-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Watchmen Trailer
- Thread starter ezekial45
- Start date
- Status
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Blader5489 said:
Exactly. Guys, Ozy in the comics *made himself an action figure*.
The dude was all about image and marketing, and quite cheesy despite his intellect.
This outfit looks about how goofy Ozy would look in live action. It's called counterpoint
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Ozy's look was my first, and still my biggest, misgiving about this film.
Slo-mo is my second.
Slo-mo is my second.
CajoleJuice
Member
Now that I've read the comic...
Ozy :lol
Ozy :lol
Pai Pai Master
Banned
Kaijima said:Exactly. Guys, Ozy in the comics *made himself an action figure*.
The dude was all about image and marketing, and quite cheesy despite his intellect.
This outfit looks about how goofy Ozy would look in live action. It's called counterpoint
.
Catalix
And on the sixth day the LORD David Bowie created man and woman in His image. And he saw that it was good. On the seventh day the LORD created videogames so that He might take the bloody day off for once.
While I do admit that both costumes for comic and movie Ozy look completely ridiculous, pencil-necked Matthew Goode =/= Adrian Viedt.Blader5489 said:
He just doen't pull it off overall (visually).
Skiptastic
Member
I think that if this movie was made ten years ago, Tom Cruise would have been perfect for Ozy. See, in my reading of Watchmen, Ozy isn't supposed to really look intimidating. He's the smartest guy in the room, and you wouldn't expect him to be fucking superbuff. He's supposed to kind of be a teen hearthrob looking dude, which is why it's dark as fuck
That was always my interpretation at least. Who knows? Maybe watching the movie I will confirm or refute that logic.
when he takes the actions he takes to bring peace to the world.
That was always my interpretation at least. Who knows? Maybe watching the movie I will confirm or refute that logic.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Kaijima said:Exactly. Guys, Ozy in the comics *made himself an action figure*.
The dude was all about image and marketing, and quite cheesy despite his intellect.
This outfit looks about how goofy Ozy would look in live action. It's called counterpoint
The problem is:
You keep the 50's aesthetic
You keep the time setting
You throw in the worst fucking Nixon this side of that show Liz Lemon's idol worked on
You solidify every stylistic decision in the graphic novel
And then you make costumes, all down the line, proto-nineties.
It's incongruous, no matter what Ozy is supposed to represent. The costumes designed in the book fit completely into the world they inhabited. They were a bit deco, a bit static, a bit retro, just like Gunga Diner and every other fucking thing that's been brought from the book to the movie.
Oh, but the costumes. No, man. You don't get it. That's a Schumaker riff, man!
The Lamonster
Member
You make a good point. Another good point is who gives a fuck about the costumes.BenjaminBirdie said:
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
The Lamonster said:
Yeah, you probably won't see them too much.
BenjaminBirdie said:
Because the time setting, the 80s aesthetic (50s?), and the Nixon subplot are all integral to establishing the kind of world that Watchmen exists in. The colors of Ozy's costume? Not so much. The basic point--that the costume is another manifestation of Ozy's ego--still remains, and that's what really matters.
CajoleJuice
Member
:lolBenjaminBirdie said:
But with regards to Ozy, it's not so much the costume as the guy IN the costume.
polyh3dron
Banned
So will this movie be R-rated?
beelzebozo
Jealous Bastard
CajoleJuice said:
as played by niles crane
who watches the tossed salads and scrambled eggs? mercy
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Blader5489 said:
Colors? I don't give a shit about the colors. Gibbons designed some of the most iconic costumes ever with a ridiculous attention to even textural detail and at no point did even a glove look like it was made from foam rubber like these monstrosities. They're clearly adhering to this bizarre aesthetic that seems to work with focus groups (I guess?) and are playing it off as a reference to two movies no one ever gave a shit about.
Catalix
And on the sixth day the LORD David Bowie created man and woman in His image. And he saw that it was good. On the seventh day the LORD created videogames so that He might take the bloody day off for once.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Er.... Ozy looks fucking awesome! Get over with it people! 
StrikerObi
Member
Catalix said:
Nothing really here yet
There's a new Featurette on quicktime.com about taking the photo of the original Minutemen. Also the new video podcast is out.
I don't understand all the hate about the Ozy costume. Who cares? It's not going to change how the guy acts.
The Lamonster
Member
This is a complaint that I can agree with! Guy looks like he's 19 years old.CajoleJuice said:
Hope he can act...
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
I completely understand the look they are going for with these guys. I'm reading Watchmen now, and they are making it very clear how by the time it's story takes place, public is seeing these guys as somewhat of a joke, an obsolete thing from the past dressed in an uncool, cheesy costumes. Why is it then a surprise that the movie is going for a cheesy uncool look as well?
This is true though. He's supposed to be older and retired, some of his back story explains what's he done in his youth etc, how much time he spent on everything and whatnot. Makes no sense to have him look this young.The Lamonster said:
An Open Letter From 'Watchmen' Producers
"Watchmen. A producer's perspective.
An open letter.
Who is right? In the Watchmen dispute between Warner Brothers and Fox that question is being discussed, analyzed, argued, tried and ruled on in a court of law. That's one way to answer the question - It is a fallback position in our society for parties in conflict to resolve disputes. And there are teams of lawyers and a highly regarded Federal Judge trying to do just that, which obviates any contribution I could make towards answering the "who is right" question within a legal context. But after 15 plus years of involvement in the project, and a decade more than that working in the movie business, I have another perspective, a personal perspective that I believe important to have on the public record.
No one is more keenly aware of the irony of this dispute than Larry Gordon and I who have been trying to get this movie made for many years. There's a list of people who have rejected the viability of a movie based on Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's classic graphic novel that reads like a who's who of Hollywood.
We've been told the graphic novel is unfilmable.
After 9/11 some felt the story's themes were too close to reality ever to be palatable to a mainstream audience.
There were those who considered the project but who wished it were somehow different: Could it be a buddy movie, or a team-up movie or could it focus on one main character; did it have to be so dark; did so many people have to die; could it be stripped of its flashback structure; could storylines be eliminated; could new storylines be invented; did it have to be so long; could the blue guy put clothes on... The list of dissatisfactions for what Watchmen is was as endless as the list of suggestions to make it something it never was.
Also endless are the list of studio rejections we accrued over the years. Larry and I developed screenplays at five different studios. We had two false starts in production on the movie. We were involved with prominent and commercial directors. Big name stars were interested. In one instance hundreds of people were employed, sets were being built - An A-list director and top artists in the industry were given their walking papers when the studio financing the movie lost faith.
After all these years of rejection, this is the same project, the same movie, over which two studios are now spending millions of dollars contesting ownership. Irony indeed, and then some.
Through the years, inverse of the lack of studio faith has been the passionate belief by many many individuals - movie professionals who were also passionate fans of the graphic novel - who, yes, wanted to work on the film, but more for reasons of just wanting to see the movie get made, to see this movie get made and made right, donated their time and talent to help push the film forward: Writers gave us free screenplay drafts; conceptual art was supplied by illustrators, tests were performed gratis by highly respected actors and helped along and put together by editors, designers, prop makers and vfx artists; we were the recipients of donated studio and work space, lighting and camera equipment. Another irony, given the commercial stakes implied by the pitched legal dispute between Fox and Warners, is that for years Watchmen has been a project that has survived on the fumes of whatever could be begged, borrowed and stolen - A charity case for all intents and purposes. None of that effort, none of that passion and emotional involvement, is considered in the framework of this legal dispute.
From my point of view, the flashpoint of this dispute, came in late spring of 2005. Both Fox and Warner Brothers were offered the chance to make Watchmen. They were submitted the same package, at the same time. It included a cover letter describing the project and its history, budget information, a screenplay, the graphic novel, and it made mention that a top director was involved.
And it's at this point, where the response from both parties could not have been more radically different.
The response we got from Fox was a flat "pass." That's it. An internal Fox email documents that executives there felt the script was one of the most unintelligible pieces of shit they had read in years. Conversely, Warner Brothers called us after having read the script and said they were interested in the movie - yes, they were unsure of the screenplay, and had many questions, but wanted to set a meeting to discuss the project, which they promptly did. Did anyone at Fox ask to meet on the movie? No. Did anyone at Fox express any interest in the movie? No. Express even the slightest interest in the movie? Or the graphic novel? No.
From there, the executives at Warner Brothers, who weren't yet completely comfortable with the movie, made a deal to acquire the movie rights and we all started to creatively explore the possibility of making Watchmen. We discussed creative approaches and started offering the movie to directors, our former director having moved on by then. After a few director submissions, Zack Snyder came onboard, well before the release of his movie 300. In fact, well before its completion. This was a gut, creative call by Larry, me and the studio... Zack didn't have a huge commercial track record, yet we all felt he was the right guy for the movie.
Warner Brothers continued to support, both financially and creatively, the development of the movie. And eventually, after over a year of work, they agreed to make the film, based on a script that, for what it's worth, was by and large very similar to the one Fox initially read and deemed an unintelligible piece of shit.
Now here's the part that has to be fully appreciated, if for nothing more than providing insight into producing movies in Hollywood: The Watchmen script was way above the norm in length, near 150 pages, meaning the film could clock in at close to 3 hours, the movie would not only be R rated but a hard R - for graphic violence and explicit sex - would feature no stars, and had a budget north of $100M. We also asked Warner Brothers to support an additional 1 to 1.5 hours of content incurring additional cost that would tie in with the movie but only be featured in DVD iterations of the film. Warners supported the whole package and I cannot begin to emphasize how ballsy and unprecedented a move this was on the part of a major Hollywood studio. Unheard of. And would another studio in Hollywood, let alone a studio that didn't show one shred of interest in the movie, not one, have taken such a risk? Would they ever have made such a commitment, a commitment to a film that defied all conventional wisdom?
Only the executives at Fox can answer that question. But if they were to be honest, their answer would have to be "No."
Shouldn't Warner Brothers be entitled to the spoils - if any -- of the risk they took in supporting and making Watchmen? Should Fox have any claim on something they could have had but chose to neither support nor show any interest in?
Look at it another way... One reason the movie was made was because Warner Brothers spent the time, effort and money to engage with and develop the project. If Watchmen was at Fox the decision to make the movie would never have been made because there was no interest in moving forward with the project.
Does a film studio have the right to stand in the way of an artistic endeavor and determine that it shouldn't exist? If the project had been sequestered at Fox, if Fox had any say in the matter, Watchmen simply wouldn't exist today, and there would be no film for Fox to lay claim on. It seems beyond cynical for the studio to claim ownership at this point.
By his own admission, Judge Feess is faced with an extremely complex legal case, with a contradictory contractual history, making it difficult to ascertain what is legally right. Are there circumstances here that are more meaningful, which shed light on what is ultimately just, to be taken into account when assessing who is right? In this case, what is morally right, beyond the minutiae of decades-old contractual semantics, seems clear cut.
For the sake of the artists involved, for the hundreds of people, executives and filmmakers, actors and crew, who invested their time, their money, and dedicated a good portion of their lives in order to bring this extraordinary project to life, the question of what is right is clear and unambiguous - Fox should stand down with its claim.
My father, who was a lawyer and a stickler for the minutiae of the law, was always quick to teach me that the determination of what is right and wrong was not the sole purview of the courts. I bet someone at Fox had a parent like mine who instilled the same sense of fairness and justice in them.
Lloyd Levin"
http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12...09-1-8-an-open-letter-from-watchmen-producers
"Watchmen. A producer's perspective.
An open letter.
Who is right? In the Watchmen dispute between Warner Brothers and Fox that question is being discussed, analyzed, argued, tried and ruled on in a court of law. That's one way to answer the question - It is a fallback position in our society for parties in conflict to resolve disputes. And there are teams of lawyers and a highly regarded Federal Judge trying to do just that, which obviates any contribution I could make towards answering the "who is right" question within a legal context. But after 15 plus years of involvement in the project, and a decade more than that working in the movie business, I have another perspective, a personal perspective that I believe important to have on the public record.
No one is more keenly aware of the irony of this dispute than Larry Gordon and I who have been trying to get this movie made for many years. There's a list of people who have rejected the viability of a movie based on Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's classic graphic novel that reads like a who's who of Hollywood.
We've been told the graphic novel is unfilmable.
After 9/11 some felt the story's themes were too close to reality ever to be palatable to a mainstream audience.
There were those who considered the project but who wished it were somehow different: Could it be a buddy movie, or a team-up movie or could it focus on one main character; did it have to be so dark; did so many people have to die; could it be stripped of its flashback structure; could storylines be eliminated; could new storylines be invented; did it have to be so long; could the blue guy put clothes on... The list of dissatisfactions for what Watchmen is was as endless as the list of suggestions to make it something it never was.
Also endless are the list of studio rejections we accrued over the years. Larry and I developed screenplays at five different studios. We had two false starts in production on the movie. We were involved with prominent and commercial directors. Big name stars were interested. In one instance hundreds of people were employed, sets were being built - An A-list director and top artists in the industry were given their walking papers when the studio financing the movie lost faith.
After all these years of rejection, this is the same project, the same movie, over which two studios are now spending millions of dollars contesting ownership. Irony indeed, and then some.
Through the years, inverse of the lack of studio faith has been the passionate belief by many many individuals - movie professionals who were also passionate fans of the graphic novel - who, yes, wanted to work on the film, but more for reasons of just wanting to see the movie get made, to see this movie get made and made right, donated their time and talent to help push the film forward: Writers gave us free screenplay drafts; conceptual art was supplied by illustrators, tests were performed gratis by highly respected actors and helped along and put together by editors, designers, prop makers and vfx artists; we were the recipients of donated studio and work space, lighting and camera equipment. Another irony, given the commercial stakes implied by the pitched legal dispute between Fox and Warners, is that for years Watchmen has been a project that has survived on the fumes of whatever could be begged, borrowed and stolen - A charity case for all intents and purposes. None of that effort, none of that passion and emotional involvement, is considered in the framework of this legal dispute.
From my point of view, the flashpoint of this dispute, came in late spring of 2005. Both Fox and Warner Brothers were offered the chance to make Watchmen. They were submitted the same package, at the same time. It included a cover letter describing the project and its history, budget information, a screenplay, the graphic novel, and it made mention that a top director was involved.
And it's at this point, where the response from both parties could not have been more radically different.
The response we got from Fox was a flat "pass." That's it. An internal Fox email documents that executives there felt the script was one of the most unintelligible pieces of shit they had read in years. Conversely, Warner Brothers called us after having read the script and said they were interested in the movie - yes, they were unsure of the screenplay, and had many questions, but wanted to set a meeting to discuss the project, which they promptly did. Did anyone at Fox ask to meet on the movie? No. Did anyone at Fox express any interest in the movie? No. Express even the slightest interest in the movie? Or the graphic novel? No.
From there, the executives at Warner Brothers, who weren't yet completely comfortable with the movie, made a deal to acquire the movie rights and we all started to creatively explore the possibility of making Watchmen. We discussed creative approaches and started offering the movie to directors, our former director having moved on by then. After a few director submissions, Zack Snyder came onboard, well before the release of his movie 300. In fact, well before its completion. This was a gut, creative call by Larry, me and the studio... Zack didn't have a huge commercial track record, yet we all felt he was the right guy for the movie.
Warner Brothers continued to support, both financially and creatively, the development of the movie. And eventually, after over a year of work, they agreed to make the film, based on a script that, for what it's worth, was by and large very similar to the one Fox initially read and deemed an unintelligible piece of shit.
Now here's the part that has to be fully appreciated, if for nothing more than providing insight into producing movies in Hollywood: The Watchmen script was way above the norm in length, near 150 pages, meaning the film could clock in at close to 3 hours, the movie would not only be R rated but a hard R - for graphic violence and explicit sex - would feature no stars, and had a budget north of $100M. We also asked Warner Brothers to support an additional 1 to 1.5 hours of content incurring additional cost that would tie in with the movie but only be featured in DVD iterations of the film. Warners supported the whole package and I cannot begin to emphasize how ballsy and unprecedented a move this was on the part of a major Hollywood studio. Unheard of. And would another studio in Hollywood, let alone a studio that didn't show one shred of interest in the movie, not one, have taken such a risk? Would they ever have made such a commitment, a commitment to a film that defied all conventional wisdom?
Only the executives at Fox can answer that question. But if they were to be honest, their answer would have to be "No."
Shouldn't Warner Brothers be entitled to the spoils - if any -- of the risk they took in supporting and making Watchmen? Should Fox have any claim on something they could have had but chose to neither support nor show any interest in?
Look at it another way... One reason the movie was made was because Warner Brothers spent the time, effort and money to engage with and develop the project. If Watchmen was at Fox the decision to make the movie would never have been made because there was no interest in moving forward with the project.
Does a film studio have the right to stand in the way of an artistic endeavor and determine that it shouldn't exist? If the project had been sequestered at Fox, if Fox had any say in the matter, Watchmen simply wouldn't exist today, and there would be no film for Fox to lay claim on. It seems beyond cynical for the studio to claim ownership at this point.
By his own admission, Judge Feess is faced with an extremely complex legal case, with a contradictory contractual history, making it difficult to ascertain what is legally right. Are there circumstances here that are more meaningful, which shed light on what is ultimately just, to be taken into account when assessing who is right? In this case, what is morally right, beyond the minutiae of decades-old contractual semantics, seems clear cut.
For the sake of the artists involved, for the hundreds of people, executives and filmmakers, actors and crew, who invested their time, their money, and dedicated a good portion of their lives in order to bring this extraordinary project to life, the question of what is right is clear and unambiguous - Fox should stand down with its claim.
My father, who was a lawyer and a stickler for the minutiae of the law, was always quick to teach me that the determination of what is right and wrong was not the sole purview of the courts. I bet someone at Fox had a parent like mine who instilled the same sense of fairness and justice in them.
Lloyd Levin"
http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12...09-1-8-an-open-letter-from-watchmen-producers
I still haven't warmed up to Ozy. It's mostly the details that's bothering me at this point. like the hair and the halo-thing he has in it. and the design of the mask, etc...
And the Black Freighter is going to be animated, right? Do we know who's doing the animation? It would be interesting to know.
And the Black Freighter is going to be animated, right? Do we know who's doing the animation? It would be interesting to know.
Randy Lanzarote
Member
I'll agree Ozzy looks a bit shit, but then given Nite-Owl doesn't look that much better I've just come to the conclusion that we'll just have to put up with those awful rubber suits. He doesn't seem to have the screen presence either, but then maybe that's the point... :/
Still, Watchmen isn't just about the suits, its about the messed up individuals inside of them
And jailbreaks (I hope that scene is left intact)
Still, Watchmen isn't just about the suits, its about the messed up individuals inside of them
And jailbreaks (I hope that scene is left intact)
â Narayan
Member
I hate Ozy.
They nailed everyone except him.
They nailed everyone except him.
Thank god WB has made a killing on TDK in the past year (amongst many other things that WB makes a lot of money on), because Watchmen looks like a disastrous situation. Combine the film's budget with whatever ludicrous amount they'll pay to settle with FOX, and the fact that the property itself doesnt exactly scream box office titan, and you've got a financial picture that isnt too bright.
U K Narayan said:
U K Narayan
the carnival of stupid
(Today, 03:52 PM)
Reply | Quote
You know, it's one thing bitching about not being true to the source material, and another one altogether not to even try and realize what they're trying to achieve with not being true to the material. It's still true in spirit. Get over it.
The Lamonster
Member
And the "R" rating...BobLoblaw said:
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
OuterWorldVoice said:
maybe looks-wise.. but i would rather have a capable actor, than someone who looks 100% the part.
bloodforge
Member
BobLoblaw said:
Anything less than 3hours will be a disappointment.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
He's at 10% as is.quadriplegicjon said:
StoOgE said:
Yes, just not with respect to Batman or James Bond. Unfortunately, this is GAF, and Batman composes 75% of the discussion, so my box office prediction missteps get amplified 1000 times over :lol
Anyways, you guys all misread my post - I wasnt saying that the film wont do decent at the box office (Im really not sure one way or the other), but rather that its STARTING OUT in a rather huge hole (because this settlement wont be a small figure at all), so it has to perform all that much better than a regular release would.
bloodforge said:
I don't see the length of a film determining its quality.
In fact I'm happy they are skipping "Tales of the black freighter" parts as they were perhaps the most dullest portions in the novel. A tighter script focusing only on the main plot
(comedian's murder and the series of events which take place after)
Valkyr Junkie
Member
bloodforge said:
155 minutes for theatrical cut, 190 for minutes for director's cut, and 220 for the extended version with the Black Freighter inserted.
- Status