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

Watchmen Trailer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Plus, wasn't he touring that 25 minute footage around? The interview was in Australia so, I'm guessing jet lag has something to do with it.
 
wenis said:
I would definitely not want to be in his shoes right now. He's pretty much in the gallows awaiting trial from all the fanboys now.
Click to expand...

Surely a person that takes up a project as ambitious as Watchmen should be confident enough in his vision so as to not be intimidated by fanboys.
 
joey_z said:
Surely a person that takes up a project as ambitious as Watchmen should be confident enough in his vision so as to not be intimidated by fanboys.
Click to expand...

If it was me going about making the watchmen movie the fact that I would be disappointing a whole audience like that would freak me out. I don't know about him, he seemed to have everything together (even though he looks extremely tired) and has a good idea about his decisions and the future of the film.

Even though the interview was less than stellar it did show me he was serious about his work and he did put thought into it and knew that he wanted to do the novel justice. My hopes are raised +2 now and I hope to hear more from him when he doesnt look like he just got off a 14hr flight across 2 timezones.
 
Anasui Kishibe said:
yep, but seeing his movies, I think it never happened
Click to expand...

perhaps more than anyone else, i think you are really primed to hate this movie. not even alan moore can match your unenthusiasm :lol
 
beelzebozo said:
perhaps more than anyone else, i think you are really primed to hate this movie. not even alan moore can match your unenthusiasm :lol
Click to expand...


you know what, one of my friends told me the exact same thing:lol
when they want to piss me off, they just talk shit about the comic book and start discussing about how awesome the movie is goin go to be :lol
 
i guess i'm just a naive optimist. my reaction to things i love transitioning to film is to close my eyes, cross my fingers, and mutter "pleasebegood pleasebegood pleasebegood" under my breath
 
wenis said:
I would definitely not want to be in his shoes right now. He's pretty much in the gallows awaiting trial from all the fanboys now.
Click to expand...

The great irony is that "the fanboys" are dead excited about the film and only a small portion of people who actually read and internalized the original (and not the "read it but didn't see what the big deal was, hey did you read the new Chuck Dixon book oh man so good, Stephanie Brown is the ONLY true Robin" majority of comic book fanboys) are saying "So no one else is concerned that the movie is taking a powerdump on the original story? Just us? Okay. Enjoy your plushie Rorschach merchandise."
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
The great irony is that "the fanboys" are dead excited about the film and only a small portion of people who actually read and internalized the original (and not the "read it but didn't see what the big deal was, hey did you read the new Chuck Dixon book oh man so good, Stephanie Brown is the ONLY true Robin" majority of comic book fanboys) are saying "So no one else is concerned that the movie is taking a powerdump on the original story? Just us? Okay. Enjoy your plushie Rorschach merchandise."
Click to expand...

That's how it should be. Let's be honest, the squid thing looked and was really fucking dumb. I mean, it's a means to an end, but there are much better artistic means to the same end.
 
im looking forward to the rorscach plushie....hopefully it includes grapple gun and can of beans.
 
JzeroT1437 said:
That's how it should be. Let's be honest, the squid thing looked and was really fucking dumb. I mean, it's a means to an end, but there are much better artistic means to the same end.
Click to expand...

You're talking as if Watchmen is, creatively, in the public domain. There's no "Watchmen Universe". No "takes" on the book. It's a self-contained graphic novel. It doesn't matter if there are "much better artistic means to the same end". They're fundamentally different ends. DC/WB owns the rights to Watchmen and are free to do whatever they please with it, but don't pretend that the fundamental creation that is Watchmen is in any way malleable the way you describe.
 
well, i'm willing to concede that though i love the book quite a bit, other people seem to love it with a greater degree of angry furor and indignation than me, so i hand the criticisms of this solely over to them. it's sort of liberating to enjoy the book but not feel personally insulted because something will be changed in the movie. that's sort of an inevitability in my mind. i like the book, but don't see each letter as something sacred, especially considering how little seems to have been changed in the transition.
 
beelzebozo said:
i guess i'm just a naive optimist. my reaction to things i love transitioning to film is to close my eyes, cross my fingers, and mutter "pleasebegood pleasebegood pleasebegood" under my breath
Click to expand...


I just cannot have this kind of attitude towards this movie, because I think Watchmen cannot be summed up in a single two hours story; so the alternative should be enjoy it for what it is, but I can't because Watchmen is like a gigantic puzzle where every panel contains something to tell. Consider me one angry true fanboy, if you will
 
beelzebozo said:
well, i'm willing to concede that though i love the book quite a bit, other people seem to love it with a greater degree of angry furor and indignation than me, so i hand the criticisms of this solely over to them. it's sort of liberating to enjoy the book but not feel personally insulted because something will be changed in the movie. that's sort of an inevitability in my mind. i like the book, but don't see each letter as something sacred, especially considering how little seems to have been changed in the transition.
Click to expand...

For the record, I don't feel "personally insulted". I'm not personally the graphic novel being insulted by the filmed reenactment.
 
you're reacting with the ferocity of someone who's been personally insulted. and i gauge much of the negative reaction as people attributing the changes to studio types thinking the audience couldn't handle or wouldn't appreciate the original story. so yes, i don't think it's a huge leap in logic to think fans think their intelligence is being insulted. but i have no clue why you want to deal in semantics when that's not at all what i was trying to convey
 
beelzebozo said:
you're reacting with the ferocity of someone who's been personally insulted. and i gauge much of the negative reaction as people attributing the changes to studio types thinking the audience couldn't handle or wouldn't appreciate the original story. so yes, i don't think it's a huge leap in logic to think fans think their intelligence is being insulted. but i have no clue why you want to deal in semantics when that's not at all what i was trying to convey
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm just defending the work. If I respond to someone or something it's usually just opposing the attitude of, "Hey, no big deal, maybe this will even work better." As if the graphic novel was just a spec script.
 
I hate how this has turned into a whining thread. Have some cheese with that
, BB.

Seriously, can't we just talk about the comic or the movie and not talk about how shitty the movie will be? NO ONE FUCKING KNOWS if it will be shitty so stfu and quit derailing the thread.

Anyway, I hope you guys are aware that a brand new trailer should be attached to Quantom of Solace. I can't wait.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
You're talking as if Watchmen is, creatively, in the public domain. There's no "Watchmen Universe". No "takes" on the book. It's a self-contained graphic novel. It doesn't matter if there are "much better artistic means to the same end". They're fundamentally different ends. DC/WB owns the rights to Watchmen and are free to do whatever they please with it, but don't pretend that the fundamental creation that is Watchmen is in any way malleable the way you describe.
Click to expand...

Your concrete, polarized version of creative expressionism is philosophically flawed. Why make a movie that's nothing more than a live-action version of what you've already read--WITH PICTURES? There's no reason to make a movie unless you're going to put an artistic or thematic spin on the content.

That's why Sin City sucks. I'd already seen it well before the movie came out--when it was a graphic novel.

There's nothing wrong with altering the content--especially if the director has attempted to keep the same theme but chosen to express it in a different way. People who complain about surface content being changed are simply morons who can't see beyond the surface to the point.
 
JzeroT1437 said:
Your concrete, polarized version of creative expressionism is philosophically flawed. Why make a movie that's nothing more than a live-action version of what you've already read--WITH PICTURES? There's no reason to make a movie unless you're going to put an artistic or thematic spin on the content.

That's why Sin City sucks. I'd already seen it well before the movie came out--when it was a graphic novel.

There's nothing wrong with altering the content--especially if the director has attempted to keep the same theme but chosen to express it in a different way. People who complain about surface content being changed are simply morons who can't see beyond the surface to the point.
Click to expand...

Pretty much my only point. I'm genuinely curious what the motivation is when you're altering such fundamental aspects of the work.
 
Hey Benjamin, I'll stack my Watchmen mojo against anyone's, any time. I'm not the Chuck Dixon loving type, and I'm excited about the movie.

Seriously, I am sick to the teeth of Watchmen purists trying to claim some sort of high ground that they are the "true fans" as if somebody who loved the material and knew it well couldn't want an adaptation or bear seeing changes.

I've read Watchmen dozens of times. I've purchased it, by my count, 7 or 8 times. I had the Graphitti hardcover in the 80's with all the supplemental material which didn't see print again until the Absolute edition whic hI also own, I read perhaps a dozen interviews with Moore and Gibbons including the meaty and required Comics Journal interview, I read of of the the freaking RPG modules, I have the lead miniatures still, I've read almost everything else Moore has written including pre-Warrior stuff... I think I have credentials. I've posted and written about Watchmen in depth for two decades. I can discuss it from a formalist perspective, a pop culture perspective, from its influences, as part of Moore's evolution as a writer, from its effects on comics, for its philosphy stated and inferred, from a breakdown of its characters and motivations, from its shift in purpose from the time it was conceived to the time it was finished (and the resulting problems that created).

So why am I not offended by changes? Becuase the original work stands. No harm is being done to it, and different visions/versions of a work acrosss media are elightening and interesting, even if they aren't perfect.

Watchmen may be my favorite comic (other contenders-- From Hell, which is argualbly better if not quite as beloved by me, Maus, The Complete Alec). I welcome an adapatation as long as it doesn't insult the original. Change != insult.

My favorite novel is Lolita. It's unfilmable, and yet there have been two adaptations-- on brilliant but which differes from the novel greatly, but finds its own value, and another which is wholly forgettable in its slavish attempt to mimic ever detail from the book.

Yep, Dreiberg should be fatter. Yeah, Ozy's suit is horrible. I'm undecided on the ending's chnages becuase I have been avoiding outright spoilers and because by far the endign of Waatchmen is its weakest part.
 
If he cares, then he knows which characters the story was originally conceived for, and he also knows why this is a harder question than most people think it is.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
Pretty much my only point. I'm genuinely curious what the motivation is when you're altering such fundamental aspects of the work.
Click to expand...


Saying that changing surface content is changing a fundamental aspect of the work is the same as crazy right wing Christians insisting that all that shit in the bible actually happened for real. You're missing the message for the images you've been fed since childhood. Missing the forest for the trees.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Yep, Dreiberg should be fatter. Yeah, Ozy's suit is horrible. I'm undecided on the ending's chnages becuase I have been avoiding outright spoilers and because by far the endign of Waatchmen is its weakest part.
Click to expand...

Those are pretty much my only points.

In terms of the Chuck Dixon thing, that was just a response about Snyder getting set to be eviscerated by fanboys. As someone who is required to follow their whims and proclivities four times a week to make my comic work, I can assure you that are huge amounts of them out there, despite your presence as a notable exception.

And of course the work will always stand on its own. I'm not lobbying to have the movie banned or starting a petition or a boycott. Just voicing my opinion. And it's been pretty standard down the line whether it's Brief Interviews With Hideous Men or Watchmen. There are certain works where I just don't understand the motivation, nor do I see the purpose in devoting that much energy and capital in such an effort. I'm not offended by it, nor do I purport to be the one who "CARES ABOUT IT MOST OF ALL" (Hi, Jzero). It's just my opinion as a Z-List Creator.
 
JzeroT1437 said:
Saying that changing surface content is changing a fundamental aspect of the work is the same as crazy right wing Christians insisting that all that shit in the bible actually happened for real. You're missing the message for the images you've been fed since childhood. Missing the forest for the trees.
Click to expand...

I don't think Watchmen happened for real. But saying Dan Dreiberg's washed-uppedness is simply surface gloss is missing the point. It's not missing the message, it's one of the direct messages of the work.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
Pretty much my only point. I'm genuinely curious what the motivation is when you're altering such fundamental aspects of the work.
Click to expand...
because they can

Think of it as a riff; it could be good, bad, or simply an interesting take. By most accounts, in the broad strokes, they are holding close to the comic in many respects. If it wasn't called Watchmen but was Watchmen with tweaks, you'd see a huge amount of bitching about plagiarism or lack of creativity. As of this film, Watchmen the comic stops being a self-contained work and becomes a part of a Watchmen universe. The core component, surely, but its not going to be self-contained.

Unless you'd like to stick your thumbs in your ears, close your eyes, and hum really loudly.
 
Shins said:
because they can

Think of it as a riff; it could be good, bad, or simply an interesting take. By most accounts, in the broad strokes, they are holding close to the comic in many respects. If it wasn't called Watchmen but was Watchmen with tweaks, you'd see a huge amount of bitching about plagiarism or lack of creativity. As of this film, Watchmen the comic stops being a self-contained work and becomes a part of a Watchmen universe. The core component, surely, but its not going to be self-contained.

Unless you'd like to stick your thumbs in your ears, close your eyes, and hum really loudly.
Click to expand...

Oh, sure. I've seen and enjoyed interesting takes of lots of things. It's not like I don't have an open mind about adaptations. Fight Club is leagues better than the novel it adapted, The Stand comic is quite brilliant at taking throw away moments of prose and turning them into stark and memorable moments.

I just haven't seen any level of that kind of ingenuity in anything I've seen of this movie, aside from the sets.
 
What's so bad about Chuck Dixon, anyway? He's not a great writer, but there are far, far worse in comics. Yes, at the Big Two, even.
 
He's not that bad by the standards of mainstream comics writers, no. But that's an extremely low bar. Would it have been better if Peter David was used as the whipping boy?

I like mainstream comics, granted, but they are generally pretty mediocre.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
He's not that bad by the standards of mainstream comics writers, no. But that's an extremely low bar. Would it have been better if Peter David was used as the whipping boy?

I like mainstream comics, granted, but they are generally pretty mediocre.
Click to expand...

Frank Tieri is probably a name we can all agree on.
 
Speaking for myself, the problem is not the possible changes, the problem is Zack Snyder.

As Cronenberg said, to be faithful to the original work you must be unfaithful. Novels and movies are different languages, you don't make a good movie by copy/pasting a comic book (like Sin City or 300), you must think how it should work best on the screen (like Kubrick's Shining). For Watchmen all I see is copy/paste with Snyder's 'style' (slooooooow-motion), but everybody knows that you can't copy/paste Watchmen in all his intregrity, 10 hours wouldn't be sufficient.
So Snyder's work will only be a reduction of the original work, if Kubrick (or Ficher, or Park Chan-wook, to name few) was working on this I wouldn't have any problem.
 
From the trailer, it seems obvious the movie is going to be a better and more important work than the comic book. I have no doubt it will take the opportunity to address some of the comic's glaring flaws and bring it to a large mainstream audience.
 
Kikujiro said:
Speaking for myself, the problem is not the possible changes, the problem is Zack Snyder.

As Cronenberg said, to be faithful to the original work you must be unfaithful.
Click to expand...
Thinking like that leads to movies like Batman and Robin.
 
So taking directly from the source can be bad and good and not directly using form the source can be bad and good.

So this movie is a toss-up.
 
Count Dookkake said:
It also leads to movies like The Godfather, Naked Lunch, Starship Troopers, Dolores Claiborne, Adaptation, etc.
Click to expand...
Point being... Sometimes crapping on the source material just makes it stink. Disregarding the source material does not automatically makes a great movie. Quality adaptions show respect for the source material.
 
Freshmaker said:
Point being... Sometimes crapping on the source material just makes it stink. Disregarding the source material does not automatically makes a great movie. Quality adaptions show respect for the source material.
Click to expand...

Point being, you had one example, I had five. :p

It's not "crapping" on the source material if the project turns out good.
 
OuterWorldVoice said:
From the trailer, it seems obvious the movie is going to be a better and more important work than the comic book.
Click to expand...

Surely no one believes this. It's going to be more influential to film than the original was to comics?
 
OuterWorldVoice said:
From the trailer, it seems obvious the movie is going to be a better and more important work than the comic book. I have no doubt it will take the opportunity to address some of the comic's glaring flaws and bring it to a large mainstream audience.
Click to expand...
muudli.gif
 
I find it funny that the people complaining about the ending feel that it's not true to the nature of the graphic novel. But hey...why do these people stop there in their complaints? Why not go one step further and agree with Alan Moore that the graphic novel is in it's true nature an anti-thesis to movies and other forms of media and that a movie should not be made in the first place?

I hate how some people have established this arbitrary line of what is 'true' to the graphic novel and what 'isn't'. The simple fact that a movie is being made of a graphic novel that set to flesh out a tale a movie could not is testament to the fact that either you're okay with a movie adaptation or you're not. And the movie should be criticized on how good of a movie it is rather than how close to the graphic novel it got, because it will never get close enough just for the simple fact that the graphic novel was made to be such.

Yes, you can judge the movie thematically. Whether it gets the same points and emotions across to the viewer. But don't blame it for not being exactly the same. The existence of a Watchmen movie in the firstplace breaks down all ties that bind.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
Surely no one believes this. It's going to be more influential to film than the original was to comics?
Click to expand...

what if it is? what if the mainstream crowd overwhelmingly says "this movie is the greatest thing since sliced bread and makes the dark knight look like a saturday morning cartoon and completely changes the rules to film adaptations"
 
wenis said:
what if it is? what if the mainstream crowd overwhelmingly says "this movie is the greatest thing since sliced bread and makes the dark knight look like a saturday morning cartoon and completely changes the rules to film adaptations"
Click to expand...

James Cameron has nothing to do with this movie.
 
wenis said:
what if it is? what if the mainstream crowd overwhelmingly says "this movie is the greatest thing since sliced bread and makes the dark knight look like a saturday morning cartoon and completely changes the rules to film adaptations"
Click to expand...

Watchmen had an impact on a lot more than just comics of its genre. Are you saying Watchmen will impact the filmmaking approaches of people like Paul Thomas Anderson and The Coen Brothers?
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
Watchmen had an impact on a lot more than just comics of its genre. Are you saying Watchmen will impact the filmmaking approaches of people like Paul Thomas Anderson and The Coen Brothers?
Click to expand...

Paul Thomas Anderson presents Maus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Suikoden Anime Trailer
6
7
German Shocks replied
Lone Wolf Trailer
0
8
Men_in_Boxes replied
Leviticus trailer
13
582
Itchy.Tasty. replied
Saccharine Trailer
3
233
Dirk Benedict replied
Passenger Trailer
3
264
SJRB replied
Top Bottom