BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Watchmen movie news

 
  

Page: 1 ... 1011121314(15)1617181920... 26

 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
19:58 / 30.01.09
OK, someone can probably clear this up for me, and it's not particularly related to the movie, but I just reread the first issue (a friend I'd lent the trade to had just given it back and I forgot to take a book to work that night) and Rorschach, or at the very least Nite Owl/Dreiberg DON'T KNOW that Blake was The Comedian, as far as I can tell. And it seemed a little weird, given that everyone, from the first bunch of masks onward, seem so free and easy with their real names when talking to each other.

Bear in mind, it's been a LONG time since I've read the whole thing, and this could well be either something which gets cleared up later, or something I've got completely wrong this time round. That said, I have a huge stack of comics to read, and really don't have the time that Watchmen requires to read it all again right now, and it's bugging the shit out of me.

Back on topic, I'm looking forward to the movie. I've got past the point of being pissed off when stuff gets changed- V for Vendetta is a great example. The ending in the movie is brilliant, but would have been shit in a comic. The ending of the comic is also brilliant, but just wouldn't have worked so well in a movie. The thing that made Watchmen great was the way it worked with the "rules", and limitations and potential of comics. I want my comics to do that. I want my movies to do it with the "rules", limitations and potential of cinema.
 
 
Poke it with a stick
20:16 / 30.01.09
Can't help you with your question Stoatie - unless it's something of a tribute to the world's inability to see Superman behind a pair of glasses?

Anyhow - from io9, here's a picture of some of their old adversaries:

 
 
miss wonderstarr
22:52 / 30.01.09
It does seem a bit confusing and contradictory, Stoatie. Rorschach doesn't know Edward Blake is the Comedian until he finds the uniform in Blake's wardrobe when investigating "a routine homicide."

"Victim named Edward Blake...seems he was the Comedian."

Dreiberg doesn't seem to know any more than Rorschach, but on the next page, Rorschach is suddenly more clued in, knowing how old Blake was when he joined the Minutement: "Blake was sixteen and Mason the first Nite Owl."

Maybe he got that from Mason's book, but from my quick re-reading, Mason doesn't give either the Comedian's age or real name in "Under the Hood".

Dr Manhattan and Laurie both know the Comedian's secret identity ~ Jon because he and the Comedian were the last remaining government operatives, Laurie presumably for the same reason, but also because her mother would have told her Blake's real name. He "was a bastard. He was a monster."

At the first Crimebusters meeting, Nelson Gardner is open about his name, but implies a lot of them won't have known his secret identity before. There's an inconsistency in the use of first names and code names ~ Blake calls Nelson "Nelly", Janey refers to Dr Manhattan openly as "Jon", but Blake calls Adrian Veidt "Ozzy" and Dan calls Rorschach only by his nom de guerre.

So, in short, it seems that at the time of Blake's death, some of the active or retired masked adventurers knew, and had known for some time, that Edward Blake was the Comedian (Jon, Laurie, the original Silk Spectre) while some of them (Rorschach) were in the dark, and others (Nite Owl, Ozymandias) don't let on whether they knew or not ~ but Adrian/Ozymandias obviously did know, and Dan, given his friendship with Jon and Laurie (Laurie hasn't seen him in years but has his number to hand and sees him for dinner that evening), may have known but be playing safe when he finds Rorschach in his kitchen.

Overall, good question. I'm not sure if I have answered it correctly as I'm just skimming the first chapters here.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
22:53 / 30.01.09
unless it's something of a tribute to the world's inability to see Superman behind a pair of glasses?

Yes, Moloch only realises Edward Blake was the Comedian when the Comedian turns up in his bedroom drunk, without his tiny domino mask on. How he suddenly knew his old enemy's name was Edward Blake, just because he didn't have a mask on, I'm not yet sure.
 
 
Mono
11:33 / 31.01.09
I've not looked at this thread since 2008, but am most definitely up for a Barbelith IMAX adventure.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:09 / 31.01.09
Yeah, me too.

Thanks, miss wonderstarr- that covers it a bit better than I did, I think, and makes a certain amount of sense. I've read it so many times, but not for years, and it seems like the sort of thing I'm sure I'd have picked up on before.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
14:28 / 06.02.09
Peachy Keene Neato
 
 
Colonel Kadmon
20:03 / 06.02.09
I'd like to think that the baddie on the right in the picture above is Bruce Willis. The actor, I mean, not the character. But it probably isn't.
 
 
Kali, Queen of Kitteh
17:25 / 08.02.09
I'm just disturbed with their,um, revealing outfits. The two facing the front, I mean; I have no idea about the gentleman in the suit.
 
 
Jack Fear
19:09 / 08.02.09
OMG HUMANS HAVE GENITALS! HIDE THE CHILDREN!
 
 
Bandini
19:14 / 08.02.09
Spoiler if you've not read the comic (so don't click!!!).

Dave Gibbons on the end of the film

I don't really get it, how's it going to end then?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
18:12 / 09.02.09
Erm, with something that ISN'T the squid but still fulfils the same narrative function of being a uniting menace, perhaps?

Actually, thinking about it, the squid is kind of a comics answer to a comics question... it's like I said pages and pages back, about the Black Freighter stuff, Watchmen works by using COMICS tropes. If it's gonna work as a movie, it should use MOVIE tropes. No idea what that means for the squid or analogue thereof, but remember in the comic that a comic artist is among the people missing (if I remember correctly)- why, in a world existing on screen rather than on the page, would comics even be an issue? The only reason they were an issue (c wut i did thar?) in the original is because it was, well, a comic.

I'm probably expecting too much from Snyder at this point, but I did love the DotD remake (which, WAY more than this, I expected to be absolute SHIT, being a remake of one of my all-time favourite movies) AND 300, so I also bear him no ill will and am prepared to pay my money, buy my beer and popcorn and sit back and see what he's done with it. Not my ideal choice, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
 
 
Bandini
20:09 / 09.02.09
You can use something for the ending which isn't a squid but why, it just seems like a bit of a slippery slope to other changes especially considering the attention to authenticity they have made elsewhere.

I'm probably a bit too precious really.

It just seems strange to be changing something like that - what could be the reason? Kind of rhetorical really.
Still keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:14 / 09.02.09
I think, and I know I've said this before, that a gigantic purple octopus just wouldn't look very good. Normally you could make it look different from the comic, but this is Z. Snyder we're talking about here. Not an option.
 
 
Bandini
20:43 / 10.02.09
True, I don't think I massive squid would work within the film but I think that comes back to the problem of filming Watchmen.
Apologies, I know I'm kind of going back to a very old point but it doesn't matter how much attention to detail they focus on they are still going to have to dramatically alter aspects of the comic to fit the film. Something every adaptation has to wrestle with but it was something that less concerned me when I heard the rumour that Gilliam was doing it but worried me greatly when Snyder got on board.

I like a fun explosive, flashy blockbuster like the next man but the thing that always drew me into Watchmen was the depth it had as comic, that it wasn't the glossy world of Marvel (I know it's not all like that).

I know what you mean Stoat about settling back for a beer and enjoying the film but I won't be able to not concentrate on the details and the depth of the piece and I know I'm gonna find it hard giving the film the benefit of the doubt.

This worries me with Snyder because he seems to be a lot about the gloss and the flash and not about the depth and the story.

Sorry I kind of rambled off the point; I suppose I'm just doing the classic fanboy thing of whining 'please don't ruin one of my favourite comics'.
 
 
CameronStewart
21:49 / 10.02.09
I really, really love the movie Jaws. Also The Shining.

Now, Snyder's no Spielberg or Kubrick, but those are only two examples off the top of my head of great movies which differ considerably from their source material.

At first I was appalled by the loss of the squid but I've come to accept it now and while I have certain reservations about the film's substitute (I had thought it was fairly well-known by this point but I'll avoid mentioning it here since it appears many haven't been following this as closely as I have), I actually think it's a fairly decent solution.

Two nights ago I was having a conversation with Dave Gibbons in a bar after the New York Comic Con (*clunk* sorry, I'll just pick that name up) and he is very, very enthusiastic about the film and seems to give it his full stamp of approval. If nothing else, his gleeful, wide-eyed description of how perfectly they've depicted the "Watchmaker" chapter made me feel very good about it indeed.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
00:13 / 11.02.09
Mr Stewart said: those are only two examples off the top of my head of great movies which differ considerably from their source material.

See also Stalker, Blade Runner and Apocalypse Now. Three of my favourite movies of all time, whose source material I also love, but which are, to put it mildly, less than faithful. I agree; I'm not concerned with how faithful something is, if it works. (Sin City's a weird one- it was TOTALLY faithful, and I really enjoyed it, but I did think I could have saved a tenner by staying at home, listening to some music and reading the comics again. I WANTED more difference).

Bandini: Sorry I kind of rambled off the point; I suppose I'm just doing the classic fanboy thing of whining 'please don't ruin one of my favourite comics'.

I kind of used to be like that, then I realised it was ruining my enjoyment of stuff I'd probably have had far more fun watching otherwise. I can't remember, was it Raymond Chandler who there's that great story about? Someone interviewed him and asked if he was worried about movies fucking up his books, and he just gestured to a shelf full of them all, and said "no, they're all still right here".

I have a friend who thinks it's diabolical that Soderbergh "remade" Solaris, because it was different from Tarkovsky's. (Haven't seen the remake, but that's not the point). When I pointed out to him that Tarkovsky himself had made substantial changes to the "original", the "original" being Lem's novel, and that this wasn't a remake, just another movie adaptation, he was incensed.

I think it was Jack the Bodiless of these very fora who said, of Constantine, while I was being the whining fanboy, "just watch it AS A MOVIE. Every now and then there'll be a bit where you go 'Cool! That's the kind of thing that'd happen in Hellblazer!'" It worked.
 
 
Kali, Queen of Kitteh
14:53 / 11.02.09
OMG HUMANS HAVE GENITALS! HIDE THE CHILDREN!

I was just saying, Jack, that the outfits are distracting.
 
 
Colonel Kadmon
01:17 / 12.02.09
I watched Hellblazer AS A MOVIE. It was still shit.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
05:25 / 12.02.09
I watched Hellblazer AS A MOVIE. It was still shit.

And how did you feel about Constantine?

Meanwhile, based on that picture above, Nazis have the worst taste in supervillain outfits ever.
 
 
Poke it with a stick
09:36 / 12.02.09
Adding to Stoatie and Cameron's list, I'd have to say that the Planet of the Apes film adaptation not only changed whole swathes of the book (written by Pierre Boulle of Bridge Over the River Kwai fame), but made a film that worked much better on screen than the original text ever could have.

Tim Burton, oddly, stayed truer to the book and we all know how that worked out.

At the time, I'm sure apes dressed in contemporary clothing and future apes in solar sails finding a message in a bottle (in space!) was fine, but audiences who'd been treated to 2001 in the same year would have laughed it out of the cinema.

I'm not saying it was a bad book, or that it couldn't have made a decent film as was, but that cinema audiences expected something different. I think that could be also be said of the finale of Watchmen now.
 
 
Spaniel
10:40 / 12.02.09
(I loathe the PoTA remake. Loathe it.)
 
 
Spaniel
10:46 / 12.02.09
My point being that if we're going to talk about "great" (to quote Cam above) adaptations/remakes then I think we should only mention movies that a considerable number of people who care about such things* would describe in those terms - that or make an extremely excellent case for our idiosyncratic thinking.

Last time I checked Burton's PoTA wasn't particularly highly regarded. Quite the opposite

*I know - woolly - but this discussion is a little woolly, innit?
 
 
Poke it with a stick
12:06 / 12.02.09
Boboss, that was my point exactly - the original adaptation with Charlton Heston et al was fantastic and improved on what a straight adaptation might have been. The Burton reboot stuck closer to the novel and suffered as a result.
 
 
Spaniel
12:45 / 12.02.09
Every time I come to this thread I end up being wrong.

Let’s hope I’m also wrong about the film
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:01 / 12.02.09
I watched Hellblazer AS A MOVIE. It was still shit.

Well, clearly you didn't- you watched it as a comic adaptation. Otherwise you'd not have given it the name of the comic instead of the movie, wouldn't you? You thought it was Hellblazer. Which is exactly the opposite of what I meant by watching it AS A MOVIE.

I mean, it wasn't BRILLIANT or anything. But I enjoyed it a lot more having left my fanboyisms at the door, as it were. And given that I was watching it for enjoyment, I'd rather enjoy it than sit there pissing and moaning about something it wasn't.
 
 
CameronStewart
18:19 / 12.02.09
the original adaptation with Charlton Heston et al was fantastic and improved on what a straight adaptation might have been. The Burton reboot stuck closer to the novel and suffered as a result.

See also: The Shining. King didn't like Kubrick's film for straying from the novel, and gave his full endorsement (and screenplay) to the Steven Weber/Rebecca DeMornay version, which follows the novel very closely and is also dreadful.

From what I know, aside from the squid there are very few major changes to Watchmen's narrative. There are plenty of omissions however, and we all knew that was going to happen.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
18:53 / 12.02.09
The one thing about Burton's PoTA was that I was disturbed how attracted I was to Helena Bonham Carter...

I liked Constantine as a stand alone film apart from the Comic. If they could have stayed 100% to the "Dangerous Habits" arc with, say, a blond Clive Owen maybe it could have been better, but it didn't suck.

And I'm constantly disturbed how attracted I am to Tilda Swinton...

(Actually not that disturbed)

Fanboy says Watchmen is gonna rawk!
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:57 / 12.02.09
I think that if you enjoyed Constantine you are going to love Watchmen.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
19:16 / 12.02.09
Haus:
I'm counting on it. If it's 25% as good as the comic it will be better than 75% of the movies being churned out, I think.

I almost wished I never read the comic so I could enjoy the film first, then be amazed by how much better the book is. When I saw V for Vendetta, it had been almost 20 years since I had read it and I adored the film. I re-read the book twice since and still adore the film despite the discrepancies: the sheer power of Hugo Weaving's voice added so much life to a static mask that I am able to ignore that much of the story changed to make it easier to digest in a film narative.

I remember loving the original Crow comics and despising the film because it changed so much of the story line and added a "super-villian" element which takes away the emotional power which made the book work so well. Again, almost 20 years of neither seeing nor reading the story, the film doesn't suck as much as I thought it did. By no stretch does it compare to the raw visceral impact that the Comic delivers, but the visuals and acting and general story line still delivers a decent movie.

I believe that Watchmen will do the same.
 
 
Colonel Kadmon
20:24 / 12.02.09
Papers, Stoatie - I actually don't read Hellblazer. The fact that I didn't make the titular differentiation between movie and source might betray that. But well spotted, both.

The fact remains, it wasn't very good. But we digress...
 
 
Poke it with a stick
13:53 / 14.02.09
Storyboard the prison scene to get tickets to the premiere and a Q and A with Zach Snyder. Sounds right up the street of several people here.
 
 
Tsuga
15:08 / 14.02.09
OMG HUMANS HAVE GENITALS! HIDE THE CHILDREN!

I was just saying, Jack, that the outfits are distracting.



Those outfits are nuts, really (no pun intended). It's an interesting idea to stray from the current desire to make everything (especially nether regions) sleek and perfect, by having these elaborate, dated, wool-looking outfits with somewhat pouchy cuts, instead of plasticized or CGI. Though I saw the trailer in a theater last night for the first time, and some of it looked pretty CGI and teflon. I've never read the comic; seeing the trailer, I have no idea what the hell it's about.
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:40 / 14.02.09
You know, I kinda envy people who can go into this movie not knowing what it's about and find out for the first time. I had some very interesting conversations about V for Vendetta and Transformer with my non-geek friends, who actuallt enjoyed it and became fans (as far as grown people with fully formed mind and opinions can become fans, as opposed to those like me who became fans as kids or teenagers). And while one of those examples above (Transformers) my message to them was "yeah, that's pretty much what I was talking about", the other (V) was "yeah, it was cool, but, man! you need to read the original, it's much better". I'm plagued by the fact that I already know my appreciation of the movie will have to fit into one of those two categories. Someone who's never read the original will be free to have any opinion possible, based on the merits of the movie alone.

Mind you, I'm no advocate of the "don't read the book, watch the movie" approach, I'm just wondering what it will be like to those who are spoiler-free...
 
 
Automatic
09:01 / 19.02.09
I'm going to this on the 4th;
(futurecinema.co.uk)

"PARAMOUNT PICTURES UK and FUTURE CINEMA are proud to announce an EXCLUSIVE event - the first chance to see the much-anticipated WATCHMEN ahead of its UK release.

"Under the archways in London's cavernous SeOne Club the FUTURE CINEMA team of performers, installation artists and set designers will transport the audience into an alternative New York, where the world of WATCHMEN will come to life. The event also boasts a very exciting surprise performance by one of the UK's hottest bands."

Sounds pretty damn neat. Anyone else get tickets?
 
  

Page: 1 ... 1011121314(15)1617181920... 26

 
  
Add Your Reply