Nighthawk Posted January 3, 2008 Report Posted January 3, 2008 I don't even consider him a bad guy. He was right. If anyone was a bad guy, it was Comedian, and even he was questionable. That's part of why the story is so good. Rorschach and Manhattan are sort of inversions of each others character, like Eddie Blake and Adrian Veidt are. That's where the balance is. Ozymandias and Manhattan are not really the protagonist and antagonist here.
CBright7831 Posted January 3, 2008 Report Posted January 3, 2008 I wonder if Rorschach's mask will change through out the film like it did in the novel.
Giuseppe Zangara Posted January 3, 2008 Report Posted January 3, 2008 I don't even consider him a bad guy. He was right. If anyone was a bad guy, it was Comedian, and even he was questionable. That's part of why the story is so good. Rorschach and Manhattan are sort of inversions of each others character, like Eddie Blake and Adrian Veidt are. That's where the balance is. Ozymandias and Manhattan are not really the protagonist and antagonist here. Given the moral ambiguities of its characters, calling Ozymandias a "bad guy" was a poor word choice on my part. What I should've said was I simply didn't find interesting the more traditional Genius Who Wants to Take Over the World plot twist introduced in the final two chapters. And given how relatively little space was given to Ozymandias prior to the twist, I had trouble caring.
The Ghost of bps21 Posted January 3, 2008 Report Posted January 3, 2008 I never saw him as the bad guy. I thought what made the story genius was a group of people who were allowed to be the heroes and none of them was wrong in the choices that they made. Ozymanias was right. His decision cost a lot of lives but it saved far more. Dr. Manhatten was right. He knew that Ozymandias had made a decision for the greater good and that undoing so would only cost more lives. Rorshack was right. People should know the truth. The owl guy and the bitch (yeah...it's been a while and they weren't the most interesting characters) were right to wash their hands of it and just find a moments bliss in each others arms. ... There wasn't a villain in Watchmen. The "bad guy" was the internal strife of humanity that Ozymandias killed so many to stop.
Nighthawk Posted January 3, 2008 Report Posted January 3, 2008 This guy wrote some interesting stuff about the moral ambiguities in Watchmen. I'm totally stealing his tattoo, by the way, and I know how lame that is, but I don't give a fuck. I'm doing a similar piece on my forearm contrasting Comedian and Ozymandias. The "bitch" by the way (Sally Jupiter... no, I'm not going to look up her Polish name) was actually probably the most reasonable character of the lot. She was the most easy to relate to, but I like her the least of the lot too... her character was basically a complete worry wart who frowned on anything important anyone wanted to do. This is very close to how I'd react if there were actually gay ass super heroes running around, but she just wasn't that interesting. She is, though, the glue that holds the whole story together, and should be given prominence in that way in any attempt to film the story. She's the boring regular person who we need to not blow ourselves up.
Jingus Posted January 3, 2008 Report Posted January 3, 2008 Oh shit, I just now realized that the guy playing Rorschach was the child molester in Little Children. That actually gives me much more confidence in his ability to play the role. Weird, I just now watched that movie for the first time. Holy Christ YES he's absolutely perfect for Rorschach. It's pretty hard for a movie to creep me out, but when he jerked off in the car while the crazy girl cried, yeah, that got me. Less sure though about Kate Winslet's lover from that movie, who's playing Nite Owl. He was okay as a loser in Little Children, but he sure did suck in Phantom of the Opera in the "regular hero guy" role. GZ, you're the first person I've ever heard say that they weren't impressed by Watchmen's ending and didn't like Veidt as the antagonist. Come to think of it, you and Marney are the only people I've ever heard express a less-than-fellatioesque opinion of the book as a whole. Has there been any sort of public discussion about how a story which includes mass devestation and death involving an attack on New York City might not play quite as well today as it did twenty years ago?
Giuseppe Zangara Posted January 3, 2008 Report Posted January 3, 2008 I was thinking that, too, re: NYC, but all reports indicate that the movie still takes place in the city. I wouldn't be surprised if they had gone with a Gotham-esque substitute.
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted February 20, 2008 Report Posted February 20, 2008 Jackie Earle Haley was also that kid in Bad News Bears, the only talented dude on the team, Kelly Leak.
AmericanDragon Posted July 16, 2008 Author Report Posted July 16, 2008 http://chud.com/articles/articles/15591/1/...ILER/Page1.html http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=22942
CBright7831 Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 It will be a bonus to see the trailer for this movie along with TDK.
Edwin MacPhisto Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 It'll still probably be terrible, but it sure looks gorgeous.
Gary Floyd Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 TRAILER Eh, not terrible, but not great either. Way too much slow motion. Dr. Manhatten and Mars look good though.
AmericanDragon Posted July 17, 2008 Author Report Posted July 17, 2008 Empire took it down. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A-rI7TTz2k
The Ghost of bps21 Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 Empire took it down. It's too late. ... I've seen everything.
AmericanDragon Posted July 17, 2008 Author Report Posted July 17, 2008 http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/watchmen/
AmericanDragon Posted July 18, 2008 Author Report Posted July 18, 2008 http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/07/17/exclu...tchmen-trailer/
Nighthawk Posted July 18, 2008 Report Posted July 18, 2008 CGI looks pretty bad. There's really not much of anything that will get my hopes up for this. But all I need is one good shot of Comedian for a tattoo, and I'll be happy.
Scroby Posted July 18, 2008 Report Posted July 18, 2008 I saw the trailer last night and I was blown away. Looked really cool.
Nighthawk Posted July 18, 2008 Report Posted July 18, 2008 I did think it was a good trailer (liked the song choice). I just thought the Osterman effects really didn't look that good, and some of the shots of Rorschach seemed pretty cheesy too. I'm just too much of a fanboy, I think. Watchmen is so symbiotic with the comics medium that I would go further than saying it's unfilmable and ask why you'd even want to film it (the answer of course being money). Animated mini-series, dude. If you're going to adapt it, that's pretty much the only way.
bobobrazil1984 Posted July 19, 2008 Report Posted July 19, 2008 It looks alright. Still looks a little too cartoony, and I don't like the practice of replicating exact comic panels like that because a lot of the shoots look oddly static and staged, without that "film camera" fluidity, but in general it looks pretty good. I'm not sure where this "It's unfilmable" stuff comes from - when everything in that trailer is pulled directly from the pages, its replicated almost exactly (dopey looking costumes aside). It might need an extra half hour or something to fit everything in, but the changes are more creative choices than anything else.
Nighthawk Posted July 19, 2008 Report Posted July 19, 2008 I'm not sure where this "It's unfilmable" stuff comes from Too long. That's most of it. There's other things, but they don't matter as much. But there seriously is too much going on.
Anakin Flair Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 You know, the only Alan Moore story I've ever been able to successfully read is The Killing Joke. The reason? All his other stories had HORRIBLE artwork, Watchmen included. I took a look at this book at Borders, and I just couldn't begin to read it because of the crappy artwork. Hopefully the movie will be able to show me how good this story is.
Edwin MacPhisto Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 Really? Watchmen? Swamp Thing? Miracleman? They're all gorgeous. I mean, they're not big Alex Ross vistas and watercolors, but the composition is impeccable and the art style consistent, engaging, and appropriate for all of them.
Nighthawk Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 From Hell is really good in a stylistic way, but I can understand why someone wouldn't like that art. He's worked with all kinds of artists.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now