Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/watchmen.html
have fun

Sorry personal opinion only but man that looks stupid.

Less pulpy than I would have expected. Which could be a good thing. The whole 'moving comic' style of Sin City and 300 is pretty well played out.

Holy Moley that looks cool as anything. That is definitly something I wish to see in theaters.

Have you read the graphic novel, Frazz? It might change your opinion if you haven't.

No I have not. I've only read one graphic novel and that was before my boy was born.

On a film basis its just really cheesy looking. Again thats just my opinion and I respect others opinion.

I preferred the first trailer, I guess the music in that one was much better and my anticipation was higher.

About 25% of it is from the first trailer, but there is more of the storyline in this one.

I'll be there when it opens....

Also check out the production videos, some good stuff in there.

At least they didn't ditch their superhero costumes for identical black leather jumpsuits.

Wait a minute. This thread isn't a political thread...

warpcrafter wrote: At least they didn't ditch their superhero costumes for identical black leather jumpsuits.

Well, what would you prefer? Yellow spandex?

Wait, we'll get that with Silk Spectre, won't we?

No, but apparently they ditched the contextual pirate sub-story. A fair bit of the story plays flat without it.

Appearantly it will be included on the special edition DVD

That's what I've heard too. It'll still dilute the original presentation.

It's cool but not essential to the overall plot. Nice to see how many of the images in this movie come straight out of the graphic novel.

Oh and Frazz, pick up a copy. Don't think of it as a comic book, think of it as an illustrated novel. Trust me, it's good.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Forgot to mention that I'm in it...*




*Not really

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Wow, they have managed to turn one of the best most literate comic books ever into a slow motion lense flair ladened 300/Matrix hybrid set to a crappy Smashing Pumpkins sountrack. There should be a law forbidding anyone except Christopher Nolan from ever making a comic book movie.

I'm still going to try and show up at the first local showing. Still worried though. I went to Beowulf and the points of failure in that movie were exactly the points that going with motion-capture enabled, rather than going with gritty Gilliam-esque film-making.

I'm a huge fan of the comic.

It's pretty disappointing the hear that the pirate tale won't be included, it's a really big part of what makes the whole thing work. I understand though, because I running time would become a significant issue if it was included.

But seeing that trailer, it looks like a faithful but tacky remake, if you know what I mean. All the images are drawn straight from the comic, and it looks like the plot will remain much the same, but everything is done in a goofy, over the top manner. Rorschach's voice is goofy.

Anung Un Rama wrote:

Well, what would you prefer? Yellow spandex?

Wait, we'll get that with Silk Spectre, won't we?

Nope. We'll get yellow and black latex.

As we saw in Underworld, fetish gear is much more OTT than mere sports tights.

In Watchmen the costumes are fetish-gear. That's one of the points.

I fail to see how that works for anyone except SS2.

You're read the book, right?

Yeah.

SS1 in a nightie isn't fetish gear AFAIK.

And Dr.M is usually naked, which I think is the opposite of wearing gear.

If you want classic BDSM gear, there's the Comedian. But as I said, one of the points of the book was that for some of the masked vigilantes dressing up and beating people up had a sexual connotation. The character of Hollis Mason admits as much in the pages of his autobiography, the second Nite Owl experience sexual dysfunction without the thrill of dressing up and beating people, and Hooded Justice causes trouble for the Minutemen thanks to his penchant for rough trade.

Take Furries, for example. A rabbit suit isn't what we would normally think of as fetish clothing, since fetishism has been so closely identified with the BDSM community. But it's fetish gear.

Well even those there are critismisms I am still going to watch it, I love the comic and infact any comcis so I'll be at the first showing

I dunno Nurglitch - the way you're describing it, any costume is "fetish gear" by mere virtue of it being a costume at all.

We also need to remember probably 90% of the people seeing it have never read the graphic novel (ah lowdie lowdie how I want the Absolute Edition). The pirate parallel story would mean nothing to them and slow it down enormously. I'm a huge fan of the comic going way back but I don't demand an exact translation, if I wanted that I'd just read the book. I'm hoping it captures the essence of it more then trying to get my every fanboy detail worked in.

The costumes in the comic were reflection of comic book costumes, in this they are a reflection of cinematic comic book costumes while still retaining the original ideas. Manhattan apparently does let the little blueberries out in the movie, though I doubt it will be a focus for those worried that the blue nudity has been completely removed.

JohnHwangDD:

That's rule #34 for you, I'm afraid, although it's fairly unusual for people to fetishize the ordinary. But the point in the comic is that the costumes do have a sexual connotation for the protagonists. If that's left out, then the movie unfortunately is going to run afoul of Neil Gaiman's dictum about comic book movies, that they are only as good as what made the comic book good. What makes the Watchmen an outstanding comic book is the way is layers all of its tropes together like the machinery of a watch. What I'm afraid of is that instead of the comic book equivalent of a beautiful swiss pocket-watch, what people are going to see is something cheap, gaudy, and superficial.

Nurglitch wrote:That's rule #34 for you, I'm afraid, although it's fairly unusual for people to fetishize the ordinary. But the point in the comic is that the costumes do have a sexual connotation for the protagonists.

What makes the Watchmen an outstanding comic book is the way is layers all of its tropes together like the machinery of a watch.

What I'm afraid of is that instead of the comic book equivalent of a beautiful swiss pocket-watch, what people are going to see is something cheap, gaudy, and superficial.

Sometimes, a costume on a pervert is just a costume on a pervert - at least, that's how I see it for some of the characters.

You worked hard on that, didn't you?

In other words, a movie.

But why is that bad? When you watched the opening sequence of LotR FotR, how much text was condensed into that little sequence? That was *great* filmmaking. I suspect that the Pirate stuff will likely go the way of Tom Bombadil, such that the overall movie will not be much harmed by its omission - it's not like Watchmen is so shallow that losing one secondary element destroys the cohesiveness and point of the story.