Watchmen live-action adaption

TV, Movies, Sports...you can find it all in here.

Postby Cognitive Gear » Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:29 pm

The other day, I showed the new trailer to a couple of friends who have not read the book yet. The consensus between them was:

The original teaser confused them, and left them with no idea what in the world "Watchmen" was. Looked cool, though.

The new trailer makes them want to read the book. There's some sort of anti-superhero conspiracy going on, there doesn't seem to be a villain, and it looks "complex". Oh, and "That guy in the hat is bad*&&." :lol: I think that it's nice to hear people say "I want to read the book." after watching the trailer for a movie.

A possible spoiler about the movie, from an observation about the trailer:

BIG SPOILER IF YOU HAVE NOT READ WATCHMEN

[spoiler]There's a big blue explosion in New York. I'm guessing that this is our lack of psychic squid doom. Manhattan uses blue energy for everything, so Manhattan is framed? I'm not sure how that will fit into the big shoes left by our tentacled doom, but I can see it working with a few tweaks here and there so we don't have the plot hole of Russia wanting to instantly attack while America is no longer protected by Manhattan. [/spoiler]
[font="Tahoma"][SIZE="2"]"It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things."

-Terry Pratchett[/SIZE][/font]
User avatar
Cognitive Gear
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 9:00 am

Postby ich1990 » Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:10 pm

After hearing many good things about Watchmen, I read the first twenty pages at my bookstore. I extremely enjoyed Rorschach's social commentary, but decided to stop when I got to an attempted rape.

Now that I have seen the trailer, which is darn awesome, I am considering continuing the graphic novel. So, for one of you who has read it, what kind of "bad content" is in the novel (specifically sex/nudity)?

Also, the first trailer is much better due to the music. It fits the trailer scenes perfectly. The second trailer is still cool but not better, in my opinion.
Where an Eidolon, named night, on a black throne reigns upright.
User avatar
ich1990
 
Posts: 1546
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:01 pm
Location: The Land of Sona-Nyl

Postby Cognitive Gear » Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:36 pm

ich1990 (post: 1270856) wrote:Now that I have seen the trailer, which is darn awesome, I am considering continuing the graphic novel. So, for one of you who has read it, what kind of "bad content" is in the novel (specifically sex/nudity)?


Nudity: One of the main characters, Dr Manhattan, is often seen wearing nothing at all. So, there is full frontal male nudity multiple times throughout the book.

I believe there are a few instances of exposed female chests, but if I recall correctly they are fairly shadowed.

Sex: Uh, there's a lot. While it generally only shows it with clothing on, and only in a few panels per instance, there are quite a few instances of it.

Blood/Gore/Violence: Less than you would expect from a group of superheroes, but when it is present it tends to be very intense.

Language: I honestly don't recall any specifics, but I'm certain that they are in there.

It's definitely an "R" rated story.
[font="Tahoma"][SIZE="2"]"It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things."

-Terry Pratchett[/SIZE][/font]
User avatar
Cognitive Gear
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 9:00 am

Postby Momo-P » Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:42 pm

Now that I have seen the trailer, which is darn awesome, I am considering continuing the graphic novel. So, for one of you who has read it, what kind of "bad content" is in the novel (specifically sex/nudity)?

Cognitive Gear pretty much summed it up the best you can. The story contains a lot of extremely dark elements, but nothing very graphic is ever actually shown. If you're curious a little more about the sexual stuff though (including some spoilers)...

[SPOILER]Several characters have sex in this story. Thankfully much of it is a simple "oh, we slept together" type of deal. You don't actually see it, but it's either mentioned by a character or you see the two lying together or about to commit the act. In terms of detailed stuff though...three main scenes really come to mind.

One is cut extremely short due to the one character getting weirded out by the situation, another focuses much more on the background scenery as its happening (you see some breasts, clothes lying around, etc. but you mostly just hear their words and the tv babbling off) and the last one is probably the most detailed since, while everything is pretty much covered by shadow, the camera isn't cut away. You do actually see them. Most of this situation is after the fact though, so they're mostly just talking about what just happened.[/SPOILER]

For the most part these scenes don't matter, they're mostly character development (even though it could've been handled a different way), but you do need to pay attention. Although the sex itself isn't a big deal, a lot of important details tend to be mentioned AROUND these scenes, so it's like you're stuck with it.
Momo-P
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 11:34 pm

Postby Scarecrow » Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:42 am

I'm not familiar with the comic. Is it just one graphic novel (300) or does the story go over a long series of graphic novels (The Sandman)?

Just curious if this is gonna be a series of movies (if this does well) or just one movie.
"Take me down, shake me out. Give me a brain, that I might know You better"
User avatar
Scarecrow
 
Posts: 1354
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: California

Postby Fish and Chips » Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:15 am

Scarecrow (post: 1270927) wrote:I'm not familiar with the comic. Is it just one graphic novel (300) or does the story go over a long series of graphic novels (The Sandman)?

Just curious if this is gonna be a series of movies (if this does well) or just one movie.
Watchman was a 12 issue comic book series in paperback, later collected into a single volume. There are no expanded materials aside from mock newspaper clippings and fake memoir or book excerpts between chapters for flavor and information outside the direct lens of the story (I'll be interested in seeing how the film handles these, if they do).

It's pretty succinct for a comic book, partially because the way Alan Moore planned it meant DC had to cut him off from the rest of their running universe as a separate project. So no, there will never be a sequel to Watchmen, unless it's Watchmen 2: The Search For More Money.

They already have the action figures at ComicCon...
User avatar
Fish and Chips
 
Posts: 4415
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:33 pm
Location: Nowhere.

Postby ich1990 » Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:27 am

Cognitive Gear (post: 1270868) wrote:It's definitely an "R" rated story.


Unfortunate but expected. I was kind of hoping that the "R" content would be due to heavy thematic elements or violence instead of nudity/sex. I was hoping for another Matrix.

Momo-P (post: 1270901) wrote:For the most part these scenes don't matter, they're mostly character development (even though it could've been handled a different way), but you do need to pay attention. Although the sex itself isn't a big deal, a lot of important details tend to be mentioned AROUND these scenes, so it's like you're stuck with it.


Again, unfortunate. I was hoping to read the novel while skipping those parts. Oh well, I may just have to wait until the movie comes out, then watch it on clearplay. Clearplay is good about not cutting out plot. Thanks for the info.
Where an Eidolon, named night, on a black throne reigns upright.
User avatar
ich1990
 
Posts: 1546
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:01 pm
Location: The Land of Sona-Nyl

Postby Warrior 4 Jesus » Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:58 pm

I'm fairly conservative and while sexual themes are there it's pretty mild for an adult comic. The nudity is mostly undetailed and the sex fairly tastefully portrayed.
User avatar
Warrior 4 Jesus
 
Posts: 4844
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: The driest continent that isn't Antarctica.

Postby Roy Mustang » Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:12 pm

Watchmen movie takes shape

[quote="ICv2"]Watchmen director Zack Snyder is getting close to a release version of Watchmen, having edited the film down to 2 hours and 35 minutes, roughly comparable to The Dark Knight’s 2 hours and 32 minutes, according to an interview with Sci Fi.com . Still Snyder said, “The movie’s pretty long compared to 300, which was an hour and 58 minutes," but then Snyder also revealed that his own “director’s cutâ€
User avatar
Roy Mustang
 
Posts: 6022
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Central

Postby Cognitive Gear » Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:37 pm

The infamous Comic Con footage is now available to view on itunes.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/watchmennews.php?id=7892

Gah, I want to see this movie.
[font="Tahoma"][SIZE="2"]"It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things."

-Terry Pratchett[/SIZE][/font]
User avatar
Cognitive Gear
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 9:00 am

Postby Stephen » Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:53 pm

Man I am stoked about this movie. I gots to sees.
User avatar
Stephen
 
Posts: 7744
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 5:00 am

Postby Warrior 4 Jesus » Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:02 am

Is that preview meant to be only 30 seconds long? Because that's how long it plays for me.
Still looks good though, just way too short.
User avatar
Warrior 4 Jesus
 
Posts: 4844
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: The driest continent that isn't Antarctica.

Postby Stephen » Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:12 am

Yeah it was a pretty short clip. Unless I too looked at the wrong thing.
User avatar
Stephen
 
Posts: 7744
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 5:00 am

Postby Scarecrow » Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:16 am

Actually... I think you guys both clicked on the wrong thing... You clicked on a 30second preview of the preview :P Its actually 3 minutes long. You have to click on purchase and buy it for free. It downloads to Itunes then you click view movies and the full trailer is in there.... (you need an itunes store account to buy it... its free so it costs nothing but you still have to log in and "purchase" it)

And I have to say it is quite awesome!!!!
"Take me down, shake me out. Give me a brain, that I might know You better"
User avatar
Scarecrow
 
Posts: 1354
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: California

Postby uc pseudonym » Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:13 pm

Or if you don't use iTunes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo05w83DZXQ

Glad to finally see Rorschach's mask changing in real time. But other than that, my main comment is that I'm vaguely concerned by how much slow motion there has been so far.
User avatar
uc pseudonym
 
Posts: 15506
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 4:00 am
Location: Tanzania

Postby Scarecrow » Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:42 pm

Well, this WAS directed by the same guy who did 300 right? And if you saw that then you know that movie was about an hour longer than it should have been cause every was in slow motion. Even the sex scene >.<
"Take me down, shake me out. Give me a brain, that I might know You better"
User avatar
Scarecrow
 
Posts: 1354
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: California

Postby Stephen » Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:16 pm

Oh...now I feel dumb. Yeah the longer version is better lol!
User avatar
Stephen
 
Posts: 7744
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 5:00 am

Postby Fish and Chips » Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:29 pm

Zack Snyder is having the same love affair with slow motion that Michael Bay did with explosions.
User avatar
Fish and Chips
 
Posts: 4415
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:33 pm
Location: Nowhere.

Postby Roy Mustang » Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:07 pm

Time tight for Watchmen settlement

Sci Fi Channel wrote:Warner Brothers will have to scramble to settle with 20th Century Fox if it still wants to release Watchmen on March 6, 2009, Variety reported.

In a Christmas Eve decision, a Los Angeles federal judge ruled that Fox owns the distribution rights to Watchmen.

"Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the Watchmen motion picture," Judge Gary Allen Feess ruled.

Feess issued the surprise five-page ruling a week after setting a Jan. 20 trial date for Fox's suit and indicated he would issue a more detailed ruling soon. He also advised the studios to either reach a settlement or prepare an appeal.

Warner spokesman Scott Rowe declined to comment to the trade paper.

The studio has not backed off a release date of March 6 for Watchmen, directed by Zack Snyder and starring Patrick Wilson and Jackie Earle Haley.

Fox filed the suit in February, contending it retains distribution rights to the graphic novel penned by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons.


Fox Seeks to delay Watchmen

Sci Fi channel wrote:An attorney for 20th Century Fox says the studio will continue to seek an order delaying the release of Watchmen, the Associated Press reported.

U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess last week agreed with Fox that Warner Brothers had infringed its copyright by developing and shooting the superhero movie, scheduled for release March 6.

Feess said on Dec. 29 he plans to hold a trial Jan. 20 to decide remaining issues.

Fox claims it never fully relinquished story rights from its deal made in the late 1980s, and sued Warner in February. Warner contended Fox isn't entitled to distribution.

Warner said in a statement released Monday afternoon that it still thinks Fox's case has "no merit" and that it will win the case, either at trial or through an appeal.


[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang[/color][/font]
User avatar
Roy Mustang
 
Posts: 6022
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Central

Postby Etoh*the*Greato » Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:17 pm

I've always been rather under the impression that Fox was staffed entirely by tools. They had when the film was purchased all the way up to the production of the film to do this. Why did they wait until NOW?
"I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo Galilei
ImageImageImageImage
Image
Image
User avatar
Etoh*the*Greato
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:46 pm
Location: Missouri

Postby Stephen » Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:38 pm

Oh good. Fox has something to do with this. Now they can destroy this like they destroyed the X-men films. Weee!
User avatar
Stephen
 
Posts: 7744
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 5:00 am

Postby Etoh*the*Greato » Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:40 pm

Let's not forget Firefly.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo Galilei
ImageImageImageImage
Image
Image
User avatar
Etoh*the*Greato
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:46 pm
Location: Missouri

Postby Maledicte » Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:51 pm

Image
User avatar
Maledicte
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:39 pm

Postby Stephen » Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:57 pm

Image
User avatar
Stephen
 
Posts: 7744
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 5:00 am

Postby Fish and Chips » Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:54 am

Etoh*the*Greato (post: 1278521) wrote:I've always been rather under the impression that Fox was staffed entirely by tools. They had when the film was purchased all the way up to the production of the film to do this. Why did they wait until NOW?
Because this timing lets them box Warner into a no win scenario. If they said anything during production, Warner could have just halted things and left it to join the rest of the failed Watchmen adaptions. But it's completed, so they can't delay it or cancel it without having heavy financial losses. Since Fox is "In The Right" and is probably going to win the lawsuit, they'll be forced to settle in damages and split profits, giving Fox a tidy sum they essentially did nothing for while Warner foots the bill. It's actually pretty cunning of them.

Completely amoral, but cunning.
User avatar
Fish and Chips
 
Posts: 4415
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:33 pm
Location: Nowhere.

Postby That Dude » Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:58 pm

I think that I'm one of the few people that thought that the graphic novel sucked really bad...So I honestly don't really care to see the movie...
Image
I am convinced that many men who preach the gospel and love the Lord are really misunderstood. People make a “profession,â€
User avatar
That Dude
 
Posts: 5226
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:00 am
Location: Where I can see mountains.

Postby Cognitive Gear » Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:23 pm

I'm fairly certain that Warner will want to get this settled as quickly as possible to prevent a delay. At this point, they are looking at either big marketing losses due to delay or failure at the theater due to lack of marketing.

That Dude (post: 1278672) wrote:I think that I'm one of the few people that thought that the graphic novel sucked really bad...So I honestly don't really care to see the movie...


Thank you for your valuable contribution to the conversation at hand.
[font="Tahoma"][SIZE="2"]"It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things."

-Terry Pratchett[/SIZE][/font]
User avatar
Cognitive Gear
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 9:00 am

Postby That Dude » Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:46 pm

Sorry kinda had second thoughts right after I posted this. Sorry everyone forget my above post!
Image
I am convinced that many men who preach the gospel and love the Lord are really misunderstood. People make a “profession,â€
User avatar
That Dude
 
Posts: 5226
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:00 am
Location: Where I can see mountains.

Postby Stephen » Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:27 pm

User avatar
Stephen
 
Posts: 7744
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 5:00 am

Postby Cognitive Gear » Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:54 pm

The official website has been updated (Somehow they managed to place some spoilers in it.):

http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/

If this is any indication as to the acting in this movie, then I am officially excited for this film, altered ending and all.
[font="Tahoma"][SIZE="2"]"It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things."

-Terry Pratchett[/SIZE][/font]
User avatar
Cognitive Gear
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 9:00 am

Previous Next

Return to General Entertainment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 148 guests