As I’ve mentioned here before, I admittedly know nothing about comic books. The non-superhero comics very often turn out quite well in their transition to the big screen (American Splendor, Persepolis, et. al.). There’s a character depth and important storyline there that film makers with any talent seem to be able to tap into and make the audience feel something from. With adaptations of superhero comics to film, it seems that the only thing of interest to the film maker(s) is getting the shiniest and biggest effects on screen along with “kick-ass” action sequences and one-upping each other on the adrenaline level.
As I’ve been told again, time after time from anyone and everyone who knows anything about comic books is that the characters actually are really deep with intriguing stories and layers of complexity. Of this I have no doubt. But until a film maker decides to tap into that supposed wealth of plot, I remain beyond skeptical of any super hero film from here on out (with the noted exception of The Dark Knight).
Over the past week or two, all sorts of marketing material have been popping up for Watchmen (IMDb) directed by Zack Snyder. While I admire Mr. Snyder for some of his past works, nothing about what I’ve seen from him screams depth or anything other than typical popcorn flair. Admittedly I like his remake of Dawn of the Dead quite a bit, but even I recognize that that is partly due to my positive bias towards zombie flicks. As for 300; it was fun the first time, but I couldn’t make it through a second viewing.
The character posters are rather typical of large cast movies these days and those recently released are overly eye-catching and annoying – the stupid little saying from each character is equally annoying.
Next we have the trailer (which you can see below the cut). Did they get Christian Bale to don his Batman costume and record the voice over narration? Now I understand that the marketing department’s job is to get as many people in the seats as possible, but seriously, this just looks like a darker version of Fantastic Four with as much effect work as possible jammed in there. Which leads me to believe there is very little room for character development, plot line or complexity.
Now I can hear “Muse” as the soundtrack music in the background and I can appreciate that, but otherwise this looks to me like an effects laden bore fest. “But you didn’t read the comics, so you just don’t get it,” is what I’ll hear from fans/supporters. Well excuse me, but I shouldn’t have to have read the comic in order to “get” a movie. If there’s this huge plotline or back story that is necessary to fully understand the complexity of the movie, then by God put that in the film. If you’re telling me that to enjoy the movie I have to go back and read 15 volumes from the Marvel Universe, then either A) the film makers are lazy and can’t properly tell a story or B) the story shouldn’t be put to film in the first place.
So to me this looks like just another awful carbon copy of Hulk, Fantastic Four or Darkman with different characters. So until I hear something that contradicts my initial feelings about this movie from several people that I trust, Marvel will not be seeing any of my hard earned dollars.
What say you?
How DARE you putting Darkman in the same league as Fantastic Four or the Hulk!!!
But that aside I completely agree with what you said. If I hadn’t read the comic, and found it to be a brilliant piece of deconstructing work, I would basically think the same thing. There is nothing in those trailers that convey the feel of the comic. It’s too slick to begin with, a big gripe with me, and the actors are too pretty. That alone drops my expectation level considerably and shows me that they are not handling it with the respect it deserves.
But at the same time I understand why they are doing this. This is a business after all, catering to young adults for the most part and middle aged saggy and chubby superheroes are not what the kids want to see.
Hopefully this is a demand from the studio that the filmmakers had to bow down to in order to get the story to the screen and hopefully that is the only compromise they had to give in to. Something tells me though that it isn’t.
I’ve always said that if you had to put this story to the screen it should have been put on the TV screen, with HBO or Showtime producing a miniseries. It’s also what they should have done with From Hell, another Alan Moore creation that got butchered on the silver screen.
I think you’re lost on this one, man. Watchmen is the best comic I’ve read, period. There’s little to no action to be had. It’s really pretty much a murder mystery with masked heroes as the main characters, all of which save one have no actual superpowers. It’s an alternate reality 1985 where because of superheroes Richard Nixon is still in power. Even the most anti-comic book people I know love that book, and I don’t see any reason why you wouldn’t either. It’s that good, and even if the movie is great it still probably won’t compare to the book.
There’s only so many graphic novels or comics I’d urge you to read, and this is one. The movie requires no backstory, it IS the story.
Carbon copy of the Hulk? Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.
(and no, you don’t have to read some 30 years of stories or anything – you can read the whole Watchmen book in a few sittings, its easy to find. I’m positive your library would have a copy.)
You don’t have to like it. It looks pretty bad. But the book is great.
Goon, you’ve made my point for me. I’m sure the comic is great, but the movie is going to let you down because this great story that you’re speaking of won’t be captured. It will be a blow it out your ass effects bonanza and that’s it. Hollow.
I have no doubt the comic is great. The movie looks worryingly glossy. Isn’t this supposed to be a gritty story?
And andrew, I agree with Swarez. Don’t dis the Darkman.
Oh yes it’s gritty. Filthy more accurately. There is grime in every panel of the story. Plus the main characters are all middle aged, saggy and wide around the waist. The Night Owl is a chubby impotent depressive who barely fits in his costume when the times comes to don it.
It’s not gritty like Frank Miller adolescent “I am fear and anger incarnate” gritty. It’s gritty like as in not extraordinary. Down to earth. It is drawn in a pretty glossy style though, primary colors and all.
And Darkman sucks ass. Boring. Hulk on the other hand? Very good.
We all love Hulk around here. Isn’t andrew referring to the recent INCREDIBLE HULK?
Who knows? I actually didn’t mind the Incredible Hulk either. I loved the over-the-top comic book shit like the soundwave cannons and the abomination flipping a car up with his foot – it was on par with Hellboy 2. And Tim Roth saying “She was an annoying bitch” is something you can only dream of in shit like Iron Man.
Answers:
A) I’m not a huge Raimi fan. Other than the “Ash” series and “For Love of the Game,” I could take him or leave him. I saw Darkman when it first cam out and remember thinking it was pretty boring. And at 15, you’re supposed to love that shit.
B) I AM referring to the recent Hulk incarnation. It’s horrible. But I stand alone from the rowthree crowd in also not liking Ang Lee’s vision. I’d be willing to give it another go-round, but it will take a lot of hutzpah to get me in the mood – or nothing else better to watch.
“I’m sure the comic is great, but the movie is going to let you down because this great story that you’re speaking of won’t be captured”
shut up with the ‘cant win dont try’ attitude. JEEZ. I mean christ, there’s a lot of movies I love that still aren’t nearly as good as the books, from Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil to In Cold Blood to V for Vendetta. Hell, I love the Hitchhikers Guide movie and it isn’t even 1/100th as good as the book. I know enough not to get too crazy about expectations when it comes to great books, especially when the director of that movie is the guy who made 300, which I am clearly on the record as not being impressed by.
Besides, my whole rant earlier was pissy at you for making assumptions about things just because it had a DC logo at the beginning of the film. It’s made pretty goddam clear in the trailer that its a murder plot. No smash em up action, no tandem fighting, so your assumptions are frankly, unwarranted. If you want to attack a freaking blockbuster for showcasing effects shots in a goddam trailer, I’d have to say you’ve gone off the deep end with the cynicism.
Whether the movie sucks or not, I’m interested to see it. It’s not going to beat the book, I’ve accepted that, but it could still be pretty damn good. I’m not convinced but I have hope. I guarantee you now I will NOT be someone walking out of the theater having a shit fit if it isn’t superb.
I was defending the Watchmen earlier the same way I defended the Golden Compass even though that movie was disappointing and had no chance to be better than the book – people were making false assumptions about it because of rumors and the fact that there were a zillion other effects laden fantasy films out at the time. I simply want to tell you what makes it different that you’re dead wrong about and encourage you to read the friggin book.
Well said, Goon.
I like the graphic novel a lot, I wouldn’t say I love it. I do not see any way this film adaptation will work. I agree with Swarez, as an HBO show it would have been awesome.
That trailer did nothing for me.
The trailer doesn’t seem to be in line with the theme or style of the book. But it is just a trailer.
I find articles like this to be puzzling. Why bother passing judgement on a project before you’ve seen it? Everyone knows that marketing is inherently deceptive.
I’ve been skeptical of The Watchmen movie since the initial script draft stage. Moore and Gibbons own this story, as it is on the page. The nature of the story seems best suited for the graphic novel format. Blockbusters wouldn’t seem to service this type of psychological, character driven story. But like I was saying above, we can’t judge until we’ve seen it. IMO Snyder has proven himself to be extremely adept as a stylist. I am very interested in seeing how he attempts to adapt the style of the book to the screen.
One last thing – I can’t remember if the Black Freighter stuff was going to be included in this. If it’s not, I’m going to hold final judgment until the DVD release, which supposedly would include all that Black Freighter stuff.
Well, as many have pointed out before me, Watchmen is based on possibly the greatest single graphic novel ever written. Too, it is directed by Zack Snyder, who directed 300. Of course, if you don’t like comic books or 300 (also based on a graphic novel), then Watchmen might not be for you. But there are good superhero movies, and bad superhero movies. The Ang Lee Hulk and the first FF movie are examples of bad ones. Superman II and The Dark Knight are examples of good ones. This looks like it could be good.
Mercurie, I’m not sure how you draw the line between good and bad when you put any Hulk movie and Superman II (???) on opposite sides of it. Cinematic adaptations; supernatural stories set in modern world; good vs evil; etc. These are all pieces that raise our awareness of cinema as a form and bring us to question any single film’s artfulness. I’d say none of those examples you listed has done anything to push cinema forward significantly. Watchmen likely won’t either, but it is still of interest to understand why a piece of such importance on the page will or will not translate to the screen.
I have to say that Kevin Smith’s stamp of approval on the version he’s already seen does mean something to me. Not that I consider him some guru or an indicator of my tastes, but he’s especially blunt when it comes to adaptations of comic books. Him saying its fantastic and faithful doesnt guarantee to me that its fantastic and faithful, but it does make me more confident that it’s passable.
I don’t trust that at all. I just watched Clerks II for the first time. Anyone how was responsible for that would be the last person I would trust for any judgment of cinema.
Well pooh on you because Clerks II is a great film, and like Before Sunset it turned my prejudged ‘why? no please don’t’ into one of my favorite films from that year.
I have my own problems with Kevin Smith. I find him interesting overall, but he both tries too hard and not enough within the same film over and over again. Oddly enough within something like “Clerks II” I found that turned out to its benefit.
This evening I rented the new “Evening with Kevin Smith” thing he put out. The first set he put out was good, the second one was awful, thanks mostly to lack of anything interesting to discuss at that time in his career (Jersey Girl era) and bad questions from the audience just kissing ass over and over. This one, hit and miss. Smith is kind of like Henry Rollins in that he’s extremely long winded. When he’s telling an interesting anecdote, that’s fantastic, but when he spends an hour talking about his dogs, as he does in this new one during the first hour, its excruciating. On one hand, I like how blunt and open he is about everything. On the other hand, this means he’s way too comfortable saying ‘fuck’ every second word, and constantly using the word ‘pimp’ and ‘dropped science’.
Also, his slobness does get on my nerves. I mean people rat on Michael Moore but he’s James Bond next to Smith. His crowd of minions are all fatasses in Mooby uniforms looking up to him as god. In the end I like what I like, and with Smith’s movies overall I’ve liked them more than I’ve disliked them.
Regardless of whether or not you have read (or enjoyed) the graphic novel, I cannot really see what is appealing about this project – particularly following the trailer. Snyder is a very stylistic director, and I found his two major films to be somewhat entertaining, but wholly unfulfilling. Dawn of the Dead was a solid horror/zombie flick, but it is very limited in that regard. 300 was a great viewing experience in Imax, but it has zero re-watch value. Neither has a real heart or even substance, and this appears to be in the same vein.
As it stands, Watchmen looks like a special effects orgy, brimming with slow motion action sequences, big explosions, and funny plastic-looking costumes. I am not sure if it is the filming style or the material, either, but Rorshach’s mask looks incredibly awkward, as well.
As a fan of Watchmen, I will probably end up seeing Snyder’s adaptation. Regardless of my own want of the story to be accurate and faithful, I am not the type of viewer to harp on a film for changing things and taking liberties… however, I cannot help but feel that this is a modern rehashing of 300, with funnier outfits and bigger explosions.
“Neither has a real heart or even substance, and this appears to be in the same vein.”
Dawn of the Dead, even with the satirical value, is a pretty shallow story. 300′s source material had to be pretty padded to be feature length, and that source material itself is kind of overrated. Watchmen is something great with real heart and substance being filtered into a 2 hour theatrical movie (albeit will be much much longer on DVD apparently). I’m not saying his past work should be disregarded in how this could fuck up, but I do think he’s working with a much different challenge.
I don’t think its going to be full of slow motion, I think its just a trailer technique. Since there’s not much action in Watchmen, I think he’s just milking some things for all they’re worth so he doesnt end up putting everything in the trailers.
As for accurate and faithful, I’m willing for liberties to be taken. They have to be, both in story and in character. Oh no, Nite Owl doesn’t have a ponch! I really don’t see the point in directly transcribing the comic, and some things, like the meta-comic and end of chapter articles and reports, etc, have important things in them that are going to have to come to screen in some other fashion. When it comes to adaptating from books, ‘accurate’ and ‘faithful’ are pretty much relative terms..
Anyone who expects too much actually DESERVES scorn when they don’t get what they want, not because its foolish to demand greatness, but because they clearly don’t have enough grasp on reality to foresee what could be different and why, and in many cases are too snobby or shallow to accept any revision, regardless of how well it works within the context of the film.
Goon you seem to be arguing in defense of failure.
Kevin Smith is pathetic in terms of being an artist or even an entertainer. Scott Mosier on the other hand, seems like an extremely nice person. The SModcast I listen to regularly, and sometimes it’s quite good. Sometimes – usually when Kevin Smith wants to discuss something in the news and actually expresses his asinine and uneducated opinions, it’s not very good.
The movies are dreadful though. Except for Dogma, that ones good.
Henrik I thought I was agreeing with you there. You’re joking I hope.
I am not joking, but don’t we agree? It disliked Clerks 2 strongly as well.
“The movies are dreadful though. Except for Dogma, that ones good.”
I think Dogma is his second shittiest movie, right behind Jersey Girl. It’s almost nothing but exposition scenes, a total snore.
“Goon you seem to be arguing in defense of failure.”
The majority of critics liked it. I’ve made a defense of Smith, you two have said nothing. do better.
I like Clerks, Chasing Amy, Clerks II. All very entertaining movies coming from some sort of real place in Smith’s background without being overbearing and clunky (Dogma, Jay & Silent Bob -and I’m assuming from what I’ve heard Jersy Girl and Zack & Miri – although I’ve not immediate plans to see either).
Smith squandered his potential as a filmmaker when his lecture/Q&A tours seemed to be the focus of his career rather than growing as a director.
I still like his brand of dialogue though, and C, C2 & CA all showcase this quite nicely within their stories.
Chasing Amy is ridiculous. The ending is one of the most far-fetched things I have seen in a film.
Clerks 2 not clunky? Like when the one guy tells the other guy everything in the jail? That was real elegant storytelling. And the so-called problems these people face are so shallow and uninteresting I can not imagine any thinking person ever caring for them. What decent qualities do they possess? They’re comedies, and they’re not that funny. I mean who laughs at somebody making fun of a religious guy by saying what he likes is made by Satan? Is there a joke somewhere? But I don’t even find the Star Wars shit or milk person in Clerks funny at all, it does nothing for me.
And the acting is among the worst I have ever seen from a major production. It didn’t even work for me in Clerks, I thought the acting was horrible even in that context.
“special effects orgy” And what’s wrong with that? 300 was exactly that and it was fine. I don’t think it’s fair to compare this to the graphic novel – the case has already been made that there’s no way a movie can capture what Moore was going for (I’m only a few pages in – give me time). I don’t see anything wrong with the disconnect between the two works especially when you take Moore’s throughts on the adaptation into consideration.
As for this particular trailer…not good. I prefer the original.
Marina,
I disagree about 300. In that particular film, Snyder chose style over substance, and it showed throughout the film. That makes for an entertaining film at first glance, but a failure in terms of how the film holds up… and it destroys the re-watch value. I fear that that will be the same case with Watchmen, given the trailers at hand.
Obviously, I could be wrong – trailers are oftentimes very distinct from the film. However, that is the impression I take away here.
Agree with Domenic on 300 – visually stunning and VERY entertaining on first-viewing but loses it’s appeal on repeats. The “style over substance” mentality, extreme example of it in fact, really shows when you try to watch it again and again.
However it’s funny as I find Sin City very rewatchable.
Btw Clerks II is hilarious.
What’s wrong with it Marina is that if there’s nothing to tie all those nifty looking effects with something worthwhile, then what’s the point? Sometimes I can just go with a film that looks pretty, but over time it degrades into basically a big chunk of nothing. Domenic is exactly right with 300. I remember walking out of the theater having really enjoyed myself. I watched it again about a week after it hit DVD and I couldn’t get through the first hour. It is atrociously boring (aside from Lena Heady’s character).
And so far I’m trying not to compare the comic with the movie. My whole point is that we should not have to compare. A film should hold up on its own. If we take the entire comic aspect out of the equation, how would this film be received? Will it hold up? Will it make any sense? Will there be some sort of emotional component to latch on to or will it simply be an “orgy of special effects”?
@Domenic – I didn’t see much substance in 300 to begin with – just pure eye candy. And does it work on the small screen for rewatchability? Not as much but I have seen it 2 since the original theatrical release and yeah, I still think it works on a purely entertaining level. Mind you, both times was in the background while doing something else but there are worse films that I watch repeatedly that others would (rightly) consider “shit”.
@Andrew – I think the difference is that you’re hopping for something good and deep to come from the Hollywood marketing machine and I’m not. I’m happy to be mindlessly entertained by the machine but when I want substance, I go elsewhere. I don’t care that all this is going to give me is an orgy of special effects. I’m saddened that some people won’t look further than the multiplex for their movies and please, don’t think I’m talking about you because I’m NOT, but it’s not worth the effort to look for meaning in 300 or even this new adaptation – there simply isn’t any. If substance is what the people want from this story, they’ll have to read the book.
Hence, the title of this post.
Part of this (And I’m guilty too, See earlier StarTrek post) is that there is some sort of misplaced obligation to comment on the ‘mammoth marketing’ blockbusters, despite that fact that the better thing to do is ignore them completely. The Litmus test is whether or not folks go out to see Watchmen or Star Trek or just simply skip past them in pursuit of the the smaller films (which are hopefully, –but not necessarily– better).
“I’m tryin’, Ringo. I’m tryin’ real hard to be the shepherd.”
@Andrew – Good point! lol
gotta say I love that poster though.
I think it is a bit unfair to say people shouldn’t have high expectations for a Watchmen film because it is just another one of those mindless big budget extravanganzas… the expectations were set by the graphic novel which is character driven not action driven. That the film is being marketed as action is a worthy thing to criticize.
Funny enough (and completely opposite of my point in this post), I will be seeing Star Trek with some sort of expectations. I like JJ Abrams, I like the Star Trek characters and I’m interested in seeing their younger years aboard the Enterprise. Yes it looks a little on the cheesy/glossy side of things, but I do have some sort of attachment to the ST universe and would like to see back story.
The thing with ST is that it can go in any direction it wants and can provide its own story to fit within 120 minutes. In other words, it was written directly for the screen; only using preconceived characters. On the other hand, Watchmen is shackled to its source material which as I understand it is pretty complex and deep. So it will be difficult to transfer into 2 hours.
thank you rot. As always you are more eloquent in making my point EXACTLY.
Watchmen and Star Trek gets crammed down our throats. The machine doesn’t allow for a proper litmus test, since the deck is stacked so immensely. It’s not shameful to respond to the hype, it’s only natural.
The only advice I can give, is this: It may seem like it’s weird to not see something when seemingly it is on everybodys mind and is this major event that you shouldn’t miss, but tell yourself that it will only last a week and you will be fine. After the opening weekend, it’s pretty much over and done with as far as the event goes, and you will no longer feel the strong urge to keep with the joneses.
Been doing this for a while now. Trying to ween myself further and further off the blockbuster machine, in lieu of more foreign and older stuff.
The success has been rather mixed, but I’ve certainly been skipping most of the superhero stuff over the past few years.
I’ll get to C2 stuff at a later time (Busy busy night)
“And so far I’m trying not to compare the comic with the movie. My whole point is that we should not have to compare.”
When you’re suggesting there’s no substance and that its comparable to Fantastic Four and the Hulk, its perfectly reasonable for us to bring up the comic, which is the entire story for this film, as a rebuttal.
“Will there be some sort of emotional component to latch on to or will it simply be an “orgy of special effects”?”
The only thing we know about the film is who is directing it, who is in it, and that in many ways they are trying to translate it closer to the source material than a lot of other comic books films have done with theirs. With this in mind, all I can say its that at this point its unreasonable to be negatively speculating to the extent that you are.
“I think it is a bit unfair to say people shouldn’t have high expectations for a Watchmen film because it is just another one of those mindless big budget extravanganzas.”
Who is saying that? I’m specifically saying that if you want to have a good time, you shouldn’t set your expectations beyond what is reasonable given the general book vs. film standards.
“the expectations were set by the graphic novel which is character driven not action driven. That the film is being marketed as action is a worthy thing to criticize.”
When you know the actual story and you’re criticizing THAT instead of how its being marketed, its not. For me personally, I don’t think its being marketed as an action movie so much as its marketing towards the people already familiar with it. You can critique that too but it may not be such a bad idea to get your base excited first. the 300 campaign was one of the best, if not the best, campaign of last year, whether you like the movie or not – so I have to believe they have some strategy going forward.
I don’t know why people are surprised that the trailer looks cheesy in parts. It’s Star Trek. It isn’t Hamlet (Although throughout the Patrick Stewart years it could have been).
It’s a movie. About people who fight in ships. In space. Against monsters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN6LZfJafbg
That’s what they’ve come from. If you expect to go to this movie and leave contemplating the meaning of life, you deserve to consider your eight dollars a waste. If you want to see a movie where some of the most famous science-fiction characters fight aliens, then chances are you’ll probably like this movie.
You may be in the wrong thread there Andy
When it comes to trailers, I don’t think there’s any case of any film where the trailer itself guarantees I will never see it (even if I’ve said that). I can list way too many movies that had shitty trailers that eventually put out a good one or through word of mouth had me give it a chance anyways and end up pleased. This year alone, Kung Fu Panda. Shitty trailer, shitty TV spots, meh poster. the tomatometer though made me go ‘seriously? thats a 94%’ and on cheap night lo and behold, there it was. saw it twice, bought it last week. Speculation is fun but it shouldn’t be fundamental.
That last sentence made me very pleased with myself, even though it may not actually make sense.
Ha. I know, right Goon? I scanned down to check the recent comments and saw a few about ‘Star Trek’ so I threw mine out there.
But take the same thing I said for ‘Star Trek’, insert ‘Watchmen’ instead and then a clip about a man who flies around a city in an owl costume.
Sorry if I’m derailing, but the sentiment of this comment from Marina troubles me:
“@Andrew – I think the difference is that you’re hopping for something good and deep to come from the Hollywood marketing machine and I’m not. I’m happy to be mindlessly entertained by the machine but when I want substance, I go elsewhere. I don’t care that all this is going to give me is an orgy of special effects. I’m saddened that some people won’t look further than the multiplex for their movies and please, don’t think I’m talking about you because I’m NOT, but it’s not worth the effort to look for meaning in 300 or even this new adaptation – there simply isn’t any. If substance is what the people want from this story, they’ll have to read the book.”
Why should strong cinema necessarily have anything to do with anything “deep”? Why is 300 mindless? There’s a lot to be said about a movie like 300. There is definitely meaning there. It’s just not the kind of life affirming, serious question asking meaning you have always thought is of uppermost value. There is just as much value in aesthetic construction as there is in ethical construction.
@ “But you didn’t read the comics, so you just don’t get it,” is what I’ll hear from fans/supporters.
for the record, I would say something much more intelligent than that.
@Goon, actually my comment #40 was directed at the diminishing of Watchmen’s importance by Kurt and Marina, I think despite the immediate perception of someone who has not read the graphic novel this looks like more of the same, but the point is it SHOULDN’T be.
Watchmen shouldn’t be your average mindless blockbuster, and I at least got the vibe from the trailer that this was what it was doling out. Maybe that is all it can be because I just do not see how you translate the novel’s story into two hours, it probably has to be a compromise to appeal to the fanbase and action fans.
I think it is more or less agreed that there is cause for concern that Zak Snyder’s 300 stylings are being applied to this source material.
I did dig the Smashing Pumpkins tune in the first trailer.
You know Drew, if I wanted to read some idiot blithly rambling on about a movie he hates even though he has never seen it I would read Halfyard’s columns.
Cheers Matt. When are you coming back on our little show to butt heads in a spittle-shower of froth?
I agree with you on negative posts however. I’m aiming to to be all about the love in the future. *Smooch*
Never said I hate the movie, but should I ever get around to watching it, I fully expect to hate it.
@ I don’t think its going to be full of slow motion, I think its just a trailer technique.
I believe Devin from chud has confirmed it’s in the movie.
“should I ever get around to watching it, I fully expect to hate it.”
Hate’s a pretty strong word. While I can see someone not being interested from the trailer, saying you expect to outright HATE it seems like hyperbole to me.
@Rusty. Since it was all over 300, that is no surprise that the speed-ramp and slo mo is rampant here. I agree that this story probably deserves better than this glossy sheen.
A loving kiss from Kurt at this point is about the same as a hating slap from a thinking person. Seems to be random which movies are hated and which aren’t.
@Kurt
Anna will be out of town over the Thanksgiving weekend, so if you and Andrew can figure out a time to record I’m open to swinging over to his place.
I don’t get it how you can say that the film is crap without even seeing it. that is simply stupid. If you want to critique films than you have to see them. It’s that simple.
who the fuck you talking to, Zee? the writer of the article? he says from the pictures and trailers he has seen, he is left with zero influence. he admits to not knowing much about it, but is saying that nothing has convinced him that he will like it.
is he not allowed to think that before he sees the film? do we have to go see EVERY movie or can we not decide that HEY, that movie looks like crap to me, i shouldn’t waste my money on it.
@ Zee,
NOWHERE in the article do I mention that “the film will be crap”. I make no predictions about how the quality of the film will be.
I’m simply saying that so far there is more evidence to support the fact that I probably won’t like the movie, than there is evidence to the contrary.
Perhaps read the article before commenting?
As much as I am convinced that I won’t like this movie (and I doubt most Alan Moore fanboys will either) I really do love the alternative history viral marketing campaign they have been doing for this film. I have got to get me a “Better Blue than Red” shirt.
.
These actually feel like the comic. Like Snyder actually gets it. And that at least gives me some hope that this movie won’t just be mindless slow motion violence.
Yup. Gotta admit – I like these.
The second one is capital A Awesome, even if it feels like a R-rated version of the opening to THE INCREDIBLES.
That’s because The Incredibles took the idea from Watchmen.
Do we have to have the whole Robocop/Iron Man discussion again Kurt?
*Slaps forehead. I should have seen that one coming…
I’d seen those floating around but hadn’t actually watched them yet. They’re both very good and you’re absolutely right Matt – very much in keeping with the comic (which I started reading yesterday and can’t seem to put down).
someone totally needs to mash the trailer up with Syndrome from the Incredibles as the culprit.
Could we not taint Watchmen (even a bastardized movie version of it) by relating it to The Incredibles please?
One more:
Oops, just realized that it’s not a viral video. My bad. The rest of the webisodes are here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/watchmenlesgardiens
“Could we not taint Watchmen (even a bastardized movie version of it) by relating it to The Incredibles please?”
Sorry, facts are facts and Incredibles intentionally or unintentionally, merged elements of Watchmen and Fantastic Four into its story.
But it’s like comparing Resident Evil to 2001: A Space Oddysey because Resident Evil has an evil AI.
I mean relating :/.
It’s not Marvel, it’s DC.
is this guy clueless or what? you obviously do not have a taste for good movies. you probably thought the wrestler or Milk were good films, like all the other homos in holllywood. know your sh!t before you bash anything. this movie will be insane, its not like any other superhero movie out, plus it is rated as a hard R
^ This is why we have rowthree. BEST comment ever here. Cheers Chuck.
“you probably thought the wrestler or Milk were good films, like all the other homos in holllywood. know your sh!t before you bash anything.”
HA HA HA HA HA HA HAFHHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHHAHAHAH AHHAHAHAHHAHAH. funniest comment i’ve seen here in weeks.
go back to THE MOVIE BLOG
That comment pretty much proves the entire point of the post I think. Fuckin mouth breathers.
Oh, I have to disagree. The comic is awesome, and I think the movie is too. I mean, if I hadn’t read the book first. I would still have gotten it. Character insights and all. I think they did a pretty good job.
Having read the comic I didn’t care for the changes, but the ones made were for the sake of getting the point across to those who may not have read it. I think they did an awesome job.
I just saw the movie today, and not having even touched the comic book, I thought the movie was great. You need to learn to watch movies with an open mind to actually judge them properly. I went into this movie blindly not knowing anything about it except from what I saw on the trailer. I haven’t seen “300″ yet so I’m not too familiar with the guy that did the visual direction, but I thought this movie was very good. I hated the hulk and the Fantastic four movies, this movie is no where near as bad or bad at all. I actually want to read the comics now so I can learn more about it. Throughout the movie as the plot rolls out, you actually learn about each person. The only thing I didn’t care about was seeing Dr. Manhattan’s unit in many scenes. Could have done without that, but if it holds true to the comic, then so be it. As far as your comment about the magazine cover, they didn’t just add the underwear to cover him up. In the movie there were a few scenes where he was wearing underwear and also a suit. I’m definitely going to buy this when it comes out on dvd.
I’ll give the movie full credit in making me finally pick up the book and read it.
I liked Andrew Grants observation that WATCHMEN the FILM is like a massive budgeted avant-guard art installation. It can be appreciated and soaked in visually, but its kinda uncanny valley in the emotion dept.