Watchmen

I'm kind of looking forward to this. It could be very good if a lot of care is put into it. No, I doubt very much we'll get the entire book put word for word on the big screen. People are deluding themselves if they think they are. There are, I'm sure, bits that can be compressed and some that can be shortened and still get the full effect of the story. I'd just like to see Nite-Owl's ship and Dr. Manhattan Godzilla-ing his way across Vietnam in live action, those could be impressive bits, I'm sure.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

Much to my chagrin, cuts will of course be made. I wouldn't be opposed to cuts and alterations if this story wasn't so tightly woven (with the exception of the pirate story, which could be omitted); but at the same time, I won't whine like an elitist over it. Condensation of the story notwithstanding, the film still has the potential to be very good.

That said, I can't see them including much of anything past the "evil plot" surface story in 2+ hours. There's just no way. Perhaps they might illustrate Rorschach's subplot, but I can't see them including Doc Manhattan's subplot (which is a shame, since it's so philosophically driven)... nor anything about the Minute Men, the Comedian's history, or any of that. And that's all very, very crucial.

Just as long as they don't hover over one "main" character, and keep it an ensemble piece, I think the film might stay afloat. The fact that the story deals with an ensemble of differing characters (politically, ideologically, emotionally) lends itself directly to the thesis of the story: that costumed heroes aren't detached from the world, but rather (and quite alarmingly) products of it themselves. Like the book asks, "Who watches the watchmen?" Should these various personalities even be allowed to champion protection for the rest of us, when they're as dysfunctional and self-destructive as we are? If these characters aren't adequately drawn out and realized, that thesis won't translate.

Being (probably the second) biggest WATCHMEN fan here, I just hope the whatever is cut out is put back in, like Lord of the Rings on DVD.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

March 15, 2007 - 300 director Zack Snyder's next film will indeed be the long-awaited feature adaptation of the Alan Moore/Dave Gibbons graphic novel classic Watchmen, although the budget on the film is reportedly looming towards $150 million. That's quite a hefty price tag for a dark, adult comic book movie without sequel or franchise potential.

Snyder believes that he and the producers can bring the Warners film in for less than that. "I think it can. We have ideas and I think there's a way to do it," Snyder told ComicBookResources.com. "I really don't know yet. We're trying to get something together to show the studio right now and we're hoping to get that as low as we can."

The helmer cautions, however, that "none of this is real yet. The reality is that it's still an R rated movie, it's an R rated super hero movie, something that's never been tested before and no one knows what the hell that means. But I think if you went to see 300, I would hope that you'd go see Watchmen."

Snyder also commented on those recent reports that Tom Cruise was interested at one point in playing Ozymandias, saying simply, "I don't think he's doing it."

The helmer also advised fans that, while he expects his film to be faithful to the source material, they should expect some minor alterations to Watchmen when it comes to the silver screen.

"A lot of what we're doing will look exactly as it does in the book, but there are a couple of things we'll update, like the girls. Not update in the sense that it won't be 1985, it'll still be 1985, but to give them a little sexier look or to update the outfits a bit," he explained. "I think Rorschach will look exactly as he does. Dr. Manhattan will look probably exactly as he does. Night Owl will be pretty close, but we're trying to make him look a little scarier."

-IGN

please...please....noooo toooom cruuuuuuise

__________________

If Tom Cruise passes, thank Christ. He's a fine actor, but he's not right for Ozymandias.

And this bothers me:

I'm impressed that, as of right now, they're opting to keep the story set in 1985; and that Rorschach and Doc Manhattan will look identical to Dave Gibbons' designs. But I don't agree with the reasons for changing Nite Owl's (and presumably the Silk Spectre's) designs. Why sexier and scarier? Nite Owl is supposed to look like his character: a washed up superhero trying to be Batman (hence the absurdity of an owl costume)... he better still have a plump middle. And the Silk Spectre's costume doesn't need to be sexy for sexy's sake: although it's a very "Paris tramp"-like costume, that's important because Laurie is a plain woman and never wanted to be a hero. The actress they cast better reflect that plainness, and not be a knock-out just for the sake of eye candy.

These may be superficial gripes to early information, but I really believe that the art direction should follow Gibbons' designs as closely as possible, because they're as iconic as they are appropriate.

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/watch...-the-comedian/

He wouldn't be my choice.

I read an article in my local paper about how women were portrayed in comics. Mostly suggesting that ones created by men tend to be nothing more than to excite the fantasies of the more desperate of the comic readers. With that said, if this is the angle that they're seriously going for then the creators need to sit down, re-read the story and realize that it's not about sexier and scarier. I don't want this movie to be an "updated" version of the already widely popular story. Hell, look at V for Vendetta, well bad example when you think of the current political propoganda but they updated it in the right way.

What's interesting, though, is that Zack Snyder is claiming he's going to stick with the 1985 timeline, where Richard Nixon is still president. If that's the case, then the script might as well just straight translate the original story as is. Otherwise, what would be the point in retaining the timeline?

So there shouldn't be any real "updating" to be done, hopefully.

But who am I kidding? Given the current market, trying to sell a superhero film without stylish costumes, flashy CGI action sequences, and a pseudo-scifi flavor is next to impossible. I'm still apprehensive.

Hiya Sleezy! How have you been? Haven't seen you 'round the boards much these days... Hope all is well!

__________________

It's not exactly common, but it can certainly be done. Batman Begins is a great example that doesn't fall victim to any of the things you mentioned, but made plenty of money and was adored by fans and critics alike. Granted, this is the exception, but I think it's possible, given enough admiration for the source material.

Agreed. Although, I would argue that Zack Snyder and friends have got a larger burden of responsibility resting on their shoulders: they've got to make good on a story that hasn't been adapted yet, whereas Batman Begins enjoyed the freedom of being the restart of a fallen franchise. Not only did Christopher Nolan have a few good examples of what not to do, but he also had the luxury of feeling like if Begins didn't go over well following a crappy sequel, it wouldn't have been as big a deal than if it had followed a stellar sequel, or had been the flagship film. Watchmen, being a flagship film with no second chances or sequels to save it, has got to be more careful.

Hey man. Eh, work has been killing me, plus I've had some car/financial troubles recently. I'm starting to see a light at the end of the tunnel, I think... knocking on my wooden computer desk as I type that.

Yeah, finances are tough for me these days, too. Keep on keepin' on!

[Fred Durst]Gotta keep on rollin' babyyyyyy[/Fred Durst]

It's been a long day.

Thanks guys for the well-wishes, and back 'atcha.

Hey, Sleezy. Nice to see you again.

This movie kinda interested me, but if Tom Cruise agrees, I'll have to pass on this one.

__________________

Here's the one sheet for Watchmen......

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...cc1996e40aa673

Unless they are casting for flashbacks, Carla Gugino is way too young.

I had no idea they were even casting the film. All the picks so far are decent, I guess, with the exception of Matthew Goode. Why not just cast Robert Redford and be done with it? Adrian Veidt is arguably the most important role, and you'd want a veteran actor in there to do it justice (besides the fact that Alan Moore himself modeled the character's look and personality after Redford anyway).

Actually, now that I think about it, Malin Akerman is too hot to play Laurie, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan isn't gruff enough to play the Comedian. But hey, maybe they're casting this ensemble by way of screen tests. As long as they get the characters right and they have chemistry, I'm happy.

Why, what's wrong with Matthew Goode? He was the best thing in Match Point and Imagine Me and You. Surely better than Tom Cruise, anyway?