I like Nite Owl's costume, and Spectre's ok I guess (i dont know, i'm not sure i've ever seen a woman costume that hasn't looked porn-ish, i mean i'm not complaining mind you). Ozy looked really dopey however in that one shot.
I don't know why people always want to see comic book costumes on the big screen. Some look okay, but few can't be improved. There was certainly nothing very distinctive about most of the costumes Gibbons designed - at least not those for the "modern" heroes. The rather rough outfits worn by several of the Minutemen were quite striking - Hooded Justice, for example. But Silk Spectre II - hell, the filmmakers were more than sufficiently respectful to that. And the comic book Ozymandia outfit was silly as hell.
I'm a Watchmen movie skeptic and I thought 300 was one of the most ridiculous films ever made. However, except for the incessant slo-mo Snyder is so fond of, the trailer certainly took me back to the mid-80s and reading Watchmen. I've been skeptical because I think Watchmen is so tightly tied to the idea of comic books that changing its format is unlikely to capture what makes the story great. I've also been concerned that superhero films have not developed enough for a movie deconstructing superhero mythology would make any sense. The Dark Knight may have changed that. If they are able to pull those deconstruction aspects together and make the movie as tightly tied to film as the original story was to comics, it might actually work.
there's an easter egg in the trailer: http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/07/1...in-watchmen-trailer/?rsspartner=rssFeedBurner
in regards to that easter egg, doesn't James Bond point a gun directly at the audience in the opening sequence to each of his films....he walks out.....and then quickly draws out his gun...MPAA never said anything about that....
But that was the whole point ! In that trailer she looks like some sorta badass Super Ninja, which also entirely misses the point. Same with Niteowl dropping from the sky a la Batman. Hopefully this is misleading trailer to draw people in.
I wouldn't be surprised if the James Bond shot wasn't "grandfathered-in" since it pre-dated the MPAA.
^^^Yes, but the article says they prohibit those things in advertising, rather than in the actual film. Still, they have used that shot in trailers, so you do have a point.
The new costumes look like shit. Your point being? I think the main reason why they got the costumes wrong is because Zack Snyder can't read English. They aren't supposed to be "80's" costumes, because they were shelved in 1977 thanks to the Keene Act! The set design, however, seems to follow the comic rather well, and is thematically grounded in the mid-eighties where it belongs. No amount of CGI, however, is going to force those costumes to coexist in the world, which not only removes them from their world, but also highlights their flaws ("Spandex" Spectre looking like a whore, Nite Owl actually being Batman, Ozymandias being a stunt double for 300, etc.) I can't fathom how Synder got the sets right and the costuming wrong without coming to the conclusion that he has the reading aptitude of Fantasia.
Or maybe he made the movie to appeal to the masses and not the hardcore nerd elite who think the movie is only made for them. The masses aren't into 80s period pieces so much, so some modern touches we added.
If that was his logic, then Zack Snyder is also blind. The late 70's and 80's are in fashion vogue. And if that was the case, then why the attention to detail with different sets for each fucking decade? By no means did I expect Zack Motherfucking Snyder to be a "nerd-director" (nor do I like them.) I did expect that someone with such talent for squeezing every last penny out of a dumber-than-shit general audience would have enough sense to capitalize on pop trends to maximize profits.
Certain detailing and stylings are, not the actual clothes. To show passage of time. And when that scene is taking place. Also, period clothing ages a lot worse than architecture
My point being that the new costumes look fine. You're mistaken. Fortunately, your specific expertise about what constitutes a 1977 superhero costume as opposed to an "80s" costume is not widely shared - because it's no actual reference to a standard at all, just an expression of personal dislike for the movie designs. That the first "Batman" movie pretty much initiated the use of plastic or rubber costumes in superhero films is a happenstance of art design and has nothing to do with what an actual superhero might or might not wear in Moore's "alternate" 1980s. "Silk Spectre II's" costume in the film is just a little more practical looking than the get-up from the comic; since the second Nite Owl's costume in the book was dreadful, it just makes sense that they'd keep the few aspects that were not bad - the horned cowl, for example - and fix the rest. On more interesting subjects, I really liked the Old Nixon speaking on all those television screens.
I'm still holding out hope, but this trailer moves a little too much like 300; Especially the part where Blake goes out the window. I swear, if Veidt yells "this is Sparta", I'm walking out of the theatre. Otherwise, aside from the uninspired dark rubber costumes we've all seen a hundred times before, the movie is looking pretty good. I'm already convinced, personally at least, that the film will never approach the level of the book; But judging from what I'm seeing, I have to give them high marks for coming as close as it looks like they have. Time will tell.
Just saw it at Batman and I think it looks pretty good. One good thing with audiences becoming desensitized to superhero movies is that it opens the door for more over-the-top and adventurous movies.