# Watchmen



## Augie March (Sep 2, 2007)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/

It seems this is going ahead then. Zack Snyder (300, Dawn of the Dead) is directing and there's a largely unknown cast attached (thank god the rumours of Keanu and Jude being in it weren't true).

Anyone think it's going to work? I really want it to, but have a nagging feeling it's going to wind up being another League of Extraordinary Gentleman. *shudder*


----------



## Reno (Sep 2, 2007)

Augie March said:
			
		

> Anyone think it's going to work?



Not with Zach Snyder at the helm. Awful director.


----------



## May Kasahara (Sep 2, 2007)

It won't work. The best we can hope for is that it doesn't totally suck.


----------



## brixtonvilla (Sep 2, 2007)

I was just tossing up starting a Watchmen movie thread only yesterday. I still think it could work. It'll never be the book, but there are a lot of things in its favour that make me think a reasonable re-telling could be done.

Firstly, Zack Snyder has a genuine love of the material. He knows he's got the holy grail of comic book adaptations on his hands, and knows what made the book great - the characters, the period detail, the multi-layered symbolism. He's kept the script true to its 1985/Cold War setting, and as with _300_, has gone for talent over big names in his casting. As he's already said, it's going to be much closer to _Taxi Driver_ than _Superman_. Whatever happens, I don't think we're going to have another travesty like _TLOEG_ on our hands.

As well as this, it is possible to tell the basic "Mask Killer/whodunit" story without having _everything_ in the book. Snyder has already talked about doing the "Black Freighter" storyline as a DVD-only/"Director's Cut" extra, for example.

A parallel could be drawn with _LA Confidential_ - a vastly complex novel, pared down to the core story, and well cast/acted/directed. I honestly think this could be the film to break the curse of Alan Moore film adaptations. And even if it doesn't, it won't detract from the book, which is a stone-cold classic in itself.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Sep 3, 2007)

brixtonvilla said:
			
		

> And even if it doesn't, it won't detract from the book, which is a stone-cold classic in itself.



Absolutely agree with you but I really want the film to be good as well!  Watchmen is brilliant but needs to be handled sympathetically if it isn't to sink amidst 4th rate superhero films like Ghostrider.  The general (non-comic reading) public is used to comic-book films now and I think the fact that non of the main characters other than Dr Manhattan actually have superpowers is a big problem in terms of the narrative - "So, these guys all dress up in costumes but they don't have superpowers, WTF?"

<worried>


----------



## brixtonvilla (Sep 3, 2007)

That's a question of marketing & managing audience expectations. I don't think _Watchmen_ is going to be pitched in anything like the same way as pap like _Ghost Rider_. As someone on here once observed, _Watchmen_ is really an anti-superhero story - every "hero" in it is either dead, lonely, screwed-up over one thing or another, a psychopath or a megalomaniac! 

It should be pitched as what it is - a character-driven mystery story. With a big, glowing, naked blue god in it.


----------



## wishface (Sep 3, 2007)

May Kasahara said:
			
		

> It won't work. The best we can hope for is that it doesn't totally suck.


Yep.

I bet the cut out the entire mars scene which is my favourite part of the story.

there's no way this can be told as well as the book.


----------



## Augie March (Sep 3, 2007)

It could go either way IMO. 

Judging from Snyder's previous films, he doesn't seem too fussed about going OTT, which probably helps with certain aspects of the story. However, if it's decided the film needs to be a more reality driven film, it'll ahve to focus more on the charcter driven interaction. I doubt he'll be as up to task on this more subtler side of the plot.

It's a very fine line with Watchmen, which is probably why it's been so hard to adapt. I do think it's probably the best time, if there ever was one, to make an attempt though. There's been a fairly good run of comic books transferring to film without losing some of their complexities. Plus, we also the success of Heroes has probably created a larger audience who may be ready to accept a storyline like Watchmen's one.


----------



## May Kasahara (Sep 3, 2007)

That is true re. Heroes, although a lot of the viewing public will probably think "Hey, this Alan Moore guy totally ripped off Heroes!"  

I just don't think that Watchmen _needs_ a cinematic adaptation. With other comic books like Spiderman, Batman, even Daredevil, the adaptation is of the character, who can then be put into any number of plots old and new - the film makers can choose from back issues of comics for their stories, or make up new ones. Watchmen is a standalone book, one plot, one set of characters, and it is a book which already has excellent visuals as well as words. How can a film bring anything more to it?


----------



## wishface (Sep 3, 2007)

Augie March said:
			
		

> It could go either way IMO.
> 
> Judging from Snyder's previous films, he doesn't seem too fussed about going OTT, which probably helps with certain aspects of the story. However, if it's decided the film needs to be a more reality driven film, it'll ahve to focus more on the charcter driven interaction. I doubt he'll be as up to task on this more subtler side of the plot.
> 
> It's a very fine line with Watchmen, which is probably why it's been so hard to adapt. I do think it's probably the best time, if there ever was one, to make an attempt though. There's been a fairly good run of comic books transferring to film without losing some of their complexities. Plus, we also the success of Heroes has probably created a larger audience who may be ready to accept a storyline like Watchmen's one.


HEROES SPOILER!!!!






the plot of season 1 was the plot of Watchment. Linderman = Adrian Veidt.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2007)

I just couldn't get into the Watchmen - I found it really boring and didn't like the drawings.
I've read LoEG and though it was entertaining, it didn't leave much of an impression on me.
My flatmate has now impressed upon me From Hell, but the thickness of it and the poor drawings have put me off it to be honest.
Maybe I'm destined never to get on with graphic novels


----------



## The Groke (Sep 3, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I just couldn't get into the Watchmen - I found it really boring and didn't like the drawings.
> I've read LoEG and though it was entertaining, it didn't leave much of an impression on me.
> My flatmate has now impressed upon me From Hell, but the thickness of it and the poor drawings have put me off it to be honest.
> Maybe I'm destined never to get on with graphic novels




If you want brighter, better, more colourful, more detailed and more stylish artwork combined with a profane, violent, silly, challenging, funny and intelligent story, try reading the Transmetropolitan series.

Takes place in a fairly far off future and features a drug addled journalist (inspired in part by Hunter S Thompson....just _more_ so) his two Filthy Assistants, a two-faced nicotine-addicted cat and the never-ending quest for "The Truth".

Compiled into reasonable slim volumes, the whole series takes in 10 volumes overall (plus 1 extra bit)

Try the first couple (the main story arc doesn't really get going until book 3) and if you don't get on with that, then yeah - I would give up on the comics.


----------



## May Kasahara (Sep 3, 2007)

To be honest OU I think you probably are destined never to get on with comics. Which is fine. If the drawings in From Hell only seem to you to be poor quality, and convey no power, emotion or movement, then you probably should just not bother.

I don't mean this in a snarky way btw, not at all. When I first opened FH I found the artwork similarly a bit 'ummm....wtf is this?', especially after taking in so much detailed and colourful artwork in other Alan Moore comics. But it only took a couple of pages for it to really come alive in conjunction with the writing. So if that doesn't happen for you, I'd say you might as well not bother as you will only get annoyed


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Sep 3, 2007)

wishface said:
			
		

> I bet the cut out the entire mars scene which is my favourite part of the story.


Snyder in this  month's Empire made a reference to using some greenscreen to do "a palace rising out of the surface of Mars", so I think at least some of it is in there.

This also gives me an excuse to re-post my favouritest thing on the internet:


----------



## loud 1 (Sep 3, 2007)

i was in the booza with alan moore the other nite,he was para.


----------



## gsv (Sep 3, 2007)

It may not be too hard to make something worthwhile if you concentrate on the Rorschach storyline and his history, and his relationship with Dreiberg, in a milieu with all the other 'heroes' swirling around.

At least it won't be:
Statue of Liberty gets blown up and starts falling into the Hudson

A giant Dr Manhattan rises out of the river and catches it

RANDOM PASSERBY
It's the Watchmen!
​Lumme lawks and gawd have mercy, this really was the start of a script doing the rounds 15 years ago 





			
				Swarfega said:
			
		

> Compiled into reasonable slim volumes, the whole series takes in 10 volumes overall (plus 1 extra bit)


1 extra bit? My God, what have I missed?
*More Transmet! Yaaaayyyyyy!!!!!*


GS(v)


----------



## brixtonvilla (Sep 3, 2007)

I read that scipt treatment too - shocking, innit?

Oh, and if you want a "successful film rips off Watchmen", look no further:


----------



## ICB (Sep 3, 2007)

gsv said:
			
		

> It may not be too hard to make something worthwhile if you concentrate on the Rorschach storyline and his history, and his relationship with Dreiberg, in a milieu with all the other 'heroes' swirling around.
> 
> 
> 
> GS(v)



I'd have Nite Owl/Silk Spectre past and present at the centre with Rorschach as the main side plot, marginally less depressing and more accessible for non-aficionados.


----------



## al (Sep 3, 2007)

Swarfega said:
			
		

> If you want brighter, better, more colourful, more detailed and more stylish artwork combined with a profane, violent, silly, challenging, funny and intelligent story, try reading the Transmetropolitan series.
> 
> Takes place in a fairly far off future and features a drug addled journalist (inspired in part by Hunter S Thompson....just _more_ so) his two Filthy Assistants, a two-faced nicotine-addicted cat and the never-ending quest for "The Truth".
> 
> ...



if that's _anything_ like you describe it then it sounds boody ace - must find it!


----------



## The Groke (Sep 3, 2007)

gsv said:
			
		

> 1 extra bit? My God, what have I missed?
> *More Transmet! Yaaaayyyyyy!!!!!*
> 
> 
> GS(v)



You may already have it - it is "Volume 0" (which I don't have) which I believe contains extracts from Spider's book "I Hate It Here" along with other snippets and bits of back story.




			
				al said:
			
		

> if that's _anything_ like you describe it then it sounds boody ace - must find it!



It really is very good and highly recommended. Like I said, it really finds its voice and gets into the guts of the story arc (and the characters) by volume 3 but that's not to say the first two aren't ace as well.


----------



## gsv (Sep 5, 2007)

(I think)
Could be a lot worse...


GS(v)


----------



## Augie March (Nov 6, 2008)

Bump. 






Not long now til we found out if Snyder has ballsed it up or created a film worthy of the book. 

Meanwhile, while we wait...






Teehee.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 6, 2008)

I used to love Transmet! Fucking wicked read back in the day...


----------



## brixtonvilla (Nov 8, 2008)

Trailer anyone?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=E4blSrZvPhU

Judging by this still, the costume may have been cut:


----------



## golightly (Nov 8, 2008)

gsv said:


> (I think)
> Could be a lot worse...
> 
> 
> GS(v)



Admittedly I only watched the beginning of the interview but Snyder could barely string a sentence together even when the questions were pretty straightfoward.

The trailer looks good, but the scenes are almost exact cinematic representations of panels from the book, so it's aim appears to be convince the fans of the book that the film is a faithful representation.  The thing is that Snyder has admitted that the film condenses Watchmen so the film cannot be as faithful a representation of Watchmen as the trailer implies.

I'll probably still go and see it, mind you, even though I find films of comicbook superheroes supremely unengaging.


----------



## cozmikbrew (Nov 8, 2008)

Oh dear,ill probably go see it but.....i find myself thinking itll be a massive let down,i mean Watchmen!!! could be sacraligous


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 8, 2008)

I really want it to be good but not convinced it will be. I still don't see why they didn't just do a 12 part mini series based on the comics rather than condense it all into a two hour movie. I mean with Heroes and Lost around you can see how it could be done and how successful it could be.


----------



## golightly (Nov 8, 2008)

I reckon that the film will attempt to be true to the book but with so much story removed it will be hard to make sense of what is going on unless you've read the book in the first place.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 8, 2008)

golightly said:


> I reckon that the film will attempt to be true to the book but with so much story removed it will be hard to make sense of what is going on unless you've read the book in the first place.



How can it be true to the book if so much story is removed it won't make sense unless you've read the comics?


----------



## golightly (Nov 8, 2008)

Oh do come on.  You quoted what I said and then asked a question that clearly demonstrates that you didn't understand what I said.  I shall repaeat it for you with the emphasis to help you:

I reckon that the film will *attempt* to be true to the book but with so much story removed it will be *hard* to make sense of what is going on unless you've read the book in the first place.


----------



## The Octagon (Nov 14, 2008)

New (Full!) Trailer - http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/watchmen.html?showVideo=1

Looks gorgeous, hopefully the plot will stay intact (I've heard there is a bit of deviation at the end, but as long as they get the message across I'll live with it)

Nice to hear some dialogue (Veidt, Rorshach's 'batman' voice, Jon's "LEAVE ME ALONE" gave me chills).


----------



## Ranbay (Nov 14, 2008)

The Octagon said:


> New (Full!) Trailer - http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/watchmen.html?showVideo=1
> 
> Looks gorgeous, hopefully the plot will stay intact (I've heard there is a bit of deviation at the end, but as long as they get the message across I'll live with it)
> 
> Nice to hear some dialogue (Veidt, Rorshach's 'batman' voice, Jon's "LEAVE ME ALONE" gave me chills).


----------



## The Octagon (Nov 14, 2008)

B0B2oo9 said:


>



I'm doing the rounds


----------



## fogbat (Nov 14, 2008)

The Octagon said:


> New (Full!) Trailer - http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/watchmen.html?showVideo=1
> 
> Looks gorgeous, hopefully the plot will stay intact (I've heard there is a bit of deviation at the end, but as long as they get the message across I'll live with it)
> 
> Nice to hear some dialogue (Veidt, Rorshach's 'batman' voice, Jon's "LEAVE ME ALONE" gave me chills).



That trailer made all my hair stand on end 

I really hope it's done well.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 14, 2008)

golightly said:


> Oh do come on.  You quoted what I said and then asked a question that clearly demonstrates that you didn't understand what I said.  I shall repaeat it for you with the emphasis to help you:
> 
> I reckon that the film will *attempt* to be true to the book but with so much story removed it will be *hard* to make sense of what is going on unless you've read the book in the first place.



So, having no legs it will attempt to run. Yeah you're right, that makes total sense!


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 15, 2008)

fogbat said:


> That trailer made all my hair stand on end
> 
> I really hope it's done well.


That's the thing, isn't it.

I mean the comic (comic lol) is the piece de la resistance, the Sistine Chapel, the Citizen Kane, perfection through imperfection which becomes more through multiple gazings....Watchmen the graphic novel is not only iconic but iconoclastic.   Sublime.

I'm a recent fan. 

And then talk of a film.....a _fucking_ Hollywood film...Hollywood as in Judge Dredd?  Superman 4?   Batman and fucking Robin?   I mean...batman and fucking robin can't they just fuck of and die!!! 

Or Hollywood as in Superman 2, Batman Returns?  Fair dos the 2 Hulk movies at least _tried_.

They've been doing 'superhero' movies for a while now...can they do this?   Can they make the ultimate?   

I'd take 'nearly' with this one.  I'd dearly love the cinematic equivalent.   Must be possible, surely?

Trailer looks good.


----------



## brixtonvilla (Nov 15, 2008)

I dunno, it all looks a bit...glossy.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 15, 2008)

It really is time for someone to make another Judge Dredd film.


----------



## Augie March (Nov 16, 2008)




----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 16, 2008)

Haha that's fucking excellent!


----------



## PursuedByBears (Nov 17, 2008)

Snoopy as Rorschach


----------



## Azrael (Nov 17, 2008)

DexterTCN said:


> I mean the comic (comic lol) is the piece de la resistance, the Sistine Chapel, the Citizen Kane, perfection through imperfection which becomes more through multiple gazings....Watchmen the graphic novel is not only iconic but iconoclastic.   Sublime.
> 
> I'm a recent fan.


Talk about the passion of a convert!  

_Watchmen_ is an excellent comic but it's not perfect. Sometimes its meandering deconstruction of the superhero genre slows its momentum, and a film could easily condense the main plot -- costume killer & evil plan -- into two hours. 

The changed ending has been confirmed by the director (I'll let people google to avoid spoilers) but I'll reserve judgement until the film is out. Mr Snyder's comments about his film deconstructing superhero movies are promising, and all the trailers to date have been the mutt's.

Oh, and superb picture!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 17, 2008)

Spoiler stuff here from people who've seen the rough edit: http://spoilertv-movies.blogspot.com/2008/10/details-of-watchmen-from-early.html


----------



## david dissadent (Nov 18, 2008)

The Octagon said:


> New (Full!) Trailer - http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/watchmen.html?showVideo=1.


WANT


----------



## Awesome Wells (Dec 26, 2008)

No one watches the watchment!


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 26, 2008)

The distribution/copyright issues won't affect the release date of the film, I'm pretty sure.

No-one throws away money in the present climate.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Dec 26, 2008)

No, they just resort to litigation and injunction


----------



## Azrael (Dec 27, 2008)

Presumably Fox and Warner will thrash out a distribution deal between them now. Can't see anything come of this. 

I can however hear an evil cackle emanating from Northampton.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 28, 2008)

I have just been re-reading the comics. It's not quite as great as all that but it was a really cool story at the time. The backdrop of the global climate mirrors today a bit too much, brrrrr.

The new trailer looks quite good, it seems to follow the comic quite well. I don't like Night Owl not being out of shape though, and Veidts costume looks too much like Robins in Batman and Robin. Yuck, I quite liked his daft outfit in the book.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Dec 28, 2008)

Veidt looks miscast to me. But then he really shouldn't be in costume that much (flashbacks and tv appearances).


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 28, 2008)

Well Snyder's already said he's changed the ending so I'm sure he's messed around with it just like he did with 300 where he introduced new storylines and left other ones to the back...and blatantly changed a lot, too.


----------



## gsv (Dec 28, 2008)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I don't like Night Owl not being out of shape though,


iirc in the stills he's definitely put on the lards. But he still knows how to fight, which makes sense.



DexterTCN said:


> Well Snyder's already said he's changed the ending so I'm sure he's messed around with it just like he did with 300 where he introduced new storylines and left other ones to the back...and blatantly changed a lot, too.


The very earliest Watchmen scripts had an altered ending, which was meant to make a little more sense. You see it's called an _adaptation_.

GS(v)


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 28, 2008)

It's gonna be shit.


----------



## debaser (Dec 28, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It's gonna be shit.



best to assume it's going to be shit with these types of things, better prepares you for the let down when they are, because they always are.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 28, 2008)

DexterTCN said:


> Well Snyder's already said he's changed the ending so I'm sure he's messed around with it just like he did with 300 where he introduced new storylines and left other ones to the back...and blatantly changed a lot, too.


Not sure this is the case at all. 

[spoiler='Watchmen' ending]From what I gather, Mr Snyder's changed the details of  Veidt's plan, not its outcome. The giant squid in New York is replaced with a frame-job on Dr. Manhattan, who gets blamed for killing millions round the world with energy blasts. Mr Snyder's confirmed that Veidt lives and Rorschach is atomised, as per the comic. So the comic's moral stalemate survives intact.[/spoiler]

Early reports say the tone is very different from _300_, heavy on the film noir style the comic needs. 

It could be a shunt-job, of course, but so far it looks positive.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 28, 2008)

gsv said:


> iirc in the stills he's definitely put on the lards. But he still knows how to fight, which makes sense.
> GS(v)



He doesn't look very lardy to me. Hopefully I was looking at pre 1985 night owl.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 28, 2008)

The trailer seems to follow the parts in the book very closely. It may look like it is a bit 'actioned' up but almost all those bits that make up the trailer are the only action in the comic book. 

Don't like the sound of that alt ending. Next you will be telling me the pirate story is gone.


----------



## Cid (Dec 28, 2008)

Hope that's not the alt ending, imo that wouldn't fit the message of the book at all.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 28, 2008)

Cid said:


> Hope that's not the alt ending, imo that wouldn't fit the message of the book at all.



I know, it just doesn't make sense either. The Squid end unites over a outerworldy threat, everyone knows about Manhattan already. He has already gone to Mars because of all Viehts cancer stuff. I hope that's what they mean and it's a red herring. 

I hear test screenings don't end with the journal as well.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 28, 2008)

Ah good news from the inside 



Spoiler: The end



The last nugget of information I have can best be described as the BIG ONE. It concerns the end of the film and the presence of a certain monstrous something many fans are hoping to see. Squid or no squid? That is the question on the minds of WATCHMEN fans. 

Well, I’ve been given, I’m told, the definitive answer to this question and it comes from a source who worked months on the production, right up until the film wrapped. 

It’s been revealed to me that the squid is definitely… IN! The hideous brainchild of Adrian Veidt will be unleashed on the city of New York (and yours truly as an extra for the filming of a portion of these scenes) to wreck havoc and destruction. 
There you have it. A treasure trove of WATCHMEN gold. That’s all I have to report for now. Under the circumstances, I’d normally be closing up shop yet again, but I’ve learned to never say never with WATCHMEN.



According to the same report, there are a few minor changes but this might actually be really close to the comic book. 

I am officially excited.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 28, 2008)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Next you will be telling me the pirate story is gone.



WTF? I was joking but looks like the pirate story is in there. 



> Zack Snyder is also directing a separate-but-related picture that Warner plans to distribute exclusively on DVD.  The second film, tentatively called “Tales of the Black Freighter,” follows a side “Watchmen” storyline about a shipwreck and will arrive in stores five days after the main movie rolls out in theaters. The DVD will also include a documentary-style film called “Under the Hood” that will delve into the characters’ backstories.  (The NY Times)


----------



## Azrael (Dec 28, 2008)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Ah good news from the inside


When's the leak dated? This article's from 11th November, and had Mr Snyder saying the opposite. Of course, this could be disinformation. Who knows? None of us until March, I'm guessing. 

As goes that (possible) alternative ending:-



Spoiler



I'm okay with it. Cutting the squid lets Mr Snyder cut all the subplot around the island and the comicbook, and there's a common theme of humanity coming together against an otherworldly enemy. (The Doc's pretty otherworldly.) Previous drafts had Rorschach live and Veidt getting toasted, so it could be a lot worse!


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2008)

Azrael said:


> When's the leak dated? This article's from 11th November, and had Mr Snyder saying the opposite. Of course, this could be disinformation. Who knows? None of us until March, I'm guessing.
> 
> As goes that (possible) alternative ending:-
> 
> ...



Not to be funny, but provided that the central concept remains the same 



Spoiler



Veidt creates an event that brings together humanity united against a common (non existent) foe


  I'll be happy. Because the concept and ideal remains the same. 

However because of the legal entanglement with Fox there is no earthly way this is seeing the light of day in March. Not going to happen.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 29, 2008)

8den said:


> Not to be funny, but provided that the central concept remains the same ... I'll be happy. Because the concept and ideal remains the same.


If it's done well, same here. As it's a different medium I'm not expecting a carbon-copy of the comicbook. 


> However because of the legal entanglement with Fox there is no earthly way this is seeing the light of day in March. Not going to happen.


We can't know for sure until something is announced, but I'd be amazed if WB don't pay Fox off, perhaps with a percentage of the box-office as compensation. After all the publicity featuring the release-date, delaying the movie would be commericially ... foolhardly, to say the least. 

Both sides want to make a buck or million from this.


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2008)

Azrael said:


> We can't know for sure until something is announced, but I'd be amazed if WB don't pay Fox off, perhaps with a percentage of the box-office as compensation. After all the publicity featuring the release-date, delaying the movie would be commericially ... foolhardly, to say the least.



yeah cause people say "Honey lets not go see that movie, they lied about the release date on the trailer"


 The case is resuming in late January. If watchman is going to be released in March, WB are going to have an awful lot of stuff lined up to go, right then and there, print ADs, press junkets, TV airtime bought, all an gamble that they get it sorted on the court steps in January. If Fox decided to be assholes or the judge was difficult, well all that money would be squandered. 

Sanity in WB would be to set the release date back, you cannot be ready to go on a release this massive, with just a months prep. 



> Both sides want to make a buck or million from this.



And they will, just not in march.


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2008)

Azrael said:


> Both sides want to make a buck or million from this.



We all missed this, because it happened on christmas eve. But 



> 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



From the NY Times

So the Watchman movie is well and truly fucked. I'd get comfortable waiting for the Watchman, how's 2011?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 29, 2008)

Azrael said:


> When's the leak dated? This article's from 11th November, and had Mr Snyder saying the opposite. Of course, this could be disinformation. Who knows? None of us until March, I'm guessing.
> 
> As goes that (possible) alternative ending:-
> 
> ...



Gahh, I can't remember but it also said the no squid ending had been debunked (but not how) so I assumed it came later.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 29, 2008)

8den said:


> We all missed this, because it happened on christmas eve. But
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No we didn't miss it. 

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8521477&postcount=45

It's on the last page. I assumed this was what everyone was talking about. I'm sure it will only be distribution. 

Still a bit of a pain in the arse, FOX are tits.


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2008)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> No we didn't miss it.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8521477&postcount=45
> 
> It's on the last page. I assumed this was what everyone was talking about. I'm sure it will only be distribution.



No it really won't. If WB launch the movie now they will be obliged to pay Fox for every use of the image, and every time the characters name's is used. Thats on promotion, merchandise, and tie ins. 

While you may be sure, the Judge is saying Fox owns control over the copyright  of the whole image of a WB film. WB would be _insane_ to launch the movie before this is resolved.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 30, 2008)

WB own the movie and Fox own the rights to distribute it, so neither side can make a dime without the co-operation of the other. 

None of us will know how it plays out until something is announced, but it doesn't make commercial sense for Fox to diminish their own profits, which putting _Watchmen_ on ice until 2011 would almost certainly do.

Incidentally, this doesn't affect international distribution rights, which rest with (I believe) Paramount Pictures, so theoretically _Watchmen_ could be released outside the USA without Fox's permission!


----------



## 8den (Dec 30, 2008)

Azrael said:


> WB own the movie and Fox own the rights to distribute it,



NO THEY DON'T. The judge has ruled that Fox owns the copyright of the Watchman Movie period. Not distribution rights. 



> so neither side can make a dime without the co-operation of the other.
> 
> None of us will know how it plays out until something is announced, but it doesn't make commercial sense for Fox to diminish their own profits, which putting _Watchmen_ on ice until 2011 would almost certainly do.
> 
> Incidentally, this doesn't affect international distribution rights, which rest with (I believe) Paramount Pictures, so theoretically _Watchmen_ could be released outside the USA without Fox's permission!



Azrael you're wrong about so much stuff it beggars belief. For Fox releasing the Watchman now, or never, won't cost them a dime, whenever it is released they make a mint. For WB if they release the movie now, every cent they spend in promotion and PR will go to Fox. For WB to wait till this is resolved makes much more sense, as they are already in for this for £100m.  Fox don't need to spend a dime promoting this movie. If it's released and it doesn't do much business because of lack of PR, they'll just recoup their lawyers fees out of whatever profit the movie makes. 

Az you do not know of what you speak. You're not seeing this movie next year.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 31, 2008)

8den said:


> NO THEY DON'T. The judge has ruled that Fox owns the copyright of the Watchman Movie period. Not distribution rights.


Crikey, no need for caps lock: this isn't a political debate, it's a comic movie! 

Justice Gary A. Feess, from the _New York Times_: "Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the _Watchmen_ motion picture." 

A "copyright interest" is not the same thing as owning "the copyright, period". I'm not claiming to be an expert in US copyright law, but where has it been said that Fox will ever be able to seize _Watchmen_ and release it themselves, at you seem to be arguing. Time Warner put up the money and negotiated the contracts: the film in the can is theirs. Fox _may_ own an "interest" in its copyright, which is a different thing entirely. 

Neither of us can say for sure if _Watchmen_ is coming out next year, but I base my suspicion that it is on the fact that a delay would risk missing the bus: dark, broody superhero movies are in right now; by 2011, who knows? A delay would also require a whole new marketing campaign, which may or may not succeed. Fox clearly want more than lawyers fees back, they want some free cash, which a timely release is more likely to get them. 

A good rundown of the tangled case is here.


----------



## Flashman (Dec 31, 2008)

It's gonna bit shite anyway. Probably.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 31, 2008)

Azrael said:


> Crikey, no need for caps lock: this isn't a political debate, it's a comic movie!
> 
> Justice Gary A. Feess, from the _New York Times_: "Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the _Watchmen_ motion picture." .



I was looking for something on this too. All the headlines said "fox owns watchmen copywrite" but there is no official quote apart from the one above. The wiki page has a nice bit on what fox think they own. 
They might well have a share, just a bit annoying that it's from an old contract to a defunct company that could have been paid off with only a million quid.


----------



## 8den (Dec 31, 2008)

Azrael said:


> Crikey, no need for caps lock: this isn't a political debate, it's a comic movie!
> 
> Justice Gary A. Feess, from the _New York Times_: "Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the _Watchmen_ motion picture."
> 
> ...



Firstly an apology I mixed you up With Azrael23 an asshole you got banned years ago for being a conspiraloon. 

Not being funny here, but I work in film, and it's not going to require a new marketing campaign, aside from a massive fanboy base no one has heard of the film, the marketing campaign really cranks up in the two months prior to a major release. The fanboys will go see the movie if Synder used Jim Henson's muppet's to play Rorshach. That market's sown up. 

Look the movie cost the best part of $100 million dollars, and the rule of thumb is you double that for the marketing budget. There is no earthly way that the bean counters in WB are going to chuck another $100m at watchman until they figure out, how much they have to give towards fox, or even if they really have to give anything. 

And I'm sorry sod your "they have to strike while the iron is hot "dark brooding" superhero movie bullshit. Studios have people who are paid a fortune, to make a buzz happen about a movie, Watchmen doesn't need to ride the tail of Batman to make a wave. It's a massive film all by itself. 

All I am saying is to set the ground work for a PR blitz you need, just as an example, all your cast and director available for a week or two of press junkets, you cannot arrange that in months notice. 

There's no earthly way we're seeing the watchman movie any time soon.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 31, 2008)

8den said:


> Firstly an apology I mixed you up With Azrael23 an asshole you got banned years ago for being a conspiraloon.


Ah, my namesake haunts me from beyond the digital grave! For the record, I didn't get Mr 23 banned, but then, I would say that, wouldn't I?  


> ['Watchmen' is] a massive film all by itself.


That conflicts with your belief that no one has heard of _Watchmen_ beyond a fanboy base, however massive it may be. 

The _Watchmen_ hype is already building: trailers in cinemas with the release date, merchandise revealed, etc. If Fox delay the film, say by a year or two, they'll need to get past the "Hey, this trailer is old news" crowd, and also the "That's the movie that got its ass sued, it's never coming out" crowd. As you work in the motion picture business, you'll know how fickle and fashion-bound it is. For those who don't treat _Watchmen_ as a sacred object, it's just another blockbuster, and could do big business off the back of _Dark Knight_. Delay it and you risk that business. 

Add to that the fact that Dave Gibbons could pull out ala Alan Moore, and Fox don't own a cent of the copyright to the _Watchmen_ comicbook, and you have a risky proposition. Some fanboy boycott isn't out of the question. Maybe Time Warner will sue Fox for some of the marketing budget, seeing as the timing of their lawsuit wrecked the first run. 

Talking of timing, why have Fox sued now? _Watchmen_ is in the can. It's a tangible commodity, and it's going to see the light of day, sooner or later. 

Even the biggest pictures can flop, and _Watchmen_ is a middle-rank player. Fox want maximum cash; Time Warner want maximum cash; both are more likely to get it by settling before March. They might get irrational and fight it out, but for now I'll have faith in the almighty dollar.


----------



## brixtonvilla (Dec 31, 2008)

New stuff here, some new footage & Snyder talking about the film:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39626

*faps*


----------



## Azrael (Jan 1, 2009)

*Back in from watching the Thames fireworks ... which were spiffy* 

Thanks for that, *brixtonvilla*. Good to see some news come out concerning the actual movie, and not which multinational corglomorate gets to bag X% of its profits. 

Although there is a development on the legal front: this blog has something interesting to say:- 

"It all comes down to whether Feess will issue an injunction. If the judge blocks the release then it's game over, Fox can demand whatever it wants and Warners will pay (like it did back in 2005 when an injunction was issued against _The Dukesof Hazzard_--by, you guessed it, Judge Gary Feess--and the studio quickly settled for a reported $17.5 million)." 

If Justice Feess doesn't issue an injunction, it seems that Time Warner can release _Watchmen_ as planned and fight over the profits with Fox at leisure. Apparently Mr Murdoch's company has to show that they'll be "irreparably harmed" by a release, a claim which their previous indifference over the _Watchmen_ rights may damange a little. 

Ah well, happy new year, be interested to see how this plays out.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 1, 2009)

what's the release date supposed to be?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 1, 2009)

brixtonvilla said:


> New stuff here, some new footage & Snyder talking about the film:
> 
> http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39626
> 
> *faps*



Fap fap fap fap fap.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 1, 2009)

fap fap fap fap fap 

I love that this film isn't one where you're going in not knowing what happens, it's just going to be fanboys all waiting to

a) see how snyder pulls it off

and 

b) go and whine on their blogs that bits were missed out


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 1, 2009)

Balbi said:


> b) go and whine on their blogs that bits were missed out



Squid?

Looks like pretty much everything else is in. Even the pirate comic book in an extended cut.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 1, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> what's the release date supposed to be?


Now that's the question!  

6th March 2009 is the planned release date for both the USA and Britain. 

Beside squiddy, I'm not hoping for a slavish copy of the book, which would be a pointless exercise. (Since I can, y'know, go and read the comic.) I want it to be a base for something relevant to a different medium. Mr Snyder says the _Watchmen_ film will do for superhero movies what the comicbook did for, well, comicbooks. 

Bold claim, but sounds interesting.


----------



## janeb (Jan 1, 2009)

Saw a long'ish trailer when we went to see The Spirit this afternoon - was , the trailer that is, not The Spirit, which was merely ok


----------



## Azrael (Jan 16, 2009)

'Watchmen' lawsuit has been settled



8den said:


> However because of the legal entanglement with Fox there is no earthly way this is seeing the light of day in March. Not going to happen.





8den said:


> So the Watchman movie is well and truly fucked. I'd get comfortable waiting for the Watchman, how's 2011?





8den said:


> Az you do not know of what you speak. You're not seeing this movie next year.





8den said:


> There's no earthly way we're seeing the watchman movie any time soon.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 16, 2009)

Good news and Fox didn't get all that much after all.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 16, 2009)

http://www.watchmensch.com/


----------



## fogbat (Jan 16, 2009)

8den said:


> The fanboys will go see the movie if Synder used Jim Henson's muppet's to play Rorshach. That market's sown up.



May I just say that I would love to see that 

Does that make me a fanboy?


----------



## Santino (Jan 16, 2009)

Sam the Eagle as Dr Manhattan?

Fozzy Bear as The Comedian?

Watchmuppets


----------



## brixtonvilla (Jan 16, 2009)

New Japanese trailer, with much more "historical context" kind of footage:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk2QYPIZBUI (minor spoilers/differences from the book)

Looks good - looks like a lot of effort has gone into the feel and the "alternate reality" of the film 

And I knew always Blake wasn't joking about 



Spoiler: fairly important historical event/character background



offing JFK.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 16, 2009)

God bless the lawyers.

Now have them killed.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 17, 2009)

brixtonvilla said:


> And I knew always Blake wasn't joking about
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can't remember him ever saying anything about that. I will have to have a look.


----------



## madzone (Jan 17, 2009)

I don't s'pose anyone could lend me the book?  I went and looked for it yesterday but it was £18 and I'm brassic. I'd like to read it before I go and see the fillum.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 17, 2009)

quis ipsot custard.


----------



## brixtonvilla (Jan 17, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I can't remember him ever saying anything about that. I will have to have a look.



There's a bit at a Washington party where he says something along the lines of "Just don't ask me where I was when _you-know-who_ was killed", and everyone laughs. God, I really have read that book too many times...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2009)

madzone said:


> I don't s'pose anyone could lend me the book?  I went and looked for it yesterday but it was £18 and I'm brassic. I'd like to read it before I go and see the fillum.



Sure, PM me your address and I'll post it to you on Monday


----------



## brixtonvilla (Jan 17, 2009)

madzone said:


> I don't s'pose anyone could lend me the book?  I went and looked for it yesterday but it was £18 and I'm brassic. I'd like to read it before I go and see the fillum.



At the risk of sounding a bit precious, it's probably worth reading twice, IMO. There's lots of stuff I missed the first time around.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 17, 2009)

IF they fuck up the Mars sequence I will strip naked in the cinema and paint myself blue before exploding.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 17, 2009)

madzone said:


> I don't s'pose anyone could lend me the book?  I went and looked for it yesterday but it was £18 and I'm brassic. I'd like to read it before I go and see the fillum.



its a tenner in waterstones ( or it was last week )


----------



## madzone (Jan 17, 2009)

ruffneck23 said:


> its a tenner in waterstones ( or it was last week )


 It would cost me 8 quid to drive to waterstones and back


----------



## Augie March (Jan 17, 2009)

It's £8.91 here


----------



## madzone (Jan 17, 2009)

Augie March said:


> It's £8.91 here


 Once you add P&P it's £29 

I have to go to waterstones in the week to see if they have a book I need for my spanish course so I'll see if they have it then


----------



## Azrael (Jan 18, 2009)

Amazon.co.uk have it for £10.79, with free delivery.


----------



## Augie March (Jan 18, 2009)

madzone said:


> Once you add P&P it's £29



Ah yes. Not such a good deal then.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2009)

So do you want to borrow it or not, Madz?


----------



## madzone (Jan 18, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> So do you want to borrow it or not, Madz?


 Yes please  If you can lend it I'd be grateful. I can stretch to buying it off amazon at a push (thanks for the link azrael  ) but I'm a bit skint really.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2009)

Cool - PM me and I'll send it tomorrow


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 24, 2009)

Fried fucking gold!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 24, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> Fried fucking gold!



ooh.

Nice 

http://www.thenewfrontiersman.net/


----------



## The Groke (Jan 24, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> Fried fucking gold!





I like.


pleasedon'tsuckpleasedon'tsuckpleasedon'tsuck.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 24, 2009)

It's going to suck isn't it.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 24, 2009)

I'm not so sure now.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 24, 2009)

Don't, you are just going to make it worse.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 24, 2009)

shutup you commie.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 24, 2009)

It might be fun if people don't think of it as an adaptation.
Watchmen is massively overrated anyway.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 24, 2009)

True, I think I overate it myself.


----------



## Flashman (Jan 24, 2009)

It is yes. And I do too.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 24, 2009)

same as , ive just re-read it and although its ok , I cant really see the big deal. I also think its far too long to adapt properly

but il still go see it


----------



## The Octagon (Feb 11, 2009)

Anyone know if this is showing at the IMAX in london?

How early in advance can you usually book tickets?


----------



## andy2002 (Feb 11, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> It might be fun if people don't think of it as an adaptation.
> Watchmen is massively overrated anyway.



I read Watchmen again recently for the first time since it was first released and expected to be disappointed. But I thought it still stood up really well, despite a few bits of clunky exposition early on and a couple of times when Moore's desire to cram too much in gets in the way of the storytelling. 

It probably shouldn't always be a shoo-in for Greatest Graphic Novel Of All-Time though.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 11, 2009)

_Watchmen_ is a contender for sure, but Mr Moore's _From Hell_ has a stronger claim. Bryan Talbot's _The Tale of One Bad Rat_ should be a contender, but rarely is.

I thought the Pulitzer Prize-winning _Maus_ always won those contests, anyhow.  

Here's a masterful piece of viral marketing for _Watchmen_, . I'll be disappointed in a major way if _Watchmen_ is a dud, because the previews to date have been superb.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 12, 2009)

From Hell is shit. I'm not mad keen on Maus, I think it always wins because non comic readers read it without a 'conscience'. In that category Persepolis is much better.

I can't fully forgive Brian Talbot for the shit art on the gothic empire but Alice in Sunderland is pretty good.

I can't think what my favorite comic book is, I think it's probably Maison Ikkoku by Rumiko Takahashi or Top 10 (the Moore ones only)


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 12, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Here's a masterful piece of viral marketing for _Watchmen_, . I'll be disappointed in a major way if _Watchmen_ is a dud, because the previews to date have been superb.




Jesus wept there are about a million watchmen clips on you tube now. Loads of veidt ads etc.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 12, 2009)

I have found a clip of the climax to the movie. Watch it before they take it down.


----------



## Idaho (Feb 12, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I have found a clip of the climax to the movie. Watch it before they take it down.



Impressive production values


----------



## Idaho (Feb 12, 2009)

The film WILL be shit I'm afraid. Hollywood will do it's thing.


----------



## belboid (Feb 12, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I have found a clip of the climax to the movie. Watch it before they take it down.



aah, thats Sheffield Winter Gardens if I'm not mistaken


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 12, 2009)

belboid said:


> aah, thats Sheffield Winter Gardens if I'm not mistaken



I really like the Doc Manhattan and the (maybe a bit too much) out of shape night owl 2.


----------



## belboid (Feb 12, 2009)

you really dont wanna see that Doc naked tho, do you?


----------



## 8den (Feb 12, 2009)

Idaho said:


> Impressive production values




Arcade Game

Just how many people do Warner Bros have doing the marketing on this?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Feb 12, 2009)

Idaho said:


> The film WILL be shit I'm afraid. Hollywood will do it's thing.




Don't you think that Hollywood has got a bit better with these sorts of films over the last few years though?  E.g. X Men 1/2, Batman Begins/The Dark Knight...


----------



## Azrael (Feb 12, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> From Hell is shit. I'm not mad keen on Maus, I think it always wins because non comic readers read it without a 'conscience'. In that category Persepolis is much better.
> 
> I can't fully forgive Brian Talbot for the shit art on the gothic empire but Alice in Sunderland is pretty good.
> 
> I can't think what my favorite comic book is, I think it's probably Maison Ikkoku by Rumiko Takahashi or Top 10 (the Moore ones only)


Why's _From Hell_ "shit"? I rate _Maus_ highly, but agree with your explanation for its routine winning. Not read _Gothic Empire_ but _Bad Rat_ has some beautiful drawings of the Lake District, and effectively juxtaposes the rural idyl with a dark plot. _Alice in Sunderland_ is a comic I also rate (as a Peter Ackroyd fan, I'm a sucker for psycogeography). 

Haven't got a favourite comic myself, just like I haven't got a favourite film. Depends what mood I'm in. _Watchmen_ is good for a misanthropic turn.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 12, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Why's _From Hell_ "shit"? I.



Because I don't like it.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 12, 2009)

Well, I guess the _TLS_ would be a lot more readable if it followed your critical method.


----------



## rollinder (Feb 12, 2009)

8den said:


> Arcade Game
> 
> Just how many people do Warner Bros have doing the marketing on this?


 
that is fucking cool - did you notice the copyright 1977 7 /veidt corperation on the opening game screen. (and the burger bar nicknacs - plot related newspaper headline & ketchup on the smiley badge )
eta: the game is pretty fun & convincingly retro too


----------



## Idaho (Feb 12, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Don't you think that Hollywood has got a bit better with these sorts of films over the last few years though?  E.g. X Men 1/2, Batman Begins/The Dark Knight...



Yeah it has. Compare X-men to Daredevil 

However they try and tick certain manditory boxes and keep options open for money spinning sequels if it's a success. Keeping Rorshach alive for instance.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 12, 2009)

Idaho said:


> Keeping Rorshach alive for instance.


Rorshach lived in earlier drafts, but every leak so far suggests that commital-boy is toast. Manhattan-fried toast.


----------



## Idaho (Feb 12, 2009)

Believe me, I want it to be good. But I have seen a few Moore adaptations, and they've all been shit.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 12, 2009)

V For Vendetta is good.
I think it may turn out to be a great film - the book is too long, so the Hollywood treatment may actually benefit it.


----------



## belboid (Feb 12, 2009)

are there 'a few'?  I can think of three, two of which are crap (from hell, league) but v was well done.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 12, 2009)

Idaho said:


> Believe me, I want it to be good. But I have seen a few Moore adaptations, and they've all been shit.


They have (although _From Hell_ has a trippy charm to it) but Mr Snyder appears to have stuck closely to the comic. None of the other adaptations showed the dedication to the source and attention to detail we've been seeing from the _Watchmen_ production. 

It could be steaming pure for all that, but I'm determined to remain optimistic.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 12, 2009)

belboid said:


> are there 'a few'?  I can think of three, two of which are crap (from hell, league) but v was well done.


From Hell wasn't bad and even LoG was fun - a proper ludicrous comic book movie.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 12, 2009)

Swamp Thing is rubbish though


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 12, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> V For Vendetta is good.
> I think it may turn out to be a great film - the book is too long, so the Hollywood treatment may actually benefit it.



I think it's maybe the most overrated comic book and I love Moores work. 

Pretty boring stuff, like you say I think it would have been better cut short. I would have liked a few more answers too. 

Not seen the film yet. Must be on telly soon.


----------



## belboid (Feb 12, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> Swamp Thing is rubbish though



that was specifically _not_ a moore adaptation tho.  they rejected his version of ST's origin and it's not one of his stories.  so, considering he didnt create the character, the film his _absolutely_ nothing to do with him


----------



## brixtonvilla (Feb 12, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> From Hell is shit.



At least 7 different kinds of wrong. In only 4 words. Well done.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 13, 2009)

It was a good film!


----------



## Flashman (Feb 13, 2009)

Great GN shite filum for me (From Hell).


----------



## Idaho (Feb 13, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> V For Vendetta is good.
> I think it may turn out to be a great film - the book is too long, so the Hollywood treatment may actually benefit it.



The V film was good?! LoG was good?! Sorry but you have just disqualified yourself from giving opinions on all matters of taste. Please leave the universe.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 13, 2009)

You're just too busy sucking Moore cock to have an objective point of view on these films.
LoG is a silly knockabout romp and the film is too.


----------



## Idaho (Feb 13, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> You're just too busy sucking Moore cock to have an objective point of view on these films.
> LoG is a silly knockabout romp and the film is too.



Whhhhhfffhhhff? Uff uhhfffhu fhhf hhhhfff..

Sorry Alan, just a sec. 



(wipes mouth)




That's as may be. However there are a million comic stories out there prime for comic book panto. Most of the Moore stories are more complex and interesting, and when reduced to Hollywood films end up as nonsense. If you wanted to create a happy romantic comedy chick flick, you wouldn't pick up War and Peace, chuck out 90% of the plot, ideas, ambience and narrative and make a film of it. You'd adapt it from one of the millions of well selling chick lit books out there.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 13, 2009)

You're just being precious about it - I'm sure you could make a rom com out of War & Peace
Many successful romcoms are based on the classics - 10 Things I Hate About You is The Taming The Shrew, Clueless is Austen's Emma.
And with other films - you wouldn't criticise The Warriors for being unfaithful to Xenephon.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 13, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> You're just being precious about it - I'm sure you could make a rom com out of War & Peace
> Many successful romcoms are based on the classics - 10 Things I Hate About You is The Taming The Shrew, Clueless is Austen's Emma.



Seven Brides for Seven Brothers is a retelling of the Rape of the Sabine Women, I love Musicals


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 13, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> You're just too busy sucking Moore cock to have an objective point of view on these films.
> LoG is a silly knockabout romp and the film is too.



I don't much care for the first volume but like the second. The film is a piece of shit. Shit story, shit effects, shit everything. I can't see what anyone would like about it. 

. . and I am not sucking Moores cock, not everything he touches is gold, in fact most of it isn't. Trouble is, most comic books are utter shite and anything half decent aways stands out.


----------



## The Octagon (Feb 18, 2009)

New clips -

 - Feel better about Goode as Veidt now, but as a consequence they've lost the great Rorshach lines about Veidt selling out.

 - No problems here, and Laurie looks fiiine.

 - Snyder certainly loves his slo-mo.

Laurie / Sally Jupiter scene - Nice make-up on Carla Gugino, flashback looked well shot too.

Please don't be shit, Please don't be shit.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 18, 2009)

Oh god that fire rescue looks rubbish. The music is sooo shit. I'm worried now, looks like a regular hollywood job where it was quite a straightforward (crap) rescue in the book.

And fucking hell there is no way that she looks or sounds 60. Disappointing if these are the bits they have leaked.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 18, 2009)

Those clips do look shit


----------



## The Octagon (Feb 18, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Oh god that fire rescue looks rubbish. The music is sooo shit. I'm worried now, looks like a regular hollywood job where it was quite a straightforward (crap) rescue in the book.
> 
> And fucking hell there is no way that she looks or sounds 60. Disappointing if these are the bits they have leaked.



I thought the fire rescue was the only well-done clip 

They haven't made it any less straightforward (SS drops down, goes and gets everyone, they escape). Slo-mo is the only real addition.

Though you're right about the music, it is a tad over-the-top.

The music in the Police riots clip was far worse (disco boogie?)


----------



## g force (Feb 18, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Oh god that fire rescue looks rubbish. The music is sooo shit. I'm worried now, looks like a regular hollywood job where it was quite a straightforward (crap) rescue in the book.
> 
> And fucking hell there is no way that she looks or sounds 60. Disappointing if these are the bits they have leaked.





Orang Utan said:


> Those clips do look shit



Aye...now i'm getting worried


----------



## Idaho (Feb 18, 2009)

It's going to be shiiiiiiiiiitttt


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 18, 2009)

The Octagon said:


> They haven't made it any less straightforward (SS drops down, goes and gets everyone, they escape). Slo-mo is the only real addition.



No but it looks like they are super heros with all the music, explosions and jumping around. In the comic it's pretty 'boy scout' and a tad lame which I like.

SS doesn't drop down looking all cool, dodging fire etc, she makes them form an orderly cue to get onto the owl ship where she serves them coffee. 

Those clips are worrying.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 18, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Those clips are worrying.


I thought they looked heavily edited from what you would actually see in a movie.

Looking Hollywood....well, it's an advert.  I suppose we're lucky we don't have _that_ voice-over guy.   The people who have read the novel will most likely go anyway, so they want a broader appeal in the adverts for those hollywood-blockbuster-luvvin-eejits (imo) and at the end of the day it's based on an action comic.

I think it's about 160 minutes long, so taking away 10 (??) or so for credits leaves a fair bit for a good shot at it.   300 was rather good, I thought, and it was quite at variance from the original.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 18, 2009)

DexterTCN said:


> and at the end of the day it's based on an action comic.



Have you read it? I wouldn't say it was an action comic. Far from it.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 18, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Have you read it? I wouldn't say it was an action comic. Far from it.


Sir....I refer you to my post last year.  link



DexterTCN said:


> That's the thing, isn't it.
> 
> I mean the comic (comic lol) is the piece de la resistance, the Sistine Chapel, the Citizen Kane, perfection through imperfection which becomes more through multiple gazings....Watchmen the graphic novel is not only iconic but iconoclastic.   Sublime.
> 
> ...


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 18, 2009)

DexterTCN said:


> Sir....I refer you to my post last year.  link



I don't see how that makes it an 'action comic' or why it has any relevance to my post at all.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 18, 2009)

Ah well.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 18, 2009)

Oh, apart from the fact that you do appear to have read it, however I was being sarcastic when I suggested you might not have.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 18, 2009)

Booked my tickets for this at the Imax today...


----------



## gsv (Feb 18, 2009)

Farewell o my dreams of imax wondrifferousness 

GS(v)


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 19, 2009)

gsv said:


> Farewell o my dreams of imax wondrifferousness
> 
> GS(v)


----------



## 8den (Feb 19, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


>



Um it's not _me_ but doesn't this look fucking woeful.  http://www.movieweb.com/video/VIPSpUPUnbtFTY


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 19, 2009)

8den said:


> Um it's not _me_ but doesn't this look fucking woeful.  http://www.movieweb.com/video/VIPSpUPUnbtFTY



Oh no, not one good clip so far


----------



## Part 2 (Feb 19, 2009)

Dear me, it looks rubbish. 

Nearly booked some tickets for the IMAX yesterday then noticed there were 8 seats booked out on the back row of the (ahem) premium seats. Thought it will be a load of fanboys who'll be whinging at every bit they don't like. Judging on those clips they'll be at it nonoe stop through the whole film.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Feb 19, 2009)

Had an email today from the guy in charge of "viral marketing" for Watchmen - there's a collection of bits and pieces here:

http://www.rubberrepublic.com/swag/watchmen/en

Will post any "exclusive" content as and when I receive it...


----------



## Awesome Wells (Feb 19, 2009)

I'm sure the usual sources will have it, circumventing the 'conventional' outlets. 

Perhaps that's best.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 19, 2009)

Part2 said:


> Dear me, it looks rubbish.
> 
> Nearly booked some tickets for the IMAX yesterday then noticed there were 8 seats booked out on the back row of the (ahem) premium seats. Thought it will be a load of fanboys who'll be whinging at every bit they don't like. Judging on those clips they'll be at it nonoe stop through the whole film.



Ha ha, I think I must have looked at booking the same day and time. Not exactly full up yet.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Feb 19, 2009)

Just got this:



> As promised, I have an advance warning for you on a highly anticipated New Frontiersman broadcast - "Who Watches the Watchmen?" - an MTV parody.
> 
> It will be delivered first exclusively through the Watchmen TV after 5PM today!
> 
> ...


That's probably 5pm LA time, I would guess.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 19, 2009)

I left my phone at home today and its bugging the crap out of me cause i want to know if he is alright for me to book the iMax for when i'm visiting in March.


----------



## Sadken (Feb 20, 2009)

I don't mean to brag, but I got 2 tickets to see this in the Shunt Lounge under London Bridge station with one of the UK's "hottest bands" (that'll be shit then) and loads of installations and mad shit going on for next Thursday, which is only the day before my frigging birthday as well.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 20, 2009)

You can be the first to tell everyone it's shit


----------



## Sadken (Feb 20, 2009)

Caaaaaaaaaaaan do!


----------



## Gromit (Feb 20, 2009)

My Imax goodness has been booked.

Now all i have to do is wait a month and a day.

Are we there yet?


----------



## brixtonvilla (Feb 26, 2009)

Some promising reviews:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co...tainment/film/film_reviews/article5791888.ece

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12...2009-2-24-the-motion-captured-review-watchmen 

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40228 (ending details, so SPOILER ALERT!)


----------



## The Groke (Feb 26, 2009)

Yeah Rotten Tomatoes indicates most of the reviews are pretty positive - though early reviews of big releases often are.

Interested to see what Kermode thinks - will probably be on his show tomorrow.


----------



## Idaho (Feb 26, 2009)

brixtonvilla said:


> Some promising reviews:
> 
> http://entertainment.timesonline.co...tainment/film/film_reviews/article5791888.ece
> 
> ...



Fuck me - against all better judgement, those reviews do make it look quite promising.


----------



## Sadken (Feb 26, 2009)

Seeing this tonight.  Pretty damned psyched.  I'll stick photos up tomorrow.


----------



## El Sueno (Feb 26, 2009)

I'm willing this to be great, getting more and more excited about it every day and I didn't think I would. But having read a few articles about the making of, interviews with the producer/director partnership, and it looks like it might just be a proper grown-ups movie.


----------



## The Octagon (Feb 26, 2009)

4 stars in Empire (doesn't necessarily mean much, they gave Phantom Menace 5), but sounds like it's retained enough of the GN to be a good adaptation.

Fingers crossed.


----------



## Sadken (Feb 26, 2009)

They've changed the ending, I heard.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 26, 2009)

Sadken said:


> They've changed the ending, I heard.



I have also heard that the ending is the same. 

I'm guessing changing the ending would make for an easier to shoot  film but would ruin the story somewhat.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Feb 26, 2009)

Idaho said:


> Fuck me - against all better judgement, those reviews do make it look quite promising.


The second one in particular. I really am quite excited about seeing this now.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 26, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Seeing this tonight.  Pretty damned psyched.  I'll stick photos up tomorrow.



photos? I hope you're joking.


----------



## Sadken (Feb 26, 2009)

It's some special event thing with people in character and installation artists.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Feb 26, 2009)

Sadken said:


> They've changed the ending, I heard.


Idaho's third link (to Ain't It Cool News) has a lot of details of the ending in - it actually sounds like a stroke of genius to me, rather than a cop-out, and you have to wonder whether it even occurred to Moore to play it out that way instead of the scary squid story.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 26, 2009)

Sadken said:


> It's some special event thing with people in character and installation artists.



Oh right, I thought you meant you'd meant you'd make a nuisance of yourself taking blurry photos of the screen.


----------



## Sadken (Feb 26, 2009)

No, no.  Not after 9 songs.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 26, 2009)

From IMDB:- 





> Michael Bay was considered to direct the movie back in 2003 but turn down the offer.


Thank fuck for that!


----------



## andy2002 (Feb 26, 2009)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Idaho's third link (to Ain't It Cool News) has a lot of details of the ending in - it actually sounds like a stroke of genius to me, rather than a cop-out, and you have to wonder whether it even occurred to Moore to play it out that way instead of the scary squid story.



The "new ending" sounds very smart indeed – can't wait to see how it all pans out on screen.

There's a less complimentary but well-written and well-argued review of the film here: 

www.sfx.co.uk/page/sfx?entry=film_review_watchmen


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Feb 26, 2009)

andy2002 said:


> The "new ending" sounds very smart indeed – can't wait to see how it all pans out on screen.


There were some well-argued points against it in the comments on the AIC story, specifically about character motivation and theme - personally I think it would have been very difficult to do the squid ending and have it come off at all seriously.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 26, 2009)

I'm avoiding knowing about the new ending. 

You guys make sure and use spoiler code, remember, or say if a direct link shouts out a spoiler.   Even the AICN said spoiler.   (So I stopped reading)


----------



## Santino (Feb 26, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Seeing this tonight.  Pretty damned psyched.  I'll stick photos up tomorrow.


LOL


----------



## electrogirl (Feb 26, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Seeing this tonight.  Pretty damned psyched.  I'll stick photos up tomorrow.



LMAO


----------



## Azrael (Feb 27, 2009)

Buddy Bradley said:


> [...] personally I think it would have been very difficult to do the squid ending and have it come off at all seriously.


Possibly so, but it's meant to be absurd. As I said earlier in the thread, the _Watchmen_ comic has its flaws, but that final juxtaposition of comedy and horror is perfect. 



Spoiler: spoiler for 'Watchmen' comic and film



Like Veidt says, Squiddy is the ultimate practical joke. 

Maybe it wouldn't have worked on screen (and its replacement lets Mr Snyder snip the island sub-plot out). "Fear of vengeful God" and "coming together in the face of a common enemy" are subtly different concepts, and no.2 fits Veidt's deranged idealism better, but no.1 is equally interesting. 

No adaptation should be a slavish copy, and plenty of fan reaction claims that the new ending is the best bit of _Watchmen_, so I'm won't pre-judge the Attack of Ol' Blue.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 27, 2009)

An insider mentioned that there had been some sort of squid that was filmed. Also, how is the stuff about the artist, the island, the news stand and the pirate story going to make sense in the long cut DVD?


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Feb 27, 2009)

Azrael said:


> <snip>


You might want to <spoiler> your post so people who haven't read about the alternative ending don't see it. There's a sticky at the top of the forum that tells you how to insert spoiler tags.


----------



## elevendayempire (Feb 27, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> An insider mentioned that there had been some sort of squid that was filmed. Also, how is the stuff about the artist, the island, the news stand and the pirate story going to make sense in the long cut DVD?


This is what I'm wondering. Also...


Spoiler: Watchmen



Why does Ozy kill the Comedian in the film, if there's no island? He only does the Comedian in because he flew over the island and worked out Ozy's plan...


----------



## Sadken (Feb 27, 2009)

Alex B said:


> LOL





electrogirl said:


> LMAO



You's are a pair of fuckers!  

Anyway, they've just released another 100 tickets for this, if anyone wants the details?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 27, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> This is what I'm wondering. Also...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Watchmen
> ...



I assume the comedian flies over something else and sees what Veit is doing


----------



## Santino (Feb 27, 2009)

Sadken said:


> You's are a pair of fuckers!
> 
> Anyway, they've just released another 100 tickets for this, if anyone wants the details?


Go on then...


----------



## Sadken (Feb 27, 2009)

Alex B said:


> Go on then...



Eeet would be my pleshor.


----------



## tommers (Feb 27, 2009)

tickets for what?  I'll have some.


----------



## Santino (Feb 27, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Eeet would be my pleshor.


Don't start thinking this makes us friends or anything.


----------



## Sadken (Feb 27, 2009)

I just presumed...I...


----------



## fogbat (Feb 27, 2009)

There's a rather good review here.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 27, 2009)

fogbat said:


> There's a rather good review here.



Except they think Neil Gaiman wrote it


----------



## fogbat (Feb 27, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> Except they think Neil Gaiman wrote it


----------



## dtb (Feb 27, 2009)

i got an e-mail from a promotions agency, tried to book tickets but they sold out straight away but then i heard it was £30 a pop! then i found out it was being organised by that wanky secret cinema company so i'm glad i'm not going


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Feb 27, 2009)

fogbat said:


> There's a rather good review here.


Did you read the review? Although to be fair it actually sounds like how my wife would have understood the film after falling asleep in the middle of it...


----------



## fogbat (Feb 27, 2009)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Did you read the review? Although to be fair it actually sounds like how my wife would have understood the film after falling asleep in the middle of it...



Of course I did.

It seemed a lot more reasonable than many of the reviews I've seen out there


----------



## Idaho (Feb 27, 2009)

Whenever a review says something is too confusing or complicated my ears prick up.


----------



## joustmaster (Feb 27, 2009)

fogbat said:


> There's a rather good review here.





> Fans of the comic books may also feel disappointed in the ending, which has been heavily reworked to seem more upbeat and "Hollywood."


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 27, 2009)

fogbat said:


> There's a rather good review here.



That review is a fucking disgrace. Neil Gaiman? The writer can't even spell warn (written as worn). The comedian is ripped off wholesale from the punisher??? The same actress plays silk spectre one and two??? Dr Atomic??? and he is the founder of the watchmen???

Hold on a minute, I've just read the whole thing. It's a joke. I mean 'it is a joke'


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 27, 2009)

I'm confused - is something-awful a satirical website, or is that reviewer just a complete fucking cock?


----------



## fogbat (Feb 27, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I'm confused - is something-awful a satirical website, or is that reviewer just a complete fucking cock?



It's their TruthMedia section.

Badly-written and inaccurate reviews deliberately made to wind up fanboys


----------



## Azrael (Feb 27, 2009)

Buddy Bradley said:


> You might want to <spoiler> your post so people who haven't read about the alternative ending don't see it. There's a sticky at the top of the forum that tells you how to insert spoiler tags.


Yep, good point, have done so. _Mea culpa_.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 27, 2009)

fogbat said:


> It's their TruthMedia section.
> 
> Badly-written and inaccurate reviews deliberately made to wind up fanboys


Job done.


----------



## El Sueno (Mar 2, 2009)

Read in the Times this weekend that they have filmed Tales of the Black Freighter as a cartoon, which will be released on dvd to coincide with the cinema release of the film. Then they're gonna edit them together for the DVD release. Sweet!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 2, 2009)

El Sueno said:


> Read in the Times this weekend that they have filmed Tales of the Black Freighter as a cartoon, which will be released on dvd to coincide with the cinema release of the film. Then they're gonna edit them together for the DVD release. Sweet!



Or you could have simply read that on this very thread a few months ago. 

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8527121&postcount=61


----------



## Sadken (Mar 2, 2009)

Still good news either way.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 2, 2009)

I bet it's shit though.

I bet it's all shit.


----------



## Sadken (Mar 2, 2009)

I'm beginning to think you're probably right as it goes.  In fact, I will be very surprised if it isn't total cack but, once it's out there it's out there and we can all move on.

Like, I was really worried by the Hitchhiker's film and, sure enough, it was shit.  It's been a couple of years now though and it doesn't seem to have tarnished the memory or high regard the books are held in at all.


----------



## tommers (Mar 2, 2009)

Sadken said:


> I'm beginning to think you're probably right as it goes.  In fact, I will be very surprised if it isn't total cack but, once it's out there it's out there and we can all move on.
> 
> Like, I was really worried by the Hitchhiker's film and, sure enough, it was shit.  It's been a couple of years now though and it doesn't seem to have tarnished the memory or high regard the books are held in at all.



From Hell.

Actually.  I quite liked it...  well, apart from the bloody ending.  Good lord.  

I always try to remember that it's a different medium, it's never going to be the same, yadda, yadda, yadda.  Enjoy the film on its own merits, rather than whether it recreates exactly the same feelings that the book did when I first read it.


----------



## fogbat (Mar 2, 2009)

Sadken said:


> I'm beginning to think you're probably right as it goes.  In fact, I will be very surprised if it isn't total cack but, once it's out there it's out there and we can all move on.
> 
> Like, I was really worried by the Hitchhiker's film and, sure enough, it was shit.  It's been a couple of years now though and it doesn't seem to have tarnished the memory or high regard the books are held in at all.



If it's not too much of a derail, what didn't you like about the Hitchiker's film? 

I've been a fan of the book, radio and tv series, and really enjoyed the film.


----------



## Sadken (Mar 2, 2009)

See, From Hell seems to have been almost completely forgotten by anyone who wasn't already interested in the books.  There's just so many films made these days that very few linger in the collective consciousness the way they used to.

One of my favourite books is Ask the Dust by John Fante, which was made into a film with Colin Farrell a couple of years ago.  Beforehand I had nightmares about it being a huge success and a crap adaptation but, as it turned out, it was apparently just a crap adaptation and was soon completely lost in time.


----------



## Sadken (Mar 2, 2009)

fogbat said:


> If it's not too much of a derail, what didn't you like about the Hitchiker's film?
> 
> I've been a fan of the book, radio and tv series, and really enjoyed the film.



HATE the love story between Trillian and Arthur.  For me, Arthur Dent getting a girl wrecks his character.  It _already_ wrecked his character in the later books when he meets Fenchurch and the story runs out of ideas but why shit up the first one too?  Also, it seemed like all the best flights of fancy which make the series what it is were completely abandoned.

Each to their own though, fogbat, I'm glad you enjoyed it.


----------



## tommers (Mar 2, 2009)

Sadken said:


> See, From Hell seems to have been almost completely forgotten by anyone who wasn't already interested in the books.




Gritty, bleak, historically accurate investigation of the Ripper story, involving blake-like philosophical and spiritual meanderings into the nature of reality and the eternal struggle between order and chaos...

so why not have Johnny Depp fake the last prostitute's death and meet up with her later to settle down and have kids?

Although yes, even I had almost forgotten about it until just now.


----------



## Sadken (Mar 2, 2009)

You can see where Alan Moore's coming from with his curse.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 2, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I bet it's shit though.
> 
> I bet it's all shit.



that's the philosophy by which i live my life.


----------



## El Sueno (Mar 2, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Or you could have simply read that on this very thread a few months ago.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8527121&postcount=61



I did. Then I read it in the Times, so I thought I'd confirm it.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 2, 2009)

Sadken said:


> You can see where Alan Moore's coming from with his curse.



They should make some LOEG sequels including Mr Hyde raping the invisible man and the black dossier knob shots.

Or maybe they should make the lost girls. Hummm.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 2, 2009)

El Sueno said:


> I did. Then I read it in the Times, so I thought I'd confirm it.



But it had already been confirmed in the press when I wrote it. In fact it was always sniders intention to do it and was mentioned in the fourth post on this thread. 

So there. etc. I win etc.


----------



## Sadken (Mar 2, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> They should make some LOEG sequels including Mr Hyde raping the invisible man and the black dossier knob shots.
> 
> Or maybe they should make the lost girls. Hummm.



Is LOEG good as a film then?  I heard it was a nightmare.


----------



## elevendayempire (Mar 2, 2009)

tommers said:


> Gritty, bleak, historically accurate investigation of the Ripper story, involving blake-like philosophical and spiritual meanderings into the nature of reality and the eternal struggle between order and chaos...
> 
> so why not have Johnny Depp fake the last prostitute's death and meet up with her later to settle down and have kids?
> 
> Although yes, even I had almost forgotten about it until just now.


Although the whole thing about the Ripper killing the wrong girl was based on Moore's book. The annoying thing about From Hell was that Robbie Coltrane was _clearly_ the right person to play Abberline, but he was relegated to a supporting role so that Depp could prance around.


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 2, 2009)

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/watchmen/

They're really going all out with the marketing.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 2, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Is LOEG good as a film then?  I heard it was a nightmare.



No it's shit. I like the second and third books though, but didn't much care for the first.


----------



## gsv (Mar 2, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> No it's shit. I like the second and third books though, but didn't much care for the first.


Has Vol 3 been released yet? Or are you referring to the Black Dossier?

GS(v)


----------



## El Sueno (Mar 2, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> But it had already been confirmed in the press when I wrote it. In fact it was always sniders intention to do it and was mentioned in the fourth post on this thread.
> 
> So there. etc. I win etc.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 3, 2009)

Nice homage in today's PVP. 

PVP


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 3, 2009)

gsv said:


> Has Vol 3 been released yet? Or are you referring to the Black Dossier?
> 
> GS(v)



Black Dossier. Does that not count?


----------



## gsv (Mar 3, 2009)

There's a separeate Vol 3 in preparation - 'Century'.
Ah the joys of wiki 

GS(v)


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 3, 2009)

Easter Egg alerts on MTV. 

MTV Link

(not really spoilery)


----------



## PursuedByBears (Mar 3, 2009)

Jonathan Ross just reviewed Watchmen on Film 2009 - a mixed review


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 3, 2009)

What did he say?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Mar 3, 2009)

along the lines of , it was one of the best comic book / sci-fi films out , the action scenes were great but all the rest was very drawn out which is good in a comic but transfered as almost boring in a film but the special effects were excellent


----------



## Stigmata (Mar 3, 2009)

Ross has been wrong before.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Mar 3, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Ross has been wrong before.



<crosses everything>


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 3, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Ross has been wrong before.



Very true although the guy is a long time and big comic fan (I remember going into Mega City in Camden years ago and him coming in often and spending easily a 100 quid or more a time) so he knows the source material very well.


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 4, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Ross has been wrong before.



Most of the time.

How he's viewed as a film critic of any standing is beyond me (separate rant).


----------



## g force (Mar 4, 2009)

True but as explained above he knows the source material better than most film reviewers so in this case I'm minded to take notice of what he says. It was pretty much what Quint said too...amazing that this even got filmed but it has some duff moments and some poor casting.


----------



## belboid (Mar 4, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Ross has been wrong before.



often.

More usually tho he's just plain bland, lacking in insight and playing safe for the BBC1 crowd.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 4, 2009)

this might interest you bunch of geeks

EXTREMELY SPECIAL WATCHMEN EVENT TAKING PLACE ON THE RIVER


----------



## Idaho (Mar 4, 2009)

ruffneck23 said:


> along the lines of , it was one of the best comic book / sci-fi films out , the action scenes were great but all the rest was very drawn out which is good in a comic but transfered as almost boring in a film but the special effects were excellent



I found the very literalist interpretation of Sin City made it very dull (I never liked the comic either however). A Chandleresque noir comic book wrapped round cinematic cliches didn't work for me once it was turned back into a film.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 4, 2009)

I agree -- I thought that Sin City was bloody awful, albeit a fantastic looking piece of awfulness.


----------



## bmd (Mar 4, 2009)

Mixed reviews on Metacritic. Tbh the reviews sound a bit like the ones for Sin City but not as good.


----------



## fogbat (Mar 4, 2009)

smokedout said:


> this might interest you bunch of geeks
> 
> EXTREMELY SPECIAL WATCHMEN EVENT TAKING PLACE ON THE RIVER



That sounds really tempting - I'm working just around the corner


----------



## El Sueno (Mar 4, 2009)

fogbat said:


> That sounds really tempting - I'm working just around the corner



Anyone know how long it's gonna be around for? Presumably at least until end of opening weekend.


----------



## fogbat (Mar 4, 2009)

El Sueno said:


> Anyone know how long it's gonna be around for? Presumably at least until end of opening weekend.



Looks like it's a one-off event this evening, I think.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Mar 4, 2009)

it says the 6th


----------



## fogbat (Mar 4, 2009)

ruffneck23 said:


> it says the 6th



In cinemas on the 6th, but the event is listed as the 4th.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Mar 4, 2009)

ooops 

thanks i would have been most upset if i went up on friday


----------



## smokedout (Mar 4, 2009)

it is a one off


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 4, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Ross has been wrong before.


Yes.

I didn't find the review to be negative, though.

iPlayer link


----------



## Termite Man (Mar 4, 2009)

I read a review of the watchmen in the news of the world this weekend and I had to chuckle when the reviewer described himself as a "paid up fanboy" of the comic but earlier in the review he made a massive error with regards to the actual plot of the comic . Fucking retard


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 4, 2009)

Friend of mine has just come back from watching it. He says it is very faithful, so much so he thinks it is madness that 130 million has been spent on such an uncommercial film. Good, maybe but he is still in shock. 




Spoiler: End



No squid, if you had not already guessed


----------



## Santino (Mar 5, 2009)

smokedout said:


> this might interest you bunch of geeks
> 
> EXTREMELY SPECIAL WATCHMEN EVENT TAKING PLACE ON THE RIVER


Did anyone see this then?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 5, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I agree -- I thought that Sin City was bloody awful, albeit a fantastic looking piece of awfulness.



Yep very true.


----------



## The Groke (Mar 5, 2009)

We are going at midnight tonight...


----------



## 100% masahiko (Mar 5, 2009)

I'm watching it at the Odeon Leicester Square on Friday


----------



## El Sueno (Mar 5, 2009)

Alex B said:


> Did anyone see this then?



Bit of youtube footage of the Thames water projection thingy .


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 5, 2009)

Where are kens photos and review


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 5, 2009)

El Sueno said:


> Bit of youtube footage of the Thames water projection thingy .



Cool, thanks.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 5, 2009)

Chip Barm said:


> Where are kens photos and review



Tomorrow I expect


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 5, 2009)

Been waiting 20 odd years for this. Bound to be disappointed but hell, if it gets people to read the comic, it's worth it.

But why not Ralph Fiennes as Ozymandias? He was my choice for years... the other guy just doesn't look the part...


----------



## The Groke (Mar 6, 2009)

*Censorship can suck my big blue cock*

Well I watched it last night.

I would review it, but I am still too annoyed about the censor's butchery.

Still - praise Allah eh.

It is good to know that I can still exercise my right to watch violent, bloody attempted rapes, people receiving repeated meat-cleaver blows to the head and circular-saw/arm interaction, safe in the knowledge that I will be protected from exposure to breasts, consensual sex between adults and repeated shots of a blue digital schlong.


Yeah Ok, I knew it would likely be hacked a _bit_, but it was done so horribly and with so much disdain for the flow of the movie it rendered significant chunks almost unwatchable.

Due to Doc Manhattan's repeated, wilful nudity mad more than a few scenes of important dialogue and exposition were just sliced apart and stuck back with duck tape - especially at the climax.


Shower of cunts - had I know it was going to be this bad, I would have waited for the imported BluRay.


----------



## The Groke (Mar 6, 2009)

*Quick Review!*

Oh all right - Did I like it then?

Mostly yes.

It was very _very _faithful to the source material on the whole. Perhaps it could have taken more chances in a few places in order to render some aspects more apposite for film, rather than playing them like the comic, but hey - these things usually get slaughtered for taking artistic liberties and deviating from the original.

Rorshach, Manhattan and the Comedian were excellent.

Ozymandias was...odd to start with, but worked Ok by the end.

Night Owl was pretty decent, if oddly unmemorable. Perhaps that is the character more than the effort here.

Silk Spectre (2) was horrid, but TBF her acting in the original comic is pretty dreadful too. hmm

New ending worked well, but perhaps could have finished 5 minutes before it did.

Credits/intro were very well done - 

Didn't _feel_ wrong, wasn't bored once and it didn't seem as long as it was.

Soundtrack was trite and lazy - Must Try Harder.




Overall, much, much better than it could have been and on the whole I enjoyed it but afterwards, I couldn't help wondering whether it was really _necessary_...



Will probably re-read the book this week - it has been a while.


----------



## The Groke (Mar 6, 2009)

Oh to add - I reckon if I hadn't been pretty familiar with the comic, a few aspects would have probably had me scratching my head and I would have likely enjoyed it less.

No matter how bad, seeing an attempted tribute to Watchmen on screen was always likely to hold my interest for good or ill!


----------



## The Groke (Mar 6, 2009)

Oh and Zack Snyder - _enough_ with the "trade-mark" slow-mo/speed-up/speed-mo.

Your fight choreography is actually pretty decent at times, so you can stop over-egging the fucking pudding.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 6, 2009)

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485797

a mix o awesome horrible and nostalgia


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 6, 2009)

Swarfega said:


> Oh and Zack Snyder - _enough_ with the "trade-mark" slow-mo/speed-up/speed-mo.
> 
> Your fight choreography is actually pretty decent at times, so you can stop over-egging the fucking pudding.



I quite like his explanation of this though. Apparently when it slows it would be a scene in the/a comic book that contains more detail/action/a bigger picture that takes longer for the reader to take in.


----------



## The Groke (Mar 6, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I quite like his explanation of this though. Apparently when it slows it would be a scene in the/a comic book that contains more detail/action/a bigger picture that takes longer for the reader to take in.




Perhaps it would work with more of a freeze-frame approach then - more like what they did we the opening credits, which looked like a cool, frozen 3d picture, with some movements highlighted.

This is just 300+matrix+costumed heroes hitting stuff whilst that "WwwwoooaaasshhhhLLP" noise happens and it goes all treacley - you saw the prison fight clip yeah?

Really though, I am going to have to watch the whole thing again, unmolested (the film, not me) when it comes out on disk before my opinion/review can be locked in/credible.


----------



## Santino (Mar 6, 2009)

Special fake cover of The Metro today featuring Watchmen news, for those of you into collecting such artefacts.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 6, 2009)

by all accounts is sounds more sadistic than Sin City, which was a sick affair imo, and just as pointless.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 6, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> by all accounts is sounds more sadistic than Sin City, which was a sick affair imo, and just as pointless.



The difference between the source material is like comparing fire with water. Watchmen is a lot harder than Sin City in a lot of ways, but it's not an adolescent wank fantasy about violence and women.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 6, 2009)

Alex B said:


> Special fake cover of The Metro today featuring Watchmen news, for those of you into collecting such artefacts.



I actually quite liked that, nicely done I thought.


----------



## STFC (Mar 6, 2009)

Alex B said:


> Special fake cover of The Metro today featuring Watchmen news, for those of you into collecting such artefacts.



As somebody who hasn't read the graphic novel and wasn't bothered about seeing the film, reading that this morning has piqued my interest.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 6, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> The difference between the source material is like comparing fire with water. Watchmen is a lot harder than Sin City in a lot of ways, but it's not an adolescent wank fantasy about violence and women.


true, but it seems that's how the film version is.


----------



## andy2002 (Mar 6, 2009)

Sod the movie, watch this...

www.aintitcool.com/node/40327


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 6, 2009)

Seeing this at the weekend, can someone who's seen it please confirm one thing for me - 



Spoiler: For ending of Watchmen



Does Adrian get away with it or is he 'punished' in some way?


----------



## Upchuck (Mar 6, 2009)

Going to see it today.  Know nothing about the book/cartoon but like the dark look of the flick


----------



## treefrog (Mar 6, 2009)

The Octagon said:


> Seeing this at the weekend, can someone who's seen it please confirm one thing for me -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The first option.

Just back from this. I love the comic, was prepared to hate it, or at least be of the meh persuasion. 

I fucking loved it! Very well done (the first hour is fabulous). ending could have done with some diligent editing (but that seems to be how films are these days) but for the most part it was excellent. No punches pulled, but it didn't feel gratuitous. A comic book adaptation for actual adults.


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 6, 2009)

treefrog said:


> The first option.



Quality, cheers.


----------



## Sadken (Mar 6, 2009)

It's not great....

Adrian Veidt is the worst of the bunch...absolutely anaemic performance from an actor who looks like Malfoy from Harry Potter.  Billy Crudup plays Manhattan as if he is going to cry with every word he speaks...they're all bad actors except for Rorschach and even then that's a pretty easy role to pull off, I would say.

The director has cut ALL the incidental characters and their backstorys, which pissed me off because they gave the books a cinematic scope.  Where they are there, they're there fleetingly and irrelevantly.  The music seems really....obvious and cliched at times and there is the very worst love scene I may ever have seen, soundtracked by Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah - wtf?!?!?!?

I was bored at points, the ending wasn't as drastically changed as i expected though.  

What scenes have been retained are basically a complete copy of the ones in the book - there's not really been much creativity from the director here.

Bits were enjoyable but, overall, I think it probably is unfilmable. 

5 or 6/10.

Ps - the place I saw it was amazing.  It was in Se One and they did such a great job with it.  I'll stick the pics up later on, first I need food.


----------



## 100% masahiko (Mar 6, 2009)

I hope you're wrong Sadken 

I'm watching it tonight - feel like a 6 year old on Christmas eve...can't wait!


----------



## Sadken (Mar 6, 2009)

Yeah, you may well enjoy it, matey.  I'm pretty much just a miserable cunt to be honest.  It just seemed to be missing some pizazz, and I don't mean explosions.  Plenty of explosions.  And gore, weirdly.  But not much grit.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 6, 2009)

Well, there's been 1 loved it, 1 sort of (but who hasn't seen it uncut by state censors) and one meh.


----------



## treefrog (Mar 6, 2009)

TBF I got the impression that the soundtrack was a deliberate attempt to make it feel more like a comic, if that makes any sense. I liked that it was all contemporary to the setting of the film, and it gave it a little bit of '80's cheese that made me  (did jar in places though)


----------



## Gromit (Mar 6, 2009)

I'm not seeing it till the 21st March.

Which gives me time to hunt down and read the book if i wanted to.

Good idea or bad idea? Sometimes its best to read the book after the film so as not to be disappointed by the film.


----------



## Sadken (Mar 6, 2009)




----------



## Sadken (Mar 6, 2009)




----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 6, 2009)

Heh crazy.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 6, 2009)

wtf?


----------



## 100% masahiko (Mar 6, 2009)

What's going on?

(some links are blocked here at work)


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Mar 6, 2009)

Great pics, ken


----------



## janeb (Mar 6, 2009)

Have tickets to see this tonight but can't go as off to Orkney in the morning on a 6.30 train and too much work to do before I can go


----------



## Upchuck (Mar 6, 2009)

Just got back from seeing it and I thought ir was pretty good.  I have not read the boks or comics etc, just saw it as a film and as a film I'd give it 7.5/10.  It was entertaining, smooth, well filmed - some fun basically, none too serious.  Altogether well put together.  Wasn't as dark as I had hoped but definately gothic elements.  Decent soundtrack.  Thought cast was ok but one guy a little fat


----------



## The Groke (Mar 6, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> one guy a little fat



Um.

wut?


----------



## Upchuck (Mar 6, 2009)

Swarfega said:


> Um.
> 
> wut?



You'll see what I mean.  It doesn't 'keep' with the rest of the characters but makes some plot sense, but does him no favours


----------



## El Sueno (Mar 6, 2009)

Ken that screening in SE1 looked fucking awesome!


----------



## Sweet FA (Mar 6, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> one guy a little fat



Nite Owl?


----------



## Upchuck (Mar 6, 2009)

Sweet FA said:


> Nite Owl?



Is he the fat one  What costume does he wear?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 6, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> Is he the fat one  What costume does he wear?



the owl like one?


----------



## Sweet FA (Mar 6, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> the owl like one?



bit chubby?


----------



## ajk (Mar 6, 2009)

Oh no, I was going to see this, but if there's a fat bloke in it I won't bother.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 6, 2009)

Just got back from the cinema.

ZACK SNYDER, what in bibbling blue intrinsic field subtracted fuck were you doing with Dreiberg and Jupiter? Have you not been having sex recently? Was it that important? Did Moore not make it clear in the comics how it should have gone? I'm sorry - but for fucks sake man. People in the cinema laughed at it, the should have been laughing at the accidental fire - not your fucking direction.

Good work on set design and background, the little nods to Gibbons artwork and especially the covers of the comics were really appreciated. But too much fucking Nixon and Kissinger.


----------



## cosmic commando (Mar 6, 2009)

Maybe your audience just gets all giggly and nervous at sex scenes? Didn't  have any of that with the audience I was with. Great film, great adaptation, can't wait to see it again.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 6, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> You'll see what I mean.  It doesn't 'keep' with the rest of the characters but makes some plot sense, but does him no favours



If it's night owl that's kinda the point...


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 6, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> If it's night owl that's kinda the point...



He hasn't read them. 

(although I also am assuming it's night owl)


----------



## elevendayempire (Mar 7, 2009)

My capsule review: Meh.

My spoilery review:


Spoiler: Watchmen



It felt like flicking through the comic book; all the surface details were there, it looked right, but was missing all the nuances and layers. The pacing was all off, too; trying to borrow the comics' episodic format and present each character's origin in turn just came across as being a bit clunky - the Rorschach origin was a particular offender, given that the whole point of that sequence was to show how the shrink gradually succumbed to the darkness of Rorschach's worldview, and that was just missing. But the biggest victim of the compressed timeframe was the Laurie/Dan relationship; in the book, it's a gradual, slow-burning unrequited-passion on Dan's part, in the film, Laurie jumps Dan's bones practically the second after she walks in the door. The gore bordered on pornographic; I get that film audiences probably needed to see a shoe on the kid's leg bone in Rorschach's origin scene, but I'm not sure that we needed to see the cleaver going into the guy's head three times. Or the fat bloke's arms being sawn off.

Still, there were bits I liked. Rorschach's death was particularly well-handled - I loved the inkblot-on-the-snow image, and they nailed the performances in that scene. Veidt's alternative to the squid was reasonably plausible and neatly-done (leaving aside the bit where Nixon identifies the "energy signature" of an explosion as being Dr Manhattan's - the nukes would already have been flying by that point, I think...). The prison fight shows that someone, thank Christ, has finally twigged that long takes work better for action scenes - hopefully Chris Nolan was watching that. And I did rather like the scene with Nite Owl smacking the unresisting Veidt about - a nicely cinematic reinterpretation of how Dan's "schoolboy heroics" are now redundant. And I loved the opening montage set to Bob Dylan. Though Silhouette being openly lesbian made for a couple of nice visual gags, it rather undermined the whole "break-up of the Minutemen" from the book...

But on the whole it wasn't great; it didn't really adapt the comic for the cinema so much as try to compress it down to fit the three-hour running time. It was conservative where it should've been bold in its choices, and overstepped the line where it should've held back.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Mar 7, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> My spoilery review:


Nice review. 

I'm hoping to see it at the IMAX next week in Austin - trying not to build it up too much in my head, so that I'm impressed and not disappointed.


----------



## The Groke (Mar 7, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> You'll see what I mean.  It doesn't 'keep' with the rest of the characters but makes some plot sense, but does him no favours




methinks you missed the point a little.


----------



## The Groke (Mar 7, 2009)

Balbi said:


> ZACK SNYDER, what in bibbling blue intrinsic field subtracted fuck were you doing with Dreiberg and Jupiter? Have you not been having sex recently? Was it that important?



Perhaps it was for the best that It was censored for me then...


----------



## rhod (Mar 7, 2009)

Just started watching the Watchmen "Motion Comic", which seems to have been done rather well. 

Haven't got the patience to view CBR comics, but this carries you along with the story nicely.


----------



## Upchuck (Mar 7, 2009)

Swarfega said:


> methinks you missed the point a little.



Was the point he was no longer in action and had let himself go to pot and was kind of aimless and meandering through life?


----------



## Balbi (Mar 7, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> Was the point he was no longer in action and had let himself go to pot and was kind of aimless and meandering through life?



 Yep. Dreiberg's fucking useless without the Nite Owl costume on.


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2009)

just got tickets to see it tonight, my expectations having been sufficiently lowered (both by this thread and the other Moore movies).

Kermode reviewed it ion the Culture Show last night, and was distinctly underwhelmed.  they did show the old interview with him tho, from when V was released, which was well worth a view


----------



## Cid (Mar 7, 2009)

My sister just told me about the ending... Why the fuck would they do that? WHY?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 7, 2009)

belboid said:


> they did show the old interview with him tho, from when V was released, which was well worth a view



You mean V was well worth a view or the interview from when V was released was well worth a view? 

If A = Latter then reply = Interview with who? Kermode? Why show an interview about the V film? Eh?
If A = Former then reply = Are you nuts, that film is utter shite.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Mar 7, 2009)

Cid said:


> My sister just told me about the ending... Why the fuck would they do that? WHY?



Because the original ending required an entire subplot which wouldn't fit in a film already 3 hours long.

Overall it was decent but not great, although Veidt was appauling - completely hammed up, the line "do you think I'm some sort of saturday morning supervillan" was rather inviting the response "yes".


----------



## Balbi (Mar 7, 2009)

Nah, you coulda done it. Wally Weaver and Janey Slater could have gone to work for Extra Spatial Research, who tie in with Veidt and Manhattans energy search. Then have Comedian go loopy after seeing squiddy on an island and follow the story from there. You get what i'm sure would have been a well grisly squiddy at the end, and the same result - with additional gore from 1 in 3 New Yorkers being pwned. The Manhattan Spectre2 scene would have been more traumatic too.

AND WTF HAPPENED TO THE NITE OWL 1 STORYLINE?


----------



## andy2002 (Mar 7, 2009)

Saw it this afternoon and was rather underwhelmed. I think I'd have liked it a lot more had I never read the book - it comes across as little more than "Watchmen Lite" as a result. 

I have to say I have no real desire to see a Director's Cut either - the film that exists is too long as it is. I reckon Moore's right - it really is unfilmable.

And that new ending - although quite clever - had none of the impact of the original. 

A big fat meh really.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 8, 2009)

Dear god I hope it's not like the game which is fucking shite...


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 8, 2009)

Saw it last night, and I thought it was a damn good, respectable effort - not as good as the book mind.

I thought the soundtrack was OK, though Hallelujah is rapidly turning into a cliché. Using the original German language version of 99 Red Balloons was a very nice touch.

The sexual politics were weird and icky, and the Comedian was presented too sympathetically. But I think maybe all its flaws were inherent in the transition from book to film. They're both visual art forms, but they are visual art forms of very different kinds.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 8, 2009)

Idris2002 said:


> I thought the soundtrack was OK, though Hallelujah is rapidly turning into a cliché. Using the original German language version of 99 Red Balloons was a very nice touch.



The german version was the 'hit' version in america, most people (apart from in the UK) don't know there was an english version.


----------



## mentalchik (Mar 8, 2009)

Quite fancied going to see this (i very rarely go to the cinema) but all the chat about graphic gore has put me off a bit..... (am a big girly la-la about such stuff).....



is it really bad ?


----------



## Balbi (Mar 8, 2009)

TBH, every time the music was laid over the film it was too damn loud. I mean, seriously - just because you can turn it up all the way doesn't make it more effective. Just damn loud.

*bangs cane on floor*


----------



## The Groke (Mar 8, 2009)

mentalchik said:


> is it really bad ?



It wasn't particularly pervasive IMO, but there are 3, maybe 4 scenes which you may want to turn away from...


----------



## mentalchik (Mar 8, 2009)

Swarfega said:


> It wasn't particularly pervasive IMO, but there are 3, maybe 4 scenes which you may want to turn away from...






My son says he doesn't wanna go with me if i'm gonna make any stupid noises or slide down the seat (i told him the tale of what i did in the chest burster scene in Alien when it first came out.........shrieked just a little)


----------



## Balbi (Mar 8, 2009)

Go see it for the softcore pornography you get just before the final act


----------



## mentalchik (Mar 8, 2009)

Balbi said:


> Go see it for the softcore pornography you get just before the final act


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2009)

well, that was distinctly underwhelming.

Some truly awful acting, whoever played Veidt should never be allowed on screen again, the violence was ramped up in a completely unnecessary way, and its far too long and superficially true to the book.

That said, it was a fun enough couple of hours, a fair few scenes that made me smile and hte ending was okay, considering.


----------



## andy2002 (Mar 8, 2009)

belboid said:


> the violence was ramped up in a completely unnecessary way



Yep. I found the violence genuinely unpleasant – Snyder's idea of what constitutes "adult" presumably.


----------



## The Groke (Mar 8, 2009)

belboid said:


> whoever played Veidt should never be allowed on screen again,.



Funnily enough, I just watched "The Lookout" and he is in that, almost unrecognisable from his Watchman role and he is really good!

Problem I had is that they didn't seem to know what accent they wanted him to have - his native British or some sort of foppish American.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 8, 2009)

Loved it.  Very faithful to the novel.   

(Although they had to change the bit about the guy with the dogs because fucking Saw stole that, or some other gorno.  And of course Heroes stole the 'end' as well so that had to be adapted.)

Snyder tinkered with it but that's needed when most people will know it from start to end.

Certainly deserves the 18 rating. 

Will watch it again and I'm hoping for a Director's Cut for all the extra bits cut out.


----------



## andy2002 (Mar 8, 2009)

DexterTCN said:


> Loved it.  Very faithful to the novel.
> 
> (Although they had to change the bit about the guy with the dogs because fucking Saw stole that, or some other gorno.



Didn't that idea - a character making someone saw off their own leg/arm to escape a burning building or something similar – originally appear in the first Mad Max film? I think Moore may have nicked it from there... 



DexterTCN said:


> And of course Heroes stole the 'end' as well so that had to be adapted.)



The ending to Heroes' first season is nothing like the end to Watchmen, other than that it's set in New York. Or did I miss the bit where Peter Petrelli turns into a massive psychic squid?


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 8, 2009)

andy2002 said:


> The ending to Heroes' first season is nothing like the end to Watchmen, other than that it's set in New York. Or did I miss the bit where Peter Petrelli turns into a massive psychic squid?


No mate you missed the quotemarks around the word end, and I didn't say Heroes stole it for the end of season one...just that they stole it. 

I think you're right about Mad Max, though.   The fact remains that it's been done in that way so it was ok to change (that part)...although it's maybe much more violent now.  (no spoiler from me)

Ceratinly memorable.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 8, 2009)

A massive psychic squid? 

Wasn't that Akira?


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 8, 2009)

Kind of, yup.


----------



## brixtonvilla (Mar 8, 2009)

I'm going to stick my neck out and say then ending of the film is better than that of the book. By some way.


----------



## flash (Mar 8, 2009)

brixtonvilla said:


> I'm going to stick my neck out and say then ending of the film is better than that of the book. By some way.



+1 on that. It made more sense and was more workable and accessible for the audience. Kind of sums up what I felt about the film, preferred it to the novel. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed both and don't think I would have enjoyed the film anywhere near as much without reading the novel, but just found the film less hard going and way more accessible. Enjoyed it. Would be keen to see a director's cut as I feel it would be way longer and probably more like the novel in terms of depth and complexity.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 8, 2009)

As for directors cuts and stuff, I read there were going to be a few extras.

I have not read the comic/book, but there is supposed to be a comic inside the comic? About a ship. That is being made into a cartoon.

There will also be another short film, or something.


----------



## Santino (Mar 8, 2009)

It was fucking excellent. Much preferred Veidt's plan in the film compared to the squid. I hated the sudden introduction of psychically sensitive people in the last few pages of the book.

I'm not sure I want to see a longer version, although I would be happy to watch extra features like they were appendices or summink.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 8, 2009)

Haven't read the book. Tried, years ago, couldn't get more than 10 pages in. meh.

Film though, was awesome 
Sex scene was  loads of people were laughing it was amazing


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 8, 2009)

Oh god, dreading this that little bit more now. Read the trade paperback countless times over the years and love it. It's one of the greatest works in the field...


----------



## 100% masahiko (Mar 9, 2009)

Felt empty when I walked out of the cinema. Felt it could had been great. The punchline didn't hit the spot and I wished the film was shot in two parts - placing more emphasis on the original Watchmen (eg,  Dollar Bill (?) and Hooded Justice's gay relationship. The lesbians that got killed. How the originals were corrupt but had a great publicist. And the present ones too - so much depth to each of the characters but so little time). 

Overall thought it was a very good reproduction of a mind-boggling comic book. 

Dr Manhatten - Did anyone else think his cock was a distraction? Couldn't stop looking at his big blue thing and wondering why did he had no sack?


----------



## 100% masahiko (Mar 9, 2009)

Dillinger4 said:


> As for directors cuts and stuff, I read there were going to be a few extras.
> 
> I have not read the comic/book, but there is supposed to be a comic inside the comic? About a ship. That is being made into a cartoon.
> 
> There will also be another short film, or something.



Tales of the Black Freighter - it's a animation that's straight to DVD.

I couldn't read the comic either.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 9, 2009)

Bit soulless, but faithful enough to the source material within the time allowed...I too think the climax was better than the original as I always found the whole 'faked alien invasion' thing a bit hard to take, especially since it stops _all_ war...pretty uncompromising re: the source material, especially how most of the scenes were framed as per the comic...loved the added violence too, especially the prison fight...


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Mar 9, 2009)

I enjoyed it tremendously. Hilarious sex scene. Great soundtrack.


----------



## elevendayempire (Mar 9, 2009)

Alex B said:


> It was fucking excellent. Much preferred Veidt's plan in the film compared to the squid.


The squid's in there - check out the name of Adrian's doomsday device.


----------



## Santino (Mar 9, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> The squid's in there - check out the name of Adrian's doomsday device.


I missed that. I did think I had spotted some kind of squiggly octopus logo among some of his files in his office though.


----------



## elevendayempire (Mar 9, 2009)

Alex B said:


> I missed that. I did think I had spotted some kind of squiggly octopus logo among some of his files in his office though.


"Sub Quantum Unifying Intrinsic Device"


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 9, 2009)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thenewfrontiersman/


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 9, 2009)

10/10

Amazing film.


----------



## Sadken (Mar 9, 2009)

You rate it as the perfect film?


----------



## Pingu (Mar 9, 2009)

i liked it.

my comic book geeky mate liked it (think comic book guy but thinner and with black hair).

mrs pingu hated it


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 9, 2009)

One thing I really enjoyed about the film was how it 'read' the novel in a different way - whenever I've read it I've always seen the comedian as a 2ndary character, whereas the film places him square centre...


----------



## 100% masahiko (Mar 9, 2009)

I not met anyone who dislikes it yet.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 9, 2009)

I'm impressed that Warners gave Snyder as much room as he had to remake the comic TBH - $130mn, on an 18 rated film (saw it in Streatham last night, screen 1 and it was almost empty), and one that actually makes some demands on it's audience in terms of story etc.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 9, 2009)

Was it just me, or did Hooded Justice have an Irish accent, in the scene where he saves the Silk Sceptre from the Comedian?


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 9, 2009)

I thought that too...presumably on the hugely extended Directors Cut there will be extended bits on the old timers...


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 9, 2009)

And as well as 'take your hands off her, you little bastard', he'll say 'wait there 'til I get you, you young pup, you'.


----------



## elevendayempire (Mar 9, 2009)

Idris2002 said:


> Was it just me, or did Hooded Justice have an Irish accent, in the scene where he saves the Silk Sceptre from the Comedian?


German, IIRC.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 9, 2009)

100% masahiko said:


> Dr Manhatten - Did anyone else think his cock was a distraction? Couldn't stop looking at his big blue thing and wondering why did he had no sack?




perv

but, yes, where were his balls.


----------



## rollinder (Mar 9, 2009)

http://6minutestomidnight.com/

Rorschach gives you an inkblot test - insults you if you give wrong answers and narrates clips on each Watchman for the right ones 
fucking creepy tbh


----------



## 100% masahiko (Mar 9, 2009)

joustmaster said:


> perv
> 
> but, yes, where were his balls.



He was also cicumcised too.


----------



## rollinder (Mar 9, 2009)

hi res posters (probably a repost but well  )





http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=18783

and 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



here (scroll down) - http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=17545


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 9, 2009)

rollinder said:


> http://6minutestomidnight.com/
> 
> Rorschach gives you an inkblot test - insults you if you give wrong answers and narrates clips on each Watchman for the right ones
> fucking creepy tbh





Spoiler: Test answers



Smile Gun Hat Girl Glasses Helicopter


----------



## Stigmata (Mar 9, 2009)

But you get a cool response if you type 'mask' as well.


----------



## andy2002 (Mar 9, 2009)

According to Entertainment Weekly, it's done $55.7million in its opening weekend a figure that's described in the report as "a bit soft" (insert your own gag about Dr Manhattan's cock here)...

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/03/watchmen-borept.html


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 9, 2009)

Saw it on the IMAX at Manchester and had time to digest it over the weekend. 

I enjoyed it, for almost 3 hours it kept me inetrested the whole way through. I'm no fanboy, only read it twice and probably still haven't got it all judging by what I've read in the thread.

The film is very true to the book, so much though that it does miss some of the subplots and info about minor characters. 

I'd definitely watch it again.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 9, 2009)

andy2002 said:


> According to Entertainment Weekly, it's done $55.7million in its opening weekend a figure that's described in the report as "a bit soft" (insert your own gag about Dr Manhattan's cock here)...


I'd rather make a joke about insert....or gag. 

I'm not too bothered about what it takes, I'm quite sure the deal's already done on the DVD/BluRay normal version followed by Director's Cut...(commentary should be good)...to plump up the profits.

Snyder has come back after last year's 300 and shown again that a decent amount can be made from an 18 rated film.   Bloody nice having a cinema full of adults, imo.

In no sense could it be called a sell-out, either.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2009)

DexterTCN said:


> Bloody nice having a cinema full of adults, imo.


it certainly would have been!  The place was full for my showing (8pm on a saturday night) - and most of the crowd looked too young to be there.  Me n Chris appeared to be the oldest in there! 

If at all possible, I will never go to a showing with a bunch of kids ever again, twats just couldn't shut up, or stop giggling at the big blue penis (first time, fnie, quite understandable, but not every single time it appeared)



> In no sense could it be called a sell-out, either.


It could be called shallow and a very poor representation of the politics tho


----------



## andy2002 (Mar 9, 2009)

belboid said:


> it certainly would have been!  The place was full for my showing (8pm on a saturday night) - and most of the crowd looked too young to be there.  Me n Chris appeared to be the oldest in there!



I overheard someone in my local comic shop saying that there were kids in school uniforms at the screening of Watchmen they attended! I suppose they get their parents or older siblings to book online and then no one at the cinema can be arsed to sort it out when they turn up and try to get in!


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 9, 2009)

I've seen stuff on US sites about parents irately demanding their money back when it turns out to be non-child friendly. And it's an R rated movie, FFS!


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 9, 2009)

And here's a revised version of Watchmen as a saturday morning cartoon:

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485797

(click on 'watch the movie'). 

Only major problem is that it's not hard enough on the Comedian.


----------



## Santino (Mar 9, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> "Sub Quantum Unifying Intrinsic Device"




Good bit of geekery that.


----------



## Santino (Mar 9, 2009)

Forgot to say how completely brilliant the casting was, for the most part. Comedian and Rorshach spot on, Nite Owl not quite the same as the book but worked very well I thought. Nixon and Kissinger were good too.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 9, 2009)

Alex B said:


> Good bit of geekery that.





> Another of Veidt's televisions plays "Rambo: First Blood Part II," which made us wonder: If the U.S. won Vietnam so quickly and easily in the "Watchmen" reality, would the "Rambo" movies even exist? "There might be a couple M.I.A.'s still there," Snyder said of John Rambo's mission in the sequel. "The reason I put that shot in there was that Sly [Stallone] is walking with another character from the movie — I forget the actor's name — but he has a [smiley-face] button on — only he has a frowning smiley face. I was like, 'They just totally missed the point of that,' but I thought it was really interesting that it was pop culture invading a movie that, in some ways, didn't understand it was being mocked by ['Watchmen']."


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 9, 2009)

Alex B said:


> Forgot to say how completely brilliant the casting was, for the most part. Comedian and Rorshach spot on, Nite Owl not quite the same as the book but worked very well I thought. Nixon and Kissinger were good too.



I didn't find the aged Nixon convincing - they should have just grabbed some CGI Nixon.


----------



## Santino (Mar 9, 2009)

I thought it was convincing enough in the context of this kind of film, i.e. enough like him so that I wasn't just thinking 'Oh, that actor's meant to be Nixon, I see.'


----------



## Crispy (Mar 9, 2009)

Every time I saw nixon I just saw the huge rubber nose of nixon


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2009)

me too.

and they completely wasted the Dr Strangelove war room scenes


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Mar 10, 2009)

so, yes or no for a non-watchmen comic reader?  seems a bit long, but the effects look pretty impressive.  Surely watchmen is supposed to be more than an action film, though?


----------



## Crispy (Mar 10, 2009)

i reckon it's probably better for having not read the book. I haven't, so I was was just watching a kickass, fairly smart action movie (with a ridiculous sex scene). I wasn't getting hung up on wether they got it right etc etc.


----------



## selamlar (Mar 10, 2009)

Idris2002 said:


> Was it just me, or did Hooded Justice have an Irish accent, in the scene where he saves the Silk Sceptre from the Comedian?



Welsh, I thought.


----------



## selamlar (Mar 10, 2009)

belboid said:


> the violence was ramped up in a completely unnecessary way, and its far too long and superficially true to the book.




To be honest, I thought that some of the (possible psychological) violence was downplayed in the film, particularly with regards to Rorschach and the child-killer/dog bit. 
Watchmen is _meant_ to be 'ultraviolent', IMHO.


----------



## belboid (Mar 10, 2009)

but it doesnt need to be dwelled on and loved by the camera in the way Snyder did it. 

You're right about the psychological violence, but that didn't come over at all (hardly) - not as simplistically obvious and visceral as the physical violence


----------



## 100% masahiko (Mar 10, 2009)

selamlar said:


> Welsh, I thought.



I thought he was German?

http://watchmen.wikia.com/wiki/Hooded_Justice


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 10, 2009)

> but it doesnt need to be dwelled on and loved by the camera in the way Snyder did it.



Yes it did. Someone elsewhere in the thread mentions Snyder slow/speed technique for emphasising/detailing specific sequences, and how it's generally used in fights, which IMV is a brilliant way of bringing over the idea of individual comic frames within a film (Ang Lee in Hulk literally used them which also works well, but Snyder's continual tribute to John Woo edges it for me), but the violence in the film is no more or less lingered over than in the comic - the difference being that you clearly read through the action frames, as opposed to lingering over them...


----------



## selamlar (Mar 10, 2009)

100% masahiko said:


> I thought he was German?
> 
> http://watchmen.wikia.com/wiki/Hooded_Justice



He's (allegedly) meant to be German.  I just thought he sounded Welsh.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 10, 2009)

Just watched it. 

I think it may have been unfilmable. 

Dr Manhatans voice - Jesus wept how irritating
Nixons face - WTF? Easy on the rubber.
Soundtrack - Shut the fuck up.

Bit boring to watch having read the comic a few times. I just don't think I got any feeling of cold war doom on the horizon, and the added nixon bits just seemed so separate, like it was something else. 

The non squid end was maybe the only way they could have done it without it being a miniseries. Sort of made sense too but distorted other plot points a little.


----------



## mrsfran (Mar 10, 2009)

Jon-of-arc said:


> so, yes or no for a non-watchmen comic reader? seems a bit long, but the effects look pretty impressive. Surely watchmen is supposed to be more than an action film, though?


 
It's a yes from this non-comic reader. I loved it.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 10, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Just watched it.
> 
> I think it may have been unfilmable.
> 
> ...



I've always thought it should have never been just one film, it should have been a trilogy or better yet a tv mini series...


----------



## 100% masahiko (Mar 10, 2009)

It should had been at least two films...

unsure with TV cos of the censors and it'd look too cheap.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 10, 2009)

Crudups Dr Manhattan voice is a dead ringer for Data in Star Trek: TNG.



Except a bit whinier.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 10, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I've always thought it should have never been just one film, it should have been a trilogy or better yet a tv mini series...



I don't think it could have sustained enough interest over three movies. I just don't think it works as a film at all. The slightly ramped up action jarred for me a little but that's what films are about these days.


----------



## Augie March (Mar 10, 2009)

Well, I liked it. They actually managed to make most of the story actually work in the film, which I didn't think would work with the neccesary amount of flashbacks there needed to be for it to work. Snyder stayed true to the story and the characters, which is all you could ask for really.

A few quibbles though I thought came with some of the fight scenes that sometimes felt like they were in the wrong film, like a sub-standard Matrix knock-off. The other disappointing factor was the lack of the Black Frieghter comic and the conversations between the news vendor and the kid. I felt losing that (although I undestand the reasons why) meant that the story lacked a human element to it. It all become a self-contained bubble with the heroes story and little outside interest, meaning the ending lacked an emotional impact, that the book certainly had.

Still, all in all, I left the cinema pleased with the results.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 10, 2009)

Augie, is your tagline from Harvey Birdman?


----------



## Augie March (Mar 10, 2009)

Why yes. Yes it is.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 10, 2009)

I love Harvey Birdman.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 10, 2009)

Augie March said:


> The other disappointing factor was the lack of the Black Frieghter comic and the conversations between the news vendor and the kid. I felt losing that (although I undestand the reasons why) meant that the story lacked a human element to it. It all become a self-contained bubble with the heroes story and little outside interest, meaning the ending lacked an emotional impact, that the book certainly had.



Yes I thought this too. There was heros off somewhere else and there was some nixon chat, but no link the people of NY. 

I wonder what it is going to look like with all the vendor and comic book stuff put back in for the extended DVD?


----------



## gosub (Mar 11, 2009)

Jon-of-arc said:


> so, yes or no for a non-watchmen comic reader?  seems a bit long, but the effects look pretty impressive.  Surely watchmen is supposed to be more than an action film, though?



Just seen it, of the people who stayed to the end, was not the only one who wanted 2and 1/2 hours of their life back


----------



## rollinder (Mar 11, 2009)

Charlie says



			
				http://twitter.com/charltonbrooker said:
			
		

> Watchmen fun as a spectacle. Like browsing thru a set of big moving Watchmen artcards.
> If I'd not read the book I'd 'huh?' myself to death.


----------



## rollinder (Mar 11, 2009)

10 things you need to know about Watchmen
and a topical pearoast


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 11, 2009)

rollinder said:


> Charlie says



Well Charlie must be a bit thick - Wrysmile has never read the comic and had no issues following any part of the story...unlike the gf in the couple behind us, who even needed the bit where Doug Roth 'outs' Dr Manhattan during the TV interview explaining to her, despite the script doing it...


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 11, 2009)

Terrible soundtrack, ridiculous sex scene and extremely irritting nudity from Dr Manhattan, but I didn't mind it. Having not read the book for several years (proabbly 10), may have helped.

Overall, the experience left me feeling a bit meh.


----------



## belboid (Mar 11, 2009)

rollinder said:


> 10 things you need to know about Watchmen



quite good, except for "Yes, there is some graphic sex and violence in the film but it all has a point. It’s called deconstruction."

mmm, no it isn't.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 11, 2009)

Just thought of something. In the film they say that only Night Owl 1 and Ozymandias' true identities were known to the public. This is emphasized by the fact Silk Spectre 2 and Night Owl 2 don't need new identities when they visit Silk Spectre 1 at the end. In fact in the film Silk Spectre 1 comes over to Night Owl 2s place rather then them visit her. 

So how did a Silk Spectre fan send a comic to Sally Jupiter?


----------



## brixtonvilla (Mar 11, 2009)

IIRC correctly, Silk Spectre 1 married her agent (the guy she's arguing with in the film), and retired early. Think Hollis Mason talk about her in his book, and says she was wise to get out before the Minutemen became a bit of a sideshow. Could just be one character (Dan Driberg, I think) with a faulty memory. It was a long time ago...


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 11, 2009)

Hummm, I think it might be more to with the book having pretty much everyones identity known and the film makers forgetting. Plus it's a news reporter that says Night Owl and Ozymandias are the only two to go public.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 11, 2009)

Extraordinarily close to the original and really enjoyable. Bit of a chap flick of course.

So many good bits. 

When the character of no compromise is killed by the idealist for the sake of Utopia - truly a great moment... and all for nowt


----------



## Santino (Mar 11, 2009)

rollinder said:


> 10 things you need to know about Watchmen


A few good points written by a complete dick.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 12, 2009)

I enjoyed it, but I agree with *elevendayempire*, it was like flicking through the comicbook. It was too faithful for its own good: the middle of the narrative got bogged down in flashbacks that weren't detailed enough to justify their presence. It crammed so much in it felt rushed. "Conservative" is a good word to describe it. This may well be remedied in the DVD cut: it's widely rumoured that there's about half an hour Mr Snyder had to edit out. 

Personally I'd have gone in the other direction and kept the focus on the Comedian murder. Maybe start with Rorschach and Dr. Long and use that as a framing device. (Or maybe not: I'm just a little sore that my favourite chapter was cut down to five minutes, albeit a well-done five minutes.) Be selective: either explore material fully or cut it altogether. The fate of the two Bernards would have been meaningless for anyone who hasn't read the comic. Ditto the significance of the _New Frontiersman_. 

The best parts were Dr Manhattan, which surprised me, as it's some of the densest material in the comic, but Mr Snyder nailed it. He clearly digs ol' Blue. Philip Glass's music kicking in during his origin story was a great piece of cinema. Which backs up what I said above: Mr Snyder gave it the time it needed. 

The re-worked ending was one of the best bits. I loved Knight Owl's futile attempt to beat up on Veidt. Nicely done. 

Hats off to Mr Snyder though: he's filmed the unfilmable comic, and made a perfectly watchable and at times classy movie out of it. The hoards of fanboys and fangirls (I've been told such endangered creatures do exist  ) haven't got much to complain about here: the comic was respected, and then some. 

I have no doubt that the extra half-hour on the DVD will improve things. And I'm hoping that the edit with the _Black Freighter_ in will nail it.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 12, 2009)

Interesting article on the music.   Wired Link



> The Grateful Dead covered "Desolation Row" at length in its legendary live shows, and the song is cited when a detective scans a concert poster in Chapter 5 of the Watchmen graphic novel. ("Heh," grumbles the detective, "I used to own the record [that] had this sleeve design.") Meanwhile, for the film's credits and soundtrack, emo noisemaker band My Chemical Romance revised "Desolation Row" in deafening fashion. It even filmed a video for the song, directed by Snyder, that features the band's own live show performed against a backdrop of Rorschach inkblots.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 13, 2009)

> The best parts were Dr Manhattan, which surprised me, as it's some of the densest material in the comic, but Mr Snyder nailed it. He clearly digs ol' Blue. Philip Glass's music kicking in during his origin story was a great piece of cinema.



Agree with this whole heartedly - Jon was exactly as I imagined, this oasis of perfect calm...and again, I too loved the use of the Koyaanisqatsi soundtrack for his backstory; very apposite and suitably grandiose.


----------



## Santino (Mar 13, 2009)

Dr Manhattan works for a Professor Glass at the nuclear lab before his accident.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 13, 2009)

Alex B said:


> Dr Manhattan works for a Professor Glass at the nuclear lab before his accident.



Good spot! I generally miss little stuff like that, only noticing it on my Nth viewing of the movie at home!

Watched the 5 min excerpt from the 'Tales of the Black Freighter' - now very impatient for the BDVD release indeed if that's an extra...


----------



## Santino (Mar 13, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Good spot! I generally miss little stuff like that, only noticing it on my Nth viewing of the movie at home!


I don't think he was in the film, just the comic. In the book he's there with Janey just before Jon gets vaporised, but in the film I think it was just Wally.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 13, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Agree with this whole heartedly - Jon was exactly as I imagined, this oasis of perfect calm...and again, I too loved the use of the Koyaanisqatsi soundtrack for his backstory; very apposite and suitably grandiose.



I imagined Dr Manhattan to have a less whiney baby arse voice and attitude.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 13, 2009)

Excellent film.

Rorschach rules - the coolest right-wing nutcase to be committed to cellulois in a looooong time.


----------



## rollinder (Mar 13, 2009)

DexterTCN said:


> Interesting article on the music. Wired Link


 
it'as not just cited in the plot but quoted in the intro/outro to a section (in the general direction of wired)
eta Desolation Row that is.


----------



## rollinder (Mar 13, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Good spot! I generally miss little stuff like that, only noticing it on my Nth viewing of the movie at home!
> 
> Watched the 5 min excerpt from the 'Tales of the Black Freighter' - now very impatient for the BDVD release indeed if that's an extra...


 
it's out already on it's own dvd (along with the mock behind the scenes of the Minutemen mentioned in the book), and afaik the plan is to reedit it into the film for an ultra extended disk


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Mar 13, 2009)

Crispy said:


> i reckon it's probably better for having not read the book. I haven't, so I was was just watching a kickass, fairly smart action movie (with a ridiculous sex scene). I wasn't getting hung up on wether they got it right etc etc.



Yeah, I'm planning to watch the film and then read the comic afterwards.


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 13, 2009)

Someone mentioned the motion comic earlier in the thread so I downloaded it, watched 3 episodes so far and enjoying it. Definitely worth a look.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Mar 13, 2009)

I do think a lot of these things are a lot more enjoyable if you haven't read the comic.

For instance, I thought V for Vendetta was wicked, yet the general noises were saying it was shit.


----------



## Herbert Read (Mar 13, 2009)

Boring wank, I should have stayed at home.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 14, 2009)

Dear god this was the most boring fucking film ever. How this dick of a director managed to take a legendary piece of comic history and produce this I don't know.

Utter waste...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Mar 14, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Dear god this was the most boring fucking film ever. How this dick of a director managed to take a legendary piece of comic history and produce this I don't know.
> 
> Utter waste...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 14, 2009)

Read the comic, don't bother with the film. Life is better that way. And what ever you do don't even think about playing the god awful video game...


----------



## andy2002 (Mar 14, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Dear god this was the most boring fucking film ever. How this dick of a director managed to take a legendary piece of comic history and produce this I don't know.
> 
> Utter waste...



Yep - I thought it made a passable film but a wretched adaptation. If I'd never read the far superior comic I'd probably have liked it.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 14, 2009)

andy2002 said:


> Yep - I thought it made a passable film but a wretched adaptation. If I'd never read the far superior comic I'd probably have liked it.



I disagree - the film was TOO close to the original, as some have said here already. A more interesting film might have been to do as Azrael suggested, taking the adventure bits and making it about the costumed heroes. But then people would have complained about it not being a true to the book. Can't win really...

Rorschach was a great rendition but his character is childlike in his uncompromising position, and it gets him killed too.

Dr Manhatten was faithfully rendered too - tho his cock was weird according to mrs G! Very much the moral man, prepared to use force when push comes to the shove.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 14, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> For instance, I thought V for Vendetta was wicked, yet the general noises were saying it was shit.



Yes it was indeed shit. 

Really shit in fact.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 14, 2009)

Alex B said:


> I don't think he was in the film, just the comic. In the book he's there with Janey just before Jon gets vaporised, but in the film I think it was just Wally.



How hard would it have been to have included the fact that he was fixing whatshernames watch? It ties the fact that he puts himself together again and ties the other scenes of the past together quite nicely (watch breaking on a trip to the fair, excuse to meet again)  and was a greater shock as his death would not have occurred had he never met her/had a clockmaker dad/gone to the fair etc etc etc.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 14, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Yes it was indeed shit.
> 
> Really shit in fact.


It has 8.2/10 on IMDB and is 169th in the top 250 films...as voted by the public.



> When Evey gets up from underneath the desk during V's pirate broadcast, there is a copy of "Watchmen", another comic by Alan Moore on the desk in front of her.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 14, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Yes it was indeed shit.
> 
> Really shit in fact.



Nope, it was great! The soliloquies by V were perfect:



> Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 14, 2009)

Nah, it was bollocks.


----------



## andy2002 (Mar 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> I disagree - the film was TOO close to the original, as some have said here already.



Yes, so close that they completely changed the ending and its aftermath.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 14, 2009)

andy2002 said:


> Yes, so close that they completely changed the ending and its aftermath.



Err the diary still got to the paper and was used. And Rorschach got killed so that he wouldn't give away the plot.

Have I forgotten anything?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Err the diary still got to the paper and was used. And Rorschach got killed so that he wouldn't give away the plot.
> 
> Have I forgotten anything?



Just pick something from the crank file.

Maybe it did maybe it didn't. The comic book seems to suggest it was left hanging as to if the journal was picked up or discarded. The film made it look a much more like he was going for the journal.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 14, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Just pick something from the crank file.
> 
> Maybe it did maybe it didn't. The comic book seems to suggest it was left hanging as to if the journal was picked up or discarded. The film made it look a much more like he was going for the journal.



I disagree - he was reaching for the pile in both. Either way it existed and thus the chance of discovery. Tho also the probability that it would be dismissed as the ravings of a fool.

The existence of an external threat causing a planet to pull together is all very well, and the message to work together is a fine one, but also human nature with all its contradiction would still exist.

Killing for the sake of one's own Utopia - tempting but ultimately useless. People have to be persuaded, not manipulated by authoritarianism.


----------



## andy2002 (Mar 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Err the diary still got to the paper and was used. And Rorschach got killed so that he wouldn't give away the plot.
> 
> Have I forgotten anything?





Spoiler



All the squid stuff and the lack of any bodies in New York, Night Owl witnessing Rorshach's death and then attacking Ozymandias (in the comic he just slopes off for a shag with Lawrie), Dr Manhattan unsettling Ozymandias in their final discussion with the words: "Nothing ever ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends," which leads perfectly into the final scene in the New Frontiersman's office.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 14, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> The existence of an external threat causing a planet to pull together is all very well, and the message to work together is a fine one, but also human nature with all its contradiction would still exist.
> :



I don't think this works in the film because they know all about Dr Manhattan anyway and can't 'pull together' do do anything to stop him. 

In the book the psychic image, tells pretty much every 'individual'  on the planet to get their shit together.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 16, 2009)

Gmarthews said:


> Nope, it was great! The soliloquies by V were perfect:


It's okay, but the message from the comic is turned on its head. The _V For Vendetta_ film gives us "blame the leaders" instead of "blame yourselves". The "look in the mirror" bit of the movie speech is windowdressing: unlike the film, the comic makes no excuses for popular complicity:-


> The Management is terrible! ... But who elected them? It was you! ... While I'll admit that anyone can make a mistake once, to go on making the same lethal errors century after century seems to me nothing short of deliberate. You have encouraged these malicious incompetents, who have made your working life a shambles. You have accepted without question their senseless orders. ... You could have stopped them. All you had to say was "No". You have no spine. You have no pride.


The film was well made, pacy, and had some good performances, but I agree with Alan Moore when he said it was a parable of Bush America the producers were too scared to set in their own country. American tropes like the frothing televangalist were projected onto England, and padded out with cliches and sterotypes. 

Not that _V For Vendetta_'s that bad an action movie -- it isn't -- but the comic is so much better. And that's from someone who think the comic is heavily flawed. 

Put it this way: the comicbook is about the clash between the extremes of anarchy and fascism. It puts over both philosophies in clear terms and lets them face off. It's not entirely successful, but it's a fascinating idea. The film features the word "anarchy" once, and it's ... not in its political sense. But then the closest Hollywood will get to making a two hour advert for anarchism is _Fight Club_. 

Whatever its flaws, the _Watchmen_ movie succeeds in getting most ideas from the comic over to the screen. _V For Vendetta_ doesn't.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 16, 2009)

BTW, the complete speech from the comic is here.


----------



## Stigmata (Mar 16, 2009)

Just saw the film- as someone who hasn't read the graphic novel I found it challenging but not impossible to follow. I liked it, actually. The female superhero and the one who looks like Niles Crane were forgettable but the others were anything but.

I also liked the alternate history type stuff. Especially the brief cameo by the Village People.


----------



## 100% masahiko (Mar 16, 2009)

Well...the film has got me reading Watchmen.
I think when I first attempted to read it, I should have started from Issue 1.


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 17, 2009)

Saw it last night - 

Enjoyed it immensely, think it was probably the best one-off feature length adaptation of the GN that could have been produced (as opposed to something like an HBO mini-series), at times it was exactly how I pictured it in my head when reading the GN years ago.

Majority of the performances were spot on, particularly Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Jackie Earle Haley, whilst Patrick Wilson and Billy Crudup were also great (although I thought Dan could have done with a couple more pounds). The only weak (er) link was Matthew Goode, who just didn't sit right as Veidt. Some of his stylistic touches were good (slipping between Germanic and US accent) and he definitely radiated cocky assurance, I just think he got the short straw when it came to trimming scenes (where was his proper backstory?).

Action sequences were well-shot and actually benefitted from Snyder's reliance on Slo-Mo, as it gave the scenes a more 'panel-like' feel. Nice to see they didn't hold back on the brutality to try and obtain a more profitable rating at cinemas (likewise on the nudity).

Also, I thought the revised ending actually worked well (compared to asking an audience to swallow genetically-engineered aliens and the sudden existence of psychics), it just lacked the smaller character beats (the Two Bernies, Joey, etc) that made the ending much more powerful emotionally in the book. Also would have preferred to see the moments after *********'s death stick closer to the book (Jon and Adrian talking, Dan and Laurie having a grief shag, etc).

I reckon the DVD will fix some of the above (inserting subplots and important character beats, such as Hollis' final scene and the two Bernies' interactions, not to mention Veidt's backgound being fleshed out).

All in all, pretty damn good, but not great (yet).

7.5/10


----------



## Azrael (Mar 17, 2009)

The Octagon said:


> Also, I thought the revised ending actually worked well (compared to asking an audience to swallow genetically-engineered aliens and the sudden existence of psychics), it just lacked the smaller character beats (the Two Bernies, Joey, etc) that made the ending much more powerful emotionally in the book.


I agree the ending had to be changed for the film (as it allowed Mr Snyder to cut the island backplot) but I prefer the comic's version. In the film Veidt claims his plan is a practical joke, but it isn't really: squiddy is absurd, but its consequences aren't. It's a fine deconstruction of a supervillain's Evil Plan.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Mar 18, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Yes it was indeed shit.
> 
> Really shit in fact.



Yeah, but you tend to say everything is shit.


----------



## andy2002 (Mar 18, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Yeah, but you tend to say everything is shit.



In the case of the V adaptation he's absolutely right.


----------



## belboid (Mar 18, 2009)

andy2002 said:


> In the case of the V adaptation he's absolutely right.



no he's not.  V works well as a film, even if it's not 'Moores' film (and frankly lots of V needed changing, lots of the comic was shit)


----------



## andy2002 (Mar 18, 2009)

belboid said:


> no he's not.  V works well as a film, even if it's not 'Moores' film (and frankly lots of V needed changing, lots of the comic was shit)



I never understand why people rate the film at all - it's just a wishy-washy, dumbed down version of the comic that's been turned into some kind of shitty action thriller. Plus, it has fucking Natalie Portman in it who is rubbish in everything she's ever been in.

The comic isn't perfect - not helped because much of it was originally written as five or six page chapters for Warrior - but I'll take Moore and Lloyd's version over some pile of Hollywood bollocks anyday.


----------



## belboid (Mar 18, 2009)

I didn't say it was 'better', I said it works as a film.  And it does. It has its faults, but so did the comic (not least that shitty speech Azrael quoted).  It is a (very minor) fault of Moore's that (like many writers) he doesn't seem to realise that film is a different medium, and stories need to be told in different ways in it.

V is a decent, if not earth shattering movie, Watchmen might make the same category once one is over the initial disappointment.


----------



## andy2002 (Mar 18, 2009)

Fair enough, I just don't see the point of adapting something and making it substantially less interesting than the original work. For me, V and Watchmen are both guilty of that, although, as I've said, I may have enjoyed them a lot more had I never read the original stories.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 18, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Yeah, but you tend to say everything is shit.



Maybe, but V was more shit than most other shit things. Yeah it looked nice but it was a pitiful film in almost every other respect.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 18, 2009)

I found that V, like many other comic adaptations, actually shows up the limitations of graphic novel-type storytelling in terms of plot and character development. Characters that seem solid in a comic come over in film as being one dimensional cyphers, or little more than archetypes. I think one of the reasons for this is that comics allow, and many writers rely on, character's internal monologues (thought bubbles) to develop character, and plots that seem well built on paper come over in film as stories aimed at males of varying stages of maturity - or in the case of much of Frank Miller's stuff, males of all ages stuck at 15 years old.



> V is a decent, if not earth shattering movie, Watchmen might make the same category once one is over the initial disappointment.



Watchmen is a _way_ better movie than V could ever hope to be IMO.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 18, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I think one of the reasons for this is that comics allow, and many writers rely on, character's internal monologues (thought bubbles) to develop character, and plots that seem well built on paper come over in film as stories aimed at males of varying stages of maturity - or in the case of much of Frank Miller's stuff, males of all ages stuck at 15 years old.


Neither _V For Vendetta_ nor _Watchmen_ use thought balloons. _Watchmen_ has Rorschach's journal, but lots of films use similar narrative devices, and I don't recall _V_ having any special conduit for internal monologues. (Will have to check my copy.) 

Rorschach's character is defined in jailhouse interviews with Dr Long, which could be transferred to the screen (and they were, but only partially). 

A bigger problem with the _Watchmen_ comic is the chapter structure, which is hardly a problem limited to graphic novels. The comicbook uses different chapters to analyse different characters (from memory, CII for the Comedian, CIV for Dr Manhattan, CVI for Rorschach, CVII for Dan and Laurie) but this approach doesn't work nearly so well in a film.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 18, 2009)

I was talking more generally about the structure and writing in comics, be it captioned narrative (which while you can use the VO in a film, anyone who watched Casino knows that you can overdo it...plus it's lazy writng in film)

I still maintain that Watchmen the movie is 

a. Better than V, which fails as a film AND adaptation

b. a good movie in it's own right, irrespective of it's faithfulness, or otherwise, to the source material.

c. Has a better ending - psychics and invading aliens...


----------



## Sadken (Mar 18, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I was talking more generally about the structure and writing in comics, be it captioned narrative (which while you can use the VO in a film, anyone who watched Casino knows that you can overdo it...plus it's lazy writng in film)
> 
> I still maintain that Watchmen the movie is
> 
> ...



I've now read V and I still like the film a lot, although had I come the other way round then I would probably dislike quite a lot because clearly the original ending etc is far superior and the darkness - oh, the darkness - should've been retained.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 18, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I still maintain that Watchmen the movie is
> 
> a. Better than V, which fails as a film AND adaptation
> 
> ...


Agreed on points A & B. Still prefer squiddy, but think the change was necessary for the film and works well on screen.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 18, 2009)

I should have added:

d. there isn't an arse in the world that could have sat through a full length version of the comic at the cinema, even tho Snyder makes it clear that's what he could've done. I'll be interested in seeing what gets added to the home release versions.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 18, 2009)

V is a dreadful film. The comic was subversive and in some respects, amoral. The film was moralising and non-subversive.

Add to that the A-level drama quality of acting.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Mar 18, 2009)

Just back from seeing it now I thought it was a very good version of the comic.  It wasn't perfect, some bits were overdone, some bits were missed out, but on the whole a good translation of an "unfilmable" 12-episode detailed comic book story.

8.5/10


----------



## El Sueno (Mar 19, 2009)

Despite being quite the fan of the original comic and being super-excited about the movie, I still haven't seen this (had a very busy couple of weeks putting the final touches to a club night I ran on 13th) and now I'm almost tempted to wait until the DVD release and watch the version with the Black Freighter story sewn in.


----------



## seeformiles (Mar 19, 2009)

I saw it last week and was really impressed. Being familiar with the book helped though.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 19, 2009)

seeformiles said:


> I saw it last week and was really impressed. Being familiar with the book helped though.



I'll say, but not much! There are some bits that just don't make sense due to context getting the chop (like Veidt's cat thing)...


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 19, 2009)

El Sueno said:


> Despite being quite the fan of the original comic and being super-excited about the movie, I still haven't seen this (had a very busy couple of weeks putting the final touches to a club night I ran on 13th) and now I'm almost tempted to wait until the DVD release and watch the version with the Black Freighter story sewn in.



Nah, worth going to the cineman to see - the Mars bits especially.


----------



## El Sueno (Mar 19, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Nah, worth going to the cineman to see - the Mars bits especially.



Yeah true... might hop on a tram up the Imax in Wimbledon at the weekend actually


----------



## Gromit (Mar 19, 2009)

El Sueno said:


> Yeah true... might hop on a tram up the Imax in Wimbledon at the weekend actually


 
I'm in the southbank Imax on saturday. Getting quite excited. Hope it lives upto my expectations.


----------



## belboid (Mar 19, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I was talking more generally about the structure and writing in comics, be it captioned narrative (which while you can use the VO in a film, anyone who watched Casino knows that you can overdo it...plus it's lazy writng in film)
> 
> I still maintain that Watchmen the movie is
> 
> ...





kyser_soze said:


> d. there isn't an arse in the world that could have sat through a full length version of the comic at the cinema, even tho Snyder makes it clear that's what he could've done. I'll be interested in seeing what gets added to the home release versions.



You're not at all far off here, tho i think V does work as a film (albeit with very severe limitations). 

The ending is better _for a film_ - for the original to be convincing it would have needed a lot more exposition earlier to set it up, and that would have distracted from the build up.  It wouldn't have worked, tho it would have been funy to see the looks on the kids' faces in the audience.

When Terry Gilliam was down to do it, he wanted to make a mini-series out of it, and that would have been a better way to go.  An hour per chapter could have included a lot more of the original material, and been immediately available in a way that would allow the rewinding to catch those little bits in the background that turn out to be so important.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 19, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Nah, worth going to the cineman to see - the Mars bits especially.



I didn't think it was all that. In fact it was one of the shitter bits, it just looked all shitty and CGI like everything else these days.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 19, 2009)

belboid said:


> When Terry Gilliam was down to do it, he wanted to make a mini-series out of it, and that would have been a better way to go.  An hour per chapter could have included a lot more of the original material, and been immediately available in a way that would allow the rewinding to catch those little bits in the background that turn out to be so important.



Not only is that format better Gilliam is a better director in terms of engaging the viewer. Snyder is a shit director imo.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 19, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Not only is that format better Gilliam is a better director in terms of engaging the viewer. Snyder is a shit director imo.


Nah.   300 was well cool.   And WatchMen is cool as well.  Haven't (and won't) watched the zombie one, not my style.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 22, 2009)

Saw it last night in the IMAX. Enjoyed it. I'll go with the 7.5 out of ten someone gave before and I'm a harsh marker. 

My main critsism is that after the initial fight scene all the remaining fight scenes paled in comparison. Were too much knife through butter which removes the excitement of danger.


----------



## 8den (Mar 22, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Neither _V For Vendetta_ nor _Watchmen_ use thought balloons. _Watchmen_ has Rorschach's journal, but lots of films use similar narrative devices, and I don't recall _V_ having any special conduit for internal monologues. (Will have to check my copy.)
> 
> Rorschach's character is defined in jailhouse interviews with Dr Long, which could be transferred to the screen (and they were, but only partially).
> 
> A bigger problem with the _Watchmen_ comic is the chapter structure, which is hardly a problem limited to graphic novels. The comicbook uses different chapters to analyse different characters (from memory, CII for the Comedian, CIV for Dr Manhattan, CVI for Rorschach, CVII for Dan and Laurie) but this approach doesn't work nearly so well in a film.



Firstly, an apology, I got very snotty with you several months back, and told you it'd never be realised in March. I was wrong. I had also mixed you up with another user Azrael 23. 

Y'know the scene that didn't work for me? By the Comedian's grave. The individual characters flashbacks, while they worked quite well in the comic, came off as the kind of kitsch you'd find in a Kirk Douglas melodrama from the 40s.  

Finally, the ending at the new frontiersmans "Gosh there ain't no news to write" just displayed a lack of imagination. You had no idea that the New Frontiersman was a right wing magazine, no idea what they were about. It missed the earlier scene were Rorschach's journal was discarded, and it missed a sense of the papers ideology. The latter came across in one of the novels asides, and it shows a failure of imagination on the filmaker's part in finding some way to bring to the screen. The twist ending is ruined by this flaw.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 22, 2009)

DexterTCN said:


> Nah.   300 was well cool.   And WatchMen is cool as well.  Haven't (and won't) watched the zombie one, not my style.



300 was a good looking but souless film...


----------



## Santino (Mar 22, 2009)

8den said:


> Y'know the scene that didn't work for me? By the Comedian's grave. The individual characters flashbacks, while they worked quite well in the comic, came off as the kind of kitsch you'd find in a Kirk Douglas melodrama from the 40s.


I'm Sirk Douglas!


----------



## 8den (Mar 22, 2009)

El Sueno said:


> Yeah true... might hop on a tram up the Imax in Wimbledon at the weekend actually



Worth it. 

3 Quid extra but. 

A) Only five minutes of film trailers before it starts no 20 minutes of fucking ads. It says it starts at 8, the film starts at 8.05. For the novelty value alone.... 

B) Fantastic seats 

C) nearly deserted. And anyone who's coughed up the extra few quid, isn't going to gabber on like a chav.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 22, 2009)

I like the ads and trailers. Without them I would always be late for my film.


----------



## 8den (Mar 22, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I like the ads and trailers. Without them I would always be late for my film.



It's like a time warp, the film says it starts at 8, and then a lil after 8 after some forthcoming attractions for a minutes, viola, the film starts.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Mar 22, 2009)

8den said:


> It missed the earlier scene were Rorschach's journal was discarded


What do you mean - when Rorschach dropped it off before heading to the South Pole (which was in the film), or am I forgetting some other scene from the book?


----------



## rollinder (Mar 23, 2009)

Buddy Bradley said:


> What do you mean - when Rorschach dropped it off before heading to the South Pole (which was in the film), or am I forgetting some other scene from the book?


 
the bit when underling/work placement brat opens/just opened post, comments - "this one's somebodys journal" reads the "today a dog died bit" and gets told to stick it on the crank pile. 

don't know if it's in the film - still haven't seen it 
no idea if it'll end up getting shown at The Tivoli.


----------



## andy2002 (Mar 23, 2009)

rollinder said:


> the bit when underling/work placement brat opens/just opened post, comments - "this one's somebodys journal" reads the "today a dog died bit" and gets told to stick it on the crank pile.



That bit definitely isn't in - all you see is one very quick scene of the journal being posted through a letterbox and then another bit right at the end that's actually set in the New Frontiersman's office (as it is in the comic).


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 23, 2009)

Watched Black Freighter and Under the Hood at the weekend - both pretty damn good I reckon. Good extras for the DVD release too...


----------



## El Sueno (Mar 25, 2009)

I finally saw the movie last weekend and I was really impressed. Being into the comic I wasn't sure if I would but I thought the action sequences were well shot, the cgi was as good as anything I've seen, the ending made perfect sense for the movie and for the most part the characters were portrayed well - Nite Owl, Comedian and Rorschach spot on. I couldn't believe just how accurate the movie was to the comic, the direction seemed almost entirely taken from the storyboard illustrations - every scene, every room, appeared to have been painstakingly created from the original drawings when they could have just as easily approximated stuff. 

I'm sure on 2nd or 3rd viewing some cracks might appear but on first showing at the imax, it was heart-thumping, tears-in-the-eyes good.

Really looking forward to the dvd with extended scenes and Black Freighter stuff all woven in.


----------



## twister (Mar 25, 2009)

seeing it tonight. at imax. excited.


----------



## 100% masahiko (Mar 25, 2009)

Wasn't there talk of a Director's Cut for the cinema?


----------



## pigtails (Mar 25, 2009)

twister said:


> seeing it tonight. at imax. excited.



me too!! (not IMAX)
I got butterflies in my tummy I'm so excited!!


----------



## pigtails (Mar 25, 2009)

Just got back from cinema - LOVED IT!!!LOVED IT!!!LOVED IT!!!LOVED IT!!!LOVED IT!!!LOVED IT!!!LOVED IT!!!LOVED IT!!!LOVED IT!!!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 26, 2009)

Dear god...


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 26, 2009)

grrr

when is it being released on dvd in the us?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 26, 2009)

It's really not worth peeing your pants for.


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 26, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> It's really not worth peeing your pants for.



It probably is on DVD, I imagine that will improve it immensely (and I enjoyed the Cinema version).


----------



## 100% masahiko (Apr 9, 2009)

Finally saw Tales of the Black Freighter and Under the Hood documentary.

Excellent.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 9, 2009)

I thought they were both pretty shit. 

Under the hood even contradicts the part of the film where they say only night owl 1 and ozzy ozborne have revealed their true identities to the public. Why did they even say that in the film? Pointless.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Apr 9, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> grrr
> 
> when is it being released on dvd in the us?



And more to the point, when is it being released on 1080p mkv in bittorentland


----------



## andy2002 (Apr 9, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I thought they were both pretty shit.
> 
> Under the hood even contradicts the part of the film where they say only night owl 1 and ozzy ozborne have revealed their true identities to the public. Why did they even say that in the film? Pointless.



I thought Freighter was alright but, divorced from the comic, pointless. Under The Hood bored me to tears.


----------



## Jazzz (May 4, 2009)

Marius said:


> Saw it last night in the IMAX. Enjoyed it. I'll go with the 7.5 out of ten someone gave before and I'm a harsh marker.
> 
> My main critsism is that after the initial fight scene all the remaining fight scenes paled in comparison. Were too much knife through butter which removes the excitement of danger.



I thought the prison scenes where Rorschach dealt with the revenge attacks were pretty enthralling, if brief!

Really enjoyed the film


----------



## Azrael (May 5, 2009)

8den said:


> Firstly, an apology, I got very snotty with you several months back, and told you it'd never be realised in March. I was wrong. I had also mixed you up with another user Azrael 23.


A belated thank you. Much appreciated, and forgotten.  

My namesake continues to haunt me long after his banning.  Poor old Azrael23. Despite his conspira-loonery, he was a pleasant enough poster until the lizards took over. 


> You had no idea that the New Frontiersman was a right wing magazine, no idea what they were about. […] The twist ending is ruined by this flaw.


I didn't notice, having read the comic, but thinking back you're right. The gaps in exposition were a problem throughout, from Bubastis' sudden appearance ("Why does Ozy have a giant purple cat beside him?!") to Hollis Mason's disappearance. I'm sure some will be settled in the director's cut, but Mr Snyder crammed too much in. 

Not that I blame him too much, as he had an impossible job, and got something enjoyable on screen. For that I'm impressed.


----------



## dylans (May 25, 2009)

*Who watched the Watchmen*

Saw the Watchmen movie this morning and was pleasantly surprised. It stayed pretty faithful to the novel. 

The only criticism I would make is that they didn't splice the pirate comic stuff   into it. I know it's released as a separate animated movie so I am guessing there will be a directors cut type release at some point with the comic book interlaced with the story as in the GN. 

Rorshach was perfect. And I was relieved they kept all his existential philosophising in. 

Anyone else watched the Watchmen (dying to write that) ? What did you think?


----------



## DexterTCN (May 25, 2009)

Opinions vary, I enjoyed it.   There's a massive thread on it somewhere.

In some places the changes improved it, I thought.


----------



## Santino (May 25, 2009)

I enjoyed it and didn't miss the pirate sections. I am more interested in seeing the Under the Hood documentary.


----------



## kained&able (May 25, 2009)

twas very good. dark knight has changed super hero films hasn't it.

how does rawshank work? does his mask reflect his mood or what?


dave


----------



## andy2002 (May 25, 2009)

I thought it pretty much sucked and the introduction of the pirate stuff will only make it longer and even duller.


----------



## Crispy (May 25, 2009)

merged


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (May 25, 2009)

kained&able said:


> how does rawshank work? does his mask reflect his mood or what?
> 
> 
> dave



According to the comic book it's sort of heat sensitive and the blobs just move around when it's worn close to the skin. It doesn't explain how the pattens are symmetrical but I suppose you could say that if it is heat sensitive and worn on the face symmetry would naturally occur.


----------



## magneze (Sep 20, 2009)

Just finished watching it. Surprisingly faithful to the novel. If I hadn't read it not sure I would have enjoyed the film as much - needed to be 30-60 minutes shorter to work. Great casting throughout - only Ozymandias was a bit off for me.

Well worth watching IMO...


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Sep 20, 2009)

not read thread but would say my favourite film of 2009 ... and i am counting the minutes to get my grabbers on the special edition


----------



## kained&able (Sep 20, 2009)

I find it too difficult to watch, its just too dark(as in not bright rather then the rape scene etc) which spoils it for me.


dave


----------



## subversplat (Sep 20, 2009)

I stole this off the internet in (Directors' Cut, HD) and it was great! Who needs IMAX? Especially when they leave half the stuff out (not that I've seen the non-DC version, but it seems a far more lacking film for it).


----------



## subversplat (Sep 20, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> According to the comic book it's sort of heat sensitive and the blobs just move around when it's worn close to the skin. It doesn't explain how the pattens are symmetrical but I suppose you could say that if it is heat sensitive and worn on the face symmetry would naturally occur.


I don't remember anything about that being in the book - it was just a fucked up dress that he made. Alan Moore Dave Gibbons is taking poetic liberties in changing the face every scene.


----------



## magneze (Sep 20, 2009)

subversplat said:


> I don't remember anything about that being in the book - it was just a fucked up dress that he made. Alan Moore Dave Gibbons is taking poetic liberties in changing the face every scene.


We're just watching it again and talking about this. Got the book out. Roschach's mask is different in many of the pages - so even this is accurate..


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 20, 2009)

The book is so superior to the film as to render the latter pointless. It misses the point on so many levels. I enjoyed it when i watched it, but it really isn't up to much in the long run.


----------



## subversplat (Sep 20, 2009)

magneze said:


> We're just watching it again and talking about this. Got the book out. Roschach's mask is different in many of the pages - so even this is accurate..


Oh yeah it's accurate, very much so (although the scene where he goes to the Doc "WHADDYA SEE?!" is added, in the book he finds his mask in a secret hiding place, as I remember), but it's still unexplained, although _very_ coolly done in the film


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 20, 2009)

subversplat said:


> I don't remember anything about that being in the book - it was just a fucked up dress that he made. Alan Moore Dave Gibbons is taking poetic liberties in changing the face every scene.



He didn't make the dress himself, it was unwanted and he took it home to make his mask.

Alan Moore discribed the moving mask to gibbons, it was always supposed to be that way. 




			
				 Chapter 6 page 10 said:
			
		

> 1962. special order for dress in new dr.manhattan spin off fabric. viscous fluids between two layers latex, heat and pressure sensitive.


----------



## subversplat (Sep 20, 2009)

I stand corrected


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 20, 2009)

I'm such a nerd.


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 20, 2009)

Watched this last night on Sky Box Office.

Despite being needlessly violent at random points (this film could have easily been a 12A rather than an 18), I found it dull.

Maybe you have to be into the whole graphic novel culture to get it?


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 20, 2009)

I saw it in a late screening at the Rio. Paid just a few quid, virtually empty cinema. Really enjoyed it


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 20, 2009)

i thought it was tiresome drivel


----------



## Iguana (Sep 20, 2009)

The main problem with this movie is that it stuck too close to the source material.  It was written at a point when an awful lot of people really did believe that MAD was highly likely if not inevitable.  The plot that the human race needed a common enemy which had carried out mass murder to unite against in order for them not to destroy each other has become redundant.  The cold war ended, we didn't need an intelligent psychopath to kill millions in order to bring us to that point.  Ozymandius was obviously wrong and the others were wrong to accept his reasoning.

The general plot of the book needed to be updated for the story to have been relevant.


----------



## Azrael (Sep 20, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> Despite being needlessly violent at random points (this film could have easily been a 12A rather than an 18), I found it dull.


While some of the violence was excessive (especially the compound-fracture filmed in loving slo-mo), other bits, like Dr Manhattan leaving a ceiling dripping with gore, and Rorschach's inventive use for a chip pan, were essential, and would never have got past a PG-13/12A. 


Iguana said:


> The general plot of the book needed to be updated for the story to have been relevant.


Somewhere back in development hell, it was going to be updated to deal with terrorism, but I'm glad they left that part alone. There needed to be a genuine existential threat. The general message about "ends don't justify means" is universal. 

I agree they stuck too closely to the work though. The Ozymandias plotline could have been extracted and turned into a lean thriller. All the flashbacks and backstory are better suited to a comicbook than a movie theatre.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 20, 2009)

@Iguana They didn't accept his reasoning, they decided that the alternative was worse.


----------



## andy2002 (Sep 20, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> i thought it was tiresome drivel



I'll see your 'tiresome drivel' and raise you a 'pompous load of old toss'.


----------



## Iguana (Sep 20, 2009)

DexterTCN said:


> @Iguana They didn't accept his reasoning, they decided that the alternative was worse.



Except as we know the alternative wasn't worse.  The cold war ended without the world being destroyed.  The story needed to be updated somewhat, although I do agree that terrorism would not have been the way to go.


----------



## Cpatain Rbubish (Sep 20, 2009)

Saw this last week and loved it. Did the novel justice I think although I haven't read it since the 80's. I think it's cool that the technology and graphics have made it possible to do books justice like this and Lord of the Rings etc


----------



## subversplat (Sep 20, 2009)

Iguana said:


> Except as we know the alternative wasn't worse.  The cold war ended without the world being destroyed.  The story needed to be updated somewhat, although I do agree that terrorism would not have been the way to go.



Apparently David Hayter (yes, Solid Snake) had a go at a screenplay set in the year 2000, vigilantes having been banned in 1997 or something. I'd love a look at that one's Big Threat.


----------



## Azrael (Sep 20, 2009)

Iguana said:


> Except as we know the alternative wasn't worse.


The joy of hindsight aside, in _Watchmen_'s alternate universe East-West relations are different. 

Even so, the whole point is that Veidt _doesn't_ know nuclear was is a given, and manufactures the "inevitable" confrontation himself. It's a great parable about intellectual arrogance.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 21, 2009)

I've never read the comic book and, indeed, am not a big fan of comic books.  I watched the film on DVD a few weeks ago.  I am a big fan of "this type" of movies generally.

I thought it was... OK.  The problem, it seemed to me, was the usual one when somebody tried to turn a book into a film and wants to keep it as close to the original as possible.  A book has tens of hours' worth of a reader's time to construct elaborate backstories, plotlines and motivations.  A film does not.  A book can have a large cast of characters and keep them all meaningful.  A film can not.  This film suffered from too many characters, too much backstory and an overblown plot.  The result was a confused mess.  I enjoyed bits of it and I could see that the original story in its original form was probably excellent, but as a film it just didn't work.


----------



## 100% masahiko (Sep 21, 2009)

I finally watched the Director's Cut. 
And thought it was a superior movie to the one released.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 21, 2009)

Please don't tell me that the director's cut was even longer than the overblown actual release was?


----------



## 100% masahiko (Sep 21, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Please don't tell me that the director's cut was even longer than the overblown actual release was?



It was an extra 30 mins long. Just additional dialogue but the scene that sticks out was Hollis Mason's murder and how Dan turns into Rorschach when he hunts/murders the gang member.

There's more dialogue. 

I do know what you mean though. The other half is a die-hard comic book fan/movie goer and she was disappointed with Watchmen. I however, loved it. I loved how the characters/powers were flawed. How the superheroes were not there to protect the public but to control them etc.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 21, 2009)

100% masahiko said:


> It was an extra 30 mins long. Just additional dialogue but the scene that sticks out was Hollis Mason's murder and how Dan turns into Rorschach when he hunts/murders the gang member.
> 
> There's more dialogue.
> 
> I do know what you mean though. The other half is a die-hard comic book fan/movie goer and she was disappointed with Watchmen. I however, loved it. I loved how the characters/powers were flawed. How the superheroes were not there to protect the public but to control them etc.


The things that you've described as the bits you loved were indeed very good.  But there was simply too much of everything to fit into the natural length for this kind of movie, which is typically about two hours.  If it wanted to have all the characters, backstory, plot and concepts of the source material then it would more naturally have been a trilogy of movies.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 21, 2009)

> ...naturally have been a trilogy of movies



Not enough material to make it a trilogy, or for that matter a satisfying duology which wouldn't have aroused the ire of fans and cinemagoers alike with accusations of cashing in by making 2x90m movies.

I like the DC, but then I really like Watchmen as a film adaptation...but once more my argument that when comic books are translated to the screen, what seems to be deep and meaningful is rendered plastic & facile or (as in this case, and arguably) overblown and pretentious (which TBF is a crit you can land at Moore's door anyway), seems to be borne out.

This tho:



> The general plot of the book needed to be updated for the story to have been relevant.



Irrelevant argument IMV - plus of course, had Snyder done this the immediate accusation from everyone would be 'no faith in the source material'. 

But then I guess if someone updates any other cold war stuff it will need to be 'updated' to seem 'relevant'


----------



## kabbes (Sep 21, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> but once more my argument that when comic books are translated to the screen, what seems to be deep and meaningful is rendered plastic & facile or (as in this case, and arguably) overblown and pretentious (which TBF is a crit you can land at Moore's door anyway), seems to be borne out.


Yes, I think you're right.  I think that it's because a lot of the meaning of a comic book is imputed onto it by the reader.  It's unspoken and happens between the panels.  But a film fills in the gaps between the panels for you and spells out the suppsed meaning, so you lose the ability to pace it yourself and create your own meaning.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 21, 2009)

I also think that, generally speaking, there is a lower bar to widespread critical success when it comes to graphic novels - it's worth noting that something like _Persepolis_ stayed true to it's roots when it made the transition from book to film, and lost nothing of it's power and general brilliance. Perhaps the move to live action is where the problem starts?


----------



## The Octagon (Sep 21, 2009)

Yet to see the DC, but think this was the best possible film adaptation of the novel (bar a few casting / aesthetic choices, sometimes the vigilantes looked a little too 'cool').

However, an HBO mini-series (perhaps 5-6 episodes) would have been immense.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 21, 2009)

I think about 90%* of comic/book adaptations would work better as a well budgeted HBO mini-series (or in the case of Dune, a lavishly funded mini-epic of between 6 and 12 episodes, depending on them sticking to the original 3 books, or going for all 6 of the Frank Herbert written ones...)


----------

