Why is no one talking about the Watchmen trailer?

Cautiously optimistic, but not holding my breath–that's for sure.

I'm of a mind that it is impossible for anyone to make a faithful movie reproduction of anything Alan Moore has done. Not saying that they can't be decent movies, but that they will seriously stray from the source material.

However, when I saw the trailer in front of TDK I did go slack-jawed and googly-eyed.
 
I kind of feel like the biggest problem with a Watchmen movie is loss of subtext. There are so many things going on in Alan Moore's novel that it will be very easy for a big screen adaptation (no matter how faithful) to lose the nuance in translation. Hopefully Snyder understands that.

Stoked about the rumored 4-hour director's cut, though.

Also, there's an "animated" Watchmen comic on iTunes. It's pretty cool, they've basically taken the original panels and animated the characters and added a voice over. The only shitty thing is that there's only one voice actor. He's pretty good but when Sally Jupiter pops up I just kind of lose it. They should have shelled out for a chick, too.

At least his Rorschach voice is solid.
 
There's a Watchmen video game coming out now.

It's telling the story Moore didn't have time to tell because he's a recluse wizard wanker who doesn't love money...
 
Alan Moore is a twit and besides Top Ten he hasn't had a good idea in over a decade.

So tired of his bullshit attitude and his bullshit beard and his bullshit snake god.
 
Malky said:
Alan Moore is a twit and besides Top Ten he hasn't had a good idea in over a decade.

So tired of his bullshit attitude and his bullshit beard and his bullshit snake god.
Click to expand...

And I'm tired of people not wanting to respect the man's wishes because they have a problem with him on some weird non-existent level.
 
generalissimofurioso said:
Malky said:
Alan Moore is a twit and besides Top Ten he hasn't had a good idea in over a decade.

So tired of his bullshit attitude and his bullshit beard and his bullshit snake god.
Click to expand...

And I'm tired of people not wanting to respect the man's wishes because they have a problem with him on some weird non-existent level.
Click to expand...

What wishes? He's fine with people making films out of his works, he just doesn't want to be involved or credited.
 
Malky said:
Alan Moore is a twit and besides Top Ten he hasn't had a good idea in over a decade.

So tired of his bullshit attitude and his bullshit beard and his bullshit snake god.
Click to expand...

YEAH THAT PRICK'S WHY WE DON'T GOT NO WATCHMEN ACTION FIGGERS

i want to have rorschach foil joker and communist superman
 
I find it quite interesting that when Beth got the rights to Fallout, most people here went berserk without ever seeing a single screenshot from them.

However, when it comes to this movie, the same fans are willing to "give it a chance," even admitting that it won't be a true adaptation of the original graphic novel but they're willing to look past that.

Interesting...
 
Some people can tell the difference between on the one hand two instalments in a series and on the other hand an adaptation of a single work to a different medium.

Interesting...
 
Per said:
Some people can tell the difference between on the one hand two instalments in a series and on the other hand an adaptation of a single work to a different medium.

Interesting...
Click to expand...

The argument can be made that a film adaptation should attempt to remain as faithful to the source material as possible.

Much in the same way that a script for a play and the play itself are near mirror images of each other. A movie, taken from a book / comic / whatever, in my opinion, should be a faithful transition from the page to the screen, with as little interference from the filmmakers as possible. This is why, again in my opinion, "Sin City" was an excellent adaptation of Miller's comics, and "Lord of the Rings" was a shitty adaptation of Tolkien's novel.

Regardless of what the director of "The Watchmen" did before, it is doubtful that he'll be able to capture all the complexity, subtlety, and sheer narrative power of Moore's work.
 
rcorporon said:
The argument can be made that a film adaptation should attempt to remain as faithful to the source material as possible.
Click to expand...

Argument? Sure. It's just not a good idea.

Between time constraints, moving from one medium to another (like, books to movies, say) and having to cut down on internal dialogue and introspection, you HAVE to make changes. Some more extreme than others.

Much in the same way that a script for a play and the play itself are near mirror images of each other. A movie, taken from a book / comic / whatever, in my opinion, should be a faithful transition from the page to the screen, with as little interference from the filmmakers as possible.
Click to expand...

There are some things, not comic books usually, but some things, that CAN'T be perfect adaptations. This is especially true of books, but you can even see it in video game to movie adaptations *shiver*.

Sometimes it's a good idea to get 'interference.'

This is why, again in my opinion, "Sin City" was an excellent adaptation of Miller's comics, and "Lord of the Rings" was a shitty adaptation of Tolkien's novel.
Click to expand...

Sin City had "neo-noir" written all over it in HUGE red letters. It was damn near impossible to NOT adapt it word-for-word and do well.

As to Jackson's LOTR... well... he had to cut out a lot of stuff. Things that were dangling- or just didn't make sense if you didn't know the lore- from the books.

For the former, take the cutting out of the "The Scouring of the Shire" chapter. That part of LOTR was dangly as hell in the books, and I would've been happy to never have seen it adapted to the movie screen- if Jackson & co. hadn't instead added in about half an hour of uneccessary slow-mo.

For the latter, the film LOTR cut out Tom what-his-name, the old guy in the forest, and the Barrow Wights. Both very entertaining in the books, but things that made you go "huh?" if you didn't know the lore. So, gladly cut.

Regardless of what the director of "The Watchmen" did before, it is doubtful that he'll be able to capture all the complexity, subtlety, and sheer narrative power of Moore's work.
Click to expand...

Agreed.... though he may come close. Still hoping for the best.
 
rcorporon said:
Much in the same way that a script for a play and the play itself are near mirror images of each other.
Click to expand...

But that's a completely different situation. A play is written not with the purpose of being read, but with the purpose of being performed as a play, whereas a comic is written with the purpose of being read as a comic.

Now, this isn't to say I'm unexcited. I loved the trailer, even the website excites me (note the shifting Rorschachs on that character's mask), but these are meant to excite me, and who knows whether or not the final product will excite me as much.

As far as the trailer goes, the look is nailed. Rorschach looks good, and the voice is down for sure; Doc Manhattan looks solid (note that they're not censoring the character's nudity); Silk Spectre looks good, and the actress even seems to capture the character's emotion simply with her facial expressions; Nite Owl looks good; and the Comedian looks brilliant. As Malky mentioned, he's obviously enjoying being a bastard, totally true to the character.

While it is true that Zack Snyder translated 300 faithfully in many ways, but also added a few things which were the most derided parts of the movie. Ultimately, I enjoyed the action and skip through any scenes with the Queen in them; these weren't in the comic and also suck really hard.
I liked the Dawn of the Dead remake for what it was.

So, the dude has made some enjoyable action movies, but Watchmen isn't about action.

Wait and see, but as DDD is, I am cautiously optimistic.

Edit:

The Beginning Is The End Is The Beginning is a really good song.


Aslo, an adaptation doesn't have to be word for word to be faithful. A true adaptation embodies the story, themes, characters, and spirit of the work and paints them in a different medium. They're different. I have things to do, so I'll leave it at that, but this is a point that shouldn't be overlooked. Watchmen doesn't need to have every panel recreated to be a good adaptation.
 
I was looking forward to Spiderman 3.

Nothing can disappoint me now.

Seriously, how can you fuck up Spiderman...

The trailer is good. Goes along with the music perfectly. I trust there will be more goodies in the actual film. I'm glad they got a bunch of barely known actors. It will be interesting to see if these people can act. As apposed to Sean Connery as Rorschach and Tom Cruise as Ozymandias. This is looking to be a lot better then the insipid shitacular that was V for Vendetta.

Also I trust Zack Snyder mainly because he didn't direct Matrix Reloaded and Dawn of the Dead was fucking awesome. Also he's not an ignorant slut (see Sam Raimi).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top