• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Watchmen Trailer

Status
Not open for further replies.
dmshaposv said:
Max Shea (the writer), Hira (artist, Max's lover), a psychic (forgot the name) and some other important celebrities were hoodwinked by Ozymandias into making the monster that destroys the city in the end. They thought they were doing something for a blockbuster movie in secrecy (thus they were isolated on the island) and the monster was an elaborate special effect. To keep their mouth shut, Ozymandias kills them all by setting up the time bomb in their departing ship, after they finished making the monster.

Thus no one would ever know about Ozy's grand scheme.(except the other watchmen)

At least that's what I think.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That's what I get for not reading the meta-fiction the first time around! Makes sense now though.

so cool right before the explosion when he said something like, "Nothing's wrong. Hold me."
 
The Lamonster said:
Thanks. That's what I get for not reading the meta-fiction the first time around! Makes sense now though.

so cool right before the explosion when he said something like, "Nothing's wrong. Hold me."
Click to expand...

Ah, you're back..

My God, David Hayter did an ace on the screenplay.

Read Chapter II , and I'm seeing that Funeral scene, it's exactly how it looks like in the trailer. The story is getting very interesting, I even got to understand why the Comedian acted like the way he did, hence, I felt sad for him :s


Rosharch just keeps getting more and more awesome.:lol
 
Ghost said:
Considering the quality of all the other adaptations of Moores work we've had to suffer through, you cant blame him for his total lack of faith. He told them they wouldn't make good movies, they didn't listen.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with quality. He has a full understanding of the impetus behind HIS creation of Watchmen. It's one of the most fundamentally sequential art based and structured comics ever published. It's not LXG (although that probably didn't help), it's knowing first hand that Watchmen was conceived and executed not as a timeless story that can work in any medium, BUT AS A COMIC BOOK.

Not only is there no reason to adapt Watchmen because it rocks so hard, it's impossible to, fundamentally. It's not a legend you can adapt to the medium like The Dark Knight or Spider-Man 2. It's a comic book, a comic, by the way, which features an entire issue whose pacing is based around the fucking stapes in the middle of the fucking issue!

Alan Moore isn't a snob. He's the dude who wrote the fucking thing.
 
Justin Bailey said:
So Moore hasn't even seen 300 and he's basing Snyder's film-making ability off of the book (wtf?) and what he "heard" about 300. What a load of BS.
Click to expand...
Moore hated 300, movie does not improve anything, rather "worsens" said qualities so it's not a big stretch of logic to dislike the movie for that.
 
Prime crotch said:
Moore hated 300, movie does not improve anything, rather "worsens" said qualities so it's not a big stretch of logic to dislike the movie for that.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand why he would have had to have seen a director's work to be fundamentally against the idea of adapting his most centrally "graphic" novel to a different and unsuitable medium?
 
The Lamonster said:
Can somebody explain the part where
people are celebrating the end of shooting for a film on a boat, and these two lovers in the underside accidentally flip a switch that explodes the boat? Was that the missing writer?
Click to expand...


Yes, that was the missing writer. They don't set off the bomb, they just spot it a moment before it was to go off.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
I still don't understand why he would have had to have seen a director's work to be fundamentally against the idea of adapting his most centrally "graphic" novel to a different and unsuitable medium?
Click to expand...
Did you actually read the quote at all? He said "He may very well be, but the thing is that he's also the person who made 300." That's not a general comment about making movies overall, it's a specific comment about Snyder and 300.

And, no, it's not okay to say somebody's movie sucks without having seen it. That rule does, in fact, include celebrities that you may admire.

Really, BB, tone down the fanboyism. You keep breaking GAF fanboyism records in Watchmen threads. Yeah, that calculation includes the gaming side so you should be pretty worried for your sanity by now.
 
aku:jiki said:
Did you actually read the quote at all? He said "He may very well be, but the thing is that he's also the person who made 300." That's not a general comment about making movies overall, it's a specific comment about Snyder and 300.

And, no, it's not okay to say somebody's movie sucks without having seen it. That rule does, in fact, include celebrities that you may admire.

Really, BB, tone down the fanboyism. You keep breaking GAF fanboyism records in Watchmen threads. Yeah, that calculation includes the gaming side so you should be pretty worried for your sanity by now.
Click to expand...
What don't you understand? He READ the original source material and from word of mouth knows that the movie does not stray from it. Why does he need to see the movie if he despised the book?
 
Prime crotch said:
What don't you understand? He READ the original source material and from word of mouth knows that the movie does not stray from it. Why does he need to see the movie if he despised the book?
Click to expand...
What don't you understand? Like this entire thread is about; they're different mediums and judging one based on the merits of the other is just plain stupid. Both a movie and a comic book are about way much more than just the story being told.

What Moore criticized was Miller's script, not Snyder's visual skills. I really don't understand how there can be people who don't see the difference.
 
Prime crotch said:
What don't you understand? He READ the original source material and from word of mouth knows that the movie does not stray from it. Why does he need to see the movie if he despised the book?
Click to expand...
Because the director does not solely write the script.

Actually, I don't even know why I'm sitting here typing this, trying to explain to some stranger WHY YOU NEED TO FUCKING SEE A MOVIE IN ORDER TO JUDGE THE DIRECTOR.

Fuck it, I'll just leave you guys with "don't judge a book by it's cover."
 
aku:jiki said:
What don't you understand? Like this entire thread is about; they're different mediums and judging one based on the merits of the other is just plain stupid. Both a movie and a comic book are about way much more than just the story being told.

What Moore criticized was Miller's script, not Snyder's visual skills. I really don't understand how there can be people who don't see the difference.
Click to expand...
What script? Miller wasn't even involved on the screenplay, but guess what, Zack Snyder was. Moore criticized the comic and those same themes he criticizes aren't improved on the movie made by Snyder, which he was deeply involved far more than a simple "yes man" director.
The Lamonster said:
Because the director does not write the script.
Click to expand...
Writing credits
(WGA)
Zack Snyder (screenplay) &
Kurt Johnstad (screenplay) and
Michael Gordon (screenplay) (as Michael B. Gordon)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/fullcredits#writers
 
The movie is really close to the 300 comic, except for those political intrigue scenes with the queen that were created for the movie...which were of course awful, out of place, and detrimental to the movie's pace.
 
The Lamonster said:
edited and added the word solely

Anyway, are you trying to tell me that the majority of lines and story of 300 came directly from Zack Snyder?
Click to expand...
the majority of lines and story comes from Frank Miller's 300.
 
aku:jiki said:
Did you actually read the quote at all? He said "He may very well be, but the thing is that he's also the person who made 300." That's not a general comment about making movies overall, it's a specific comment about Snyder and 300.

And, no, it's not okay to say somebody's movie sucks without having seen it. That rule does, in fact, include celebrities that you may admire.

Really, BB, tone down the fanboyism. You keep breaking GAF fanboyism records in Watchmen threads. Yeah, that calculation includes the gaming side so you should be pretty worried for your sanity by now.
Click to expand...

I was responding the idea that Moore is in any way a snob in this instance, on any level.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
Not only is there no reason to adapt Watchmen because it rocks so hard, it's impossible to, fundamentally. It's not a legend you can adapt to the medium like The Dark Knight or Spider-Man 2. It's a comic book, a comic, by the way, which features an entire issue whose pacing is based around the fucking stapes in the middle of the fucking issue!

Alan Moore isn't a snob. He's the dude who wrote the fucking thing.
Click to expand...
And concerning this...it just doesn't make sense, man. Look at LOTR. Many, many fanboys people said it shouldn't be done or it won't work, but it did work. Are the LOTR movies as rich and satisfying as the books? Of course not. Did it introduce hundreds of thousands of people to the story? Absolutely. Is it an artistic work on it's own, independent from the slightly different novels? I would say so.

Are you saying that a film adaptation of Watchmen would spoil the comic experience for those who've read it? And if it can't be as good as the comic so there's no reason to make the movie? If so, you don't know much about book-->film adaptations.

There is obviously no way it will be as good. However, it can still be a fucking kick-ass movie and if you won't give it a chance, I pity you and your cave of darkness.

That came off a bit harshly, will still always love u BB
 
The Lamonster said:
edited and added the word solely

Anyway, are you trying to tell me that the majority of lines and story of 300 came directly from Zack Snyder?
Click to expand...
What I am saying is that Snyder did more than simply take on a job, like say, Bret Ratner on X3, he was deeply involved on the adaptation and conceiving of the movie.
Now why should he like the idea of having Snyder working on Watchmen? Because if he kept the racism undertones of 300 he might do a similar job on Watchmen?
Now I loved 300, but going from a Dawn of Dead remake to 300 to Watchmen does not instill confidence.
 
The Lamonster said:
And concerning this...it just doesn't make sense, man. Look at LOTR. Many, many fanboys people said it shouldn't be done or it won't work, but it did work. Are the LOTR movies as rich and satisfying as the books? Of course not. Did it introduce hundreds of thousands of people to the story? Absolutely. Is it an artistic work on it's own, independent from the slightly different novels? I would say so.

Are you saying that a film adaptation of Watchmen would spoil the comic experience for those who've read it? And it can't be as good as the comic so there's no reason to make the movie? If so, you don't know much about book-->film adaptations.

There is obviously no way it will be as good. However, it can still be a fucking kick-ass movie and if you won't give it a chance, I pity you and your cave of darkness.
Click to expand...

Good argument. This actually bring me to something that's been bothering me..

Is " The Spirit" as a comic, bad? Or is the film making it look so bad?

The last trailer I saw made it look "ugh" to me :(
 
The Lamonster said:
And concerning this...it just doesn't make sense, man. Look at LOTR. Many, many fanboys people said it shouldn't be done or it won't work, but it did work. Are the LOTR movies as rich and satisfying as the books? Of course not. Did it introduce hundreds of thousands of people to the story? Absolutely. Is it an artistic work on it's own, independent from the slightly different novels? I would say so.

Are you saying that a film adaptation of Watchmen would spoil the comic experience for those who've read it? And it can't be as good as the comic so there's no reason to make the movie? If so, you don't know much about book-->film adaptations.

There is obviously no way it will be as good. However, it can still be a fucking kick-ass movie and if you won't give it a chance, I pity you and your cave of darkness.

That came off a bit harshly, will still always love u BB
Click to expand...

My problem is that there are fundamental aspects of the book, its pacing, its construction, and its thematics (and I know you didn't say this, aku did, but how the fuck does that make me a fanboy? Is Pauline Kael a movie "fanboy" because she appraises them critically? Jesus.) that are inherently connected to its existence as a graphic novel.

LOTR, stuff like that you're talking about "Oh they'll never get the depth of this character or that character." That's fine. But you can still tell the story in film. You can still get the point across. It's a story that could just as easily been sung, painted, or whatever in just varying levels of detail.

Watchmen does not work that way. There are critical components to it that can only work when shown in panels adjacent to each other grouped on pieces of paper, glued or stapled together in a single unit.

It's inescapable. There are plenty of comics that are just great stories that can be told in plenty of mediums. Watchmen is not one of them.
 
That's just another way of sacrificing depth. It still works. It's blunted, but the broad themes of Watchmen can be put across in any medium, with the proper handling.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
It's inescapable. There are plenty of comics that are just great stories that can be told in plenty of mediums. Watchmen is not one of them.
Click to expand...
I don't know man... Take away the flashbacks and the gimmicks (forgive me) and you're left with a straightforward, yet very rich and complex, story. And all you need for a movie is a story.

Yes, we will lose many of the artistic touches that help make the book so clever, but we will still have the characters. Rorschach will (hopefully) still be Rorschach. And that is awesome.
 
I agree with BenjaminBirdie. Carrying over the characters and some plot points isn't enough. Like The Orchid Thief, Watchmen cannot be adequately transferred to cinema.

This does not prevent the movie from being entertaining, from being good or even great, in its own way.
 
Evlar said:
I agree with BenjaminBirdie. Carrying over the characters and some plot points isn't enough. Like The Orchid Thief, Watchmen cannot be adequately transferred to cinema.

This does not prevent the movie from being entertaining, from being good or even great, in its own way.
Click to expand...
bolded is the point I've been trying to make.

A Watchmen movie would only raise awareness of the comic book, and I think that is a very good thing (look at Frank Miller and Sin City).
 
The Lamonster said:
I don't know man... Take away the flashbacks and the gimmicks (forgive me) and you're left with a straightforward, yet very rich and complex, story. And all you need for a movie is a story.

Yes, we will lose many of the artistic touches that help make the book so clever, but we will still have the characters. Rorschach will (hopefully) still be Rorschach. And that is awesome.
Click to expand...

I really just can't agree. There's so many things in the book that are not just Flashbacks or Gimmicks. They look at the nature of superhero comics, of sequential narrative, even of print, in ways that are critical to the work.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
Ha! Oh man you don't want me to answer that. Actually Crudup and Guigino (sp?) are great choices.
Click to expand...

Crudup will be great (guy's pretty underrated), though it would be tough to screw up Manhattan. :P

Not too huge on Jackie Earle Haley, eh?
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
They look at the nature of superhero comics, of sequential narrative, even of print, in ways that are critical to the work.
Click to expand...
Unpack that a little. I re-read it last year, and can't think of anything utterly incapable of being adapted in some form to cinema. Can you give some specific examples? I'm sure I'm forgetting much, and when I do read through things again, I want to be on the lookout for them.
 
One thing I like about the film (atleast atm), is the casting choices.

Most of them are good underrated actors who aren't especially well known. It works well along with the theme of the novel where the superheros aren't especially popular and their real-life personas are low-profile (except Ozy and Manhattan).

Having big name actors like Jude Law (who wanted to portray Ozy) would've meant they'd give him unneccssary extra screen time - while characters like Rorschach and Manhattan, who are more pivotal characters, would get less screen time. Jude would've also got top billing.
 
I'm kind of apprehensive about Jackie Earle Haley. I mean, the voice sounded good but will he have the right mannerisms and does he look good without the mask? We already know he doesn't have
red hair and freckles...
 
The Lamonster said:
I'm kind of apprehensive about Jackie Earle Haley. I mean, the voice sounded good but will he have the right mannerisms and does he look good without the mask? We already know he doesn't have
red hair and freckles...
Click to expand...
Last I heard, Hollywood has hair and make-up people.
 
Shins said:
Unpack that a little. I re-read it last year, and can't think of anything utterly incapable of being adapted in some form to cinema. Can you give some specific examples? I'm sure I'm forgetting much, and when I do read through things again, I want to be on the lookout for them.
Click to expand...

Fearfull Symmetry. The source material in the back of each chapter being physical printed "source material" (see: Last Panel Of Book for why this is significant). The Comedian reveal.
 
073008-empire-rorschach-big.jpg


073008-empire-comedian-big.jpg



and this one contains minor spoilers and it, uh, might not be safe for work (side vagina)
http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/photos/073008-empire-silk-niteowl-big.jpg
 
The Lamonster said:
I don't know man... Take away the flashbacks and the gimmicks (forgive me) and you're left with a straightforward, yet very rich and complex, story. And all you need for a movie is a story.

Yes, we will lose many of the artistic touches that help make the book so clever, but we will still have the characters. Rorschach will (hopefully) still be Rorschach. And that is awesome.
Click to expand...
If you take away the flashbacks you lose one of the best characters in the story (The Comedian).
 
So now that we've had "the Godfather Part II of comic book movies!", next up is Citizen Kane? I cant wait for the Caligula of superhero flicks.
 
I guess Empire didn't have the guts to show Dr. Manhattan in all his glory. :lol
 
GodfatherX said:
just to clarify that is a Smashing Pumpkins song right?

its been a long ass time since ive heard them
Click to expand...

Yep. It was on the Batman & Robin soundtrack.
 
Costanza said:
I've never seen Citizen Kane.. why are they making that comparison?
Click to expand...

It's suppose to be one of the best films of all time. So they're basically saying this might be the cream of the crop for the comic book film genre.
 
Grizzlyjin said:
It's suppose to be one of the best films of all time. So they're basically saying this might be the cream of the crop for the comic book film genre.
Click to expand...

Well, couldn't it?

(But yes, what a dumb thing to put on the front cover. No pressure, Snyder!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Leviticus trailer
13
581
Itchy.Tasty. replied
Saccharine Trailer
3
233
Dirk Benedict replied
Passenger Trailer
3
262
SJRB replied
Affection Trailer (2026)
9
488
poodaddy replied
Hershey Trailer (2026)
15
621
p_xavier replied
Top Bottom