I said this when the trailer came out. Glad to know that I'm not the only sane person here.
Watchmen Trailer Online
- Thread starter shivkala
- Start date
I said this when the trailer came out. Glad to know that I'm not the only sane person here.
^Well, FWIW some studio execs must have felt more like misskim86 does than we do, because what we're getting is a 30-year-old in a rubber batsuit playing Nazimandias.
Exactly... it's a "comic book movie which, among other things, involves rape, mass-murder, butchery of children, and a whole lot of very "unsociable" personalities... but it's still a "comic book movie" so its target audience must be "the kiddies." (sigh)The new, "kewl" costumes might also be studio-mandated for merchandising purposes. Little kids aren't going to want to buy toys of superheroes in dorky costumes.
Of course, Watchmen is anything but kid-friendly anyway, but try telling that to the studios...
All I can say is this... any parent who allows any kid under the age of 15 to see this movie isn't doing their job. This has GOT to be "R-rated" (or higher, potentially). The subject matter can't be treated correctly in any other way.
Guys, let's not blame everything on the studios.
After all, we're dealing with the guy who made 300 and Sin City. He's used to material with less inherent substance.
As for ratings, after seeing TDK get away with a PG-13 rating simply for not showing blood or directly illustrating people getting shot every ten seconds AND having a very graphic depiction of Two-Face, trying to guess Watchmen's final rating will be a crap shoot at best.
I'm eighteen, and I was shocked at parents dragging 5-year-olds to TDK.
They're out of their fucking minds.
After all, we're dealing with the guy who made 300 and Sin City. He's used to material with less inherent substance.
As for ratings, after seeing TDK get away with a PG-13 rating simply for not showing blood or directly illustrating people getting shot every ten seconds AND having a very graphic depiction of Two-Face, trying to guess Watchmen's final rating will be a crap shoot at best.
I'm eighteen, and I was shocked at parents dragging 5-year-olds to TDK.
They're out of their fucking minds.
Re the Nite Owls' rather commonplace sexual hangups---the number one commonplace defect is being commonplace. Whether it was meant to or not, putting in this while omitting any real effectiveness on the part of the Nite Owl is part of the glorification of Rohrschach. He's got interesting hangups and he's repeatedly shown kicking ass. And he's got the sex abuse victim/damaged virgin vibe going for him too.
In another type of sexual hangup, Sally Jupiter is superficially a life affirming character. But the fact that she is in a nursing home has the effect of punishing the character for vice, as well as being kind of unbelievable. I don't know whether this is irony. I'm not sure that Moore really has such conscious control of his material.
Since the Comedian's moral outrage at Ozymandias' plan triggers the plot, the fact that he is a villain rather muddies everything up. Again, I'm not sure that it is done consciously. The effect is to contrast decent human villainy (rapist and woman murderer mixed with such noble values as unconditional loyalty to the state and merciless justice to villains) as so much better than abstractly humanitarian ideological monsters like Ozaymandias. (If that sounds rather a weird thing for Moore to be saying, that's because it is.) Obviously, Jeffrey Dean Morgan was cast as The Comedian to make the character more sympathetic as his previous roles have been famously loveable.
Ozymandias' sexual ambiguity is a sign of his wickedness and impotence. His failure to kill Dr. Manhattan and the failure of his plan due to Rohrschach's eventual revelation via the diary also signify his impotence. Dr. Manhattan's sexual potency of course reflects his power. It conflicts thematically with the suggestion that God doesn't really care about us, but, hey, the cool guy has to get the girls.
In another type of sexual hangup, Sally Jupiter is superficially a life affirming character. But the fact that she is in a nursing home has the effect of punishing the character for vice, as well as being kind of unbelievable. I don't know whether this is irony. I'm not sure that Moore really has such conscious control of his material.
Since the Comedian's moral outrage at Ozymandias' plan triggers the plot, the fact that he is a villain rather muddies everything up. Again, I'm not sure that it is done consciously. The effect is to contrast decent human villainy (rapist and woman murderer mixed with such noble values as unconditional loyalty to the state and merciless justice to villains) as so much better than abstractly humanitarian ideological monsters like Ozaymandias. (If that sounds rather a weird thing for Moore to be saying, that's because it is.) Obviously, Jeffrey Dean Morgan was cast as The Comedian to make the character more sympathetic as his previous roles have been famously loveable.
Ozymandias' sexual ambiguity is a sign of his wickedness and impotence. His failure to kill Dr. Manhattan and the failure of his plan due to Rohrschach's eventual revelation via the diary also signify his impotence. Dr. Manhattan's sexual potency of course reflects his power. It conflicts thematically with the suggestion that God doesn't really care about us, but, hey, the cool guy has to get the girls.
Zack Snyder wasn't involved with the Sin City adaptation. That was Robert Rodriguez, with Frank Miller.After all, we're dealing with the guy who made 300 and Sin City. He's used to material with less inherent substance.
You guys still aren't getting me.
Imagine if they make a Batman movie which takes place in the 60s. Do you honestly think that they would make him wear the bat costume Adam West had? No they would make a new costume which looks bad ass because in the new Batman movies he is portrayed as a REAL human and not as a comic book character. Sure he wouldn't have all the technical gadgets he has now but he wouldn't look like a comic book character.
That's what I feel the director of this movie has tried to do with the new costumes, he wants them to look real and not like comic book characters
Imagine if they make a Batman movie which takes place in the 60s. Do you honestly think that they would make him wear the bat costume Adam West had? No they would make a new costume which looks bad ass because in the new Batman movies he is portrayed as a REAL human and not as a comic book character. Sure he wouldn't have all the technical gadgets he has now but he wouldn't look like a comic book character.
That's what I feel the director of this movie has tried to do with the new costumes, he wants them to look real and not like comic book characters
Ummm...
THIS costume... made of entirely of fabric except for the cowl... looks EXACTLY like the "comic book" costume. It's a FREAKIN' LEOTARD.
Still looks pretty "bad ass" though, doesn't it? And yet... gasp... it's NOT an inch-thick rubber "muscle-suit."
Sure, that worked for a $30,000 short film ... but for a two-hour feature-length film with a production budget of nearly $200 million?
Another story.
Another story.
So, how something looks to the audience changes depending on the budget of the film? Is that what you're trying to say?
I'd say that how something LOOKS is dependent on how it LOOKS... and nothing else. And if it looks good... it looks good. Regardless of whether it cost $10, or $10,000,000.
"More money" doesn't mean "got to spend it on silly, non-functional clothing that weighs you down and restricts your movement" does it?
Seriously... go talk to a S.E.A.L. Ask about trying to move around in a wetsuit with body armor on top of it. It's a huge combat DISADVANTAGE. There's a reason that they shed that stuff as soon as possible. There's a reason that combat patrols wear armor but scouts do not. The extra weight provides protection, but slows you down tremendously.
The "rubber muscle suits" we see in most of these movies are TOTAL NONSENSE. The "batsuit" in the first Nolan Batman movie was at least given a logical explanation... and it looked damned good... but even in the comics, the guy has DOZENS of different versions of the suit, including lightweight "stealth/speed" suits (which are essentially body stockings) and the more heavy ones with integral armor. (which, by the way, is a logic which also gets applied to the Batmobiles in the books... different cars for different jobs!)
Agreed. It looked good in the fan film, but on a huge ass movie screen it wouldn't hold up well at all, and would frankly look like some thin, cheap Halloween costume.
The same would sadly apply to the Chris Reeve Superman costume today; audiences have just come to expect their superhero costumes to be a lot more sophisticated than that.
Okay, you win. Everything is stupid unless you like it.
No plans to put on a 7mm wetsuit and try moving around in it, huh?
I think the pathos of the Night Owl character is going to need to come out in the performance, not the look.
The costume as seen in the graphic novel (or the Batman suit on the bodybuilder) would look laughable on a real, pudgy, middle-aged man. (I'm thinking Adam West)
I think it's a visual nod that works as art, but would be unintentionally hilarious in live action on screen. I could see the movie doing something a little more "This costume used to fit fine!" as he squeezes in.
I'm a little more concerned that he's jump-kicking a guy in the chest in the trailer... while this happens after his "rebirth" in the comic, it still seems beyond the character physically.
The costume as seen in the graphic novel (or the Batman suit on the bodybuilder) would look laughable on a real, pudgy, middle-aged man. (I'm thinking Adam West)
I think it's a visual nod that works as art, but would be unintentionally hilarious in live action on screen. I could see the movie doing something a little more "This costume used to fit fine!" as he squeezes in.
I'm a little more concerned that he's jump-kicking a guy in the chest in the trailer... while this happens after his "rebirth" in the comic, it still seems beyond the character physically.
Yeah.
Ummm... while the costumes in these films may LOOK impressive... as far as them being remotely practical... not so much.
Just as an example... something that you can do yourself, especially if you live near water. Maybe you SCUBA dive, or maybe you've never tried it... but put on a 7mm wetsuit, then see how easy it is to move around. It DRAMATICALLY reduces your ability to move. Put on body armor and see how that affects you.
Or, for that matter, read the comments of the stars in any of the recent superhero movies (since they started going with heavy rubber muscle-suits).
They may look cool on-screen, but as far as being PRACTICAL... nah, not so much.
It's no coincidence that what I still consider to be the best looking "Batman" seen so far is literally a guy in tights. THIS guy... Clark Bartram.
Granted, you've gotta be in serious shape to make that "work"... and if the actor isn't in that sort of shape, well... you use heavy layers of rubber to compensate!
Holy crap, I'm glad watchmen didn't go this route. Looks more like something from Comicon: the Movie.
^Alright, but what if they did something like that--same classic lines and color scheme--but made the gray parts out of a more textured material, like the Spidey or Routh Superman suits? And the gray should be darker, of course. It's hard to tell in that light--Batman just doesn't look that good in the light. That was one of my gripes with TDK--he was too plainly visible for too much of the movie. He doesn't belong in brightly-lit places.
It's not that they don't get you...they disagree with you.
True...if they made a movie set in the 60s it probably wouldn't be what Adam West wore...but it would be something that felt and looked liked the 60s.
Now...the thing is: with Watchman...it's set in the 1980s and the heroes should be wearing what they wore in the 1970s or 60s. So, they should look dated.
I think most of the costumes are fine. My only problem is with Night Owl...But, then, I've only seen it in motion briefly in the trailer. Perhaps he doesn't move well, because he's out of shape, in the movie.
It should be like a Football player whose gotten fat trying to fit into his old uniform.
