen-Trailer-11194.html)
Quote from: Podmark on November 26, 2008, 08:28:40 PM
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on November 26, 2008, 02:26:01 PM
i just finished the book, so if the alien has been changed have we been told what it's been changed too? [spoiler] if it's still an "alien invasion" it's the same message that moore was putting across of the fake threat to unite a warring world[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Rumor is it that the 'threat' has been changed to Dr. Manhatten.
And unless there's misdirection being put out, it seems a certainty that the squid is not part of the ending.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]I wouldn't be surprised if it was misdirection. After all, there was a thing around the mid point of the series where Dr. Manhattan was believed to a threat to mankind and all.
Though I do expect some sort of change that would put Ozymandis squarely in the role of villain and Night Owl and Silk Spectre in the role of Heroes. Otherwise, it appears as though "the villain won" and was allowed to by "the hero" thus negating their status as hero while the one person who wanted to expose the villain was killed by another hero.
I think this fact would be why Alan Moore is against the thing being made into a movie.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on December 10, 2008, 05:16:47 PM
Quote from: Podmark on November 26, 2008, 08:28:40 PM
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on November 26, 2008, 02:26:01 PM
i just finished the book, so if the alien has been changed have we been told what it's been changed too? [spoiler] if it's still an "alien invasion" it's the same message that moore was putting across of the fake threat to unite a warring world[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Rumor is it that the 'threat' has been changed to Dr. Manhatten.
And unless there's misdirection being put out, it seems a certainty that the squid is not part of the ending.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]I wouldn't be surprised if it was misdirection. After all, there was a thing around the mid point of the series where Dr. Manhattan was believed to a threat to mankind and all.
Though I do expect some sort of change that would put Ozymandis squarely in the role of villain and Night Owl and Silk Spectre in the role of Heroes. Otherwise, it appears as though "the villain won" and was allowed to by "the hero" thus negating their status as hero while the one person who wanted to expose the villain was killed by another hero.
I think this fact would be why Alan Moore is against the thing being made into a movie.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]I think Moore was against it regardless. I'm pretty sure he was long before this iteration of the film was developed.
I'll reserve judgment if they change the squid thing til I see it, but if they change the actual ending of the book, how things play out, then I will be upset. [/spoiler]
omg i cant wait to see this movie!
moore is just against anything and everything, i get the feeling he takes that stance now cause people expect it of him
http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/110608-watchmen-movie-video-journal.php (http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/110608-watchmen-movie-video-journal.php)
Interview with Silk Spectres 1 & 2. Both of the actresses are gorgeous.
Quote from: Jakew on December 21, 2008, 02:05:52 AM
http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/110608-watchmen-movie-video-journal.php (http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/110608-watchmen-movie-video-journal.php)
Interview with Silk Spectres 1 & 2. Both of the actresses are gorgeous.
Nice find!