Watchmen Trailer Online
- Thread starter shivkala
- Start date
That's right... if you look closely at the costume he's wearing, there are little swastikas in the material!What's worse, they're NAZI nipples!
(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.
Last edited:
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?
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?
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.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.
BTW, Kevin Smith was has seen the film (probably not the final cut) and likes it, to put it mildly:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Kevin-Smith-Calls-Watchmen-Astounding-9870.html
Last edited:
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/2008/07/27/eight-new-watchmen-posters-from-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."
Last edited:
^Ah, yes...I'd seen those before, but hadn't taken note of Bubastis.
Well, Laurie got stuck with her mama's "code name," and given her rebellious attitude toward the legacy it's not out of character for her to subvert it.
^Perhaps...but in the comic she's put into the role by her mother at age 16, so it seems most likely that her mother had the costume made for her.
^^^Actually, the posters date back to '86, as they were originally house ads running in DC's Deluxe Format books. I saw several of them at the time, though not all of them apparently.
^^^Actually, the posters date back to '86, as they were originally house ads running in DC's Deluxe Format books. I saw several of them at the time, though not all of them apparently.
True, but for the most part we don't see her at 16 - in fact, isn't that period represented by only one flashback sequence in the comic?
They've kept very close, visually, to the things that are really iconically important in the original art - the general period sensibility of the Minutemen's costumes, the look of Doctor Manhattan and especially of Rorschach - and they've played fair with whatever redesigns they've deemed necessary for the other characters. The second Nite Owl, for example, may be wrapped up in vinyl/rubber "body armor" but he still looks pretty soft in the middle.
Nite Owl's look will probably make for a much more audience-satisfying moment when he finally suits up again. If he were wearing something that looked like Adam West's Batman suit, with the gut to match, they'd probably just be laughing.
Very True. One of the most central aspects to this character's personality... and the thing that (in the storyline) is her MAIN CONFLICT is the fact that she's so utterly co-dependent. Not "rebellious" at all, really... I mean, she talks a great line but she always ends up doing what anyone tells her to do.
Remember, in the "present" of the movie, she's essentially being kept as a "comfort woman" for Jon Osterman ("Dr. Manhattan") to keep him calm... don't want a walking nuclear weapon to get cranky, after all!
It's true that we only see her at 16 in a single "flashback"... to the attempted (and FAILED, it's important to note) creation of the "Crimebusters."
(I find it disturbing that these characters from this timeframe keep getting referred to as the "Crimebusters" when, in fact, the term was only used once, by Dr. Metropolis, when he PROPOSED creating a new group... and it got laughed at by The Comedian... who made such a compelling case that the whole thing basically fizzled then and there, and which is why the "Crimebusters" thing never even got off the ground.)
Anyway, Laurie is NOT a powerful personality. She's a classical codependent... though there's some hint at the very end of the story that she's STARTING to get past that (finally!)
At 16, when she shows up for Dr. Metropolis' "Crimebusters" pitch meeting, she's clearly just a kid. This meeting is pretty important... it's where we (the audience, not her) discover the truth of her father's identity... and also how and where Laurie comes into Jon's life (and Janie Slater's reaction comes into play as well...) In other words, it may seem "minor" in that it's only one scene, but it's one PIVOTAL scene. I can't imagine that'll be left out of the film.
At least they got the Sally Jupiter "Silk Spectre" costume pretty much spot on. She was basically... well, a slut playing superheroine. And she, like most parents, tried to mold her daughter into an "improved version" of herself. So absolutely, at least when she's 16, she needs the utterly impractical original costume. But maybe that's the only time we'll see it exactly like that... maybe the "rubber suit" costume came along later?
Yeah... I was talking about when I bought those posters... they were PRINTED in 1988, shortly after the series ended (even though it was 12 issues, they weren't released "on the date" every month... there were gaps, as is often the case with this sort of thing! If memory serves, it took the better part of two years for the twelve issues to come out... but there was enough meat in each one to justify repeated readings!)
"Dammit, Cary, I'm a captain, not a doctor!"
Indeed, it's a scene that's visited several times in the series from different perspectives.
Well...an old-style pin-up girl using the superheroine gig as a publicity gimmick, to be fair.
I had considered that they might do that...but we'll see....
'Cause Doc Manhattan is such a kinky bastard....
I remember well. I actually first picked up the book with issue 6, read a couple more issues before my interest had built to the point where I went back and bought the first 5. Then, when the metaphorical clock was at 11...I vaguely recall issue 11 coming out an extra month late, and issue 12 coming out an extra two months late on top of that. Good times. I think the pacing actually served the story in building the anticipation and encouraging you to go back and reabsorb the details in the earlier issues. Whenever I've loaned out my original issues, I've tended to ration them out so that the borrower didn't just flash through them all in one night like most probably do with the trade paperback.
uh... whoops?
I think it's a cool thing they made the characters look more bad ass, think about it! They are supposed to look like bad ass super heroes, not insecure guys/girls. Even though they might be insecure and doubtful their appearance should always be that of the bad ass super hero. It's a great move by the director.
No... they're not. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE STORY... what if "real people" in the "real world" did this stuff.
I'm guessing, from your comment, that you've never read the original story... or if you have, it was recent.
Dan Dreiberg is about 45 or 50, thinning hair, double chin, soft around the middle, lives alone in a slightly decrepit apartment.
Ten years earlier, "costumed vigilantes" were made illegal (again... they're illegal in our reality already of course, but in the "Watchmen" world they were legalized at one point in the past), and the every character reacted differently.
1) The Comedian became a government-sponsored assassin.
2) Dr. Manhattan became a government "asset" used as an ultimate weapons (far more powerful than any H-bomb... and also the ultimate defense against any attack). Since he's not being used in that way, however, he spends his time researching... and becoming less and less human every day.
3) Silk Spectre (II) becomes the "kept woman" for Dr. Manhattan. She's never given a choice in the matter.
4) Rorschach, rebels against the order, leaving a dead rapist on the steps of the police station with a note which simply said "NEVER!" At this point, Ernie Kovaks (his "real" identity) is gone, and only the insane "Rorschach" remains.
5) Night Owl (II) is devastated and becomes a sad, pathetic figure dwelling on dreams of yesterday. He's a technical genius but instead of using that to his benefit, becoming a businessman or inventor or whatever, he just withdraws completely.
6) And Ozymandias (whose "super power" was that he's got an above 200 IQ and has honed his body to near-perfection) "comes out" as a now-former Superhero and becomes a businessman... and, by all appearances, the most successful (and wealthy) one on the planet. And it's all part of a plan...
So... we've got a sociopathic assassin, a totally detached "god-like" being, a pathetic codependent woman, a pathetic middle-aged man, a deranged lunatic vigilante, and an arrogant narcissist megalomaniac.
The scary part is, the sad pathetic withdrawn loser is the most sane of the bunch.
No, these people are NOT supposed to be "bad ass superheroes." And if you really think that, you have NO IDEA who these people are supposed to be. And YOU are the sort of person who Alan Moore has been afraid would get ahold of his work and turn it into something totally different than what it is SUPPOSED to be.
Go read "Watchmen." Seriously... read it. And don't rush through it... take your time, read everything (including all of the prose stuff). Read each chapter, then go back and read that chapter at least once more (including all the prose), before you go on to the next chapter.
I'm not "flaming" you... I'm telling you that your statement shows that you either know nothing about the story of "Watchmen" or you know just almost nothing about it. But if you're really interested... there's an easy way to fix that!
I always loved the section where Rorschach and Night Owl are looking for information in the bar - Night Owl, in his costume, with his "faded hero" persona, looks so out of place in contrast to Rorschach. Rorschach seems as much a part of the scummy underworld as anyone else.
Yeah... I'm picturing that scene with the "revised" costume... and that whole aspect, the "Uh, Rorschach, I'm really not comfortable here" bit... it's lost. He may SAY it but it won't come across the same way at all.
I'm not saying that this movie is gonna be a disaster, guys, don't misread. A great actor and a great director may be able to get this out of the scene anyway. But SOME of that is lost, there's no question about it.
FYI... I'd be much happier with the "Night Owl (II)" costume had then just kept a few KEY elements of it. I could live with the "rubber suit" bit... my biggest bitches about this are associated with the CAPE. In the comic costume, the "cape" is actually an extentio of the headgear, not a separate element... it hangs from the top of the head. It's a wrap-around thing, not a loose-flapping thing. It comes to a point near the bottom. And it's THIS, the cape, which provides the "bullet-proof protection" for the costume.
I'm curious if we'll see the "cold weather" variation of his costume... that's just an exaggeration of the basic cape in the book... but it's totally different from what we see in the film. It worked beautifully... it was instantly recognizable even though it was different. If they do that here, nobody'll know who it is! So most likely, we'll just see the "golden rubber muscle-suit" without modification, huh?
