Why is no one talking about the Watchmen trailer?

[rcorporon]

IMO, altering parts of the story are akin to putting VATS into FO3 and claiming it's still Fallout.

There is no reason to alter the story, except to pander to a wider, more mainstream audience, and sell more movie tickets.

Bethesda gets blasted here for doing it, and so should the makers of the Watchmen if they follow the same route.

 

[Pablosdog]

I think though, that the squid ending just couldn't possibly be done, at least credibly in movie form.(Probably one of the "unfilmable" bits Terry gilliam was talking about). However unlike fallout 3, they have actually painstakingly tried to recreate it (at least artwise) set by set, panel by panel. The final product we will all wait and see.

The fact that all the spoken dialogue was pretty much derived from the comic book is excellent though.

 

[Tagaziel]

IMO, altering parts of the story are akin to putting VATS into FO3 and claiming it's still Fallout.

There is no reason to alter the story, except to pander to a wider, more mainstream audience, and sell more movie tickets.

Bethesda gets blasted here for doing it, and so should the makers of the Watchmen if they follow the same route.

Except the makers of the Watchmen have a clue, unlike Bethesda. While personally I'm a bit skeptical of the change, I'm not a mindless fanboy and will reserve final judgement until I see it with my own three eyes.

So far I'm amazed at how much thought and effort goes into recreating the comic book. Look up Blunty3000's making-of videos on YouTube.

 

[Stag]

Really, Mikael? Really? Zack "freedom isn't free" Snyder has a clue?

There's a difference between being a fanboy and being pissed off that a moron is making an adaptation wherein he will (and has) change the story, the setting, everything, as he sees fit, of one of the best comics ever written.

Look at what he's done with Night Owl II. Dan is supposed to be a bumbling fuckup with erectile difficulty and a pudgy fucking belly.
Zack Snyder will not include that. Night Owl II is, from all looks of it, a badass. Night Owl II is a great character, but badass is not the word that comes to mind first.

Snyder is going to make a movie that he thinks will sell, and with a budget like he's been given, you can be sure the producers are too. And that's all well and good for them, but I don't have to like it.

 

[Sander]

IMO, altering parts of the story are akin to putting VATS into FO3 and claiming it's still Fallout.

There is no reason to alter the story, except to pander to a wider, more mainstream audience, and sell more movie tickets.

Bethesda gets blasted here for doing it, and so should the makers of the Watchmen if they follow the same route.

This is entirely different.
First of all, from the looks of the trailer (excluding the look of Nite Owl, although he may come off differently in the actual film) most of the look, atmosphere and story is intact.

Second, movies are not comic books. You cannot make a movie adaptation of a story designed for a comic book, and expect to translate it literally to an entirely different medium. The medium requires different things: it requires a different timeframe, it requires different payoffs, it requires a differently structured story, and it requires a more condensed outline.

Watchmen is a relatively complicated and intricate comic. The story is too big to translate literally to screen and make a good movie. Hence, they need to change some things.

That's not to say that they should change the atmosphere, motifs and important storylines. But it does mean that they can omit parts of the story that weren't important to the core of the original comic books.
I also don't know in how far this movie will be a good adaptation of the comic. But to burn it beforehand for making any changes is bullshit, and to compare the situation of Fallout to this movie both misrepresents the problems many Fallout fans have with Fallout 3 and to miss key differences.

[spoiler:9e15c3b231]
I'd argue, for instance, that the way in which Veidt goes about destroying New York doesn't matter much. The story of a group of artists creating psychological horror is very complicated to get on to screen in a short timespan, and will likely look somewhat out of place and underdeveloped due to the constraints of the movie.
It also doesn't add much to the story thematically, and can be safely replaced with an alternative method that has the same end result: the idea that New York was attacked by an extraterrestrial enemy, killing many people in the process. [/spoiler:9e15c3b231]

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

I think the comparison to Bethesda and Fallout 3 is a more than apt one.

First off, because there is no need whatsoever to turn it into a movie, just like there wasn't to making Fallout 3 FP and RT - it is as much a product of a creatively bankrupt industry as our beloved sequel. Exactly like Tim Cain and co. aimed to replicate the PnP experience, Moore intended to explore the inherent characteristics of comics as a medium. Quoth the man,

You get people saying, 'Oh, yes, Watchmen is very cinematic,' when actually it's not. It's almost the exact opposite of cinematic. [...] I didn't design it to show off the similarities between cinema and comics, which are there, but in my opinion are fairly unremarkable. It was designed to show off the things that comics could do that cinema and literature couldn't.

It also happened that Watchmen was no longer under creative control of its authors when the rights (to the movie, in this case) were sold off to Big Business corporations who couldn't give a damn about anything beyond sales figures. Sounds familiar?

Just like Bethesda, Zack Snyder is good at fluff, and worth shit for substance. Anyone happen to see 300 and his Captain America Leonidas? The convenient removal of his "this is not a democracy" line to Stelios, for an instance? He deems it something for athenians, whom he previously referred to as "boy-lovers", but in the movie version we get a sanitized character for imbecilic audiences who can't recognize heroism outside their own political values, hence also the "hurr, I'd die for my soldiers" speech. Same for Queen Strong Independent Woman Gorgo - feminism in ancient Sparta, ahoy. Snyder captures visuals quite well, but the instant the story goes against shareholders' perception of the market's sensibilities, out the window it goes.

How can one say Snyder has any respect for the work when he deems his skewed version of things better and changes dialogue and story like dirty underwear? We now have, for an instance, a group that was actually called "The Watchmen". A lot of the changes you hear about on the internet are incredibly stupid and ham-fisted, the ending ends up being the least of the problems.

 

[Sander]

I think the comparison to Bethesda and Fallout 3 is a more than apt one.

First off, because there is no need whatsoever to turn it into a movie, just like there wasn't to making Fallout 3 FP and RT - it is as much a product of a creatively bankrupt industry as our beloved sequel. Exactly like Tim Cain and co. aimed to replicate the PnP experience, Moore intended to explore the inherent characteristics of comics as a medium. Quoth the man,

You get people saying, 'Oh, yes, Watchmen is very cinematic,' when actually it's not. It's almost the exact opposite of cinematic. [...] I didn't design it to show off the similarities between cinema and comics, which are there, but in my opinion are fairly unremarkable. It was designed to show off the things that comics could do that cinema and literature couldn't.

It also happened that Watchmen was no longer under creative control of its authors when the rights (to the movie, in this case) were sold off to Big Business corporations who couldn't give a damn about anything beyond sales figures. Sounds familiar?

Just like Bethesda, Zack Snyder is good at fluff, and worth shit for substance. Anyone happen to see 300 and his Captain America Leonidas? The convenient removal of his "this is not a democracy" line to Stelios, for an instance? He deems it something for athenians, whom he previously referred to as "boy-lovers", but in the movie version we get a sanitized character for imbecilic audiences who can't recognize heroism outside their own political values, hence also the "hurr, I'd die for my soldiers" speech. Same for Queen Strong Independent Woman Gorgo - feminism in ancient Sparta, ahoy. Snyder captures visuals quite well, but the instant the story goes against shareholders' perception of the market's sensibilities, out the window it goes.

How can one say Snyder has any respect for the work when he deems his skewed version of things better and changes dialogue and story like dirty underwear? We now have, for an instance, a group that was actually called "The Watchmen". A lot of the changes you hear about on the internet are incredibly stupid and ham-fisted, the ending ends up being the least of the problems.

Alan Moore is pissy about everything involving his comics and movies, considering everything turned to shit (compared to the comics) so far.
Which isn't much of an argument, but still.
Also, don't forget that Dave Gibbons certainly did voice his approval on multiple times and is on some level involved in the movie, and he is just as much the author as Alan Moore is.

That said, there are some very core differences.
First off, this is an entirely different medium, which requires changes to several parts of the story (not to the theme). We have no idea in how far the themes are intact, though.
Second, it's an adaptation, not a sequel.
Third, we know very little about the details of the core design (themes, story and visually, and visually it is at least impressive).

Lastly, Zack Snyder's adaptations were at the very least visually very accurate.

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

don't forget that Dave Gibbons certainly did voice his approval on multiple times

Sure, why wouldn't he? Like I said, Snyder does capture visuals well, so Gibbons' work is mostly being done justice (can't for the life of me figure out some of the changes in costumes, though). The part by Moore, however, doesn't look like it so much.

Second, it's an adaptation, not a sequel.

I'm kinda opposed to adaptations as a whole. If anything shows the general lack of quality in the industry, it has to be the fact that these Hollywood hacks have to resort to ripping off every comic (and even videogames, which usually have shit for a story, for Christ's sake) and cannot be arsed to come up with decent original scripts.

Third, we know very little about the details of the core design

Well, here's another striking similarity to Beth and Failout then: 300 With Spandex. Seriously, his track record is pretty spotty (even if it's no V for Vendetta, God that was awful), and I doubt those slow-mo's from the trailers are going anywhere in the release version.

 

[Tagaziel]

Really, Mikael? Really? Zack "freedom isn't free" Snyder has a clue?

From what I see, yeah.

There's a difference between being a fanboy and being pissed off that a moron is making an adaptation wherein he will (and has) change the story, the setting, everything, as he sees fit, of one of the best comics ever written.

Operative word: adaptation.

It's not a literal, panel-by-panel translation of Watchmen to the big screen, as that is not possible. Frow what I've seen, it's a faithful adaptation of the comic book.

That said, it's not Zack Snyder who adapts the story, it's the screewriter.

Look at what he's done with Night Owl II. Dan is supposed to be a bumbling fuckup with erectile difficulty and a pudgy fucking belly.
Zack Snyder will not include that. Night Owl II is, from all looks of it, a badass. Night Owl II is a great character, but badass is not the word that comes to mind first.

Does it? My impression of Dreiberg was that in the costume, he's far more confident and determined than outside of it.

Snyder is going to make a movie that he thinks will sell, and with a budget like he's been given, you can be sure the producers are too. And that's all well and good for them, but I don't have to like it.

Even though all you have so far are three trailers and a handful of media? Even I wasn't passing ultimate judgement on Fallout 3 with those at hand.

 

[Stag]

I've gotten a bit ahead of myself.

I'm not that angry about the film, though my hopes are quite low for it; I'm more upset at your lack of ire.

I think Zack Snyder is not the right man for this. He's in charge of the movie, ultimately, screenwriter or no.

And your adaptation point is a great one. I think that with a really great director, Watchmen could be turned into a really great movie, that really explores film as a medium, doing the same thing Moore did with comics. But Snyder is incapable of making that movie, from what I've seen of his prior work and in interviews with him.

The point about Night Owl II is that he's fat and bumbling in the comic (despite a few glimpses of heroism in the prison break scene and what have you), whereas in the movie (judging from the trailer, stills, and extrapolating those with Zack Snyder's track record) he seems to be more a FUCK YEAH METALLICA character.

 

[Profit]

As far as Nite Owl II: Apparently the actor, Patrick Wilson, gained about 40 pounds for the role. Not muscle. 40 pounds of fat.

I think that says all that needs to be said about the film keeping Dreiberg as a pudgy has-been, if the new trailer with his goofy hair and glasses doesn't say enough.

I believe in Zack Snyder! Yes we can! Yes we can!...

....

As far as the new ending, I'm a little bit leary of it, but the squid bomb was only a pay-off thanks to all the 'History of pirate comic books' and 'Missing artists' subplots that really couldn't be worked into a film well (unless it was longer than Shoah), and the new ending streamlines it without being too stupid.

Will wait and see.

 

[Crni Vuk]

who's watching the watchmen

Hey guys. I never read the comics but someone whos a fan about them told me the movie might become really awesome. Though what do you think is it/will it be really that good as a movie adaption? It will be released in the US before Europe so.

(from the trailers it seems to be not in a direction like Spiderman or something similar but more darker and grittier, which from how I heard is pretty close to the comics)

It seems to be roughly in a timeline that diverged from our one in the 30s (or around that I am not sure) and pretty much plays in a pararel timeline were the US won the Vietnam war and somewhat managed to tilt the weight of the cold-war in their favour. Well one can get a lot of spoilers from Wiki though.

The Watchman Trailer
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONQ3Zgy195Y[/youtube]

Watchmen: Graphic Novel vs. Movie comparison
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ONqFE1x23w[/youtube]

Alan Moore talks - 02 - Watchmen

 

[Sander]

Merged, also read the damn graphic novel, it's probably one of the best graphic novels ever written.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Merged, also read the damn graphic novel, it's probably one of the best graphic novels ever written.

Thx.

Yeah I would read it. But they're pretty expensive here

 

[analord]

The point about Night Owl II is that he's fat and bumbling in the comic (despite a few glimpses of heroism in the prison break scene and what have you),

Yeah that's not really the point of his character. He kicks ass and takes names plenty of times throughout the comic. Actually I would say he comes off as a bad ass a lot more times then he's a bumbling fat fatty fatso.

Bar fights, alley fights, prison breaks, saving people from burning alive are more then glimpses of heroism.

don't forget that Dave Gibbons certainly did voice his approval on multiple times

Sure, why wouldn't he? Like I said, Snyder does capture visuals well, so Gibbons' work is mostly being done justice (can't for the life of me figure out some of the changes in costumes, though). The part by Moore, however, doesn't look like it so much.

I agree with you. Snyder does do Gibbons' "work" justice.

Except Gibbons' "work" goes beyond just the art in the book. Lots of ideas in Watchmen are Gibbons' not Alan Moore's. He's not just the artist and he doesn't just care about visuals.

This "Watchmen is going to be like Fallout 3" is a strong analogy (too strong). I also like the "Zack Snyder is an incompetent director" argument.

Beth making a sequel to Fallout 2 is completely different then Snyder adapting Watchmen on a number of levels. For one thing, sequels are supposed to be better then the originals. From the getgo Beth was arbitrarily changing key elements of Fallout.
So Beth completely DESTROYED Fallout. By taking out the turn based, they pretty much violently ripped out the heart of Fallout.

How does Snyder rip out the heart of Watchmen?

Are there any complaints about what Snyder is doing to Watchmen that aren't benign?

 

[Sander]

Yeah that's not really the point of his character. He kicks ass and takes names plenty of times throughout the comic. Actually I would say he comes off as a bad ass a lot more times then he's a bumbling fat fatty fatso.

Bar fights, alley fights, prison breaks, saving people from burning alive are more then glimpses of heroism.

The point of the character was more the typical, insecure, nerdy guy using an alter ego to show his strengths.

He isn't supposed to be an superpowered hero, but he isn't supposed to be a bumbling idiot either.

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

Except Gibbons' "work" goes beyond just the art in the book. Lots of ideas in Watchmen are Gibbons' not Alan Moore's. He's not just the artist and he doesn't just care about visuals.

Probably some ideas, yes. Moore does credit most artists he worked with as co-creators, and I imagine this is not only out of the kindness of his heart. David Lloyd had quite a bit of input in V for Vendetta, for an instance - we owe him the Guy Fawkes schtick, if nothing else. How much of Watchmen is whose, however, is pure speculation, just as where Gibbons' priorities or sensibilities lie.

I merely assume the greater part of the writing was done by the writer, which sounds pretty logical to me. Gibbons' work in "The Originals" was competent, but it obviously pales in comparison here.

I also like the "Zack Snyder is an incompetent director" argument.

Hmm? I hope this is not aimed at me, because I never made such a claim. Whatever his directing skills might be, I simply believe he doesn't respect the source material as much as he should, and wildly less so than he is hailed for. Hey, I think we might have stumbled upon another striking similarity to Bethesda.

From the getgo Beth was arbitrarily changing key elements of Fallout.

They changed what they thought was not suited to a larger audience in order to maximize their profits. Exactly the same as the squid. Which is not to say that it is a "key element" or anything, just that nothing is sacred to both Bethesda and Snyder when push comes to shove and faithfulness gets in the way of sales figures. It wasn't in 300, and it won't be now.

 

[Sander]

They changed what they thought was not suited to a larger audience in order to maximize their profits. Exactly the same as the squid. Which is not to say that it is a "key element" or anything, just that nothing is sacred to both Bethesda and Snyder when push comes to shove and faithfulness gets in the way of sales figures. It wasn't in 300, and it won't be now.

That, or they removed the squid because it would require a rather length exposition which cannot be done well in the medium they're using (film), or seem like a completely random addition to the story if they don't use a lengthy exposition.

Removing the squid has nothing to do with not respecting the source material, as it is neither a necessary nor very important part of the source material.

They're adapting this for a new medium. They have to make changes, you can't just directly adapt the comic and expect it to be good as a movie (and that's what they're doing, they're making a good movie).

The comparison with Fallout 3 is (as of yet) unwarranted, as they didn't change any key aspects (for as far as we know), it is in an entirely different medium, it is an adaptation and not a sequel.

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

Removing the squid has nothing to do with not respecting the source material, as it is neither a necessary nor very important part of the source material.

True, to an extent, and I acknowledged that. Still, if rumours are sound, they replaced it for something entirely idiotic, which is to be expected when people with none of the creator's talent are messing with his work.

Another reason why they shouldn't, and another of those "sounds like Bethesda" moments.

They're adapting this for a new medium. They have to make changes, you can't just directly adapt the comic and expect it to be good as a movie (and that's what they're doing, they're making a good movie).

I don't really see the point in adaptations besides filling in for the utter lack of creativity in the movies industry, but let's roll with it. Would you say Sin City didn't work? Not the slightest deviation from the source material there. Okay, it does draw heavily from noir movies, so maybe it owes to that. But how about some book-to-movie adaptations like Clockwork Orange, Silence of the Lambs, The Shining? There might be little info out there on the Watchmen movie so far, but to me it already seems like it's lagging far behind so many other adaptations.

 

[Sander]

I don't really see the point in adaptations besides filling in for the utter lack of creativity in the movies industry, but let's roll with it. Would you say Sin City didn't work? Not the slightest deviation from the source material there. Okay, it does draw heavily from noir movies, so maybe it owes to that. But how about some book-to-movie adaptations like Clockwork Orange, Silence of the Lambs, The Shining? There might be little info out there on the Watchmen movie so far, but to me it already seems like it's lagging far behind so many other adaptations.

I'm not familiar with the Sin City comic books, but all those other movies you mentioned were altered pretty significantly for the big screen.