Watchmen Trailer Online

[Tomato]

The Old Mixer wrote:

---

But a lot more expensive. How much new material is in the Absolute Edition? Enough to offer a substantial amount of insight?

I believe it is ~ $75, so it cost a lot more but you feel the quality. You also get the scripts and proposal which Alan Moore pitched to DC. Personally I love comics so it was worth it for me. Also you can examine in greater detail Gibbons put in those panels.

Yeah I'm not feeling Ozy's actor for the reason of his actions. I don't think he got it or even read the comic.

I wonder how Zach will decide to fit symmetry into the comic.

[drasche]

The Old Mixer wrote:

---

Now I'm a little curious...has anyone from earlier in this thread who said that they planned to read the book for the first time read it yet? Or are those people now avoiding this thread for fear of spoilers?

I discovered the Watchmen trailer when getting a look at this thread, but after I watched the trailer multiple times, I went to my usual bookstore to get the original material. I read it, and then I read the thread (and I re-read and re-watched V for Vendetta while I was at it)

I agree that the trailer looks like a window opened to the book and find it very impressive, and I can't wait to go and watch that movie.

I noticed people didn't like the video clip format but it gives a specific atmosphere to the trailer and I enjoyed that a lot.

[Yassim]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

Still... by turning this rich, morally-ambiguous (and yes, sexually ambiguous) character into a conventional "mustachio-twirling villain" and worse yet, that overwrought, over-used "white supremicist/Nazi" stereotype... well, maybe it's necessary to cull the film into a 2 1/2-hour max length, but I think it does harm the story.

Did you read the quote? The actor is supposing that Veidt *gave away* his parents money because it was tainted by Nazi profiteering. That he wanted to earn his fortune honestly, so to speak.

I'm not wild about the idea that everyone is making up their own backstory. The original source is dense enough. But, on the other hand, this detail sounds like it will be buried - I can't imagine he's going to make a speech about his dead Nazi parents - and it's in the spirit of the graphic novel to have a dense, barely felt history to everything. If it helps the actor... why not?

[Tomato]

I never got that through Veidt. He wanted to do it to prove to himself that he was brilliant enough that he could start from nothing and become something.

[middyseafort]

Yassim wrote:

---

Did you read the quote? The actor is supposing that Veidt *gave away* his parents money because it was tainted by Nazi profiteering. That he wanted to earn his fortune honestly, so to speak.

I'm not wild about the idea that everyone is making up their own backstory. The original source is dense enough. But, on the other hand, this detail sounds like it will be buried - I can't imagine he's going to make a speech about his dead Nazi parents - and it's in the spirit of the graphic novel to have a dense, barely felt history to everything. If it helps the actor... why not?

In my limited experience with actors, I've noticed thus far that they tend to want to add things beyond the text instead of relaying on it and trusting that the writer put everything they need into it. I coached one actress when she was up for a play here in Los Angeles and I told her don't add anything because the writer put everything she need into the dialog and stage directions.

However, in the case of Watchmen, the source material provides more than enough to understand each of the characters and their motivations. Everything else about this movie I am excited for but the actor playing Veidt is the least thing I am looking forward. From the pre-press and the few glimpses of the character, I get a not so fresh feeling about him.

[USS Mariner]

It is a good idea to have an idea of your character's background in the context of any production (so you can "react" naturally,) but that doesn't mean you fucking invent shit that isn't at all in line with what the story establishes in terms of themes and plot.

For example, if you wanted to play Adrian as gay, that's perfectly acceptable. Not only does Rorschach suspect this early on, but his idol was Alexander the Great (who is at the very least bisexual), and this also explains his impeccable body and fashion sense.

However, making him a goddamn Nazi is insane. Although it's fine that his immigrant parents were Nazi supporters (and lets face it, much of America was okay with what Hitler was doing before we entered the war,) he himself cannot be a Nazi. Why?

Because that makes him just another goddamned Nazi trying to take over the world, which makes any of the actual material from the comic worthless. His emulation of Alexander and other Greek and Egyptian rulers becomes nothing more than a Nazi with a fetish for ankhs and togas.

Now, I'll admit, it's possible for him to be curious about the "leader" phenomenon because of what Hiter managed to accomplish, and this curiosity leads him to discover Alexander, someone who managed to build a world-class empire without resorting to wholesale manslaughter and genocide.

But that's not what Matthew Goode was saying.

[JoeZhang]

My other problem with him - is that he doesn't look very handsome and he has big black bags under his eyes like a drug addict.

[USS Mariner]

His costume makes him look tiny, which is sad because aside from being skinny, he's got very nice muscles.

You'd think that the man who made 300 could have just thrown one of the Spartan costumes at Goode...

[Dream]

I still can't get past the FUCKING NIPPLES on the suit. Didn't Zack Snyder get memo about how much Batman and Robin was hated? Joel Schumacher sucks by the way.

[Spaceman Spiff]

^ I suspect the allusion is intentional.

[Kryton]

What's worse, they're NAZI nipples!

[Cary L. Brown]

Kryton wrote:

---

What's worse, they're NAZI nipples!

That's right... if you look closely at the costume he's wearing, there are little swastikas in the material!

(reference to the Trek11 costumes, for anyone who's missed that debacle)

I'm sure that there are a couple of you out there who don't "get" what the big deal is... so here's what the Dave Gibbons' version of the Ozymandias costume looks like.

It plays to his self-perception as a "demi-God." It plays to his involvement in secret society type behavior (note the eye in the pyramid, which is LOST in the new costume, though replaced with an "eye of Ra" symbol on his belt... not the same thing!) It also plays to his... um... ambiguous sexuality?


The new costume looks like "Wanna be 'Batman and Robin' villain on heroin." I don't like the new one.


Laurie's "Silk Spectre (II)" costume is also dramatically altered, but at least it keeps the "feel" of the original.. it simply makes it more practical. It keeps the "sexy" feel. But it's lost the "soft and sexy" aspect and replaced it with "dominatrix sexy" which, while perhaps more believable, no longer reflects the character's personality as well. (Laurie is the consummate "co-dependent" type... always doing what someone else wants... pretty far from the "girl with whips" attitude that she seems to be showing based upon her new costume!)




Dan Dreiberg's "Night Owl (II)" costume also totally loses EVERYTHING having to do with this character. Yes, it looks "cooler" but that's kind of the point... Dan Dreiberg is NOT "Cool" at the time we see him... he's an aging, washed-up "superhero" who's grown soft, both mentally and physically. The new costume TOTALLY LOSES THAT.



On the other hand, virtually every other character looks EXACTLY like they're supposed to. Eddie Blakes' "Comedian" costume is picture-perfect. Rorschach is perfect. Jon's "Dr. Manhattan" is perfect.


All the "historical era characters" are perfect.



I can understand the reasoning behind changing Laurie's costume, though I wish they'd at least given her a "Silk coverlet" over the whole thing to soften it up a bit.

But the changes to the Night Owl (II) and Ozymandias costumes totally miss the points behind those characters.

[The Old Mixer]

I think Laurie's costume is an improvement in the sexiness department...which is the point with this character...though there's nothing "silky" about it anymore.

I'm not too crazy about Nite Owl's and Ozymandias's costumes...but if everything else in the film is good, I'll give them a pass. It does generally look like this director is really trying, but he probably has to lose some battles. There are just too many hands in the pot of a major motion picture.

Archie is also perfect! I wonder if Ozy will have the cat?

[Bad Bishop]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

Dan Dreiberg's "Night Owl (II)" costume also totally loses EVERYTHING having to do with this character. Yes, it looks "cooler" but that's kind of the point... Dan Dreiberg is NOT "Cool" at the time we see him... he's an aging, washed-up "superhero" who's grown soft, both mentally and physically. The new costume TOTALLY LOSES THAT.

Maybe the film costume doesn't say "flabby, insecure, washed-up superhero." But I'll bet the actor in the role (Patrick Wilson) will be able to compensate for that. That's one advantage of film over comic books.

BTW, Kevin Smith was has seen the film (probably not the final cut) and likes it, to put it mildly:

"It's fucking astounding," Smith wrote on his MySpace blog (MySpace login required). "Snyder and Co. have pulled it off."

He compares the experience to watching Sin City and being amazed at how faithful the movie was to the source material. Except, apparently, Watchmen does it even better. "Triple that, and you'll come close to watching Watchmen. Even Alan Moore might be surprised at how close the movie is to the book. March can't come soon enough.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Kevin...ding-9870.html

[Cary L. Brown]

The Old Mixer wrote:

---

I think Laurie's costume is an improvement in the sexiness department...which is the point with this character...though there's nothing "silky" about it anymore.

I'm not too crazy about Nite Owl's and Ozymandias's costumes...but if everything else in the film is good, I'll give them a pass. It does generally look like this director is really trying, but he probably has to lose some battles. There are just too many hands in the pot of a major motion picture.

Archie is also perfect! I wonder if Ozy will have the cat?

Bubastis is present... at least in one of the movie "preview posters" (which, as you probably know, are live-action versions of the posters I have from when "Watchmen" was originally released. It seems unlikely that they'd do Bubastis in the poster if he wasn't going to be in the film, but it's possible.

Check out the posters here...
http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/07/...rom-comic-con/

EDIT: Okay, I pulled out my posters just for comparison. Realize that these were printed in 1988... the same year I got out of college and went off to do my military service. SO... these are 20 years old now, basically.

First, let's do The Comedian:


Now, in the original, he's wearing what's essentially a "gimp mask" to cover a massive facial scar (which would otherwise make him TOO recognizable). If you look closely at the original, it's clear he's performing a political assassination in a Latin American country.

Next, Doctor Manhattan:


Pretty damned close!

Next, Night Owl (II):


Except for the obvious costume-related issues we've already discussed, pretty close.

Next, Ozymandias:


Same comment... note that even the TV images are pretty close! Only the costume is "wrong." Also... note the clear presence of Bubastis (his genetically-altered pet Lynx).


Now, Rorschach:


Pretty much EXACT. It's a little harder to read the "The End is Nigh" sign, though...

And finally, Silk Spectre (II):


Note that even the reflections are "right." The ONLY issue is the costume...

(The new one... the Sally Jupiter one... wasn't in the original set, so I'm not doing a comparison here.)

Since I doubt many of you have ever had a chance to see those original 1988 posters, I thought that it might be interesting to see the "new" and the "original" side by side.

Note that my scanner wouldn't handle all of the frame for the old posters... so the bottom edge is cut off. Basically, it says "A 12 issue deluxe series by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons."