This kind of hammers it into reality. After almost twenty years of delays…Watchmen really is becoming a movie.
Source: Watchmen Comic Movie
Sep10
This kind of hammers it into reality. After almost twenty years of delays…Watchmen really is becoming a movie.
Source: Watchmen Comic Movie
A giant grin just spread across my face. This is so cool. Did you take this? (Edit: ah, no, see you have source for it.)
And just after I’d put up the thing about being tired of superhero movies. But Watchmen is something special. The ultimate (and I sort of hope in more ways than one) comic book.
Because it’s from the director of 300? Yeah, that must be it.
You haven’t read the book, have you? It could be Jon Avnet directing, I’d still be excited to see this finally happening.
Well, no, I haven’t. But if I did, and I really liked it, that’s all the more reason that I wouldn’t want someone fucking it up.
Wasn’t Darren Aronofsky attached to this at one point?
Never read it, but i did just read all 12 summaries on the website. Sounds interesting enough, but those superhero names sound like reject outtake spoofs from The Incredibles….eek
Damned naysayers…
Granted, I had a hell of a lot more faith in the project when Paul Greengrass was set to direct in 2005 (with a MUCH better cast) but I enjoyed both Dawn of the Dead and 300 for what they were.
I’ll do a review of the draft David Haytner did for Greengrass one of these days. It’s 90% of the way there…but falls apart at the end.
Nick, agreed that this is “the ultimate” comic book movie. It could be the end-all, be-all of the genre if Snyder plays his cards right…
I read the book about twenty years ago, and there’s no way they can make a good movie out of it and capture what was good about the book. It’s far too complex for a two-hour film. If that makes me a naysayer, so be it.
I don’t buy that for a second. How many magnum opus novels, plays, etc. have successfully been brought to screen with a three-hour or less runtime?
I re-read the comic days before reading the script (and then again right after). Haytner managed to compress/streamline without losing much of anything in the process. Quite simply: his draft works.
From your lips to God’s ears, but for some reason I’m a pessimist on this one. (The fact that I didn’t like 300 doesn’t help).
I’m sure he was, seems like every innovative filmmaker from Terry Gilliam to Paul Greengrass has, but I’m not sure he would have been a better choice. Can’t find it now, but his script for Batman Year One, written sometime between Pi and Requiem for a Dream, was terrible. If he’d gone on to make that one, instead of Requiem, I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t be regarded in the same way as he is now. Some directors are right for a project, and Aronofsky was wrong, or at least his approach and execution of it thus far was. Instead he made Requiem and now we all love him.
What you’re going by is track record, which is only an indication of whether he’ll do a good job or not, and Snyder only has two films to go by for this. His Dawn of the Dead was good, occasionally thrilling, and better than a remake zombie film should have been. 300, yeah, stupid, but visually astounding, original and very brave for a second time director. And as adaptations of the original work they enhance them.
Watchmen as a film would probably have been better with Greengrass directing it. More interesting anyway. But Snyder directing doesn’t strike me as bad either. I think if he does even a faithful adaptation then this could be a great film.
Didn’t notice this when I first posted the link, but that same site has the Hayter draft for download:
http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/watchmen-movie-scripts.php
Highly recommend it.
Moloch: http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=6575&count=0
I STILL can’t get over these names…. http://www.empireonline.com/features/watchmen101/default.asp?NID=21451
They’re not silly within the context of the book. Not more than most superhero names anyway. I mean, Captain America? Superman? Batman? Take a step, listen to those names and try not to laugh. Guess it has to do with suspension of disbelief. And even then, Rorschach is still a pretty cool name. Agreed that Dr Manhattan is pushing it, the character himself has problems with that name, since he never picked it.
Have you read the book, by the way? Should be available in most well-sorted libraries. It is in mine.
It’s silly from the perspective of what already exists in the superhero world, outside of the story. We already have Superman, Batman, Nightwing, the Riddler, the Joker etc… They make Silk Spectre, Nite Owl, Dr. Manhattan, & the Comedian seem like parody in an unintentionally comedic way. At least Bomb Voyage & StratoGale were meant to be funny!
Unfortunately, no, I don’t have the book. I’ve wanted to read it for a long time since everyone seems to think it’s tops in terms of graphic novels. I’ll get around to it one day.
There are several aspects and layers to it, both within and outside of the book.
The story posits the question of how the world would have fared if “masked vigilantes” had started to appear in the forties, and it does so within the context of real life psychology and, one might argue, sociology. That some off-the-clock cops would have taken matters into their own hands in the forties, and put masks on to protect their identities, doesn’t seem like much of a stretch. (Then it goes on and really pushes it, but really much more credibly than any other comic written so far.)
Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons invented the characters because they weren’t given the rights to any other actual existing superhero characters at the time, due to their controversial take on them. So the fact that the names (and personalities) share similarities with those other characters was most probably not a coincidence. That they also seem like a parody of them was most likely intentional.
Layers, man. Layers.
The summaries are actually quite thorough, so I do get it, but it doesn’t make the names any less hokey or easier for me to take them seriously.
If I had a controversial take on Mickey Mouse and called him Tricky Rodent it could be the greatest storyline in the world, but at first blush that name smacks of laziness. That’s just how I see it right now.
As I wrote earlier, it sounds interesting enough, but those names…eeek. I prefer to think off-the-clock cops in the forties could have come up with better names…Dick Tracy names even ;-)
Having read comics throughout my childhood, and saw how silly some of the Marvel names were (along with costumes), I thought the names in Watchmen were kind of cool.
God, someone needs to start making that, stat. Tricky Rodent… genius. Seriously, I’d pay money for that.
Then, in the interest of fairness, you must find names like Superman silly, right? Or does the fact that they’re so ingrained in the public conscious get them off the hook?
This would be like if someone came up with Tomato Coke. People say, yuck, that sounds gross. Tomato is a bad flavor for Coke. And the Coke people say, come on, in the interest of fairness, you must think that Cherry Coke is gross, right? Step back for a minute and think about it … cherry flavoring in Coke? Try to think about that and not gag. It’s just ingrained in the public consciousness, that’s all.
Cherry Coke does make me gag. I haven’t tried Tomato Coke, and even if it sounds like it’d make me gag, I’d have to try it to find out.
The difference lies in having tried it and how it sounds. You read the book and the name doesn’t sound so silly. Or, no, I take that back, you might find it silly, but it would fit within the context of the book. If one approached Superman (as a comic character) without previous knowledge of him, but just heard the name or maybe saw him in costume, then I’d argue most would find him and his name pretty silly too.
Right! I’m not saying it will be silly after watching/reading….I’m saying right now the names are silly.
While it’s the best ever written…it is still a superhero comic.
And I’m saying that you should try Tomato Coke, while also acknowledging that large amounts of Coke are bad for you.
What about Tomato Coke Zero? That sounds healthy.
Same shit, different name.
Several new production stills, including our first look at the News Vendor/comic book kid (note the poster on the side of the kiosk) and…Rorschach!
http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/
Rorschach looks somewhat wrong. But it’s all in the voice really.
Love the sets.
Fox is apparently going to court to halt production on the film, claiming that they, not Warner Bros, have the rights to the property. Not sure why they’re doing this NOW (principal photography started way back in September) but should be interesting to see what happens.
Probably because the film IS done, or very far along. If they’d done it before filming the film might never have happened. So they waited, and now Warners has to cut a deal with them, probably a hefty percentage of the profits.
Or they just found it lying around in one of their archives, and said “Hey! These are the rights to Watchmen! Wait a minute.. Hey!”
I’d agree, they’re probably angling for a co-studio release.
I believed that Fox’s rights lapsed like 10-15 years ago (back in the Gilliam days) so I’m eager to see what twisted logic they’re employing to make an ownership claim.
Seems like Warner Bros (or more likely producer Lawrence Gordon, who held the rights) forgot to pay Fox the buy-out rights for making the film.
From The Hollywood Reporter:
“Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox, in harmonious and willing cooperation, are proud to present Alan Moore’s Watchmen!”
Ouch, hadn’t read the actual article. Sounds like Fox’s claim is more than valid.
100% correct! That’s the only way this gets settled.
I know another reason for why it took Fox so long to get going.
They had to write the 113 page lawsuit.