Watchmen Movie Catch-All

Pages

This heady list of celebrities makes me think Watchmen may go the way of Batman 3, "The Nipplesuiting". This many stars in such a complicated movie can only spell disappointment.

I like Jeremy Irons as Moloch though.

I can't argue with those who say that this movie is almost guaranteed to disappoint. It would take a director and cast who all took the story as seriously as they would Shakespeare to pull it off - there's really no room for camp, unless you want to turn it into something completely different than the original story.

EDIT: Wait, it's being directed by the guy who did 300? Rock on, then!

The only person on the list that worries me is Jude Law.

He's one of those actors where no matter what I see him in I think he's either just ok or completely horrible.

Jude Law as OZYMANDIAS!?

And who's Rorshach?

I'm gonna go breathe into a paper bag for a while now.

momgamer wrote:

Jude Law as OZYMANDIAS!?

And who's Rorshach?

I'm gonna go breathe into a paper bag for a while now.

Is that a bad or good thing? I think Jude Law is a good choice, personally.

I haven't seen much Jude Law, but I thought he was really good in The Holiday, which movie I recommend to all couples.

The cast looks okay, though Jason Patric seems like an odd choice for Dr. Manhattan.

I don't think the series/book lends itself to film, but if they get a great scriptwriter and great director and aren't pressured to turn what amounts to a cult work into a mainstream comic flick it could be good.

I really wish they wouldn't do this

momgamer wrote:

And who's Rorshach?

I'm gonna go breathe into a paper bag for a while now.

I always thought William H Macy would be a good choice, or the guy who played Scut Farkus in A Christmas Story

It should be an ugly, gritty face.

Zach Ward played the only likeable character in Resident Evil 2. Shame he wasn't in it for more than ten minutes.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

I haven't seen much Jude Law, but I thought he was really good in The Holiday, which movie I recommend to all couples.

Did you really just ok the casting of someone for The freakin Watchmen based on the idea that you liked their performance in a romantic comedy?

I think we've agreed on like two things before. Maybe just one, I'm not really sure. Statements like this make me think it's not likely to ever happen again.

Funkenpants wrote:

The cast looks okay, though Jason Patric seems like an odd choice for Dr. Manhattan.

I don't think the series/book lends itself to film, but if they get a great scriptwriter and great director and aren't pressured to turn what amounts to a cult work into a mainstream comic flick it could be good.

I think that's the thing. EVERYTHING doesn't have to be a freaking movie. Why not make it a kick-a** mini-series? Can you imagine that. The graphic novel has such length and depth that I can't imagine a movie doing it justice. V for Vendetta was barely tolerable as a translation of the spirit of the book. This should be a mini-series. I always think of Band of Brothers in situations like this. I know, completely different show, but can you imagine if they'd tried to make that a movie? It was a mini-series format story. Period.

I think that the Watchmen could lend it sell really well to film. It is a story that is just complex enough to intrigue the audience into a good discussion but not too complex to be over the common person's head. I dunno. I have high high hopes. Seems like the perfect story for a film.

I keep thinking back to the ticking of the clock, the doomsday countdown, the oppressing feeling of the end being near. You want that drawn out for more than 3 hours, I think. You want those side stories. You want the back-stories of The Comedian, etc. That's why I think a film is to constricting, IMHO.

At least Keanu Reeves passed on Dr. Manhattan.

I look at it the same way I look at Dune. I'm almost at the end of Children of Dune, so I'm by no means a Dune expert. But cheesy though it may have been, I think Sci-Fi's treatment of Dune was better than David Lynch's. I would love to see the Watchmen as a big budget mini-series. Otherwise it needs to be a very long movie.

DSGamer wrote:

It was a mini-series format story. Period.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind a TV miniseries of it with a cast made up of highly-skilled no-names.

Jude Law also doesn't seem like such a terrible choice to me. Ozymandius is above all things a highly intelligent, very egocentric, pretty boy. That doesn't seem to be beyond Jude Law's range. He did very well in Gattaca playing the role of a crippled uberman opposite Ethan Hawke. There may be some stars that are better suited to the role, but there are also worse choices.

Imagine Watchmen done as an HBO 12 part miniseries, directed by David Fincher. Yowza.

THAT could be awesome. Ah, well.

Thin_J wrote:

Did you really just ok the casting of someone for The freakin Watchmen based on the idea that you liked their performance in a romantic comedy?

I think we've agreed on like two things before. Maybe just one, I'm not really sure. Statements like this make me think it's not likely to ever happen again.

So that was your dog I kicked on the way in this morning?

...and after I expressed my affection for the "crazy Cap" avatar, too!

For my actual thoughts on the matter at hand, see what Funken said, because that is my exact thinking.

we can avoid a lot of this hand-wringing by just waiting to see how it turns out. People were moaning about how TRANSFORMERS was going to suck, Michael Bay is the devil, Optimus Prime has lips, blah blah blah, and now I hear fanboys saying "it rocks!" Not to equate the two properties, but it just gets somewhat old to see the "circle of worry" start up every time we have one of these situations.

It's not like this cast list is "official," either. Until an actual announcment from an official source is released, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it.

It seems obvious that for a 2 hour film, they will only focus on the "murder myustery" aspect of the story. .. and most of the stuff like the pirate comics, the 80's political references, etc., will be removed. Can it be "as good" as the comic? Probably not... what film is ever better or even as good as the book? Not too many. On top of that, Alam Moore seems to have some back luck with adaptations (although I didn't think "V" was all that horrid).

The only thing I'd worry about with Zack Snyder at the helm is the use of CG stuff. Yeah, it looked decent enough in "300," but I'd hope he keeps things a little more "real" and gritty in this film.

(hmm... maybe I should go back and read my Absolute Watchmen again...)

DSGamer wrote:

Large quantities of rightness

Exactly. Each issue covers a separate theme or focuses more on a character or subset of characters. It begs to be told as a mini, if at all. How anyone could think that they could adapt it to even a 3 hour script is beyond me.

I'm just as happy to have the pirate stuff left out anyway; I felt like it broke up the flow of the comic. I'd be dying to see what happens next in the story, and then there would be this big chunk of book dedicated to these nameless characters about whom I knew little, including their names IIRC.

Transformers is an entirely different beast. Comparing the two is laughable. I love Transformers more than most people I know and I'm much more concerned about someone ruining the Watchmen. It's just an incredible story, with an amazing pace and emotion. It's a work of art that demands better.

Transformers is a toy commercial (albeit a fun one) blown up into a movie.

DSGamer wrote:

Transformers is an entirely different beast. Comparing the two is laughable.

No, reactionary fans are "laughable," regardless of the property, and that was what I was getting at.

(not saying that applies to YOU, personally... just that the endless circle of "wah! studio/director/writer X is going to do Y! It's going to suck!" gets old).

The point is simply-- RELAX. No one knows anything. Whether the movie is good or bad does nothing to lesson or enhance the quality of the original source material.

SommerMatt wrote:

No, reactionary fans are "laughable," regardless of the property, and that was what I was getting at.

I don't see it as reactionary to question Hollywood's ability to manage a complex, difficult adaptation of a literary work.

Besides, if someone posts that a film is being made, what's there to discuss in a thread about the movie except what the movie might be like or whether certain actors are good for roles? What would be left of the thread except different variations of: "Cool- a movie of the comic. I can't wait to see how it turns out. Color me tentatively excited, pending the eventual release of the picture 18 months from now."

The speculation, irritation, or worry might turn out to be wrong when the movie comes out, but we're all looking for something to talk about now.

You know if they wanted to get all those side stories in, they could do a DVD like the Animatrix... which tells the side stories in an animated style. Might be worth an idea. My question is: is the original author/creator on board for this or not?

Fedaykin98 wrote:

...and after I expressed my affection for the "crazy Cap" avatar, too!

I think that's probably the "one thing" we agreed on.

Negative on the dog kicking, I was laughing as I typed. My missed smiley usage strikes again.

Funkenpants wrote:
SommerMatt wrote:

No, reactionary fans are "laughable," regardless of the property, and that was what I was getting at.

I don't see it as reactionary to question Hollywood's ability to manage a complex, difficult adaptation of a literary work.

Besides, if someone posts that a film is being made, what's there to discuss in a thread about the movie except what the movie might be like or whether certain actors are good for roles? What would be left of the thread except different variations of: "Cool- a movie of the comic. I can't wait to see how it turns out. Color me tentatively excited, pending the eventual release of the picture 18 months from now."

Exactly. Why not just make a bunch of pre-programmed macros for this forum and we can just push buttons and not bother with engaging in meaningful conversation?

"I am excited for the movie ______. I have decided to create a thread about it."

"This it the ________ (insert game) catch all thread. It is coming soon and looks fun."

{{saying this in a really sarcastic bad robot voice}}

SommerMatt wrote:

The point is simply-- RELAX. No one knows anything. Whether the movie is good or bad does nothing to lesson or enhance the quality of the original source material.

Uh, no.

RELAXING gets us Galactus as a giant space fart. It gets us a Dr. Doom who can't properly menace an entire city block. It gets Cyclops turned into a brownish non-entity. It gets Allan Quartermain turned into a babysitter. It gets Prince Thrakhath turned into a bunraku puppet spouting gibberish in the smoking section.

And apparently it's getting the blonde guy with the purple mask here turned into a second fiddle romantic comedian. Ozymandias is supposed to be a kingly figure on the scale of Alexander the Great; Jude Law is anything but. If I was going to cast him I'd probably go with Rutger Hauer.

I agree it doesn't lessen the quality of the original source material. But it does change the way other people react to that source material and changes their reaction to it. A faithful adaptation gives you something like "Sin City" or the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy with all the awards and acclaim that broadens the experience with the original materials and brings it to new people who never looked at it before in it's original form. A bad one gives you a travesty like "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and yes this stuff matters. That cinematic braincramp is the public face of Alan Moore and H. Rider Haggard's work now. How fitting!

People didn't relax when the studio hired Tim Burton to direct what would become Superman Returns, with Nicholas Cage cast as Superman. And they spent 40 million dollars to dig themselves out of that one after enough people applied a board to the back of their head.

I made a couple comments here to participate in the discussion, and then I directed the full text of my reaction (which was considerably longer) to someone I know where it might be heard. I doubt it'll do any real good, but I do feel the need to try. Some people feel the need to tilt at a windmill or two now and then. And like with Superman, sometimes you do hit it.

I think it's safe to say that with its heavy themes (just off the top of my head in no particular order)...

- The Cold War
- Fear
- Vietnam
- The threat of nuclear annihilation
- Who protects us from these things
- Who should protect us from these things
- Are they protecting us morally
- Do we have freedom when we are "safe"
- Rape
- Relationships

...the Watchmen deserves to be done right. It demands to be done right. SommerMatt, it's fine if you think these things are tempests in a teapot. And perhaps you think this because you think The Watchmen is a "funny book". I, however, think it's literature. On par with some of the best books I've read. It deserves a proper treatment and I don't think momgamer is far off to say it deserves a "Lord of the Rings" style treatment if it isn't going to get a "Band of Brothers" mini-series style treatment.

I'm actually surprised at all the Jude Law hate. He doesn't seem a good fit for Ozy, no. But I don't think of him as a romantic comedy actor, remembering him more for his work Gattaca, Enemy at the Gates, Road to Perdition than other stuff.

Rutger Hauer? Seriously? Have you seen any of his work in the past 10 years? (I say this as a huge fan of his work in Bladerunner, Split Second and Ladyhawke.) Hrm, well, he did a good job in Batman Begins. Still, he's way too old and it shows.

Thin_J wrote:

Negative on the dog kicking, I was laughing as I typed. My missed smiley usage strikes again.

Haha, I have endeavored to use more smilies myself for the same reason. Here's some now:

That oughtta get this thread sorted out right quick!

And you go, momgamer. Get 'em!

Pages