Watching the Watchmen Trailer: A Detailed Analysis
Summary
Weekly Ketchup columnist (and huge Watchmen fan) Greg Dean Schmitz has put together a detailed analysis of what's happening in the teaser trailer for the long-anticipated adaptation of the graphic novel. Back to Article
Weekly Ketchup columnist (and huge Watchmen fan) Greg Dean Schmitz has put together a detailed analysis of what's happening in the teaser trailer for the long-anticipated adaptation of the graphic novel. Back to Article
(1-112 of 112 posts) | Reply
on Jul 24 2008 08:16 PM Watchmen is the greatest book ever, and even if the movie is really good but not great it will be dissapointing. It does need to be 3 hours though... Pros -Billy Crudup looks perfect as Dr. Manhattan, and his look is great. -Jeffery Dean Morgan looks just like The Comedian -I like Patric Wilson as Night Owl, iffy on the costume though -looks like the book -Jackie Earl Haile is Rorscach, he is creepy looking -Im glad there keeping the minuteman story and the vietnam stories in this -Great visuals -Great costumes Cons -Matthew Goode looks a little to young to play Adrian Veidt, but he could prove me wrong -The girl playing Silk Spectre is the girl from The Heartbreak Kid -Also it looks like its going to be filled with tons of slo-mo I am still optimistic though, about everyday I get more excited then nervous. I think Snyder wants to stay close to the book so thats good. I think overall it will definately be really good and has a small chance of being great. (Reply to this) |
on Jul 24 2008 08:35 PM omfg this looks amamamamamamamamazing! lol i can't remember a movie I was so obsessed with! even Cloverfield, which wasn't as bad as everyone says it is imho. I agree with jokerboy1991 about Goode, and I seem to be in the minority of people ok with the slo-mo. Sure, it's a little gimmicky but this is Zach Snyder, the one man who could actually pull it off and make it look good. I'm glad he's making it his movie. I'm setting expectations low so I won't be crushed if this doesnt turn out, and I hope someone puts the ComicCon footage from tomorrow up in decent quality, cuz I can't go! lastly, Zach has already made this movie into a success marketing-wise: I got the book last year when I heard about the film, and since the trailer went up, a bunch of my friends are buying it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 24 2008 09:22 PM I have been waiting for this movie for so long, and because the Watchmen is one of the best comics ever written I have high expectations. I was nervous about how it would turn out, but the trailer was just amazing. It included some really striking scenes from the comic, and it seems that Zach is going to stick to the story lines. I can't wait to see the final product, no matter how it turns out. Rorsasch is my favorite character and honestly how he is portrayed will make the movie for me. The two things that bothered me in the trailer were Nightowl's costume and Ozymandias. Nightowl has already been mistaken by two of my friends as Batman....don't ask me how thats just the impression they got. And Ozymandias looks too frail to be similar to the comic character, and his costume lacks that ancient look that was such a hugde part of the character. I guess it all depends on the actor. Despite those two small things the movie looks amazing, and it looks as if Zack Snyder will do his best to please both the die hard fans and the new audience. (Reply to this) |
on Jul 24 2008 10:15 PM About Ozymandias' age, the only thing I can figure is maybe they have worked that into the character... since his big thing is control over his body, maybe they'll just write it in that he also figured out how to stop aging ? That actually makes some sense, if you consider the connection to Egyptian mythology, and their whole obsession (I think?) with immortality, and all that. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 24 2008 10:38 PM One additional thing I saw at the end of the trailer, during the IMAX presentation of "The Dark Knight" was, underneath the title, "Experience it in IMAX." I wonder if it'll just be a straight blowup of the 35mm image, or if there will be anything special for the IMAX version. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 24 2008 10:52 PM I'm pretty new to the whole Watchmen world (only ever heard of it when I was checking out the Wanted wiki page) but of what I have found out about it, it seems to be the "Harry Potter" of the comic book world. I loved the trailer, the music was perfect, and I'm reassured that everyone says it's very close (so far) to the comic. I definately gotta read the graphic novel. (Reply to this) |
on Jul 24 2008 11:15 PM In reply to this comment (#1920785) Pretty sure this is NOT the Harry Potter version of the comic book world. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 24 2008 11:54 PM He didn't say it was the Harry Potter version of the comic book world, he inferred, based on it's rabid following among fans that it was, METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING, the "Harry Potter" of the comic book world. (Reply to this) |
on Jul 25 2008 12:51 AM Greg, an excellent feature here. I'll watch another trailer without wondering if any of them have as much thought and backstory behind them. Makes me wonder what all those spoilers are... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 01:36 AM "Makes me wonder what all those spoilers are... " Jen, oh you have NO idea. 'Watchmen' is a complex character piece... there is a lot going on, from minute one, and there are many surprises. The biggest challenge on that front, I think, is that some of the "twists", which were groundbreaking in 1986, have in recent years been "borrowed" by popular movies and/or TV shows. So, the hope is that they will be appreciated as being as clever in 2009 as they were 23 years earlier when they were FIRST. Of course, to say what I'm talking about would probably reveal the spoilers. About being the "Harry Potter" for comic book fans... I think the better analogy would be "Lord of the Rings." The X-Men are the Harry Potter of comic book fans, I think. LOTR vs Watchmen = more of a literary, groundbreaking thing; Harry Potter vs X-Men = more of a young, rabid audience thing. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 02:30 AM I read the watchmen again recently. I really hope the kids today can connect and appreciate this movie but i really don't think so. I think critics will like it and all the fans of graphic novel, but after seeing how a movie like Hellboy performed with the mainstream movie goers I think Watchmen will play out the same way. Also, younger viewers will have a hard time understanding/relating to some of the adult themes. I hope that they leave most of those in there. I think it will struggle to even make $100 million. (Reply to this) |
on Jul 25 2008 04:25 AM Thanks so much to RT and Mr. Schmitz for this excellent article. I am a Watchmen "newbie" and now I really appreciate the trailer (which I have looked at a gigillion times already just because it was so pretty) even more. I have to get the graphic novel collection now! Apparently I am not alone; right now Watchmen is Number Two on Amazon. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 04:46 AM i hope to pick up the graphic novel immidiately...even though i think it'll probably be sold out for the massive hype behind this amazing trailer. can snyder go 3-3 with "Dawn of the Dead", "300", and make "Watchmen" his grand slam? i sure hope so! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 05:48 AM I tried two different stores yesterday and they were all sold out of the graphic novel. I ended up ordering it on Amazon. Looking forward to reading it and watching the movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 06:05 AM If anything, Watchmen is the Ulysses of the comic book world. (Reply to this) |
on Jul 25 2008 06:29 AM The trailer does indeed look amazing. I for one hated the Dawn of the Dead remake and 300, mostly for the rapid-fire camera work and ridiculous slo-mo action scenes respectively. Hopefully the slo-mo in the trailer is just that. The Watchmen needs atmosphere above all else; the Matrix-gimmicks should be (and hopefully will be) used sparingly. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 07:12 AM Honestly, I have a real problem with Zack Snyder directing this movie. He has consistantly showed that he is great at nailing visuals and creating an overall asthetic but is a complete dolt when it comes subtext. Hence his remake of "Dawn of Dead" while fast moving, action pack, and fun to watch, completely omitted the scathing critique of society that was the entire point of the original. 300 is prehaps even a better example of why Snyder is wrong choice for Watchmen. 300 worked because Snyder was able to nail the aesthetic of the graphic novel, but in that case, the graphic novel was pretty much all aethetic. Even Zack Snyder himself felt that the graphic novel didn't have enough plot which is why he felt compelled to add in the whole subplot with the queen. First of all: if this needed to be done, Miller would have done it in the graphic novel. Second: Snyder's Queen's story line was ****ing retarded and completely inconsistant with the the characters and plot of the Miller's graphic novel, and any part of the movie that Snyder didn't have to make up himself. Miller's Spartans (and their wives) had one solution to any given problem, and it was not sell out and sleep around. The movie even made the point of discussing how proud and strong Spartan Mother's where, and the trivialised all of that and the sacrifice of Leonidas and his men by having the queen grovel around and screw a wuss to earn some votes. If Miller had written a plot for the Queen into the source material, it would not have been that, not because it isn't realistic, but because that isn't the kind of story he was telling. I'll put it to you this way... Leonidas's wife probably did sleep around for political favors... Leonidas probably (and by probably I mean deffinately) had sex with adolecent boys... And greek hoplites DID NOT go into battle bare-chested (they wore Lamellar armor). But Miller wasn't telling a history, he was telling a legend... there's a big diffrance. And the legend of the 300 is not about how Leonidas's queen would sleep around for a favor... it would have fit in better if she just killed the guy (you know like she eventually did anyway, thus making the whole thing even stupider). Anyway... so what 300 proves is that the only thing Snyder doesn't screw up is translating comic books to movies when he has frame by frame guidance to work off of, this worked for 300 (accept for the Queen parts) but it WILL NOT get him through Watchmen. Watchmen is as reknowned as it is because of it's complexity and depth, not because of it's aesthetic. All the trailer proves is that Snyder is once again successful at capturing the aesthetic, it does nothing to demonstrate that Snyder actually "get's it" this time. Unfortunately no trailer ever really can, all a trailer really can do is demonstrate that he nailed the aesthetic and ask that I take it on faith that he "get's" the rest... Sorry but after "Dawn of The Dead" and "300" Zack Snyder is just not entitled to that kind of faith... I mean seriously... if the guy didn't get the point of "Dawn of The Dead" or "300" do you REALLY trust him with "Watchmen"? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 07:34 AM In reply to this comment (#1921383) how is going 3-3 a grand slam? a grand slam is when you score 4 runs, not 3. besides the fact that 'dawn of the dead' was serviceable and nothing more, your numbers don't make sense anyways. i wouldn't normally care, but for someone calling themselves 'smartmoviekid' this is pretty disappointing. at least your name's not 'smartbaseballkid' or 'PotentAnalogyGuy' cause that would just be sad. but moving on, i really appreciate this feature, Schmitz. It more than makes up for some of the shmaltzy language i've called you out on in previous articles. I'm getting the novel this weekend, cause at this point i just have to know what's going on. solid break-down though. it makes the world of 'watchmen' that much more accessible for those of us who haven't experienced it yet. now to rewatch that hd trailer a few more times... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 09:11 AM An update for the "God help us all" line... a poster IM'ed me via the forums to point out that The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) does indeed say that line in the novel, as part of a longer exchange (which I think is why I didn't remember it). Who he says it to, and what he's talking about, I'll not say here, but it's on page 15 of issue/chapter 2, if you want to check it out. Dahluzz: that's cool of you to say that ! HyperionChild: you too ! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 10:59 AM In reply to this comment (#1921229) HEY! I am kinda young (19), and I frikking love the book! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 11:00 AM In reply to this comment (#1921229) HEY! I am kinda young (19), and I frikking love the book! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 11:04 AM In reply to this comment (#1921723) I think he meant Hat-Trick... Also I am just a little worried about the slo-mo see it looks great in the trailer where they have it, but I dont want to see it every 5 minutes or something. Also I think people give Snyder too much crap sure 300 and Dawn of The Dead were essentially B movies, but I think this will take him to the next level. I think he is going to do a good job, just as long as its that 3 hour cut shown. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 12:57 PM Snyder said he is aiming for a 2 1/2 hour cut of the film. He also said he did film the pirate sequence but it will not appear in the theatrical release but he said he would include in on the dvd. I think you will find that much of the complex layers of the book will be stripped away for the movie as well. I really hope I am wrong about the younger audience appreciating the adult themes in the story but how can it have the same impact as it did 20 years ago? One thing though, at least it is opening up in March. That should help. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 01:35 PM In reply to this comment (#1921723) 3-3 as in 3 hits...with this one possibly being a grand slam...its a simple metaphor if u understand baseball...jeez... anyway....spikeinmyskull.i see ur point..his movies nailed the look and feel of the previous work...but lets see if he can really nail the story down pat...it'll be one daunting task tho. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 01:37 PM Night Owl is supposed to be overweight, not sporting 12 pack abs. Boo. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 02:10 PM You are right, that "God help us all" IS a line by The Comedian in the comic book (I know, I just read it) after The Ge (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 04:45 PM I recently read Watchmen, and oh, the spoilers. Jesus Christ. This is possibly the most engrossing and smart work I've read in the comic book format. Matthew Goode seems fine for the role of Ozymandias, at least he looks similar to him. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 07:29 PM In reply to this comment (#1922956) He actually is chubby in the movie, its the suit that makes him looked jacked. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 08:36 PM I had never heard of the Watchmen before the trailer. Looks pretty cool. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 08:52 PM Mr. Schmitz, Just in case no one has mentioned it yet, that was a stunning commentary. Well done! misterdan (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 08:53 PM hey the_duckling... "omfg this looks amamamamamamamamazing!" and "I'm setting expectations low"...lol they seem to not go together. I'm only busting on you dude. Truthfully I've never read this, nor had I heard of it until about two weeks ago when a magazine my family gets had this movie as its cover story. I actually thought it looked awful and fake based on the cover, which I think is due, to like they said here, the Schumacher type suits. Well I went to see The Dark Knight and was kind of repulsed and yet drawn in by the trailer to this film. It had a hypnotic quality that I couldn't put my finger on. I think its partly the music but also the film just seems interesting to me. I've read up on it, and I think I might want to read the novel because its supposed to be outstanding. I'm not one for reading comic books, but its supposed to be this masterpiece, so I think it makes sense to read it. Film looks pretty awesome though. The visuals are amazing. I wouldn't say I'm excited, but my curiousity is peaked. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 09:05 PM For those of you who can't find the book, DC is offering Watchmen as a "Motion Comic" available through iTunes. Chapter 1 is free and they did a beautiful job. I loved it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 10:41 PM In reply to this comment (#1921613) I would suggest that, in remaking a film, the filmaker might not be attempting to "get the point" of the original. The first remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, for instance, was hardly about impersonality invading apreviously warm small town. It was a different movie; if you're trying to make the same damn movie, then why do a remake at all? I hope that the Watchmen film stays true to the source material--it will be much more successful if it does, I think. But if an author doesn't want anyone to tamper with his/her vision, s/he shouldn't sell production rights to his/her work. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 10:48 PM In reply to this comment (#1920785) DON'T EVER COMPARE THE GAYNESS THAT IS HARRY POTTER TO THE AWEOMENESS THAT IS the WATCHMEN!!! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 25 2008 10:51 PM Also, am I drunk (probably, yes) or is Ozymandias not the only one who is cast young? It seems to me that both Dan Dreiberg and Laurie Jupiter should have another decade behind them. Jackie Earle Haley, as Rorschach, is in his late forties. Isn't that about the right age for Ozymandias and Nite Owl, too? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 26 2008 01:41 AM you say this supposed wait will be over in june but doesn't this film come out in march? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 26 2008 03:48 AM A single reference, I found missing in Mr. Schmitz' very comprehensive analysis, is found in the Smashing Pumpkins lyric "And now the kingdom comes" accompanying the shot of Ozymandias in herosuit. (page 4 of this article) This is obviously reffering to the pivotal part of Veidt's personality; his obsession with Alexander The Great and the empire he founded. Hence, the pervasiveness of ancient egyptian (hellenistic?) art in his suit and in the architecture of his financial headquarters. Othervise, thank you for the walkthrough analysis. There were many details I had failed to notice even upon wathcing the trailer several times. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 26 2008 04:24 AM Actually "the kingdom" probably refers to at least one more thing - deeply linked to the crucial plotpoint of this specific scene in Veidt's lair with the TV-screens in the background.. But I don't want to spoil things for RT-readers who haven't picked up the books yet ;) (Reply to this) |
on Jul 26 2008 07:29 AM This movie looks amazing. I think it needs to be 3 hours to cover all the details of the graphic novel. I think that the cast is a perfect pick because they are not that famous and that this movie will change that. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 26 2008 08:24 AM Zontar- they casted young because it's easier to make young actors look older than it is to make old actors look young. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 26 2008 12:05 PM In reply to this comment (#1924417) Actually... good example... by which I mean good because it proves my point, not yours. The first remake of Invasion of The Body Snatcher did get the point of the original, it didn't change the message, it adapted it to something more relative to the decade, and THAT is an excellent reason to do a remake, and that's preciously why it's a great movie. The 1956 film was very much about McCarthyism and Anti-Soviet paranoia of the time, whereas the 1978 version reflected a more post-vietnam anti-government paranoia... but that's just it, they both cover the theme of paranoia in a way that relevent to the decade in which they where made... and that's EXACTLY what the "Dawn of The Dead" remake failed on any level to even attempt to do, and if your going to do that why even bother calling it "Dawn of The Dead" why not called it "32 Days Later?" or "Zombi 4"? or "Dead Rising: The Movie"? I mean yeah.. you change stuff... you make it fresh... that's the point of a remake, but the "Dawn of The Dead" remake was like make a movie about a guy name Joe Smitz, who is really weathly and puts on a purple cape and a chimpanzee suit to fight crime and calling it "Batman" (Reply to this) |
on Jul 26 2008 12:23 PM I love the graphic novel, and I just hope that Zack Snyder will be able to incorporate everything into the film that the graphic novel did so beautifully. Visually, it looks stunning, but I'm worried about how the plot will end up in the hands of the type of modern film corporations that feel the need to dumb down and cut films just to please mainstream audiences. I trust Snyder-hey, he made 300-just not necessarily Warner Bros., who are (as I understand it) trying to push for a substantial cut-down of the film's running time, as well as a change in the amount of violence in the film and the inclusion of the sexy Silk Spectre outfit (it's supposed to be sexual, you pricks, it's a dominatrix-kind of look designed to emanate female authority and power). Wankers... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 26 2008 01:14 PM In reply to this comment (#1924884) Tardigrada, You are correct that Ozymandias' corporate empire is at least one obvious thing that "and now the kingdom comes" refers to, and *originally* that was what I was going to point out... but then in the actual writing, I got all excited, basically about the idea of a "Kingdom Come" movie, and my "B point" ended up completely replacing my "A point"... just because I forgot. Thanks for stepping in and explaining that. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 26 2008 01:19 PM I have to say that I have total faith in Snyder for this. You cannot be a bigger Dawn of the Dead fan than I am, and when I heard about the remake I was totally disgusted, but Snyder managed to make a pretty respectable and enjoyable version of that movie. Same thing with the Watchmen. I have always kind of hoped that they would never make a movie based on the book, because I just never thought anything could do it justice, but I now have hope. 300 is pretty cool and while I dont think that Watchmen is as easily accessible as 300 to a more mainstream audience (meaning that anyone can enjoy the story of the Spartan regardless of their knowledge of the source material) this trailer manages to look interesting enough that that it should capture the mainstream's attention. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 26 2008 01:21 PM is it possible to remain optimistic? Snyder has no doubt captured much of Dave Gibbons style and maybe much will be left up to us to bring to the theatres. Other tough translations like Lord of the Rings, Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas etc really got the style but directors had to make choices about some things... They say that Hollis might land on the editing room floor... and we know the Black Freighter is for the DVD but how will "Under the Hood" be handled? Most of the images look great... take out the Smashing Pumpkins... I'm hoping for a good movie... it's all we can do right now. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 26 2008 05:06 PM Snyder and his damn slo-mo....I liked the action scenes in 300, and those only for a bit. Everything was so heavy-handed and melodramatic, with the thundering music, slo-mo, and oversaturated look...the Watchmen trailer strikes me as being the same thing. The Watchmen graphic novel rules everything, but in the hands of a near-hack like Snyder, I'm not really expecting much. (Reply to this) |
on Jul 26 2008 09:43 PM In reply to this comment (#1925644) Actually, M'pig, if you read the graphic novel AND paid attention, Silk Spectre II, who is depicted in this sequence, was NOT supposed to be dressed like a dominatrix- that was her mom, Spectre I. Spectre II was the yellow mini-dress, kind of a cross between a rain coat and a 60's Star Trek uniform. She was intended to look sexual, but in a more 'innocent' and 'girly' way to accentuate the differences between herself and her mom as well as between herself and Dr. Manhattan. Obviously, they're taking some liberties with the character. SO a hardy 'Wank THIS' (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 26 2008 10:02 PM In reply to this comment (#1925644) Over all, I have a fair amount of hope for this movie. After two read-throughs of the graphic novel, I started to respect what Moore did, despite being a bit put off by how heavy-handed and maudlin it was. The story had depth and gravity without constantly flashing back to the swashbuckling journeyman, for example. Didn't need to be beat over the head with obvious analogies of how dark and depressing everything is. The story could speak for itself. The movie looks pretty faithful to what matters and some of the shots are remarkable reconstructions. As forward-thinking and philosophical as this novel was, it *does* tend to show its 80's roots in pacing--kind of like comparing Beverly Hills Cop to Bad Boys; both movies are successful action comedies from their decades (80's, 90's respectively), but BHC looks like it's standing still when compared to BB. I think a bit of post-90's tweaking could amp this up and make it more relevent while keeping it poignant and respectful. I do agree that the WRONG way to do this is go crazy with slo-mo. Kudos to the guy who wrote this article. Decent analysis. I personally think it's a BRILLIANT move, to pervert the summer popcorn Smashing Pumpkins theme that mindlessly advertised Batman & Robin to herald the arrival of this movie. EXCELLENT way to set the tone on a number of levels (credit for dissecting the song so successfully) That ALONE might get me to the theater. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 27 2008 03:38 AM In reply to this comment (#1921229) I read the book when I was fifteen, and had no trouble understanding the themes being raised at all, or the ideas being put forward. I do however appreciate what you're saying-I don't mean for this to sound like I'm having a go :). To be honest I think that if younger viewers are mature and smart enough, they will have no problems at all in connecting with this as a film (although with that said, Watchmen is probably better as a graphic novel). (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 27 2008 03:42 AM In reply to this comment (#1926998) It all depends on interpretation. For me, that look in the comic book evoked a sense of female empowerment and a dominatrix-style feel. I wasn't having a go at anyone on this board, though, so please calm yourself down. And I WILL wank that, sir! :) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 27 2008 04:01 AM In reply to this comment (#1927113) No offence intended, but it took you TWO read-throughs of the book just to respect what Moore was doing? Maybe Watchmen is too much for you... Good point, anyway, about the whole '80's era' thing-the film could do with some modern references, perhaps, to make it more relevant to today. Too much slo-mo WOULD be a bad move, and would probably detract from the action sequences used to punctuate the real drama of psychology explored in the analysis of the characters. Also, the swashbuckling journeyman sequences in the book did feel a bit out of place for me, and I'm glad they aren't in the film. I, too, have a fair amount of hope for this movie. Nice post-some pretty decent points made there. Roll on 2009... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 27 2008 04:42 AM In reply to this comment (#1921666) SpikesInMySkull: I pretty much agree with everything you said, except mainly for this: "Watchmen is as reknowned as it is because of it's complexity and depth, not because of it's aesthetic. " Watchmen is absolutely known for its aesthetic just as much as it is for its story and subtext. Absolutely just as much. If it weren't, it would not be heralded as the apex of comics. It is the perfect melding of both visual aesthetic in sequential imagery and literature. Best example is towards the end of the book, in my favorite image sequence, we see Rorschach's mask in the form of two lovers holding each other, and then the very next panel is *spoiler* and *spoiler* holding each other in the exact same fashion, which also happens to be the same image that recurs throughout the movie as street graffiti. Just one example. There are many more. Slam Snyder all you want, I too think he is serviceable as a visual, action director but not as an actual thinking man's director, but PLEASE do not say that "Watchmen" is not known for its aesthetic as that is entirely 100% wrong. I think that's the reason why everyone is getting all excited for this movie, because he seems to have done fairly well with recreating the shots that were so amazing in the comics, but I also think that people are forgetting it wasn't just about the visual imagery. Who watches the movie executives? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 27 2008 08:58 AM One thing I notice when watching the trailer but it wasn't mention here is when Eddie Blake punch the wall. If you look at the scene you will see a figure ducking down which makes Eddie Blake seems to hit the wall. And look at the picture you see a knee between Eddie Blake legs and half a side of a head or hat. Looks like a good movie though. Can't wait. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 27 2008 12:32 PM In reply to this comment (#1927611) The way I look at that is: Watchmen does and had to do a fantastic job with the aesthetics as a preqrequsite to being as well thought of as it is, and any movie as a rule would have to achieve that quality as well to even be a contender. That's a given. But that's just getting yourself in the game, that's not winning the game, and it's the one aspect we knew from the start Snyder would be able to nail, because that's what he's good at. The problem here is that in 300, that was enough... here... it's not even close to enough. So yes, Watchmen is not important for aesthetic quality, except that the aesthetic quality had to live up to what was was being presented or everything that's great about the book wouldn't have mattered. (Reply to this) |
on Jul 27 2008 01:39 PM The blue electric guy looks like that Clive Owen idiot. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 27 2008 01:45 PM In reply to this comment (#1927564) I think it matters [i]when[/i] you were 15. It's not that young people can't understand watchmen. I was barely over 15 when I first read it - the year it came out. The question is, will young people [i]today[/i] understand it? I hope so. (Reply to this) |
on Jul 27 2008 03:27 PM Ok (don't shoot me for this) but I never heard of Watchmen before this trailer; but this was me after seeing Dark Knight "man that movie was awesome! bestesses movie ever...but did you see that trailer for Watchmen?" I think this trailer was well put together. The combination of the music and visuals definately peaked my interested enough to want to find out more about what this is all about. Anyone know where I can purchase the original novel? :) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 27 2008 03:33 PM I've never been to keen on multi-hero stories. I won't deny that this thing looks visually amazing, but I probably won't be in line on opening night. Plus, Night Owl looks wayyyy too much like Batman for my liking. A quick Google images search shows me that he's not supposed to look so much like a Nolanverse ripoff. This probably wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest had I not seen the trailer with TDK. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 27 2008 04:17 PM About Night Owl resembling Batman... something about 'Watchmen' that I didn't address in this piece, but which is very interesting from a historical perspective, is that the project started as a way to revive the various characters previous published by Charlton Comics, which DC Comics had recently (in the early 1980s) acquired after that company went belly up. Then, as Alan Moore developed the idea, it became obvious that it was going further than DC Comics had intended, so they gave him the go ahead to use "new" characters, but in many ways, each character is still very similar to the Charlton character it was originally based upon. Here are the roots for each 'Watchmen' character: The Comedian / htt D http Nigh ht Oz ht Rors htt Sil htt T So... if Night Owl is like anyone, it's Blue Beetle. Now, is Blue Beetle like Batman... ? Perhaps. As for what he looks like in the movie... the funny thing is, I think the movie version of Ozymandias is the one that REALLY looks like Batman, with the nipples on his suit and all that. But, Ozymandias doesn't wear a cowl, so I guess that's what makes Night Owl seem more Batman-ish, but ultimately, I think people will not confuse the two. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 27 2008 04:22 PM *** DID ANYONE NOTICE? *** *** DID ANYONE NOTICE? *** Did anyone notice in the trailer when Ozymandias (guy in purple shirt) is hitting that guard or whatever, the guard is holding a radio in one shot then the next angle he is actually HOLDING A GUN? HOW DOES A RADIO TURN INTO A GUN ALL OF THE (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 27 2008 05:12 PM Hmmm, I read about this. When you see him holding a radio, it's because if it would have been a gun, you would have seen the gun pointed directly at you. And the studio didn't want that because it's a PG trailer. (yeah I know. it's stupid) So they digitally changed that for a radio only for the trailer. I don't remember on what site I read it, but it was in a interview with Snyder. And I pretty liked 300. I found it so visually stunning. And I liked the story and found the wive subplot good and really welcome. After all, it helped to tone down the adrenaline a little bit so you could appreciate the action and war story even more. How and about the slow-mo in the trailer, I don't have any problem with it. In fact, I didn't even noticed it when I first saw the trailer. But I'm like that, I don't ask too much question when I see a movie. Except when the movie is bad or when I saw it 25 times. (Don,t try to watch Star Wars with me. I will keep talking and talking and talking. But I don't talk in theater. No way.) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 27 2008 05:39 PM Why all the Dawn of the Dead hating? It's been well established since the film came out that Snyder was intentionally (and wisely) focusing only on exploiting the horror and action, not the social commentary, of the original, and he did a damn fine job. You all talk about zombie movies like their the conduit of social upheaval in our sick world, well guess what: they're not, and you need to stop looking for hairs to split in B-horror flicks of the 70s and now and go back to living in your parent's basements. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 27 2008 06:12 PM In reply to this comment (#1929427) Why all the Dawn of the Dead hating? Because, "Snyder... intentionally focusing only on exploiting the horror and action, not the social commentary, of the original" is ****ing retarded. You can take or leave social commentary of the original, but it IS the entire ****ing point of the movie, and without it there is no point, and a remake that doesn't include it is therefore pointless. It's not about zombie movies being a ,"conduit of social upheaval in our sick world" (whatever the hell that even means)... it's about the fact that for better or worse Dawn of the Dead was about using zombies as a metaphore for mindless consumerism. By abandoning that the Zack Snyder version is just a generic zombie movie with nothing to offer... If Snyder did as damn a fine job as you say he did, then why did they have to piggy-back on an established franchise in order to market the film? Why couldn't they have just called it, "Mall Zombies from Hell?" I am not as you say, "looking for hairs to split in B-horror flicks of the 70s." I'm pointing out that establishing you carreer by shamelessly exploiting a B-Horror flick from 70's sets a pretty poor precident for helming a project as ambitious as a Watchmen adaptation. Oh and for the record I live 5 states from my parents basement, but tossing depressingly clichéd insults around is a great way to make your point sound more valid. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 27 2008 08:14 PM About that E.T. walkie-talkie-instead-of-a-gun homage, here's director Zack Snyder telling you all about htt (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 27 2008 09:26 PM Trailer looks good. Am not going to quibble too much with the costumes on Nite Owl and Ozymandius. I'm really interested in seeing how they handled the screenplay adaption of a very hard to adapt storyline in the graphic novel. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 27 2008 10:11 PM I am looking forward to this movie! The comic book I really really hope is made into a movie one day is RONIN by Frank Miller. That story is my all time favorite, and I've read my fair share of books and comic books. Anyone with me on that one? : ) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 28 2008 12:18 AM I don't think the use of the DC logo is ironic because "it is not in fact set in their proprietary DC universe, home to characters like Batman and Superman". I mean, come on; as if the grim and gritty Gotham City of Christopher Nolan & co. is set in the same universe as the flying man in red tights! LOL (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 28 2008 03:44 AM Balanceman I kinda agree, this was written back in the '80 in the UK which is a different place, and the themes in it were very adult and very related to the "Thatcher regime". But in someways Moore's ability has transcended the origin of it roots. Spikes in My Skill, again makes a very good point, I think he's right. I think this movie, will be about the "look and feel", not about the content so much. In some ways that's going to stop me seeing it, and if that happens, it's i think very unfair on the abilities of JokerBoy, even though he's 19, to grasp whats going on, and how it is a reflection of society. But the comic book movies now seem to translate, not because of content, but because of the name that seems to equal more $$. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 28 2008 03:52 AM In reply to this comment (#1928701) Excellent point. However, I am only 18 now, so when I read the book it was only three years ago. I am fairly certain that the more intelligent and mature of people who are of the age I was then will be able to connect with this movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 28 2008 05:02 AM I do not like it when people say I am "ONLY" 18/19 etc. That does NOT mean you cant understand or cant put the effort in to understand. It also makes the film-makers go with the easiest script, and themselves put less effort in. That's why there is so much rubbish. It's about time instead you said, "Just cos i'm 18, doesn't make me dumb". (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 28 2008 09:10 AM Even if the Walkie-Talkie to Gun transformation is an easter egg, the continuity error of the box in the elevator is obvious. Well it's just a trailer, hope the movie does not have errors THAT obvious. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 28 2008 10:48 AM In reply to this comment (#1929802) Thanks for the link (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 28 2008 11:13 AM In reply to this comment (#1930526) Firstly, calm down right now. What effect does my words have on you? Secondly, that was kind of the point I was making, if you actually paid attention to my post: age isn't a factor. Intelligence and maturity is. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 28 2008 01:19 PM In reply to this comment (#1920742) >>the "Harry Potter" of the comic book world mmm yah...that would be Neil Gaiman's The Books of Magic series... which is a much more superior and adult oriented version of "Harry Potter" >>If anything, Watchmen is the Ulysses of the comic book world. true dat (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 28 2008 01:23 PM I was at the Watchmen panel at Comic Con last week. Needless to say it was the most talked about panel at the Con. Zach showed us about 3-4 min of fairly new footage. It was cut like an extended trailer. No dialogue, with a beautiful Philip Glass-esque score playing over the entire piece. Some scenes were extended from the trailer, others were completely brand new. I liked Dawn of the Dead and liked 300 a bit more. But the footage I saw impressed me more in 3 minutes than the entirety of Dawn or 300 did. I think this will be Snyder's best film and honestly looks to be the first truly great superhero ensemble movie. The entire crowd was blown away I think and we saw it twice. Kevin Smith, who was there, later that day in one of his panels said it was a "religious experience" and that he could happily die after the film's release. He said the whole reason for Comic Con is in anticipation of a movie like this, and once it's released Comic Con can stop. He had never met Snyder, but when they met that day the first thing Kevin did was give him a big hug and said "thank you". This Comic Con trailer is better than the trailer already released in my opinion. Some scenes that really stood out to me were seeing much more of Rorschach investigating The Comedian's apartment. The mask is amazing and we saw much more movement with the liquid. This is quite possibly the best designed "superhero" costume I've ever seen on film. It's downright perfect and you can not tell the liquid is CG. The movements of it express his different emotions very well without having to hear his dialogue. Another scene that stood out is Night Owl I believe kissing Silk Spectre II? Sorry, I haven't read the book yet so I'm unsure of character names. Anyhow, they are kissing as a mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion occurs off in the distance behind them. While this could have turned out as an overblown, obvious effects shot (which it is), it also comes off as beautiful and disconcerting. Lastly, my favorite scene shown is Dr. Manhattan in a bar. Two gangsters rise from a table, pulling out their guns and Dr. Manhattan simply raises his hand up and disintegrates them. It was awesome and beautiful looking as well. Yes there was more slow-mo, but I'm not sure how much of that will end up in the final edit. Remember, this film is far from finished. And honestly, I don't mind the slow-mo at all. There is so much detail in these shots, we're going to need as much slow-mo as we can get just to take it in. The quick cuts in Dark Knight are half the reason everyone is going to see it twice. Just to figure out what's going on in half the shots. I believe Snyder wants us to take everything in because he's packing each frame from floor to ceiling with detail and nuance. Much more so than 300 so I don't think the slow-mo will be as jarring or heavy-handed as it was in that film. Ok I'm tired. Everyone must see this film in March!! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 28 2008 01:24 PM I was at the Watchmen panel at Comic Con last week. Needless to say it was the most talked about panel at the Con. Zach showed us about 3-4 min of fairly new footage. It was cut like an extended trailer. No dialogue, with a beautiful Philip Glass-esque score playing over the entire piece. Some scenes were extended from the trailer, others were completely brand new. I liked Dawn of the Dead and liked 300 a bit more. But the footage I saw impressed me more in 3 minutes than the entirety of Dawn or 300 did. I think this will be Snyder's best film and honestly looks to be the first truly great superhero ensemble movie. The entire crowd was blown away I think and we saw it twice. Kevin Smith, who was there, later that day in one of his panels said it was a "religious experience" and that he could happily die after the film's release. He said the whole reason for Comic Con is in anticipation of a movie like this, and once it's released Comic Con can stop. He had never met Snyder, but when they met that day the first thing Kevin did was give him a big hug and said "thank you". This Comic Con trailer is better than the trailer already released in my opinion. Some scenes that really stood out to me were seeing much more of Rorschach investigating The Comedian's apartment. The mask is amazing and we saw much more movement with the liquid. This is quite possibly the best designed "superhero" costume I've ever seen on film. It's downright perfect and you can not tell the liquid is CG. The movements of it express his different emotions very well without having to hear his dialogue. Another scene that stood out is Night Owl I believe kissing Silk Spectre II? Sorry, I haven't read the book yet so I'm unsure of character names. Anyhow, they are kissing as a mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion occurs off in the distance behind them. While this could have turned out as an overblown, obvious effects shot (which it is), it also comes off as beautiful and disconcerting. Lastly, my favorite scene shown is Dr. Manhattan in a bar. Two gangsters rise from a table, pulling out their guns and Dr. Manhattan simply raises his hand up and disintegrates them. It was awesome and beautiful looking as well. Yes there was more slow-mo, but I'm not sure how much of that will end up in the final edit. Remember, this film is far from finished. And honestly, I don't mind the slow-mo at all. There is so much detail in these shots, we're going to need as much slow-mo as we can get just to take it in. The quick cuts in Dark Knight are half the reason everyone is going to see it twice. Just to figure out what's going on in half the shots. I believe Snyder wants us to take everything in because he's packing each frame from floor to ceiling with detail and nuance. Much more so than 300 so I don't think the slow-mo will be as jarring or heavy-handed as it was in that film. Ok I'm tired. Everyone must see this film in March!! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 28 2008 01:27 PM Sorry for the double post. One last thing I want to add. This article says Watchmen fans have been complaining about Patrick Wilson's character not being fat. Well, on the panel last week he said he did gain weight for the film and talked about how he loved that the character is out of shape and gets back into crime fighting. So that character detail is there, no worries fans! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 28 2008 04:40 PM " Another scene that stood out is Night Owl I believe kissing Silk Spectre II? Sorry, I haven't read the book yet so I'm unsure of character names. Anyhow, they are kissing as a mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion occurs off in the distance behind them. While this could have turned out as an overblown, obvious effects shot (which it is), it also comes off as beautiful and disconcerting." This is a dream sequence... it's Night Owl II kissing Laurie/Silk Spectre II, not Nite Owl I, who is an elderly gentleman in the 1980s, and is *rumored* to have a (much) smaller role in the movie than in the comics. Hollis Mason, AKA Nite Owl I, is being played by veteran TV actor Stephen McHattie: (Reply to this) |
on Jul 28 2008 05:49 PM "Watchmen" comes out in March, not June. Seems pretty sad for a movie site to get that wrong... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 28 2008 06:30 PM What is this tripe? You saw a trailer and suddenly claim to know everything about it, including how fine and successful it's going to be? Please. What about people who haven't read the book, like me. Will I enjoy it? As much as a bandwagon fan like you? If the movie fails to entertain me, it fails period. When I saw this trailer in the theater my girlfriend muttered sarcastically "Oh look! Another comic-book movie!" We smirked knowingly to each other and bumped fists, and I'm proud to say alongside most of America that I couldn't tell what the hell was going on in the trailer. And here you are talking about it like it's the second coming. Newsflash: based on the star power and production values behind this, it's probably going to suck. You're smug know-it-all (and probably pretend) attitude toward details is vomit-inducing and further proof. You claim that Basically, this is a jerk-off speculative hype article and no, I'm not going along for the ride. My favorite part is where you claim that since the background music is the opposite of a track used to advertise Batman & Robin ("the worst superhero movie ever made!") then of course Watchmen will certainly be the best superhero movie ever made. Kevin Spacey says: WROOOOONG! First of all, Batman & Robin was rad, **** ya'll. Secondly, the convoluted nature of Watchmen will keep it from being good, period. We've seen it before: Matrix Reloaded, Pirates 3, Dark Knight... Yes, I said Dark Knight... muddled muddled muddled. It's a good thing Watchmen doesn't come out for another year; that will give us all time to flush. Also, Billy Crudup is a terrible name. It sounds like a wet fart. (Reply to this) |
on Jul 28 2008 08:13 PM ^^^ Usually I would simply call that empty elitism, but there were some truly dumb statements in that comment. At least elitists sound smart while they pretentiously sh*t on everything. You didn't even sound smart. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 28 2008 08:26 PM The quote "God help us all." Is indeed spoken by the Comedian. It's in issue 2, page 15 panel 6 after Dr. Manhattan stood by and watched as the Comedian shot the vietnamese woman he'd impregnated. The Comedian angrily tells Jon that he could have stopped it if he'd wanted, but he just watched. He realizes at that point that Jon Osterman no longer exists and that Dr. Manhattan is 'driftin' outta touch.' and 'turning into a flake.' At which point he says 'God help us all.' A VERY important scene. Because though the Comedian is a despicable person, those who watch are just as responsible. Or maybe on some level, being as powerful as he is, Manhattan KNOWS the pointlessness of caring for humans since they inevitably die anyway. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 29 2008 03:54 AM In reply to this comment (#1932558) wavelength- WOW. That was pretty intense. I haven't read a closed-minded, embarrassingly hypocritical waste of text like that in at least an RT page or two. I'm going to do you a *huge* favor and announce that you were being sarcastic when you said Batman & Robin was 'rad' simply because to allow that you were serious pretty much requires that you never be allowed to see--or comment on--another movie. ...and be kept away from heavy machinery and sharp objects. Then again, if you DID actually like B&R, then I guess I'm actually quite happy you DON'T like the idea of Watchmen... probably the best 'proof' of the success of the movie that I've gotten, so far. Enjoy your sanctimonious hatred. The rest of us will be at the movies. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 29 2008 11:14 AM In reply to this comment (#1933439) Oooooh, scathing! You're 100% right, though, Mr. LawDog. Wavelength, this is an opinion post. People are simply expressing their views here that the trailer looks good. Ergo, the film has a chance at being good also. Perhaps you should jog off and carry on 'bumping fists' with your girlfriend in your own sweet time (without making everyone on this board- who, so far, has had the good grace to express their opinions with decency and decorum-feel like flaming you). M'kay? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 29 2008 11:23 AM In reply to this comment (#1932558) >>We smirked knowingly to each other and bumped fists >>Batman & Robin was rad, **** ya'll. >>It sounds like a wet fart. Didn't know they let 8th graders on these forums...u learn something knew every day i guess... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 29 2008 11:29 AM In reply to this comment (#1932558) >>We smirked knowingly to each other and bumped fists >>Batman & Robin was rad, **** ya'll. >>It sounds like a wet fart. Didn't know they let 8th graders on these forums...u learn something new every day i guess... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 29 2008 11:41 AM In reply to this comment (#1934255) >...u learn something new every day i guess... Sadly, as has been amply demonstrated, this depends entirely on who 'u' are. (NOT a dig on you, 'duke) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 29 2008 12:11 PM This is amazing. When I saw this trailer before The Dark Knight, I was unsure of what it was for a few seconds. When I saw Dr. John Osterman have his intrinsic field subtracted, however, I instantly knew what it was, and almost jumped out of my seat with excitement. I was really more excited about the trailer than about The Dark Knight (which I thought was excellent). 2 Things: 1. Did anybody else notice that Rorschach is using a can of Veidt hairspray for his impromptu flamethrower? Cool little easter eggs like that give me hope that this movie may actually come close to the novel. 2. "The trailer is heavy with "watch" imagery, such as the gears that are pounding away behind this subtitle, but really, the first five letters of Watchmen refer more to the use of the word as a verb than as a noun." I don't think the watch imagery is meant to reflect the "watch" in "watchmen," but rather the constant motif of watches and clocks throughout the novel (Doomsday Clock, John Osterman's watch repair, etc.) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 29 2008 10:23 PM wavelength you are one ignorant pathetic waste of life anyways can't wait for this i have a feeling snyder is going to blow us away with this one he seems like a long fan of the graphic novel. I just started reading it a few days ago already i would put in my favorite literature works It's truly remarkable (Reply to this) |
on Jul 30 2008 12:50 AM hopefully, Watchmen is going to be amazing by the way, who else thinks that it would be a smart choice to release the next batman in 2010 instead of doing a three year gap thing because they really left me hanging at the end of dark knight! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 30 2008 02:03 AM i agree with schmitz in regards to the slo mo shots. it helps fully capture the artwork especially when the comedian is thrown out the window. seeing the comedian hit the window with shards of glass framing him is a very iconic image and i actually wouldnt want the scene portrayed any other way to be quite honest. however, that being said, i agree with the masses and i hope that snyder doesn't overdo the slo mo. it could be irritating in cases. i saw the footage at the watchmen panel and i have to say it was absolutely stunning. i got chills from watching it. and i hope it hits the internet soon so i can rewatch it as many times i have the trailer :P. and for the record, they show a great shot of dan sitting on some stairs with the suit behind him and he definitely looks the part...in terms of being overweight and in terms of the character as a whole. he does the thing with his glasses that he does in the graphic novel where he takes them off when he's worrying and...i have to say that one shot of him was absolutely perfect. if anything, that in itself has me convinced that snyder is doing everything right. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 30 2008 07:41 AM I've read the Watchmen, but I won't get up in arms over the changes that will come with the movie, why?? Because I've read the TPB, many many times, and enjoyed it for what it was. The movie version will be it's own thing, it should tell the story (to a degree) but I doubt it'll be exact, but since I own the book, and read it then I don't need a direct book to film. I certainly won't rip into it like LOTR fans did with that movie changes the only complaint I had was the cut of the 1st trailer, which did have some sweet images, and fan-tastic direct from the book shots, but, overall it didn't give any information on what the movie would be, except some sort of dark superhero movie. I went with a non comic buddy to Dark Knight and after the watchmen trailer, he (and many people around me) were like, "looks...dark, but what the hell is it?" They should have tried to give a sense of what the movie was about, maybe? lol I think it would have helped. Like, even focus on the Blakes death, the mystery, the investigation. Or even an overall, 'heroes banned, some stayed in the service of our government, some unmasked and told their story, but 1 kept fighting' that kind of thing. Or at least, any kind of story. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 30 2008 09:11 AM In reply to this comment (#1936863) I can see where you're coming from Dakotacruz, but I have to disagree with you about revealing significant narrative in the trailer. I feel that far too many trailers reveal the story almost entirely in the trailer currently. I can't tell you how many times I have watched a trailer and thought immediately, "Well, I guess I don't need to see the movie now, because I have seen the setting, the protagonist(s), the antagonist(s), the love interest, the building crisis, two different plot twists and a couple scenes from the final resolution scenes." Basically, if a trailer starts with the cliched (famous trailer voice-over guy), "In a world where (insert setting/premise)...)", you can pretty much figure you don't need to see the movie to learn the story, because the trailer is going to give it to you. What is left is just imagery and acting performances to experience. While that CAN be satisfying, I really think it robs audiences of the complete movie-going experience that occurs when you are able to have a story unfold in its entirety instead of just getting "fleshed out" (the skeleton having been absorbed from the narrative-heavy trailer). It is inevitable that some story elements will leak out or that future trailers will have more narrative elements included, but I really appreciated this trailer for thier absence. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 30 2008 09:34 AM In reply to this comment (#1937035) Chazz, I agree with your thoughts on trailers giving the storys away, I feel the same, (I thinks a but is coming up though, but I'll use..um, however) However, for the Watchmen, they could have used lines (not voice over actor guy) giving somewhat of an idea of the plot/story, OR at least signifigance. Most of the story is about the humanizing, or making real the idea of a masked hero, the actul plot ties this together, but it isn't the most crucial thing (IMO). Since it's been written, alot of stuff has used the concepts, ideas and whatnot from the Watchmen, so it's not like it'll come off as 100% original, which is a shame. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 30 2008 10:39 AM In reply to this comment (#1936863) Dakotacruz, I see what you're saying as far at the trailer not explaining much. But from what I've read, they really had to rush to put together a trailer that they could attach to The Dark Knight. Apparently some of the people working on the movie wanted just a graphic that said "Watchmen" and gave the release date, but Snyder wanted some actual footage. So given that sort of time crunch, I think they did an amazing job, as this trailer has generated a ton of buzz. And don't forget, this is really just a teaser. I think we can expect a more extensive trailer in the coming months. =D (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 30 2008 11:32 AM I anticipate that Legendary Pictures and Warner Bros might be smart, and slowly roll out a marketing plan that focuses on the individual characters, such as is accomplished with these BEAUTIFUL eight posters from Comic ht They use quotes from the characters like they are actual historical figures, with dates and sources, and I think, really capture little nuggets of attitude or back story for each person featured in the poster. So, maybe as for future teasers or trailers, we could see trailers that focus on one character more than others. Arguably, this teaser trailer already accomplishes that by telling the origin story of Dr. Manhattan (even though it's without words). Night Owl's trailer could be about how heroes were forced into retirement; Silk Spectre's trailer could be about the golden age of heroes, and her sense of inheriting the costume; The Comedian's trailer could be about his war crimes and adventures; Ozymandias' trailer could be about his corporate empire; Rorschach's trailer could be about his gritty, paranoid world view. Or they could be combined... the following pairs seem to make the most sense, I think: #1 Night Owl and Silk Spectre (both are "second generation heroes"); #2 The Comedian and Dr. Manhattan (government agents/vehicles of war and destruction); #3 Ozymandias and Rorschach (a great planner, and someone who's paranoid about "great plans"). (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 30 2008 04:27 PM I'm 17 and this is by far my favorite graphic novel. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 30 2008 04:52 PM I think the trailer was perfect as is. It has certainly been successful in getting people interested. Sales for the graphic novel are way up. I know quite a few people who saw the trailer and were like "What the heck was that? Now I'm interested.." I think the ambiguity works to its advantage. But then, it's also a bias of mine. I personally love trailers with little to no talking, from both characters and voiceover. That's also why I loved the Benjamin Button trailer (admittedly, that one gave away more of the story). (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 31 2008 11:14 AM This is awesome. The Watchmen Trailer has got to be one of the best trailers in a long, long time. I hope the movie can live up to the hype. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 31 2008 02:18 PM 100! I'm glad a Watchmen article got so many comments. The series deserves all the attention it could get. (Reply to this) |
on Aug 01 2008 09:02 AM In reply to this comment (#1921168) Saying that "X-Men" was "more of a young, rabid audience thing" is a little harsh. To me, "Harry Potter"="Hellboy". Good entertainment, at the least. You're right, though, about "The Lord of the Rings". If I had to choose a fantasy series that represented great literature, I would pick "The Lord of the Rings". Props to Roger for mentioning "Ulysses", thougth. (Reply to this) |
on Aug 04 2008 11:52 PM Not to sound more correct or prove anyone wrong in their interpretation, but to make a broader point about the true genius of a work like the original Watchmen graphic novel I would personally say that instead of comparing Watchmen to Ulysses or Harry Potter or whatever, that Watchmen is the Watchmen of the graphic novel genre. I know that sounds redundant, but in my opinion Moore and Gibbon's original Watchmen stands in a world all it's own. It truly can not be fairly compared to another work of literature or cinema, remember the original was neither, if anything it was the brilliant often misunderstood child prodigy of both which is ironic. In that sense it cannot be fairly compared to any other work of literature or cinema, or any other graphic novel to date for that matter, at least none that I can think of. Now this might sound like the pretentious ravings of yet another fanboy, though I would argue that in many, many ways Watchmen is not really a superhero story, if it is anything it is an extremely deep and psycho-social work which tackles everything from sex to politics to philosophy to aging and one could go on. It just happens that it does all this revolving around the stories and motivations of several generations of costumed adventurers who are meant to represent variations on authority figures, not superheroes, save for Dr. Manhattan, who also isn't really a superhero, ultimately he is a stand in for God. In many ways it was and still is a perfect union of extremely complex themes, plots within plots, subtext within context, visual devices and overall just extemely brilliant and challenging writing and illustration. That being said for this movie adaptation to truly capture and highlight even half of every little thing that made the original Watchmen so great would probably take a trilogy of three hour plus movies, so I can understand the comparison to LOTR. Why I would disagree is that a lot of the details left out of the movie version of LOTR was mostly histrionic stuff that in my opinion isn't anywhere near as necessary or more to the point anywhere near as interesting as so much of the detail in the original Watchmen is. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 05 2008 06:25 AM I created the Ozymandias toy ad that was a winner in the YouTube contest. Thanks a ton to Rotten Tomatoes and all the readers for the support. I hope everyone here is giving respect to Zack Snyder and the amazing job it seems that he and his crew are giving to bring our beloved comics to live on the silver screen. The attention to detail and conviction to original content that Zack has kept over his last two films is not only something to admire, but something I think we all know hollywood would benefit from watching. Nitpick his films all you like, they didn't just throw the term "visionary" in the trailer to boost his ego. This movie has been in the works for almost two decades and no one had faith it could be done until now. Technology has caught up with creative visions and the right crew has come together to make something that could (and most likely will) blow us all away. Thanks to Zack and Co. for giving us something to inspire us, and thanks again to rotten tomato for the support and shout out on a homegrown fan-made advertisement. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 06 2008 01:59 AM God help us all is in the book. Eddie says it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 08 2008 12:06 AM ive only read page 1 so yeah, good job Greg. It has opened my eyes to the world (or should i say Politicans and Whores) of Watchmen! Thanks Man, great breakdown. I think RT could def use more breakdowns (for those non-fans). Ozymandis- Super Quick? (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 10 2008 09:35 PM This has probably been mentioned before, but just in case it hasn't: the Comedian isn't punching the wall in a fit of emotion, he's trying to take someone's head off with a punch - presumably the intruder that throws him out the window - and that someone ducks it. Look closely. Or just watch it in HD. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 16 2008 12:43 PM Mishmerized - Thanks for the good word ! About Ozymandias being "super quick" (I'm presuming you mean like the Flash), nope... he's just a man who has spent his whole life perfecting his body. So, yes, he moves faster than most people, but he does a lot of things better than most people. Godot: About the emotion and Eddie's punch... I wasn't saying that the punch was out of emotion... I was talking about emotion being an anti-pain/injury sort of amphetamine injuection. So emotional that you don't care what happens to your hand. As for comparing Watchmen to other media types, it might be best described as the "Citizen Kane of comic books", perhaps ? (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 17 2008 12:08 AM i have not read the book shud i wait till i have seen the movie to read the books or shud i read the books now (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 08 2008 05:32 PM Okay, to all of you complaining that the actors/actresses look too young to play their parts, let's get something straight: There are several flashbacks to earlier decades in the graphic novel. Also, at most, Silk Spectre II is only about thirty five. The scene where Nite Owl comes down like Batman (his character WAS supposed to be partially based on Batman) could be another flashback. Furthermore, Ozymandius looks really, really damn young in the graphic novel also. Another thing: all of you are jacking off about how the graphic novel was a work of genius, but honestly, I think he could've done better. My two main complaints: 1) (the more trivial one) Rorschach is, like all the other heroes, supposed to be someone whom you can really hate if you look at him a certain way. In fact, Alan Moore based Rorschach on his interpretation of Objectivism, which he finds to be a laughable philosophy and derides (while totally misinterpreting it). He failed, however; Rorschach ends up being the one character that you really root for throughout the book. 2)The buildup to the climax is incredible, the book is really mind blowing and all.... but the climax itself is awful. *SPOILER ALERT* This is a summary of the climax: *A couple of punches are thrown* Ozymandius: I'm going to kill half of New York! Nite Owl/Rorscach (while standing there doing nothing) You can't do that! Ozymandius: This is why, this is how, blah blah blah. Nite Owl/Rorschach: *follow around like his pet dogs listening* Ozymandius: Oh, by the way, I did this all a half hour ago. Nite Owl/Rorschach: You bastard. *A couple more punches are thrown. Manhattan/Silk Spectre come in. A cat dies, a gun's fired, a couple more punches are thrown.* Ozymandius: You know, since I already did it, you might as well give up because if you turn me in you'll make everyone mad at each other again. Nite Owl/Manhattan/Silk Spectre: Oh, okay. Rorschach: Nope. *Rorscach walks away with Manhattan following him. Nite Owl and Silk Spectre have sex. Ozymandius has a drink.* Manhattan: I'm not going to let you go tell everyone. Rorschach: Then kill me, *****! *Manhattan kills him, goes back in to see SS and NO cuddling. Smiles, goes to Ozy.* Ozymandius: I did the right thing, right? Manhattan: **** you, and **** humanity. *Disappears* Ozymandius: Damn. How are my stocks today...? That's the climax, folks. It had less impact than a stuffed animal thrown by a five year old. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 10 2008 08:50 PM The comedian says the line "God help us all" after he kills the woman in Vietnam. Manhattan confronts him about killing the pregnant woman and the comedian says "Your drifting out of touch, Doc. Your turning into a flake. God help us all." Because he believes that the reason Manhattan didn't interfere with him killing the woman is because Manhattan has become uninterested in the fate of human beings. Its in chapter 2, page 15. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 22 2008 07:26 AM "There is irony in the DC Comics logo here." There is nothing ironic about the DC logo appearing in the Watchmen film. DC comics published the Watchmen and the characters in Watchmen are based on amalgams of DC characters. Regardless of Alan Moore%u2019s feelings on DC, it doesn%u2019t change the fact that Watchmen is a DC book. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 15 2009 04:30 AM This is awesome!!! (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |
Related Links
Related Articles
- Review Revue: Can Mummy 3 or Swing Vote Beat the Bat? (53)
- Picture Show: The Best Costumes of Comic-Con 2008 (33)
-
Tony Gilroy Practices Duplicity at Comic Con
(0)
-
Rawson Thurber Talks Elfquest
(0)
-
Wes Craven Admits to Scream 4 Talks
(2)
- RT on DVD: Harold & Kumar, Doomsday and Dark City Director's Cut (18)
- RT Video: A Giant Tomato Goes to Comic-Con... (8)
- Weekly Ketchup: TRON, I Am Legend, Hercules, Red Sonja, And More (10)
-
New Underworld: Rise of the Lycans Stills Released
(6)
-
I Am Legend Prequel Coming?
(17)
Most Discussed
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Avatar Soars to #1 Spot (261)
- RT's Best of the Decade! (153)
- Brittany Murphy: 1977-2009 (115)
- Five Favorite Films With Peter Jackson (69)
- Total Recall: Jude Law's Best Movies (56)
- Critics Consensus: Sherlock Holmes Is Worth Investigating (33)
- RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: District 9 and (500) Days of Summer (32)
- Weekly Ketchup: Peter Jackson's Secret Sci-Fi Project (22)
- Friday Harvest: Sherlock Holmes, Toy Story 3, and more! (10)
- What We're Watching on Blu-ray from Disney! (9)
Latest News
- Weekly Ketchup: Peter Jackson's Secret Sci-Fi Project (22)
- Friday Harvest: Sherlock Holmes, Toy Story 3, and more! (10)
- Critics Consensus: Sherlock Holmes Is Worth Investigating (33)
- RT's Best of the Decade! (153)
- Total Recall: Jude Law's Best Movies (56)
- What We're Watching on Blu-ray from Disney! (9)
- RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: District 9 and (500) Days of Summer (32)
- Five Favorite Films With Peter Jackson (69)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Avatar Soars to #1 Spot (261)
- Brittany Murphy: 1977-2009 (115)
Latest Interviews
- Five Favorite Films With Peter Jackson (69)
- Robert Downey Jr. talks Sherlock Holmes & Iron Man 2 - RT Interview (21)
- Director Ruben Fleischer Talks Zombieland (2)
- "I Don't Hate Women": Lars von Trier on Antichrist (17)
- Eric Bana talks Love the Beast - RT Interview (12)
- Fight Club Sound Designer Reflects on Film's 10th Anniversary (24)
- James Schamus talks Taking Woodstock - RT Interview (8)
- John Hurt Talks Harry Potter, Quentin Crisp and Alien - The RT Interview (16)
- Terry Gilliam Talks Doctor Parnassus (24)
- Wes Anderson Talks Fantastic Mr. Fox - RT Interview (9)
Latest Features
- RT's Best of the Decade! (153)
- Five Favorite Films With Peter Jackson (69)
- The Effects of Where the Wild Things Are (34)
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 2 (7)
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 1 (37)
- Five Favorite Films With Avatar's Sam Worthington (60)
- Exclusive: The World of Where the Wild Things Are (10)
- Sundance 2010: RT's 10 Most Anticipated Movies (43)
- 10 Horrifically Profitable Films (46)
- Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies (107)
RSS Feeds