Watchmen out this Friday

Stephen Avery wrote:

This movie is going to rock.

I don't even care a whit if it is not 100% accurate. I just want to see Rorchach.

Steve"Bring IT!"Avery

Dude save your cash:

Michael Barnes wrote:

Here's the thing, Ska...I failed my saving throw against the early marketing

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!


*wails and gnashes teeth*

ALL LIES?!?!


Tricksy Barnses...

Michael Barnes wrote:

if it makes me regret my tattoo there's going to be hell to pay.

I have always wanted to get a Rorchach face done but never got around to it (and don't really have room for it anywhere it would fit anyways) but now I just can't do it. I dunno why but I'd feel like a herb when dude get all in my business and ask me about my "sick movie ink".

There are about 10 folks from the office that are going. I decided that I'm too old for a 3-hour midnight movie when I have to work the next morning.

So Amy and I are taking half-days on Friday and seeing it at 3 in the afternoon. We saw the first 20 minutes of it in December at the "Butt-Numb-a-Thon" film festival in Texas, and were just enthralled.

I assume it will be pretty good. Not great, but pretty good.

433 wrote:

I assume it will be pretty good. Not great, but pretty good.

I'm assuming this movie will cure cancer. Anything less is not possible. Despite what that Barnes guy says. I swear, WORST TASTEMAKER EVER, that guy... How's a guy supposed to know which movies to like if people on the internet keep going back and forth about it?

I've got THE rorschach (the butterfly/dog one if you know the book)...it's on my forearm, it was my first tattoo, and it's still awesome. But I get PLENTY of "oh, is that a butterfly?" comments. Every now and then someone will say "Hey, that's one of those psychiatric tests!". And rarely, someone will say "Holy shit, Rorschach!" I'm really, really hoping that it doesn't become "Oh man, that's that symbol from that awful fucking movie".

I'd actually rather the movie be true to the spirit, context, and theme of the book than be a panel-by-panel photographic recreation of it. I was thinking last night that if it turned out to be a BLADE RUNNER/DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP situation then that would suit me fine.

Who knows at this point...it may be awesome.

drmabuse00 wrote:

Juniper wrote:

One of the reasons these superhero movies are so exciting to the nerd patrol is that they somehow vindicate that subculture. There's a collective sense of "you like us, you really, really like us! And our geeky enthusiasms, too!"

Jesus Juniper you act as if comic geeks are the only ones that have movies coming out.
I got one word for you.

Candyland.

OH, YEAH GAMERS! OUR TIME HAS COME!!!

Actually, the Candy Land movie is going to rock. Way edgier than 2005's Candy Land: Great Lollipop Adventure . I've already preordered the uncut version on BluRay.

433 wrote:

There are about 10 folks from the office that are going. I decided that I'm too old for a 3-hour midnight movie when I have to work the next morning.

Good point. My last experience with one of those midnight debuts was The Return of the King, and that was ridiculous. I swore that I would never again go to a 3-hour midnight movie on a weeknight.

Michael Barnes wrote:

Here's the thing, Ska...I failed my saving throw against the early marketing because it was designed to specifically attract the people who read the book- a very smart move, because that kept the naysayers at bay. That first trailer was almost 100% images and panels directly from the book and anyone who had read it with any retention could likely go through and map everything directly to the original panels and dialogue. And that first Comic Con poster from last year drawn by Dave Gibbons- it looked exactly like the original covers but it was a new image we'd never seen (The Comedian getting decked by *****). If that's not exciting to a WATCHMEN fan, I don't know what is.

The whole movie is obviously marketed to fans of the comic, but the change(s) to the ending will no doubt disappoint or annoy those same fans. At this point I suspect the movie will basically be a montage of iconic Watchmen panels edited together with no regard for story or pacing. Fans will be able to fill in any gaps in the script which will probably color their opinions of how good the movie is, but anyone else will be left cold. I'm also dubious about some of the casting choices and whether those actors can pull off the roles as they'll probably be carrying the movie outside of the eye candy. Fortunately I don't have any tattoos that will now and forever be associated with this movie instead of the graphic novel.

Michael Barnes wrote:

I've got THE rorschach (the butterfly/dog one if you know the book)...it's on my forearm, ... I'm really, really hoping that it doesn't become "Oh man, that's that symbol from that awful fucking movie".

Now how ironic would that be -- a symbol of bad taste prominently and permanently tattooed on Michael Barnes? That makes me smile!

SPOILER: wait until the end of the credits. Alan Moore appears as Hooded Justice and Samuel Jackson is Captain Metropolis. I am totally lying.

Michael Barnes wrote:

Now, kids don't even think about Armageddon so I can't help but think if WATCHMEN, in a socio-political context, is actually irrelevant to anyone born after 1980 or so anyway. Sure, that mean old Osama Bin Laden is still out there and we're apparently always at an "orange" terror alert but the cellphones still get text messages, the Xbox still turns on for a couple of hours of HALO WARS, and American Idol is on tonight. And the trains run on time.

What does that mean? It's time for a new WATCHMEN. And I don't think the movie is going to be it, but I wish that it was.

I'd read that previous scripts had it take place in an updated time where the threat everyone was worried about was terrorism. Would that kind of deviation from the source material resulted in a more enjoyable/relevant film?

I think Juniper mentioned how Watchmen is a comic book about comics. Well, we already have movies about movies (Adaptation probably being the best) and Barnes asked about a super hero movie about super hero movies. Didn't they already do that, and didn't they call it "Superhero Movie"?

The movie critic at the paper I work for HATED the "Watchmen" movie and gave it an F, which is pretty rare for him. I haven't talked to him about it yet, as I plan on seeing it Saturday afternoon. I don't know if he's read the graphic novel or not though.

But speaking of comics about comics and movies about movies, is there a board game about board games?

metalface13 wrote:

I think Juniper mentioned how Watchmen is a comic book about comics. Well, we already have movies about movies (Adaptation probably being the best) and Barnes asked about a super hero movie about super hero movies. Didn't they already do that, and didn't they call it "Superhero Movie"?

I think "Superhero Movie" is a postmodern statement on urine jokes.

I am purposefully going in with low expectations because some of the trailers and things I have seen make me believe that they did not even try to capture certain parts of the atmosphere/feel of the comic.

Honestly, if they manage to capture a couple of the themes and flesh out one or two characters, I'll be happy- at that point I'll be able to tell people they really need to read the comic and it won't come across like bullshit. Compare that to say, Daredevil, which was so bad that when you told people they needed to read the comic they asked you if you were kidding.

Mad Dog wrote:

The whole movie is obviously marketed to fans of the comic, but the change(s) to the ending will no doubt disappoint or annoy those same fans.

I can see that happening, and it would be ridiculous if it did. There is nothing untouchably sacred about the specific form of the MacGuffin at the center of the antagonist's plot. All that is important is the nature of the threat. From what I've read they've retained that AND done so in a way that pares down a lot material that would have bogged the film-version of the story down.


-MMM