Watchmen [Archive] - The DVD Forums

mattwakeman

01-10-2003, 09:29

Maybe I am just being pessemistic but I can never see a direct adaptation of a comic book really working on the big screen. They are just so different that, even though they are both a visual medium and people think that they will work, that the demands are just too great on the material.

'Watchmen' worked because it was so cerebral. All of the text included (and of course written) by Alan Moore added so much to the understanding of the story and the mentality behind it. Graphic novels like this attract simply the wrong type of studio execs who try to make the source into what it is not (Judge Dredd anyone :gag: ).

I mean, imagine what a main stream studio would make of something like 'Halo Jones'? I think that the only way of ever making a successful adaptation (since this is the best that we could ever hope for) is if the original writer wrote the screenplay which was then animated. The essential 'truth', for want of a better word, would then be retained. The only problem with this is that a) it is expensive and b) the market is instantly limited. To go back to Judge Dredd why bother even thinking of all of the history and background which 97% of the potential audience would never have come into contact with? Instead make it mainstream just like every other film coming out of the hollywood crap making machine.

It's a good thing that Alan Moore is mad already otherwise all these crap versions would push him over the edge.

playaslaya

01-10-2003, 10:38

Moriarty on AICN revivewed David Hayter's script a while ago and gave it a thumbs up

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=13607

Originally posted by Mr Chefs Salad
The David Hayter? :notworthy

The David Hayter who did work on the X Men & Hulk script and also the voice of Mr Solid Snake!

mattwakeman

01-10-2003, 12:24

You know I was never a huge fan of AICN but after reading this: http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=724

it kind of puts a different perspective on everything that they say...

jonathan.e

01-10-2003, 12:52

Originally posted by mattwakeman
You know I was never a huge fan of AICN but after reading this: http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=724

it kind of puts a different perspective on everything that they say...

Good piece.

BigH

01-10-2003, 15:12

Preacher

01-10-2003, 15:23

nwrmartin

01-10-2003, 17:44

Mention of V for Vendetta above, another stunning (albeit dated) Alan Moore work. The Wachowskis have written a script for it, and may well make it after they finish the new Conan the Barbarian film.

Can't remember where I got this info from. Sorry!

mattwakeman

01-10-2003, 18:16

Didn't know that but one just one thing, in what way is 'V for Vendetta dated'? If anything it is even more up to date then 'Watchmen' since it deals with political agitation rather than superheroes?

Sorry, the Wachowskis?? Hmmm, there goes any hope for subtlety as well as the link with Guy Fawkes then...:oh-hum:

bronso

01-10-2003, 22:05

Well, they're both dated.

'V for Vendetta' is closely tied to Thatcherite Britain, and 'Watchmen' is essentially about the Cold War.

mattwakeman

01-10-2003, 22:34

Ok, and Thatcherite Britain is not relevant today because...;)

DeadWalk

10-07-2004, 21:29

It now looks as tho Darren Aronofsky is in the directors chair (source: imdb.com).

anephric

11-07-2004, 11:05

Out of my love of Watchmen I'm curious, but I said that about LXG...

All I can say is, if the rumours about Bruce Willis being cast as Rorschach are true, then it is truly a portent of the stinkiness to come.

(However) I don't think Aronofsky (presuming a lack of extreme studio interference) could ever make a film as bad as From Hell or LXG, so here's hopin' for at least something watchable...

StuBruise

23-11-2004, 20:08

how long before 'V for Vendetta' is ruined?

2006 (http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/news/newsstory.asp?news_id=16380), apparently :|

Also, Paul "Bourne Supremacy" Greengrass is reported to be taking over directiorial duties on Watchmen (http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/news/newsstory.asp?news_id=16380) after Aronofsky left to work on The Fountain.

~~stu

mattwakeman

23-11-2004, 20:30

Yeah I just heard about this. Whilst I think it is only fair to hold judgement until the film is made I really have few hopes for this. The comic is really so perfect (the more that I read it the more it impresses me) that any adaptation simply cannot fail to do the original justice. But I guess that I will have to try and judge the film on the film rather than on the comic.

Aranofsky would have been an interesting choice (loved 'Requiem') but have not seen Bourne Supremacy so no idea what Greengrass is like. But ultimately this will come down to the script.

jonathan.e

23-11-2004, 20:39

"V For Vendetta has been literally crying out for a screen adaptation"

Errr.....or not. I can’t think of another of Moore’s creations less suited to filming. D.r. and Quinch - now there’s a project ripe for development!

Mind the oranges Marlon!!!!

mattwakeman

23-11-2004, 21:25

Mind the oranges Marlon!!!!

Best. D.R. & Quinch. Ever.

Did you know that the only reason that the script is mumbled is because Moore never actually bothered to write anything for it?! Total class :notworthy:

anephric

23-11-2004, 21:32

Don't tease me with thoughts of D.R. & Quinch... you'll be telling me there's an ABC Warriors anime next...

Oh well, Watchmen down the tubes then... off goes a director with passion for the material, in comes a hired gun...

Arch Stanton

23-11-2004, 21:59

Greengrass is an inspired choice and far better than Aronofsky.

His British films show that he can handle complex character drama which is what Watchmen is.

ChrisParrott

23-11-2004, 23:23

You know I was never a huge fan of AICN but after reading this: http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=724

it kind of puts a different perspective on everything that they say...

Hmmm...looks like someone is jealous of the fact AICN gets more visitors than their site.

Why do they have such a personal hatred for the man? :?:

anephric

23-11-2004, 23:27

Greengrass is an inspired choice and far better than Aronofsky.

Define "inspired"... I see nothing that indicates any kind of suitability for Watchmen... not even a vague flickering.

All I see is "gun for hire".

robbiez666

23-11-2004, 23:42

cue shakey camera

gavinhanly

23-11-2004, 23:47

Well, they're both dated.

'V for Vendetta' is closely tied to Thatcherite Britain, and 'Watchmen' is essentially about the Cold War.

Perhaps but since Watchmen is also about creating a ficticious enemy to unite the people, a la the neo conservatives I can see how a decent writer could make it very relevant to today indeed.

bronso

24-11-2004, 08:40

After my last post, I went back and re-read Watchmen. I took away the strong conviction that the story just isn't suited for a movie adaptation. Watchmen is all about layers upon layers of story, references, techniques, themes, motifs, meanings. A condensed version would be more than usually pointless.

I do think that the work is deeply rooted in the Cold War and the 1980s, but in a film you would lose everything that goes below the surface anyway.

anephric

24-11-2004, 08:53

Granted: it is near unfilmable (especially the ending) but if they absolutely have to do it (y'know, really have to) I would've rather seen someone who's a bit more suited to it aesthetically like Gilliam or Aronofsky or, well, anyone a bit out there rather than just it being some journeyman...

Personally (like Zenith) I'd love to see this get made into a decent miniseries (with all the backstories woven in for full flavour) but that's pie-in-the-sky nonsense...

Btw, I don't think the Cold War backdrop ages it especially - it's set in a Robert Harris-like "what if" universe anyway... America kicking ass in the 'Nam, Nixon enduring etc etc.

AndyWilson

24-11-2004, 10:44

will they make it less piratey?

Soprano

24-11-2004, 11:06

will they make it less piratey?

:lol:

Perhaps Oliver Stone could pull it off. I'm sure he would be attracted to the themes. JFK shows that he has the ability to tell a complex story with a lot of plotlines and high number of speaking parts. and Stone likes making 3 hour + movies.

Impossible to pull off in just one film. A six hour mini series may do it justice, but that will never happen.

bronso

24-11-2004, 14:02

Btw, I don't think the Cold War backdrop ages it especially - it's set in a Robert Harris-like "what if" universe anyway... America kicking ass in the 'Nam, Nixon enduring etc etc.

In a way. But it's a "what if" that has become dated. In a world with only one remaining superpower, the political conflict at its core makes less sense to us. Paranoia about a nuclear holocaust suffuses the graphic novel, as expressed for instance in the "x minutes to midnight" motif. That's a fear we don't live with on a daily basis any more. If you make it an alternative history where the Soviet Union still exists, it's still not going to be as powerful as it was back then. And anyway, you'd have to explain why. Alternatively, you change the political backdrop radically. If you substitute the current fear of terrorist attacks for the fear of nuclear war, you run into the problem that the ending doesn't make a bit of sense (and would probably offend a lot of people).

The depiction of New York as a city where crime is out of control also gives away its age.

Another aspect of Watchmen that is time-bound is the way it maps onto comic book history, with the first generation of crime fighters corresponding to the golden age and the second generation to the silver age. The notion of superheroes past their prime could still work (take The Incredibles, for example), but you would lose several layers of meaning.

Also, you would have to remap the Watchmen's involvement in world events twenty years forward. You'd lose how the vigilantes tied into the civil rights movement, the assassination of Kennedy, Vietnam, and Watergate. I don't think you could find substitutes nearly as iconic.

I would despair of taking Watchmen out of its time. I don't see how you could do it without taking away many of the things that makes it special.

jonathan.e

24-11-2004, 14:17

In my alternate history Terry Gilliam directed this as a mega-budget 12 part mini-series for cable television 13 years ago. I’ve watched it in my head many times since then...... Met him at a party years back and quizzed him on the project. Didn’t take long for me to realise that the protracted and aborted gestation had taken it’s toll on him to quite a degree.

Moore’s Marvel/MiracleMan would transfer well to film I reckon.

anephric

24-11-2004, 15:53

The depiction of New York as a city where crime is out of control also gives away its age.

Also, you would have to remap the Watchmen's involvement in world events twenty years forward. You'd lose how the vigilantes tied into the civil rights movement, the assassination of Kennedy, Vietnam, and Watergate. I don't think you could find substitutes nearly as iconic.

I would despair of taking Watchmen out of its time. I don't see how you could do it without taking away many of the things that makes it special.

But you don't have to... it doesn't need to be contemporised: make it as it is... isn't that the plan? If they can make a (tv) film of Fatherland why not this just as it is?

What's the point otherwise... the whole New York thing is just a symbol of humanity in general... ripping itself to bits in an internecine fashion... I never took it to be a specific, literal damnation of New York. It's Hell. Hell in any big city...

Pah. Kill it now in preprod before it goes the way of LXG.

Make. A. Movie. Of. Marshall Law instead :D

nwrmartin

24-11-2004, 16:51

Whilst I generally agree with the sentiments on the unfilmability (if there is such a word) of Watchmen, I want to leap to Paul Greengrass' defence. He is a documentary maker of some repute, and he made the splendid docudrama on Bloody Sunday with James Nesbit, a film denied oscar glory only because of a technicality in the Academy rules barring it from contention due to its first airing on TV.

Greengrass is quite capable of making intense character driven drama, and, as the Bourne Supremacy shows, of directing a cracking action scene.

I personally think that Watchmen would need to be treated with the seriousness the subject matter calls for, and a documentarian could bring the necessary gravitas to turn it into heavyweight material, despite the fact the main characters wear masks.

And anyway, now that the heavily Watchmen inspired The Incredibles is tearing up the record books, maybe the time is right.

"you know, its like the incredibles for adults, but less funny". Maybe not...

AndyWilson

24-11-2004, 16:56

The only way a 12part mini-series would work is if there were long, indeterminate waits between episodes to recreate the original watchmen experience..

The problem with adapting any Moore works is that the hairy one will have nothing to do with the adaptation. Also Moore was never big on plot, he's on record criticising most comics as being "plot, plot, plot" - and a character driven genre movie is not going to find an audience. To make any movie of Watchmen you'd probably end up removing all the comic geek references - which means all the Golden/Silver/Modern age subplots and all of the pirate stuff - which would just leave either a fairly mainstream whodunnit or a somewhat pretentious tale of a man's* elevation to godhood.

And no-would ever believe a story in which you can get a decent curry in the USA!!

(* I use the word man loosely to avoid a long sentence)

anephric

24-11-2004, 16:58

I find Rorschach incredibly amusing.

*hrmph*

Small world. Tall order.

Arch Stanton

24-11-2004, 17:07

Found this script review on IGN.Com.

It's spoiler city but seeing as you're reading this thread you should have read the book...

September 09, 2004 - Stax here with my reaction to the screenplay for Watchmen! This 134-page third draft by David Hayter (Black Widow) is dated 9/26/03. It is an adaptation of the Alan Moore/Dave Gibbons graphic novel classic. After initially being set-up at Revolution Studios, the project is now based at Paramount Pictures with Darren Aronofsky attached to direct. Hayter had wanted to direct but the powers that be decided otherwise. Aronofsky's next project is The Fountain so there's no word yet on when Watchmen might film. (For my dream cast, click here.)

Some SPOILERS follow but if you know the comics ...

Like the comic it is based on, Watchmen takes place in an alternate reality where superheroes really do exist ... that is until changing times and legislation turned the public against them. Our protagonists include: the withdrawn, chubby Daniel Drieberg (a.k.a. Nite Owl); the psychotic vigilante Walter Kovacs (a.k.a. Rorschach); second generation superheroine Laurie Jupiter (a.k.a. Slingshot, although she was Silk Spectre II in the comic); the god-like Dr. Manhattan (p.k.a. Jon Osterman); the brilliant, wealthy Adrien Veidt (a.k.a. Ozymandius); and the cynical, blackhearted Comedian (a.k.a. Edward Blake).

It is the murder of Edward Blake that kicks off the plot to Watchmen. The mystery of who is out to get the ex-heroes propels the narrative forward but it is the deconstruction of superhero mythology that has made Watchmen intriguing for the last two decades. As Rorschach ruthlessly pursues the truth behind Blake's death, Dan and Laurie are gradually pulled back into their old crimefighting ways and fall in love. Laurie had been involved with Dr. Manhattan but, as both the comic and this draft show, he is no longer capable of behaving like a true human being.

The quest for Blake's killer uncovers a conspiracy concocted by Pyramid Developments, a far-reaching organization seemingly out to ignite World War III (and given the perilous state of the world of Watchmen that's not too hard to do). But when the mysterious enemy manages to take both Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach out of the picture, it forces Dan and Laurie to suit up again and confront the individual they believe is behind it all. Can they accomplish this before a catastrophic tragedy befalls America?

That's Watchmen in a nutshell but Hayter's script, like Moore and Gibbons' comic, works because of its rich, complex characters. Hayter has penned an amazingly faithful adaptation of the graphic novel, jettisoning the pirate story-within a-story, many of the news vendor cutaways, and updating the tale to 2005 without losing the meaning and power of the original tale. Indeed, it was wonderful to see how many images, lines of dialogue, and entire scenes were kept intact from the comic.

Watchmen may seem like it took a simple approach to adapting the comic but that's deceptive; I can only imagine the many tough decisions that were made of what had to be to cut. Hayter has compressed the narrative down to its core elements, remaining true to the nature of the characters (especially Rorschach) and captured its essence while rearranging events and excising subplots and minor characters.

But there were some issues I had with this draft that I can't discuss these without issuing yet another SPOILER WARNING.

I've always had a problem with the end of the graphic novel and I had similar issues with the ending of this draft. Without revealing too much, I will say that the identity of the secret enemy remains the same in the script as does their motivation but the actual catastrophe is different. I always thought the comic book collapsed under its own weight, ending with a James Bond-esque mea culpa by the villain and slowed down by exposition and flashbacks. While I've always liked the villain's Utopian agenda and their ends-justifies-the-means-approach, the logic and purpose of their actions no longers seems as persuasive post-9/11, given how quickly the sense of unity and purpose that stemmed from that tragedy evaporated.

Much of the mystery villain's backstory is no longer present in this draft, which robs them of their mystique and zany delusions of historical grandeur. This lack of development of the villain – a case of stripping the character of too many of their comic booky qualities – is arguably the weakest part of this draft. That said, this new approach to wreaking Armageddon was less convoluted than the one used by Moore and Gibbons but it still had some holes in it.

Overall, though, David Hayter has managed to accomplish what so many fanboys thought impossible: he has written a faithful and entertaining adaptation of a work almost universally considered the very best its medium has to offer. Despite my nitpicks with some of the changes and alterations made, I commend Hayter for not betraying the graphic novel and its fans. Here's hoping that Paramount might actually let us someday watch the Watchmen. - STAX

anephric

24-11-2004, 18:02

The problem with adapting any Moore works is that the hairy one will have nothing to do with the adaptation. Also Moore was never big on plot, he's on record criticising most comics as being "plot, plot, plot" - and a character driven genre movie is not going to find an audience.

I'd say X-Men (and espesh X-Men 2) are incredibly weak plot-wise - it's the characters that drive it... mutant beclawed characters they may be, but it's the characters that are interesting.

There's a hell of a lot of plot in From Hell... mutilation, treason and plot...

Spectre07

24-11-2004, 21:27

After my last post, I went back and re-read Watchmen. I took away the strong conviction that the story just isn't suited for a movie adaptation. [/i].I'd say the idea of a Watchmen film will be boosted by the success of The Incredibles where you have a group of superheroes having their activities curtailed by the real world. I couldn't help but notice the similarities to the watchmen where government interference forced costumed heroes to reveal their secret identities so making their activities impossible.

charlie angel

26-11-2004, 11:45

Ok, to ask the age old question - should this flick come about, who do you see in the roles? I'm stumped as to who I'd cast as Raw Shark :?:

anephric

26-11-2004, 11:52

Ok, to ask the age old question - should this flick come about, who do you see in the roles? I'm stumped as to who I'd cast as Raw Shark :?:

Willem Dafoe was mentioned when Aronofksy was onboard... inappropriate, in my opinion... you need to cast an absolute unknown... someone completely unremarkable... just like Kovacs was supposed to be...

I vote Kevin Kline for Dan/Nite Owl... he may be a bit too long in the tooth though... John Cusack has been mentioned but, again, inappropriate. You need someone homely and slightly frumpy.

charlie angel

26-11-2004, 12:03

I can't help but think that (depending on director of course) the casting might be too super-cool for it'sown good - I foresee Law, Pitt, Cruise, Clooney, Beckinsale etc. being mentioned :/

bronso

26-11-2004, 17:37

Philip Seymour Hoffman as Dan.
Robert Redford is probably too old to play Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, unfortunately.
Tom Selleck as The Comedian.

The comic jumps around over forty years, which is just one more reason why I don't think it will film well. Either you use three sets of actors for the different time periods (could work better than usual if you keep them in costume), or play around with wigs and old-person make up.

What should they do about the fact that Dr Manhattan walks around naked for most of the story?

anephric

26-11-2004, 17:56

Philip Seymour Hoffman as Dan.
Robert Redford is probably too old to play Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, unfortunately.
Tom Selleck as The Comedian.

What should they do about the fact that Dr Manhattan walks around naked for most of the story?

I'd take Brad Pitt as Ozymandias. I think he's completely suitable. Or Jude Law.

Richard Gere would've happily disrobed for Doc Manhattan 20 years ago... I think a completely sterile Barbie mound would suffice for this, even tho Jon is still supposed to be sexually active... it's not hard to posit that a being completely the master of atomic structures can alter his anatomy.

StuBruise

26-11-2004, 21:18

I can't help but think that (depending on director of course) the casting might be too super-cool for it'sown good - I foresee Law, Pitt, Cruise, Clooney, Beckinsale etc. being mentioned :/

Jude Law would definitely be interested:

http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/news/NewsStory.asp?news_id=16087

[W]e mentioned that Law — with his dashing good looks, blond hair and movie star charisma — would be perfect for the role of Adrian Veidtaka Ozymandias, a former superhero and the smartest (and richest) man in the world, who becomes a key player in Watchmen's twisting plot. So we told him that there was a movie on the way, directed by Aronofsky.

"Darren Aronofsky? I'm on the phone NOW!" said Law, clearly excited. "Adrian Veidt, King of Kings!" And then, as if to show off his Watchmen fanboy credentials, he whispered conspiratorially. "I'm tattooed with Rorschach, did you know that?"
~~stu

Spectre07

26-11-2004, 21:20

What should they do about the fact that Dr Manhattan walks around naked for most of the story?Make certain he doesn't walk around naked in any part of the film. :?:

Mr Majestik

10-02-2005, 10:01

Offical film site's now up.

http://watchmenmovie.com/

Nothing on it yet but atleast there keeping the smiley.

Woz

10-02-2005, 11:44

Wow - that site fills me with excitement and dread in equal measure.
I must go out at lunchtime and rebuy the book - I think I leant out my (very old) copy without it being returned :(

FLCL

10-02-2005, 12:28

I mean, imagine what a main stream studio would make of something like 'Halo Jones'? I think that the only way of ever making a successful adaptation .

They made a musical out of this, god knows what that was like.

Roy

10-02-2005, 13:41

Wow - that site fills me with excitement and dread in equal measure.
I must go out at lunchtime and rebuy the book - I think I leant out my (very old) copy without it being returned :(

Me too :( That either say something about its quality or impenetrability to the casual reader.

willncc

10-02-2005, 14:18

There's a hell of a lot of plot in From Hell... mutilation, treason and plot...

Sorry Anephric, I know you posted this a while ago, but are you talking about the film here, or the book. Whilst the book does have an involved plot, it also obssesses in detail (the architecture tour of London springs to mind), and side characters far more than the film. I even think the treason/conspiracy part is almost irrelevant.

I actually like the film of From Hell, but after reading it you get the impression that the scriptwriter just cut out all the bits they didn't understand (there was plenty that went way over my head) and turned it into a serial killer whodunnit....(and fleshed out the character of the 'psychic')

Spectre07

10-02-2005, 23:06

I mean, imagine what a main stream studio would make of something like 'Halo Jones'? I think that the only way of ever making a successful adaptation .You wouldn't have to look far just lookat the mess they made of Tank Girl

StuBruise

21-03-2005, 22:03

http://www.chud.com have the first two parts of a three-part interview with Greengrass here (http://chud.com/news/1914) and here (http://chud.com/interviews/1985) (third part will be up on Wednesday). Some interesting stuff there:
...as we’ve come together over the last few weeks I’ve asked my team to watch a BBC drama made at about the time that Watchmen came out called Threads. It was one of those unique events you can only have in a country like Britain on television, where everybody tunes in to watch the same thing at the same time. Threads was a dramatization of what would happen if there was a nuclear conflict in Britain now. And I’m talking 1986ish when it came out.

It was responding absolutely head on to the same sort of paranoia that begat Watchmen. But it did it not in comic book form, but in straightforward – imagine that in ‘61, ‘62 it was the Cuban Missile Crisis, but in the mid to late 80s what would be scenario that got them to the Missile Crisis and then let’s imagine that they couldn’t get out of it. I hadn’t seen it in 20 years. I remember it as one of those seminal audience moments in my life of watching something where I was horrified, compelled, just could not lift my eyes from the screen. I was watching something that was speaking to me about what was happening in the world. It was actually a very beautiful screenplay about a young couple in Sheffield, moving into their first apartment together. It was full of youthful hope. I think she was pregnant. It was set against this gathering international crisis that nobody took any notice of until these individual dramas got blown apart by this terrible cataclysm.

A lot of it was told in bits of news footage and newspapers. Told in the exact same way that Alan Moore tells it in Watchmen. It’s just at the heart of his story is this caped crusader murder mystery and at the heart of Threads is this small domestic kitchen sink love story.
~~stu

Disappearer

21-03-2005, 22:34

I was quite surprised to find out Greengrass was behind 'Spycatcher'. That interview with him gives me hope.

Spectre07

21-03-2005, 22:40

There is no hope there is only despair. Doesn't matter how good a track record a director has, you have to remember it's the studio that's boss and the beancounters will want the film to appeal to 8 to 25 year old US audience.

anephric

21-03-2005, 23:00

Rob it of any/all pathology then, a la LXG.

But then, what's the point? Other than owning the rights to make a film with lots of bright costumes in... though, it has to be said, when the toys come out, I'm so there!

I've wanted a Nite Owl and Archie for agggggessss!

Xenomorph

21-03-2005, 23:02

Wonder if there going to change the ending. My understanding is it wasn't originally intended to conclude as it did.

Mr Majestik

07-06-2005, 14:58

Looking like the first decent Alan Moore flic was too good to be true...

After two months of speculation, Paramount pulled the plug on the action-adventure comic adaptation "Watchmen" and put it into turnaround over the weekend. Producers Larry Gordon and Lloyd Levin were taking the project, with British director Paul Greengrass ("The Bourne Supremacy") attached, out to other studios. Par had been aiming for a summer start but began releasing crews working on pre-production at that point..."

Disappearer

07-06-2005, 18:15

How come Paramount had it and not Warner Bros?

I hope they can still make this happen...

StuBruise

07-06-2005, 18:56

http://chud.com/news/3251:

The makers of the film were prepared for this and fully intend on setting it up at a different studio. With the great script. With the great director. With the same goals. It's turnaround, yes, but it's merely a bump in the road on the way towards providing audiences with the adventures of Dr. Manhattan and gang.

[...]

It certainly isn't good news, because it does slow things down a good bit but I know that the people behind the scenes have a game plan and are operating under the principle that this might be a liberation of sorts.

So, yes... the film is no longer a Paramount property but it is still very much alive. Just be patient and positive.
~~stu

mattwakeman

07-06-2005, 19:07

If I was really honest I think that I would prefer it to just die a silent death rather than have some hideous travesty made of it. I know that no matter how bad the film then the original would still be there but it would become tainted by association.

I mean, just look at the travesty of a direction that 'V for Vendetta' is headed in...*sigh*

Deano

08-06-2005, 02:08

Yeah I'm sort of happy about this. As far as I'm concerned, Watchmen is totally unfilmable as a 2 hour film. Maybe as a ten-part mini series, but if you're going with a regular feature length film, you'll have to drop 60-70% of the stuff. All the stuff with the pirate comic will be gone, any background information on the characters.... you're just stuck with the basic story, which although a decent plot, is not really what the comic is about.
With the right screen-writer and director you could probably make a good movie 'based' on Watchmen. But it wouldn't be Watchmen.

Bapapapa

08-06-2005, 08:48

I wanted it to happen more for the merchandising than anything else.. :D

Movie Maniacs of the Watchmen..?

Yes please.. :dork:

mumbles

27-02-2006, 13:30

Some friends went to a Party last week attended by a load of media types. They were introduced to a director by the name of Stephen Hopkins (Predator 2, Lost in Space & season 1 of 24) and asked him what his next project would be.

He said depending on the box office returns on V for Vendetta it would be Watchmen (but you already knew that seeing the title of the thread).

joconnor

27-02-2006, 14:53

I just can't see this transferring to to the big screen.

But then again I said the same about Sin City.

anephric

27-02-2006, 18:44

DO NOT GIVE WATCHMEN TO STEPHEN HOPKINS. I will sell the slaving rights to my theoretical children to ensure THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN.

robbiez666

27-02-2006, 20:25

oh sweet Jesus say it aint so :(

neeek

28-02-2006, 15:03

Welllllll, Hopkins has rehabilitated himself a lot in my eyes recently. He did great work on the first season of 24 and his Peter Sellers film was excellent. Still wish Greengrass was doing this, though - he was totally in tune with the material.

anephric

28-02-2006, 18:10

The Life & Death of Peter Sellers is all over the place.

Mr Majestik

25-03-2006, 17:50

joconnor

25-03-2006, 20:45

Unless they are planning a LOTR style 3 movies@3 hours each I just don't see how can they make this into a movie.

Also it will be criminal if William H Macy is not cast as Rorschach ;)

mumbles

26-03-2006, 11:01

Well V for Vendetta must have made good money because Watchmen has been Greenlit again.

the directors not Hopkins though it's Zack 'dawn of the dead' Snyder.

Personally the jurys out on him untill i see his film of Frank Millers '300'.

I've never been so glad to have been given duff info :D

Though it's a little sad for my friends as one works in effects and spent part of the party pitching for the gig :lol:

new forms

26-03-2006, 11:24

Also it will be criminal if William H Macy is not cast as Rorschach ;)

i see the fella who plays 'Dutch' in the shield making a great Rorschach

joconnor

25-06-2006, 17:03

Well V for Vendetta must have made good money because Watchmen has been Greenlit again.

the directors not Hopkins though it's Zack 'dawn of the dead' Snyder.

Personally the jurys out on him untill i see his film of Frank Millers '300'.

AICN seem to 'confirm' this now

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23685

Soprano

12-02-2007, 22:20

Dare I say some positive talk from Snyder here?

As mentioned, everything hinges on how good 300 is...

Zack Snyder spoke pretty candidly about his plans for the "Watchmen" comic adaptation:

Will they use the same green screen CG environment trick he used for "300" in the film? "Well, for Watchmen, which is the thing we're working on right now, there's no reason to do it that way. There are things like 'if you go to Mars,' sure. I think my experience with 300 helps me with using technology; it helps me go, 'You know what, we should do this here. When we go to Antarctica, we can do this,' and that would be awesome." says Snyder.

He adds "There's things I do know how to do because of 300, but I think that Watchmen is more like Taxi Driver or Dr. Strangelove than it is Fantastic Four - so you have a stylistic thing like that."

Will there be stuff ready in time for this year's Comic Con in San Diego? "I don't think we're going to be shots done before Comic-con. Our plan is to shoot in the summer, but I'll go there and I'm sure I'll have something to show."

How far are they along? "We're trying to get a budget together that is palatable to everybody; it's a long movie, and we're trying to do. And I'm trying to shoot the Black Frater part as well, and no one has ever even talked about that, it's crazy time. And whether that ends up as a DVD extra or as a special release, that's yet to be seen; but I don't know, that's my plan."

Casting? "It's not fully cast, but I've been talking to a lot of people....I'll know soon, I think after Berlin - when we get back from Berlin. I'll start to know who's locked in."

How does he handle the pressure? "There's huge pressure from the fans, but at the same time, the way I gotta do it, and the way I work is I just sort of have to go and say, 'Ok, I feel like when I look at what I'm planning to do, it's cool.' So that's the only thing I can do in the end, and hopefully everyone else thinks it's good."

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070212k.php

J Wedd

13-02-2007, 10:55

I usually couldn't care less what changes are made to comics adaptations, but this is one that I would not appreciate seeing messed up.

Soprano

13-02-2007, 12:39

I usually couldn't care less what changes are made to comics adaptations, but this is one that I would not appreciate seeing messed up.

I long gave up any hope of this being a faithful adaption.

It would be a better idea if HBO made it into a £100m mini-series.

joconnor

13-02-2007, 15:38

I long gave up any hope of this being a faithful adaption.

It would be a better idea if HBO made it into a £100m mini-series.

I'm still hoping this will stay in development hell for a while. Well at least until Preacher airs, then hopefully if it does well HBO might pick up Watchmen.

I know, I'm a dreamer.

BenBacon

13-02-2007, 17:40

Hello, not the section i was planning to make my first post in, but a worth one it still is, i adore 'The Watchmen' but what is the Black Frater part?

Harsin

13-02-2007, 17:46

Hello, not the section i was planning to make my first post in, but a worth one it still is, i adore 'The Watchmen' but what is the Black Frater part?

Black Freighter (whoever transcribed that interview wants a slap). In the story it's comic book about pirates (y'see in a world with real superheroes comics had to find another main subject matter) that acts as meta commentary on the main narrative.

BenBacon

13-02-2007, 18:03

Oh i see, i cant remember any mention of it when i read the comic.

bronso

14-02-2007, 00:51

So they're not only going to film the comic, but they'll film the comic that the people in the comic read? That will be... strange.

Jimbo

14-02-2007, 08:48

Oh i see, i cant remember any mention of it when i read the comic.

Eh? Either you read it a loooooooooooong time ago and have forgotten or you read it with your eyes shut ;)

It's a massive part of the story and is more than 'mentioned', there are entire pages given over to some of it..

Dig it out and have a look, it's always worth a re-read anyway

Mr Majestik

22-05-2007, 10:12

Some casting news from Aicn...

So that means we’ll see The Prom King, Patrick Wilson, suit up as Night Owl. I think he’s a great choice for Dan, and all you need to do is look at the work he did in LITTLE CHILDREN as an example of the sort of quiet sadness he’ll bring to the role.

Dr. Manhattan is a tricky part, and there’s something alien and otherworldly about him. Keanu Reeves always seems to me to be on a different wavelength than anyone else on the planet, so when he steps into the part as the big blue superbeing, it might be a nice fit.

And in the biggest “duh” of the year, Jude Law has been offered the role of Adrien Veidt, aka Ozymandias. Perfect choice, and Law’s been saying for years that he is a huge fan of the material. If anyone out there is more right for the role, I don’t know who it is.

No idea who the first fella is. Laws a good fit but Keanu.... "Whooa i like teleported to mars!"

joconnor

22-05-2007, 10:34

Keanu Reeves? :oh-hum:

Dr. Manhattan needs to be played by someone who can downplay the role and execute it without any emotion.

Hang on, play with no emotion?

Keanu is perfect! ;)

cliff homewood

22-05-2007, 12:10

Dr Manhatten from what I remeber waswnt he huge? Michael Duncan Smith?

DrVenkman

22-05-2007, 12:18

Patrick Wilson is from 'Hard Candy' and the excellent 'Little Children'. Good choice, as is Keanu - yeah thats right, I'm a fan.

MrHat001

22-05-2007, 12:25

Dr Manhatten from what I remeber waswnt he huge? Michael Duncan Smith?
Don't recall him being larger than an average person in the comics.

Be interesting to see who they get for Rorsharch - obviously we're not going to see his face for most of the film but that just means they need to be an even better physical actor. Be curious how the inkblot pattern is shown as well.

Soprano

22-05-2007, 12:29

Dr Manhatten from what I remeber waswnt he huge? Michael Duncan Smith?

Iain Duncan Smith would be a better choice.

Don't recall him being larger than an average person in the comics.

Be interesting to see who they get for Rorsharch - obviously we're not going to see his face for most of the film but that just means they need to be an even better physical actor. Be curious how the inkblot pattern is shown as well.

Simon Pegg is ugly enough :thumbs:

Anyone got that photo of Rorsharch which appeared in the 300 promo??

anephric

22-05-2007, 12:38

I'll say it again, Rorschach needs to be a nobody so that you can do the bits with him doing the doomsayer stuff with his placard.

I don't remember Adrian Veidt balding in the comics, so they'd better get the hairpieces out for Jude. [/meooow]

H Dot

22-05-2007, 12:40

What about steve buscemi as rorsarch good character actor

Soprano

22-05-2007, 12:43

I'll say it again, Rorschach needs to be a nobody so that you can do the bits with him doing the doomsayer stuff with his placard.

Indeed. Toby Maguire can barely keep his mask on for five minutes and nobody needs reminding about Stallone's view on having his mush covered.

Ian McShane is the prefect choice for the Comedian, if I do say so myself. He can even keep his Deadwood 'tasch.

anephric

22-05-2007, 13:05

Me say Kurt Russell. The McShane be too old.

charlie angel

22-05-2007, 13:13

Casting:

Johnny Depp as a pirate? I'm just throwing it out there...

I've got Hugh laurie as The Comedian.

anephric

22-05-2007, 13:23

...with Stephen Fry as Nite Owl? He could run off to Belgium when things get hairy.

charlie angel

22-05-2007, 13:26

I really can't think of anyone for Rorschach. Perhaps they'll trawl for an unknown. There's seems to be a lot of noise about Doug Hutchison (from The Green Mile, X-Files etc) for the part.

joconnor

22-05-2007, 13:30

I really can't think of anyone for Rorschach. Perhaps they'll trawl for an unknown.

It has to be William H Macy.

anephric

22-05-2007, 13:34

I really can't think of anyone for Rorschach. Perhaps they'll trawl for an unknown. There's seems to be a lot of noise about Doug Hutchison (from The Green Mile, X-Files etc) for the part.

God, I hope not. I'm sick of his face of late - if they're going to just flick to the top of the Rent-A-Villain list they might as well just get Michael Wincott.

MrHat001

22-05-2007, 13:46

I really can't think of anyone for Rorschach. Perhaps they'll trawl for an unknown. There's seems to be a lot of noise about Doug Hutchison (from The Green Mile, X-Files etc) for the part.
If they dyed his hair then he would look pretty much like the character from the comics. Not sure he's got the build though.
Rorschach isn't exactly buff but he never came across as scrawny either.

I like the idea of Kurt Russell as the Comedian. The character is pretty much the same as Snake Pliskin. ;)

playaslaya

22-05-2007, 19:58

I think Stacy Keach would be a good (old) comedian, not sure about the flashbacks. Kurt Russell would also be good. I think Keanu is actually a pretty good idea for Dr Manhattan, he has a very calm vibe about him.

There is a lot of talk about Heroes spoiling Watchmen (one of many articles: http://www.nypost.com/seven/04242007/entertainment/heroes_pulls_rug_from_under_watchmen_entertainment_stephen_lynch.htm - watch out for spoilers). I wonder if a lot of people will look at Watchmen and think rip off - I hope not!

aprout

23-05-2007, 10:04

There is a lot of talk about Heroes spoiling Watchmen (one of many articles: http://www.nypost.com/seven/04242007/entertainment/heroes_pulls_rug_from_under_watchmen_entertainment_stephen_lynch.htm - watch out for spoilers). I wonder if a lot of people will look at Watchmen and think rip off - I hope not!

That's the thing isn't it though? At the time Watchmen was initially published, the whole superheroes-have-private-lives thing was kinda groundbreaking. Nowadays, it's been done to death. Haven't seen Heroes, but I can see people claiming Watchmen is a rip-off of The Incredibles.

MrHat001

23-05-2007, 12:05

The main aspects that Heroes 'borrowed' was the comic within a comic/show and a disaster being used to bring people together.
Apart from that they're not that similar.

Only one of the characters in Watchmen actually has any special powers. The rest are just guys in costumes. I always tended to think of Watchmen more as a detective story - there's no clear villain or enemy (until towards the end anyway) and it's more of a 'who dunit'.

I'm a bit unsure how modern audiences will take to it to be honest. After all the effects of X-men and other comic adaptations I don't know how people will react to a man dressing up like an Owl.

wong fei hong

23-05-2007, 12:28

I now quite like the idea of Lost's Micheal Emerson as Rorschach. Bug eyed!

anephric

23-05-2007, 12:32

Well, there's a "mask killer" in Heroes. Plus Sylar was a watchmaker, just like Jon/Doc Manhattan. Plus the recurring significance of Isaac's painting of the silhouetted couple kissing under the umbrella/the graffiti of the couple kissing used as a motif throughout Watchmen.

I find it unbelieveable when Tim Kring says he hasn't read many comics - he HAS read Watchmen.

MARKMAN

23-05-2007, 16:00

Spectre07

23-05-2007, 21:16

Only one of the characters in Watchmen actually has any special powers. The rest are just guys in costumes.
I'm a bit unsure how modern audiences will take to it to be honest. After all the effects of X-men and other comic adaptations I don't know how people will react to a man dressing up like an Owl.One of the points Watchmen makes is about the distinction between costumed heroes and superheroes. It's the guy's who dress up who are the most interesting characters.

Bapapapa

25-05-2007, 08:36

'Dexter' Michael C Hall <i>is</i> Rorschach.. http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/498/rorschach23lq5gqra1.gif

The Rock as Dr Manhattan...?

OK, getting coat now...

Mr Majestik

25-05-2007, 08:47

'Dexter' Michael C Hall <i>is</i> Rorschach.. http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/498/rorschach23lq5gqra1.gif

The Rock as Dr Manhattan...?

OK, getting coat now...

Dr Manhatten's allready been cast.

Bapapapa

25-05-2007, 12:55

Yeah, but really badly..

aprout

25-05-2007, 13:03

Dr Manhatten's allready been cast.

Who is it then?

(or do you just mean in the fantasy casting on this thread?)

Mr Majestik

25-05-2007, 13:09

Who is it then?

(or do you just mean in the fantasy casting on this thread?)

No the fantasy casting started after a post from AICN about the first three roles being filled a few pages back.

It's Keanu Reeves btw.

aprout

25-05-2007, 13:44

No-one's actually been officially cast yet though have they? According to that AICN story, the offers have allegedly been made to the actors, but that's about it.

It's all still just rumours. :)

H Dot

15-06-2007, 10:22

Keanu has turned down an offer to star in the new watchmen movie.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=21043

DrVenkman

15-06-2007, 14:54

Thats a shame actually, I would've liked to have seen Reeves do that.

Disappearer

09-07-2007, 21:05

Dr. Manhattan, I presume?

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=10972

H Dot

10-07-2007, 08:11

Interesting choice looking forward to it more now

Mr Majestik

10-07-2007, 08:30

Much better choice than plank boy.

marshy2004

10-07-2007, 10:33

I reckon Clifton Collins Jr could be great as Rorschach

marshy2004

24-07-2007, 06:34

More casting news/rumours here:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33414

Disappearer

26-07-2007, 07:47

Thomas Jane is not the Comedian then:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33449

Soprano

26-07-2007, 09:12

Empireonline:

Watchmen Cast Confirmed
Wilson, Haley, Goode, Crudup, Morgan...
Source: The Hollywood Reporter

It's been the worst kept secret on the interwebs for over a week now, but Warner Bros has finally confirmed the cast for Watchmen, or 'The Citizen Kane of Comic Books', as contractual obligation requires we call it.

For those not in the graphic novel know, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' Watchmen is set in an America where superheroes have been outlawed. The plot centres on Rorschach, a vigilante superhero who is investigating the murder of fellow super The Comedian. His investigations lead him into government conspiracies, which at the time the book was created echoed Reagan-era distrust and will now, presumably, echo...well, you do the maths.

The cast are not massive names, but are, certainly of those with whose work we're familiar, very fine actors. The cast is as follows:

Jackie Earle Haley (Little Children) will play Rorschach, aka Walter Kovacs.

Patrick Wilson (also Little Children) will play Nite-Owl, a technical wizard who flies an owl shaped flying vehicle.

Billy Crudup (Almost Famous) is Dr Manhattan, a man with godlike powers who in the book is blue and nekkid.

Malin Akerman (upcoming Farelly brothers movie The Heartbreak Kid) is The Silk Spectre aka Laurie Juspeczyk, token female superhero of the band who resents being the token female and was once involved with Dr Manhattan.

Matthew Goode (Matchpoint) will play Ozymandias aka Adrian Veidt, a hero who voluntarily retired and revealed his identity and then made a fortune. He believes Manhattan is going to cause a global catastrophe.

Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Grey's Anatomy) is The Comedian, murderous gun-toting vigilante-turned-paramilitary.

Zack Snyder, who's set to direct the movie in Vancouver this autumn using similar methods to 300, will be in Comic-Con over the weekend, so check back for more details on Monday.

Mr Majestik

26-07-2007, 09:52

Read an interview with Synder and he said he wasn't going to film it like 300 apart from the obvious stuff like Mars that can't be filmed.

Mr Majestik

30-07-2007, 21:09

Here's a comicon update....

-Sets are being built in Vancouver right now, including a New York City backlot. Not going to be 300 style, very little digital work except on Mars and in Antarctica.

-Think more SE7EN than SIN CITY in terms of production design.

-Warner Bros is behind an R-rated film.

-It is period. 1985. There was talk of updating it, but Snyder said it never felt right making it about the War On Terror instead of the Cold War, so he insisted it be set in 1985. Warners agreed.

-While it's not a hard rule, he is going to be using the original comic as storyboards. He'll use them to set the framing for most of the movie.

-The casting was not an exercise in marketing, big names avoided.

-Alan Moore is not involved. He asked for his name to be taken off the project way back when it was first being developed and Snyder is honoring that... but he does hope that this will be the first film made from one of his properties that Moore will eventually think "wasn't ****** up too badly."

-Release date is 03-06-09.

-David Gibbons has gotten behind the movie and has frequently given his thoughts on the script and art.

In fact, he did up a Comic-Con exclusive WATCHMEN poster...

Here's the poster...

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=11238

aprout

30-07-2007, 21:38

official website:

http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/

Soprano

30-07-2007, 22:02

The comicon update is pretty positive...

bronso

30-07-2007, 22:56

However good Zach Snyder's intentions are, making a Watchmen movie that does justice to the comic is simply impossible.

Sure, you can adapt the basic story, make a reasonably thrilling action movie. But the greatness of the original is in the details, the complex elegance of all its elements, the allusions and historical references.

Not to mention that time has moved on, the specter of a US-Soviet nuclear war is no longer oppressive, and (to a large extent due to the influence of Moore) the "realistic" take on superheroes (as thoroughly twisted individuals) is not nearly as subversive as it used to be.

I'm hoping I'll have to eat my words, because if Snyder can manage to get it to work, it will almost inevitably be a masterpiece.

ed_mcl

30-07-2007, 23:46

Does anyone else sympathise with Alan Moore? I don't blame the man for wanting to be as distant as possible from these adaptations, so far his work as been molded into unfaithful and frankly crap films which don't do any justice to his books.

I watched an interview with Snyder where he said he want's to talk to Moore about what he intends to do but I just can't see Moore giving him the time of day and if Snyder considers himself a true fan of Watchmen then perhaps he'd respect Moore's wishes and leave although the production would go on regardless, that said I'd say that I was a fan of Moore's work and will inevitably watch this film as I did the others.

Must be heartbreaking for Moore seeing these hacks tarnish his work, although if anything I suppose it would open up the possibility of people getting hold of his books that otherwise wouldn't have.

joconnor

31-07-2007, 01:53

In all fairness V for Vendetta wasn't too bad.

Harsin

31-07-2007, 08:02

What I don't like is Hollywood's attitude to this just because of the medium it was originally published in. "Hey this is a comic, get that guy who did that other comic film that did well", regardless of how suitable he is. 300 and Dawn of the Dead were fun shallow flicks but didn't demonstrate to me in any shape or form that he's ready to handle this. but let's face it, even Dan Brown's most fetid curlers will be treated with more respect than any comic.

ed_mcl

31-07-2007, 08:56

In all fairness V for Vendetta wasn't too bad.

Aestetically I'd agree, but I didn't think the narrative was as engaging as the book, it just felt tired and boring.

I'd agree with Harsin as well; Snyder hasn't done anything to suggest to me that he's able the do any sort of justice to this material. Perhaps WB deliberately hired a hack just to **** off Moore after the fiasco with himself, V for Vendetta and Joel Silver.

Disappearer

31-07-2007, 09:24

The thing is, back in the day Moore didn't have a problem taking the money when his books were originally optioned. I understand him not being happy with his work being given less than stellar cinematic treatment, but he's only in a position to make a fuss about wanting no share of the profits from the movie adaptations because he's financially comfortable from selling the rights in the first place!

He's still a genius though. :D

MrHat001

31-07-2007, 09:43

If he was that bothered about Hollywood raping his works then he should have added more terms to the sale of them.

Look at Miller and the Sin City books - he was approached loads of times but it took a director taking a risk and agreeing to work closely with him in order to secure the rights for a film.
I enjoy some of Moore's work but you can't be ****** off when it's not treated properly if you've just handed it over for the biggest sum of cash.

Mr Majestik

31-07-2007, 10:13

Moore was never that bothered about the films of his books being rubbish. He was very happy taking the money and ignoring the film. Untill he got sued for plagarisim for League of Extraordnary Gentlemen. Someone claimed he's ripped off the comic from another movie script. Moore rather took this to heart*.

*Bit of an understatement.

ed_mcl

31-07-2007, 10:41

MaxNutter

31-07-2007, 10:54

aprout

31-07-2007, 11:08

he needs a haircut ... and a shave ...

and a sense of humour.

And an ego check.

Harsin

31-07-2007, 11:16

MaxNutter

31-07-2007, 11:21

aprout

31-07-2007, 12:03

If thinking the likes of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell and, yes, V for Vendetta (I know let's replace an interesting if youthfully naive look at Anacrchy vs. facism with cliche 'Bu$h is Evil!!!!' sixth form tripe) are vapid and pale next to their source material then sign me up for an ego check as well.

It's not that those movies are great (although I enjoyed all three), it's that he seems to think he's above even talking to Hollywood because they've :eek: changed his stuff to make it work on screen. Shock! Horror! That's never happened in movie history! :brickwall

He's a miserable **** who seems to believe the fanboy hype that he's the greatest writer in the world.

Haven't read From Hell or V for Vendetta, but my reaction to reading both Watchmen & League of Gents was underwhelming to say the least. I mean, they're both good, but I just didn't see what the fuss was all about.

Mind you, I don't understand the hype over Frank Miller either. :)

Harsin

31-07-2007, 12:14

Nope he pretty much kept his mouth shut, until:

A) As mentioned he got dragged into court on a plagiarism suit on the basis of the League of Gentlemen movie.

B) Joel Silver went around the media flapping his gums about how much he loved what the Wachowski's were doing with V for Vendetta when he had said nothing of the sort.

Hey, at least he put his money where his mouth is and gives his share of the profits to the artists as opposed to some *cough*Tom Clancy*cough* who gripe and moan about the movies but are more than happy to cash the cheques.

Oh and there's a difference to changing something to work for screen and completely gutting a work so it bares scant resembelance to the original by the time they've finished so the Joe Popcorn in Utah doesn't have to think too hard. Also, as far as I know those two movies are the only ones he's been particularly vocal about, due to the circumstances described.

ed_mcl

31-07-2007, 12:30

It's not that those movies are great (although I enjoyed all three), it's that he seems to think he's above even talking to Hollywood because they've :eek: changed his stuff to make it work on screen. Shock! Horror! That's never happened in movie history! :brickwall

He's a miserable **** who seems to believe the fanboy hype that he's the greatest writer in the world.

Haven't read From Hell or V for Vendetta, but my reaction to reading both Watchmen & League of Gents was underwhelming to say the least. I mean, they're both good, but I just didn't see what the fuss was all about.

Mind you, I don't understand the hype over Frank Miller either. :)

What utter crap! What makes you think that he believes he's aboveHollywood, because he doesn't want to talk to them? Because of fan hype?

I think you could probably forgive him for being miserable due to the fact that he's put time and effort into creating this material that wasn't intended to be adapted into a film. He's made it clear that he believes Watchmen and V for Vendetta are to show what can be acheived in comics that can't in cinema.

After the whole fiasco involving Fox and LXG, worthless adaptions like From Hell and Joel Silver the industry has obviously left a bad taste in his mouth and understands that his work will be adapted regardless of his objections, he doesn't wish to be involved so why he would want to discuss projects with hacks like Snyder?

anephric

02-08-2007, 01:03

I don't understand the rancour about V for Vendetta - obviously the subtext was going to be contemporised and, hey, most Americans do need a kick up the arse about their Commander-in-Chief (maybe not so much now, but definitely when V was in production) so criticising it for becoming a fairly obvious critique of the US rather than some consequence of Thatcherite Britain is a bit specious. It's miles ahead of any other Moore adaptation and at least they didn't gut it, unlike LXG and From Hell (the latter compromised and butchered to the extent that it just becomes a completely pointless remake of Murder by Decree with added risibility).

MaxNutter

02-08-2007, 08:35

It's miles ahead of any other Moore adaptation and at least they didn't gut it, unlike LXG and From Hell (the latter compromised and butchered to the extent that it just becomes a completely pointless remake of Murder by Decree with added risibility).

and that Heather Graham accent ...

James45

02-08-2007, 08:57

gaaawd blimey guv'nor... like to take a luk at me jubblies for sixpence?

wong fei hong

02-08-2007, 11:08

gaaawd blimey guv'nor... like to take a luk at me jubblies for sixpence?

Yes please.

Heather Graham's, not yours.

The League of Extraodinary Gentlemen was an awful movie made out of a hugely entertaining book. From Hell was an entertaining and fairly light movie that had little to do with the excellent and extremely harsh book it was taken from. V for Vendetta is such a good book that I didn't dare go and see the film because I thought it was going to get rolled like LoEG. Alan Moore is well within his rights to either shut up or act up about the results of these adaptations as he feels. They are his ideas, and even if he sold them for cash he's got a vested interest in what happens to them.

As for Watchmen... well they've got a smart cast and a director who knows what he's doing. If anyone can manage to make this dense and convoluted story work as a film, it's probably going to be this lot.

H Dot

02-08-2007, 11:11

I really enjoyed his Watchman book and i thought league of extraordinary gentleman was ok, the movie was meh, but still looking forward to watchman movie really enjoyed snyder's 300

anephric

04-08-2007, 08:00

Wow. I knew Moore had been dragged into the whole LXG plagiarism thing (which is one of the most ridiculous law suits in entertainment history when you consider that the plaintiffs claim WB hired Alan Moore to write a quicky graphic novel adaptation of their purloined screenplay - I mean, do these people even know what Moore's like?) but I didn't know it was Larry Cohen, he of Q, The Winged Serpent, It's Alive! et al that was doing the suing. Crazy.

ed_mcl

04-08-2007, 10:22

Yes please.

Heather Graham's, not yours.

The League of Extraodinary Gentlemen was an awful movie made out of a hugely entertaining book. From Hell was an entertaining and fairly light movie that had little to do with the excellent and extremely harsh book it was taken from. V for Vendetta is such a good book that I didn't dare go and see the film because I thought it was going to get rolled like LoEG. Alan Moore is well within his rights to either shut up or act up about the results of these adaptations as he feels. They are his ideas, and even if he sold them for cash he's got a vested interest in what happens to them.

As for Watchmen... well they've got a smart cast and a director who knows what he's doing. If anyone can manage to make this dense and convoluted story work as a film, it's probably going to be this lot.

Who, Zack "The Hack" Snyder? When you consider that Gilliam, Greengrass and Aronofsky have been attached to this project at various times I think it's a massive step down, but then again his films to date have been quite commercially successful and those are the people that get the jobs in Hollywood.

joconnor

04-08-2007, 10:40

Aronofsky?

Give me 300 and Dawn of the Dead any day over Requiem for a Dream and the Fountain....ZZZzzzz

ed_mcl

04-08-2007, 10:57

Aronofsky?

Give me 300 and Dawn of the Dead any day over Requiem for a Dream and the Fountain....ZZZzzzz

Perhaps, but as far as director qualities go Aronofsky has shown he's head and shoulders above Snyder.

anephric

04-08-2007, 11:05

ed_mcl

04-08-2007, 11:17

In a town where you're only as good as your last paycheck, on the strength of The Fountain, I wouldn't say so. I didn't think much of Requiem for a Dream, either, which is so morally simplistic it's like a Jim Henson drugs movie. As for Snyder being an MTV/Avid hack, Requiem absolutely disappears up its own bum as Aronofsky's so obsessed with his technology and stylistic flourishes. Style over substance? Absolutely.

Watchmen isn't some pretty canvas like 300 is. It's a rich and complex story and not just some knuckle dragging juicers gurning and screaming "DIE!". Aronofsky's films may well be a bit too challenging for the average cinema goer but he's shown orignality and film-making qualities that Snyder could only dream of.

None of Snyder's work would suggest to me that's he's capable of handling anything that requires a bit of brain power, he's a major studio's wet dream as he no doubts just stands there as they slip him a length and pull strings.

anephric

04-08-2007, 11:21

I admit, he seems like a more technically capable, geekier Paul Anderson. Still, as long as the script's good, all Snyder has to do is make it look moody and keep all the plot threads well kempt, much like early Ridley Scott.

aprout

04-08-2007, 11:26

I'd say the greenlighting of Snyder is less to do with his artistic capabilities, more to do with the fact that he took a (much loved?) graphic novel, shot it reasonably cheaply & made a huge profit for Warners at the box office.

:)

Harsin

04-08-2007, 12:17

Pity Greengrass is out of the picture now, by all accounts he's learned to control his shaky-cam tendencies a bit now and that was my main concern when he was attached.

The_Evil_Dean

04-08-2007, 13:34

One of the key factors in Watchmen pre destined to be terrible, is that it was written to be a comic.

In the sense that, the themes and subtext only work if you are sitting there reading it as a comic, because it is a commentary on comics as a whole as much as it is on society.

I am completely with Alan Moore, as all his works are supposed to be comics, that is what they should be, Alan Moore has wrote film scripts and the style of those are completely different to his comics, taking in the limitations and strengths of the film medium.

It is impossible to adapt his works effectively ninety percent of the time as they weren't supposed to be films, its not like Spider-man where you can sort of make it work as there is nothing that says that story has to be a comic only.

If you get hold of an Alan Moore original script for a comic and read it you will see what I mean.

Not speaking ill of the talent involved with this, but Alan Moore is right to be angry, the producers are thinking with greed rather than thinking logically about the creative process.

So unlike modern Hollywood to do something like that. :suspect:

Shingster

04-08-2007, 16:40

The_Evil_Dean

04-08-2007, 18:25

The same could easily be said about Lord of the Rings though, most of the appeal of the book is in Tolkien's descriptive prose and the intricacies of the fictional languages and mythology that he creates, which you cannot really directly transfer to film.

I sort of see what you are saying, but Lord of the Rings, was not a commentary on Novels as a medium, whereas Watchmen as much as it is an 80s satire is a satire on comic books. ( I would also argue that Fellowship is the only decent Lord of the Rings movie, but thats neither here nor there ).

Also the panel layouts which where ingenious will be lost in a moving medium.

Just like Melville's whale book ( to avoid the censor ), Watchmen can't be done as a film without losing too much of what made the book special, so it all seems sort of pointless, why make a subpar movie ?

( apart from the inbuilt audience that the studio is banking on ).

Spectre07

04-08-2007, 22:19

why make a subpar movie ?The studios saw how much the Invincables made?

Gedalia

06-08-2007, 12:39

Only just noticed this was being made in to a film.

First reaction was **** yeah! Awesome, can't wait! Then, after a seconds thought, how the hell is this going to work as a movie? I don't see how on earth we have a hope in hell it being anything like the comic.

bacon33

10-09-2007, 00:59

Not sure if this has been posted yet but....

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w221/uk_wardville/Rorshach.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

First glimpse at Rorsharch!!

EDIT: Full HD pic can be seen here: Rorshach (http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007/rorshach_badge.jpg)

SqueakyG

10-09-2007, 01:19

If I recall, that shot was found quite a while ago, maybe a couple of years ago. It was a test shot that was found as a subliminal frame in a trailer or something. Can't remember.

TheDot

10-09-2007, 01:48

The shot was inserted into a trailer for 300, just a test shot though.

bacon33

10-09-2007, 21:42

yeah.. its hidden in the extended 300 trailer. You can find it at 1m 51s.

Either way... he looks pretty creepy. Job Done. I've never heard of the guy chosen to play him though.

Mr Majestik

10-09-2007, 22:01

yeah.. its hidden in the extended 300 trailer. You can find it at 1m 51s.

Either way... he looks pretty creepy. Job Done. I've never heard of the guy chosen to play him though.

He's in the Kate Winslett film 'little Children' as is the fella playing Night owl. Both are spot on casting.

Disappearer

31-10-2007, 10:03

This is good news for the movie, methinks:

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=12358

Pre-order your DVD now! :thumbs:

Shaun666

31-10-2007, 10:07

Pity Greengrass is out of the picture now, by all accounts he's learned to control his shaky-cam tendencies a bit now and that was my main concern when he was attached.

I assume you wrote this before seeing Bourne Ultimatum, surely the worst example of shaky cam overload so far !

Disappearer

27-11-2007, 08:45

Check out the set pics here:

http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/

This looks very good indeed.

Gedalia

27-11-2007, 13:31

Looks fantastic!

The newspaper stand scene looks really good. This could be something to really look forward to.

Soprano

21-02-2008, 13:15

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/5325/rorschachsn3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

:thumbs:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/080220m.php

H Dot

21-02-2008, 13:44

Wow great pic cant wait for this to come out

anephric

21-02-2008, 14:50

The little runt's wearin' elevator shoes!

Spectre07

21-02-2008, 20:18

Terribly_Mauled

21-02-2008, 20:37

Having watched 300 on DVD the other day I thought it was very superficial, although it looked the part it really did not have much depth to it. Watchmen of course, as a comic, is in a completely different class to Millers graphic novel. So I hope with Watchmen the film they don't repeat themselves and simply translate a colouring book onto cellulose.

But as a graphic novel, 300 IS quite superficial. You can read it in a single sitting. I don't think you can do that with Watchmen...

Slight tangent, but theres an obvious desire to be true to the book, as 300 IS ;)

mr_woo

21-02-2008, 20:37

Having watched 300 on DVD the other day I thought it was very superficial, although it looked the part it really did not have much depth to it. Watchmen of course, as a comic, is in a completely different class to Millers graphic novel. So I hope with Watchmen the film they don't repeat themselves and simply translate a colouring book onto cellulose.

That was exactly the point of the 300 film/graphic novel, it was supposed to be a couple of hours of stylised nonsense with very little else to it.

Adore Watchmen so here's hoping they do a good job with the film.

Mr Majestik

06-03-2008, 10:32

First look at the characters in Costume...

http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/node/35862

100% spot on!

Terribly_Mauled

06-03-2008, 10:36

Well Nite Owl is the only one to have a full redesign, but the costume still looks superb! Love how it evokes Batman... plus check out the ship behind him... :thumbs:

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1650/comediansmlx4.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6867/niteowlsmpt4.jpg

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2236/ozymandiassmxe6.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/8528/rorschachfullsmfx4.jpg

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2856/silkspectresmts5.jpg

charlie angel

06-03-2008, 11:05

Blimey, they're looking good.

TonyG

06-03-2008, 11:10

Ooooooooooooooh, those are Yummy!! :thumbs:

Harsin

06-03-2008, 11:23

..apart from Ozymandias.

Coolhand

06-03-2008, 11:25

I'm getting pretty excited about this now. It looks like it's a real attempt at capturing the feel of the original material. Having said that, I thought the trailer for The Phantom Menace looked fantastic!

Here's hoping this turns out better.

Disappearer

06-03-2008, 11:39

Thumbs up all the way so far. God knows how it will play to the general public though.

Terribly_Mauled

06-03-2008, 11:42

Thumbs up all the way so far. God knows how it will play to the general public though.

Well, Black Freighter is MIA from the theatrical version, so that may help with that...

McD

06-03-2008, 11:54

Bob Ringwood could sue (unless he actually did it, of course).

Gedalia

06-03-2008, 13:27

Looking very good. This could be something really special.

Ozymandias does look a bit weedy though and too young! Isnt he meant to be in his 40s?

playaslaya

06-03-2008, 14:27

Those costumes look great and the lighting and production design look very strong.

Woz

06-03-2008, 16:18

There's some very nice set pics on the Flickr page for the film.
The detail they have looks excellent - for instance, there's a Pale Horse poster in the background on one :D

mysterytramp

06-03-2008, 17:01

Well, Black Freighter is MIA from the theatrical version, so that may help with that...

Wasn't it just announced the other day that Gerard Butler was narrating the Black Freighter sections? :thinking:

I think the costumes look awful to honest, apart from The Comedian and Rorschach. They're supposed to look like hokey 50s style costumes that would look ridiculous in the real world. Although I suppose they do resemble Schmacher's Batman costumes (Ozymandias WTF??) so maybe that's what they're going for.

anephric

06-03-2008, 17:05

Ozymandias would look pretty poncey onscreen if he just had his purple toga and cape from the comics, mind.

The guy that's playing him just screams Peter Petrelli at me, though. It's putting me off.

charlie angel

06-03-2008, 17:06

I want to see Doc Manhattan & Bubastis now, although I'm assuming they haven't been CGI'd yet.

ed_mcl

06-03-2008, 17:23

Good God, they look terrible!

Harsin

06-03-2008, 18:15

Ozymandias would look pretty poncey onscreen if he just had his purple toga and cape from the comics, mind.

I agree, but I think you could probably come up with a decent working costume design without heading into Joel Schumacher wet dream territory.

That fact that he looks about 12 doesn't help either.

anephric

06-03-2008, 18:20

Does he have bat nipples? If he has bat nipples I'll just swoon.

Pinback

06-03-2008, 19:24

I want to see Doc Manhattan & Bubastis now, although I'm assuming they haven't been CGI'd yet.Will we get to see Dr Manhattan's cock? Fidelity to the original graphic novel demands it!

McD

06-03-2008, 19:49

Will we get to see Dr Manhattan's cock? Fidelity to the original graphic novel demands it!

Fidelity to one panel, against the hundreds that avoided it almost Austin Powers style?

anephric

06-03-2008, 20:04

If they've given Ozymandias nipples I think we should get shiny blue penis too. It's only fair.

aga2k1

08-03-2008, 00:07

Night Owl doesn't look nearly ridiculous enough, though the ears and goggles are pretty bad.

bronso

08-03-2008, 05:24

I mostly like the redesigns. Nite Owl looks more recognizably owl-like (once you get over the Batman similarity) than in the comic, and Ozymandias seems to favor Egyptian influences (note the eyeliner) over the Greek. I think his costume is meant to look more like a statue hewn of rock than like Schumacheresque latex and rubber.

I think the costumes look awful to honest, apart from The Comedian and Rorschach. They're supposed to look like hokey 50s style costumes that would look ridiculous in the real world. Although I suppose they do resemble Schmacher's Batman costumes (Ozymandias WTF??) so maybe that's what they're going for.

Well, but that's where some ideas that work on the page don't necessarily work on the screen. Yes, the costumes in the book are ridiculous, but because this is a comic, it takes a while to realize that they are, and they still look cool when the drama calls for it. Seeing them rendered in more realism, the line between cool and ridiculous shifts quite a bit, and I think that these designs manage to find a similar balance in the context of their own medium.

I do think it's a shame that the look is so anachronistic, but the problem is that any superhero costume you did in 50s style would look implausibly ridiculous.

Still don't believe the film can possibly do the book justice.

Roy

08-03-2008, 10:47

The redesigns are a sensible shift, although I tend to think Ozymandias' look foreshadows a bit too much, he should look completely pure, I think the use of black is unfortunate.

They couldn't use 50's style costumes, for lots of reasons, mainly that it would detract completely from any dramatic effect attempted on the screen.

Also, those 50's styles were fine when looking back from the 80's, but the film will take place in a 00's context so the costumes have to be brought up to date somewhat.

I share bronso's worry that it won't work on film. The greatest advantage the book had was that its audience had an understanding of its context, whereas the average filmgoer won't have a frame of reference for the deconstructionist subtext.

It will be interesting how they weave that in, or indeed whether they will attempt to turn this into a superhero-thriller, without the historical context at all.

Bapapapa

08-03-2008, 13:30

Rorschach looks the tits!!

Looking forward to the f/s licensed statues of him and Dr Manhattan - not interested in the others (well, maybe the Comedian)..

:dork:

:clap:

Roy

08-03-2008, 13:35

You want a full scale statue of Doc Manhattan? Is that some sort of ghey blue knob fetish? :D

Bapapapa

08-03-2008, 14:47

:n0rty::lol:

full size (ie. not a bust) - want at least 1/6 scale though.. :dork:

aga2k1

08-03-2008, 16:07

but the film will take place in a 00's context

I'm pretty sure it's set in the 80s isn't it. Which makes these Schumachery a bit out of time.

Roy

08-03-2008, 19:38

I'm pretty sure it's set in the 80s isn't it. Which makes these Schumachery a bit out of time.

I'd imagine the film will be set later than the book? Although thinking about it the Nixon references might have to be substituted then...

ed_mcl

08-03-2008, 20:36

I'd imagine the film will be set later than the book? Although thinking about it the Nixon references might have to be substituted then...

Snyder has stated in an interview with Empire (I think) that it would be set within the same Cold War-era as the book.

Terribly_Mauled

09-03-2008, 12:20

Snyder has stated in an interview with Empire (I think) that it would be set within the same Cold War-era as the book.

Yes, Synder fought the studio to keep the narrative as true to the book as possible, its a recorded fact in several places. The first thing shot for the film, which you can view over in the production diaries on the official website was the montage sequence of Dr Manhatten meeting JFK amongst others. They got several stunning doubles to play the people on the balcony.

So relax. The film is set in the 80's. The USA won Vietnam. And Nixon is still in charge.
No Black Freighter until the extended dvd cut in late 2009 though, so you know...

Terribly_Mauled

11-03-2008, 12:16

Looks like Warners have started their marketing machine up again. Seems they've sent out a pressie of a Watchmen 'Countdown' clock to web and print Journalists in the States. Its counting down to March 6th 2009, when the film is released.

Superherohype has put pics of their clock online, along with the accompanying letter, which confirms the 'Alternate 1985' timeline of the film, mirroring the book.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/watchmennews.php?id=6895

TheoGB

03-04-2008, 10:45

That fact that he looks about 12 doesn't help either.

Are these actually photos? They look more like stylised airbrushed photos made up from other bits.

Also, you'd expect them all to look young because they have to be able to convince in their 60s guises. No doubt they had to put on a fair bit of makeup to do the older versions of their characters.

ljp

07-04-2008, 08:06

A behind the scenes video here:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=43692

playaslaya

09-04-2008, 13:43

Those sets look very faithful to the comics - everything thus far looks good IMHO

Gedalia

05-05-2008, 15:03

Stumbled on this and thought to share. Absolutely classic! http://www.nerdcore.de/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/peanutmen.jpg

playaslaya

08-05-2008, 12:43

The latest video blog is up this time focusing on the costumes:

http://joblo.com/excl-watchmen-journal

gingertom

12-05-2008, 10:36

Seen some on-set pics at the weekend (looking over someone (no names) shoulder) - it looks amazing - rorschach - the comedian - just the business - its a labour of love from everyone involved!!

Terribly_Mauled

27-05-2008, 09:01

This is from aintitcool.com, but I can't get it to display in IE7 if you go over there.

Still, looks like they've stepped straight out of the book

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7808/mmpicov2.jpg

ljp

27-05-2008, 19:14

What a great image. I really hope this film doesnt let the novel down.

AndyWilson

27-05-2008, 21:06

Can I have my "It's a bloody comic! It's not a 'book' or a 'novel', graphic or otherwise!" rant now?

Terribly_Mauled

27-05-2008, 21:10

Can I have my "It's a bloody comic! It's not a 'book' or a 'novel', graphic or otherwise!" rant now?

No. As its on Time Magazine's '100 greatest books ever written list.' ;) :D

AndyWilson

28-05-2008, 15:08

It's a marketing term. I mean, it was one that I never had any sympathy with. The term 'comic' does just as well for me. ... The problem is that 'graphic novel' just came to mean 'expensive comic book' and so what you'd get is people like DC Comics or Marvel comics — because 'graphic novels' were getting some attention, they'd stick six issues of whatever worthless piece of crap they happened to be publishing lately under a glossy cover and call it The She-Hulk Graphic Novel, you know?"

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_novel

ljp

29-05-2008, 18:50

Interview with Dave Gibbons here:

http://www.denofgeek.com/comics/59800/interview_dave_gibbons_talks_watchmen_and_more.html

It appears to be suffering from The Slashdot effect at the moment though. So the page may take some time to load.

Disappearer

07-06-2008, 11:13

New video journal here:

http://http://chud.com/articles/articles/15045/1/EXCLUSIVE-WATCHMEN-JOURNAL-3/Page1.html

Mr Majestik

15-07-2008, 14:56

The first Watchmen trailer will be infront of the dark Knight in cinemas next week and online (legally)a few days later.

TheDot

15-07-2008, 17:58

Im hoping this applies to the UK too cos I just read a fairly in-depth description of the trailer and my anticipation of 23rd's Dark Knight advance screening just got a little higher! Cant wait to check this out.

Copy and paste of the CHUD description, spoilered just incase...
DEVIN WATCHES THE WATCHMEN TRAILER

On the heels of putting up my Watchmen set visit preview, I'm able to bring you a look at what you'll be seeing this Friday when the trailer for Watchmen unspools in front of The Dark Knight.

I think you're going to be blown away.

First up, this is a trailer - not a teaser. It's over two minutes long and it contains footage from throughout the film. And it reveals Dr. Manhattan.

Second, it's a trailer that's going to leave mainstream audiences with a lot of questions. Which is incredibly cool. The trailer isn't narrative - you wouldn't know what the **** this movie is about just from watching this trailer. There's one line of dialogue in the thing, and it's Rorschach. Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach voice sounds cool but not contrived - he's not putting on some ridiculous rasp or anything.

If there is a narrative thread in these two minutes, it's the origin of Dr. Manhattan. We see Jon Osterman stuck in that particle chamber, and then getting disassembled. Later we see his nervous system reconstructing itself in a hallway, scaring a janitor. Then we see him completely forming himself in the commissary, big, blue, naked and in a Jesus Christ pose, hovering above the floor. We see three Jons in one shot, and we see Jon and Laurie kissing in a shot that was so beautiful it gave me some goosebumps.

This trailer seems cut to emphasize how similar the movie is to the comic - there are a lot of moments that look like comic panels, and I bet that we'll see people doing side by side comparisons as soon as the trailer is available online (I hear next week). Adrian hitting a would-be assassin with a golden ashtray, Dr. Manhattan vaporizing a North Vietnamese soldier (this is what I saw in animatics on the set visit, brought to amazing life!), the Comedian standing on the eye of the Owlship during a Keene Act riot - all iconic moments brought to vivid, painterly life.

There's a lot here - the trailer is dense and packed to the gills with information. The suits look great in motion, and Dr. Manhattan - well, it's Dr. Manhattan, but with Billy Crudup's face. There have been few times when I've been so impressed at seeing something brought to life so meticulously, and this is one of them.

We also see a number of action sequences; as I surmised on my set visit, the Snyder-style speed ramping is here. I think this is one of two things that will divide audiences after the trailer. The other is the soundtrack - it's late-era Smashing Pumpkins playing over the trailer. Some will complain that it's not period appropriate (neither was the Nine Inch Nails on the 300 teaser, and that slayed us all. This song won't be in the movie), while others may draw comparisons with the last superhero movie to have a Pumpkins song - Batman and Robin. But I liked the song on the trailer; it has a driving, industrial drone but cut with the plaintive voice of Billy Corgan. The emotion in his voice is the key to me.

What will make the hardcore fans most excited is how the trailer scenes are cut together. The interstitial scenes are a POV flyby of the inside of a watch, and the trailer ends with the scene of Manhattan building his great watchwork palace on Mars. The bloody smiley face is there, but only at the end and only as one of the dots between the date logo: 03-06-09. To me the way that the trailer emphasizes the clockworks over the more mainstream smiley face shouts 'They get it!' Snyder and company get the themes of the piece and they're placing them front and center over the more obviously marketable aspects.

There's more. A lot more. We see everyone in action, but I don't recall seeing Rorschach's mask in motion. I wish I had been taking notes during the trailer, because like I said, this ****** is dense. It will reward a frame by frame analysis for sure. As for the look of the footage, the color scheme and palette is well represented in the character pictures that came out a few months ago - in fact, the image of Silk Spectre in front of the fire is in this trailer, as she drops through the roof of the burning tenemant. Everything looks painted, and every shot is gorgeous.

And it bears repeating: this is a trailer for us. This trailer speaks to the fanbase in a huge way. Your friends and neighbors will be damn impressed by what they're seeing, but they'll also be slightly baffled. They'll want to know more - who is that blue guy? Who is flying that ship coming out of the water? Are they on Mars? Why is that guy getting thrown through a window? - so get ready to start lending out your book. And get ready to start drooling for whatever else they're going to show at Comic Con - if this is what they're giving us in the first trailer, I can't wait to see what they have in store in San Diego.