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

Watchmen Trailer

Status
Not open for further replies.
i dont know what the fuss is about with the jail fight scene. i thought it was entertaining, not at all dull. but then again i have yet to get to this in the comics.

either way it was 10x better than the ridiculously dull and slow fight scene in tokyo in TDK.
 
Ashhong said:
i dont know what the fuss is about with the jail fight scene. i thought it was entertaining, not at all dull. but then again i have yet to get to this in the comics.

either way it was 10x better than the ridiculously dull and slow fight scene in tokyo in TDK.
Click to expand...

That one "fight" scene in TDK is pretty fast-paced actually. And having no retardedly unnecessary slomo makes it automatically the winner.

p.s. it was hong kong.
 
jett said:
That one "fight" scene in TDK is pretty fast-paced actually. And having no retardedly unnecessary slomo makes it automatically the winner.

p.s. it was hong kong.
Click to expand...

yeah it was great. especially when the chinese cops just stood there looking at batman.

is the jail clip the unedited scene from the REAL FILM? no. does every review claim that that slo-mo is minimal and used well? yes. so shut the fuck up about it already, jett.
 
jett said:
That one "fight" scene in TDK is pretty fast-paced actually. And having no retardedly unnecessary slomo makes it automatically the winner.

p.s. it was hong kong.
Click to expand...

the fight at the end at the construction site was pretty weak though. I'm not going to begrudge a movie that is not about action for having a somewhat iffy looking action scene.
 
StoOgE said:
the fight at the end at the construction site was pretty weak though. I'm not going to begrudge a movie that is not about action for having a somewhat iffy looking action scene.
Click to expand...
Fuck you man, that scene is fantastic.
 
jett said:
That one "fight" scene in TDK is pretty fast-paced actually. And having no retardedly unnecessary slomo makes it automatically the winner.

p.s. it was hong kong.
Click to expand...

my bad, memory slipped for a second. i wouldnt call it fact paced by any means though. dont get me wrong, i love the movie, but that one scene in particular stood out like a sore thumb when compared to the other action scenes. batman moved soooo slow and the thugs just stood there, waiting for batman to do his thing.

what are peoples issues with this jail scene though? action is snyderized, u cant hate on that at this point, some of them being especially badass.
 
JayDubya said:
This is an interesting, if very meta, point.
Click to expand...

Dude, that's what I've been saying all along -- just the other page I think I stated someting like how Snyder is a far better choice for Watchmen than Nolan ever would be, at least if you want to keep it somewhat in line with the comic.
 
Ashhong said:
my bad, memory slipped for a second. i wouldnt call it fact paced by any means though. dont get me wrong, i love the movie, but that one scene in particular stood out like a sore thumb when compared to the other action scenes. batman moved soooo slow and the thugs just stood there, waiting for batman to do his thing.

what are peoples issues with this jail scene though? action is snyderized, u cant hate on that at this point, some of them being especially badass.
Click to expand...

They stand there in TDK because Batman takes them by surprise; that's the entire point and way the fight scenes are supposed to be. Like, did you see the context for how the fight started? power goes out, dude jumps through a goddamn window hundreds of feel off the ground, and no one fucking expects Batman in Hong Kong.

The fight scene being "Snyderized" has nothing to do with how lame the Jail fight was. 300 may have been really dull, but some of the action scenes there were at least entertaining. This was probably most comparable to Star Wars Fan Films where it's so ridiculously bad you see a person holding out the lightsaber for 10 seconds before the guy actually attacks.

To be fair, most of the scenes with Manhattan look pretty cool. Rorschach's scenes, sadly, also seem pretty lame.
 
I don't know if this deserves its own thread, but here's a new, lengthy interview with Alan Moore and it's pretty damning of modern comic fans.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/17-03/ff_moore_qa?currentPage=all

Some choice quotes:

That sounds like the kind of thing a 30-year-old—or a 40-year-old, even—could be caught reading on the tube, upon the subway, without embarrassment. When I started work for DC Comics, I figured that my readership was probably somewhere between—they'd previously been 9 to 13 years old, and now they were around 13 to 18. The average age of the audience now for comics, and this has been the case since the late 1980s, probably is late thirties to early fifties—which tends to support the idea that these things are not being bought by children. They're being bought in many cases by hopeless nostalgics or, putting the worst construction on it, perhaps cases of arrested development who are not prepared to let their childhoods go, no matter how trite the adventures of their various heroes and idols.
Click to expand...

Instead it seemed that the existence of Watchmen had pretty much doomed the mainstream comic industry to about 20 years of very grim and often pretentious stories that seemed to be unable to get around the massive psychological stumbling block that Watchmen had turned out to be, although that had never been my intention with the work.
Click to expand...


I've got enough money to be comfortable. I live comfortably, I can pay the bills at the end of every month. I don't want a huge amount of money by diluting something that I happen to be rather proud of at its outset. That pretty much describes my attitude toward the idea of any of my works being realized in another form, really.
Click to expand...

If you haven't got any money, you're going to need lots and lots of imagination. Which is why you'll get brilliant movies by people working upon a shoestring, like the early John Waters movies. People are pushed into innovation by the restrictions of their budget. The opposite is true if they have $100 million, say, pulling a figure out of the air, to spend upon their film, then they somehow don't see the need for giving it a decent story or decent storytelling. It seems like those values just go completely out the window. There's an inverse relationship there.
Click to expand...
 
DevelopmentArrested said:
yeah it was great. especially when the chinese cops just stood there looking at batman.
Click to expand...
Hey if you had your criminal cornered in a room atop a skyscraper would YOU expect some airplane to pull him out with some newfangled technology? Didn't think so.
 
Buckethead said:
In Sin City's case if by "all style and no substance" you mean a great noir crime drama with interesting characters and some of the best performances in recent history then yeah.
Click to expand...


This. Mickey Rooney kicked butt as Marv.
 
neojubei said:
This. Mickey Rooney kicked butt as Marv.
Click to expand...

2jb8rac.jpg
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
Eh, what does he know anyways. I didn't even see his name on the Animated Comic. Are we sure he even wrote Watchmen?
Click to expand...

I thought it was written by the Visionary Zack Snyder?
 
reggieandTFE said:
I don't know if this deserves its own thread, but here's a new, lengthy interview with Alan Moore and it's pretty damning of modern comic fans.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/17-03/ff_moore_qa?currentPage=all

Some choice quotes:
Click to expand...

to supplement that, an article by devin faraci--who reviewed watchmen quite positively!--about superhero comics.

THE DEVIN'S ADVOCATE: THE NEW DEPRESSION MAY BE THE BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO COMICS

I love comic books. I love the medium as a way of telling stories; I think that like film it's a limitless form, one that can be used to tell any story and in any way. The marriage of art and words is magical, and opens so many doors for storytellers. Which is why it's so depressing that most of them remain closed in the world of mainstream comics. For longer than I've been alive the superhero has dominated the comic landscape; the phrase 'comic book movie' specifically means 'superhero movie.' The superhero is the face of comic books to the general public. I don't believe I have ever seen a medium so completely and fully dominated by one genre before. Imagine if the vast majority of movies available to the public were Westerns and you begin to see what the world of comic books - mainstream comic books - is like.

And this is very, very bad. Superheroes are very, very bad. They're like 50 year old hookers chainsmoking on the corner: used up, their best days behind them, appealing only to the most debased, most awful people. The fanbase for superhero comics in this day and age tends to be a devolved group clinging to degrading psychosexual power fantasies that take them away from their daily powerlessness. White males on the sidelines of society who are attached to juvenile escapades and repetitive, stunted storytelling. I'm beginning to look at adults who are deeply immersed in superheroes the way I would look at a grown man eating baby food for lunch. Except that I would say the baby food guy is at least getting some nourishment.
Click to expand...

not sure i agree, but. . . :lol
 
Alan Moore said:
When I returned to work for—well, I didn't return. I was kind of press-ganged. I had DC buying the company I had just signed contracts with, which is flattering in one way and very creepy in another. It's like being stalked by a very rich demented girlfriend who can just buy your entire street in order to be close to you.
Click to expand...

:lol

It must be really hard to be on the other side of an argument with this dude.
 
So what's the deal with all that "visionary" BS? Honestly, it's a reworking of a comic. I'm sure it was tough job and all, but visionary? Come on. It's kinda ridiculous that they put that in the trailer.
 
Surprised no one quoted this bit:

Wired: Could you do it in another medium?

Moore: No. Otherwise I'd have done them in another medium. I really don't think that The League would—well, it could have worked. There was a time I would have said that if any of my books could work as films, it would have been that first volume of The League. It was pretty much structured so it could have been made straight into a film, and it would have been as powerful as it was in the original publication. But that is to overlook the proclivities of contemporary Hollywood, where I really simply don't believe that any of my books could be benefited in any way by being turned into films. In fact, quite the opposite. The things I was trying to instill in those books were generally things that were only appropriate to the comics medium.
They were only about the comics medium, in a certain sense. To transplant them to the screen is going to chop off a good 30 or 40 percent of the reason why I wanted to do the work in the first place.

...

A lot of the effects in The League, the things that everybody remembers, they're kind of peculiar to the comic book. If you make The League into a film, even if you continue to, say, "remain faithful to my story or my dialog"—I mean, that is so unlikely as to be absolutely impossible, but say that that was to happen. What about Kevin's artwork? Kevin's artwork is so integral to the whole feel of The League that it couldn't be done with anyone other than Kevin. I think that he is probably one of the greatest and most individual artists working in the medium at the moment because his influences, his styles, come more from British illustration, British comics, than they come from the other side of the Atlantic. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but an awful lot of the people over here, myself included, were probably more influenced by the American material when we were growing up than we were by what was, in retrospect, brilliant British material. Kevin has always had an absurdist, grotesque British undercurrent to his work.
I think the material he's doing on this new volume—I know I say this with every new volume of The League—but I think it's Kevin's best work yet. But it always is. I really can't say anything different. It's extraordinary. He's surpassed himself again.

In a film, it's not a Kevin O'Neill drawing. I don't care how much CGI there is in it. It's not a Kevin O'Neill drawing. When I am thinking about The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, it's Kevin's drawings that I want to see, Kevin's storytelling, or the storytelling that is the combination of both of our efforts. These are the things that are important to me about The League.

It's like the idea about the Spirit film that's being done. I mean, I would have thought that it was fairly obvious that The Spirit is not about a guy who wears a blue mask and who fights crime from his supposed grave in a cemetery. What The Spirit is actually about is the panels on the page, the way that the eye moves from one panel to another. It's from the innovative shapes and layouts and designs that Will Eisner brought to the medium. You can't translate that into a film. Much as Eisner loved the film medium and tried to get as many techniques to comics as possible, there are things about the Will Eisner page you simply cannot translate back into cinema. I think Will would have certainly been intelligent enough to know that.

I think that adaptation is largely a waste of time in almost any circumstances. There probably are the odd things that would prove me wrong. But I think they'd be very much the exception. If a thing works well in one medium, in the medium that it has been designed to work in, then the only possible point for wanting to realize it on "multiple platforms," as they say these days, is to make a lot of money out of it. There is no consideration for the integrity of the work, which is rather the only thing as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
 
ItsInMyVeins said:
So what's the deal with all that "visionary" BS? Honestly, it's a reworking of a comic. I'm sure it was tough job and all, but visionary? Come on. It's kinda ridiculous that they put that in the trailer.
Click to expand...


just marketing. take it as seriously as you would a commercial about the stain-fighting power of kaboom.
 
And a nice post script for everyone:

Alan Moore said:
I've never watched any of the adaptations of my books. I've never wanted to, and there's absolutely no chance of me doing so in the future. So I haven't really suffered through them, although there has been a certain amount of irritation and outrageous behavior on the part of the comic industry and the movie industry that I have suffered through. But I've gone into this at bitter and ranting length elsewhere. I'm sure that people can look up the relevant articles have they a wish to.

My books are still the same books as they were before they were made into films. The books haven't changed. I'm reminded of the remark by, I think it was Raymond Chandler, where he was asked about what he felt about having his books "ruined" by Hollywood. And he led the questioner into his study and showed him all the books there on the bookshelf, and said, Look—there they all are. They're all fine. They're fine. They're not ruined. They're still there. And I think that's pretty much the attitude I take. If the books are as good as I think they are, then they are the things that will endure. And if the films are as bad as I think they are, then they are the things that will not endure. So, I suppose we'll see at the end of the day, whenever that is.
Click to expand...

Everyone wins!
 
StoOgE said:
the fight at the end at the construction site was pretty weak though. I'm not going to begrudge a movie that is not about action for having a somewhat iffy looking action scene.
Click to expand...


Yeah it was a let down compared to the end of Batman 1
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
Surprised no one quoted this bit:
Click to expand...
Why would you be surprised? Most people who know anything about Moore already knows his stance on the subject.
 
what's alan moore's stance on the inside of empty pizza boxes? inexpensive source of cheese?

also, what does he think of the snake gods only recently coming to the fore? can their holy venom lead us to enlightenment?
 
beelzebozo said:
what's alan moore's stance on the inside of empty pizza boxes? inexpensive source of cheese?

also, what does he think of the snake gods only recently coming to the fore? can their holy venom lead us to enlightenment?
Click to expand...

I am sure if you ask him you will receive twenty well worded paragraphs of explanation.
 
i like moore's writing, which is really all that matters.

i'm not sure him saying "if the books are as good as i think they are. . . " is too cool, though.

personal opinion, alan, but if you're talking about watchmen? yes, it's that good. otherwise? no, it's not nearly as good as you think it is.
 
I think Moore, for me, will always be one of those authors who I don't particularly agree with most of the time in interviews but I still really enjoy what he makes. He just comes across as really bitter and self-important most of the time which is funny because his books don't really read that way.
 
beelzebozo said:
i like moore's writing, which is really all that matters.

i'm not sure him saying "if the books are as good as i think they are. . . " is too cool, though.

personal opinion, alan, but if you're talking about watchmen? yes, it's that good. otherwise? no, it's not nearly as good as you think it is.
Click to expand...

That actually kind of cuts the other way, though. Most of the other adaptations of Moore's work have been fucking terrible and eminently forgettable. V is arguably alright but was mangled quite heavily in the adaptive process.
 
yeah, i definitely think as a movie v for vendetta was weak. but i wasn't so wild about the book either, so there's that. it was certainly better than the flick, to be fair, so maybe he's just making that comparison and not speaking about the overall quality of the books.
 
JayDubya said:
That actually kind of cuts the other ways, though. Most of the other adaptations of Moore's work have been fucking terrible and eminently forgettable. V is arguably alright but was mangled quite heavily in the adaptive process.
Click to expand...


Yup, as decent as V was, according to Moore, the Wachowski siblings missed the point entirely.
 
As far as I'm concerned, a film adaptation of a book or comic or whatever is analogous to another composer's arrangement of a piece of music. Borrowed themes, ideas, etc. but it's a work of its own and has no bearing on the original.

It's ridiculously childish to get upset over someone else's re-imagining of your ideas. That said, it's so easy to fall into that when your work is being re-imagined for a medium that just naturally reaches a much wider audience.

The book will long endure over the movie, but I'll see the movie and probably like it. The movie will come out, profits will be made, and DVDs will sell to those who want them, and that will be that. Move along.
 
HappyBivouac said:
As far as I'm concerned, a film adaptation of a book or comic or whatever is analogous to another composer's arrangement of a piece of music. Borrowed themes, ideas, etc. but it's a work of its own and has no bearing on the original.

It's ridiculously childish to get upset over someone else's re-imagining of your ideas. That said, it's so easy to fall into that when your work is being re-imagined for a medium that just naturally reaches a much wider audience.

The book will long endure over the movie, but I'll see the movie and probably like it. The movie will come out, profits will be made, and DVDs will sell to those who want them, and that will be that. Move along.
Click to expand...

Moore agrees with you.
 
JayDubya said:
That actually kind of cuts the other way, though. Most of the other adaptations of Moore's work have been fucking terrible and eminently forgettable. V is arguably alright but was mangled quite heavily in the adaptive process.
Click to expand...

I think V for Vendetta is a pretty damn good movie. But I haven't read the comic, though.
 
JayDubya said:
That actually kind of cuts the other way, though. Most of the other adaptations of Moore's work have been fucking terrible and eminently forgettable. V is arguably alright but was mangled quite heavily in the adaptive process.
Click to expand...

I haven't read V for Vendetta, but from most people I've heard the movie missed the entire point of the comic. The movie apparently downplayed anarchy as "freedom for all" or something righteous.

In any case, the movie is well made and has solid performances from Hugo Weaving and the supporting cast.
 
dmshaposv said:
I haven't read V for Vendetta, but from most people I've heard the movie missed the entire point of the comic. The movie apparently downplayed anarchy as "freedom for all" or something righteous.

In any case, the movie is well made and has solid performances from Hugo Weaving and the supporting cast.
Click to expand...

Anarchy never really plays a big part in the movie as far as I'm concerned. It's more about a struggle against a totalitarian government and breaking free from it. It might be totally different from the comic -- which I haven read, then -- but I liked the movie either way. And if it's so different then it's almost better, since I can still read the book and pretty much get a different story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Leviticus trailer
13
575
Itchy.Tasty. replied
Saccharine Trailer
3
233
Dirk Benedict replied
Passenger Trailer
3
262
SJRB replied
Affection Trailer (2026)
9
485
poodaddy replied
Hershey Trailer (2026)
15
612
p_xavier replied
Top Bottom