Are fans right or wrong to criticise the direction of this movie?

Here's my view on the costumes : they're not "cool". But they are, in some sense, modern. And that is necessary. You have to associate these characters with "super heroes". You have to look at them, watch them and in a brief period of time, say, "OK, these people are/were super heroes". So what does a super hero look like on film? He/she looks like Spiderman, Batman, the X-Men, etc. He does NOT wear spandex.

Regardless of how low-tech the comic costumes were, you have to create an aesthetic on screen that people can immediately relate to "superhero". And, for better or worse, today's aesthetic of a superhero costume is heavier material. (BTW, I see nothing "high-tech about these suits. At all.) If all these people came out in spandex, the audience would first have to ask, "What the hell am I looking at?" and then figure out all the complexities of the story - the stuff that matters. With this approach, the audience can immediately recognize these characters' histories as superheroes and then immediately move on to focusing on what really matters.

And it does not detract from the story or the essence at all, IMO. And keep in mind that these are the "2nd generation" of superhero costumes. We've already seen that Dollar Bill's costume is basically spandex, so the progression to more advanced equipment not only follows logically, but is a part of the book. And it's not like they totally redid anyone's costume to make it "cool". They still look pretty ridiculous, IMO, which is another part of the book.

So I really don't see this as an issue. And I've yet to see/hear/read a "valid" criticism.

 

Aside from Nightowl, the costumes don't really look high tech, but his costume makes sense as it adds to the fact that he's a technological genius. Silk Spectre is ****ty, which justifies rorschach's distaste for it. Ozymandius is outfitted with a suit that is simply egyptian armor, nothing very high tech about that. Rorschach and Comedian look like their comic counterparts, not much to complain about.

I don't think anyone can justify being against this flick unless they've read the hayter script. That convinced me that there could be a very faithful adaptation with a few tweaks(which have been confirmed by snyder).

 

You can criticize it, sure. But I think it's ridiculous to make a call at this point. Too often fanboys ***** and ***** and ***** about something they have no idea how to accurately judge, and then they're the first person to embrace the "new approach", or the adaption. Wait a little longer before making a call on this one, guys.

The costumes look "cool" in the context of the movie. That is, they look appropriately "superhero" and absurd, as they are supposed to. The more modern look is an obvious attempt to do a "commentary" on modern superhero outfits. Just by looking at the costumes you can clearly see their intention in that regard. Yes, the costumes are from the 70's, but they are from the 1970's of WATCHMEN. There's nothing to suggest that Nite Owl and Adrian Veidt could not have conceived of such materials and designs in that era, or that these designs look out of era simply because these designs didn't actually exist back then. These are fictional characters, living in a fictional offshoot of reality.

I'm of the opinion tha tpeople who are against the entire project at this point are simply crying over the impossible not being accomplished. This is a movie adaption of WATCHMEN. It's not going to replace WATCHMEN on any level.

Now, if you have an issue with the deviation from the comics, well, my angle is to start asking you questions like "Do you like the BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT Batsuits"?

 

Just listened to that YouTube link.

How someone can make the comments made about this version of The Comedian is beyond me. The Comedian never looked like a complete mess. He looked like a man in body armor with some American elements to it. And he's government sponsored. So why the *****ing about how "well put together" he looks?

 

I'm not going to form an opinion on the film because I haven't seen any footage yet. But the costumes look fine to me, but I'm also one who doesn't get upset with changes from book to film. I feel these changes work well and probably will work in context.

 

What pray tell, are you basing this on? The fact that he's wearing a T-shirt in one and has chest armor in another?

You mean the reality with all sorts of technological advances and so forth? That one?

No, I thought that was it. There's more?

Death, moral gray areas, intelligence, ambition, ego and power? Help me out here. Why can Ozymandias costume never be dark? It's not like he doesn't have large amounts of purple and gold on that suit. At least as much as he had in the comics.

When you say "old school"...

Are you referring to the man with the high tech lair and aircraft? The man with a high tech exoskeleton in his basement and all KINDS of specialty costumes? Multiple gadgets?

And he's not THAT overweight, my friend. He's a bit out of shape.

And yes, he's impotent, but the suit shouldn't need to be. That's the whole point of the suit making him FEEL potent.

Explain to me why something made in the 70's has to look "cheap", especially given the context of the character, and the alternate reality that he lives in.

Probably under the sculpted armor, which doesn't exactly make him look svelte on any level. Assuming this version is out of shape to some extent, which I imagine he will be, since it's been a factor in the scripts since Sam Hamm's draft.

This costume DOES look ridiculous. On what level doesn't it?

 

You know, that is a really excellent point, which people haven't really tried to rebut. I'm a pretty staunch defender of these movie costumes, and I hadn't thought of that myself. I like your thinking.

 

To me the Comedian looks even more neat and tidy in the comic than he does in the released picture, so I don't really see where you're coming from. In the comic he has neat slicked hair and shiny leather pants. In the movie pic, his hair's messy and he's wearing something like fatigues and a bulletproof vest, which I think actually fits him better. I wouldn't call that neat and tidy by any means.

 

going with The Guard's point, perhaps Nite-Owl's costume is supposed to be a bit like the Keaton/Batman argument back when he was cast, and is still currently going on:

Keaton: A short guy with really no physical resemblance to the character. Not really, seemingly, physically fit to look like a guy like Batman. And what's he in? A sculpted rubber costume.

Dan Drieberg: An out of shape, former superhero, who has to wear a...wait for it, sculpted rubber costume to give off the appearance of superior physical strength.

...thoughts?

 

I dig it. Adapting a work to comment on a modern version of an issue addressed by the original is something that not a lot of adaptations do, but when it's done right it works really well, I think.

 

Of course it can, don't be ridiculous. The Crucible was set in the 1600s but it commented on the 1950s. No Country For Old Men was set in the 70s (80s?) but it comments on today. Lots of works do that.

 

Alan Moore's Watchmen was a 1985 comic book commenting on comic books of old.

Zack Snyder's Watchmen is a 2008 comic book movie commenting on comic book movies of old.

I understand your argument. But the general audience(and yes, they have to included) aren't as involved this in-depth we fans are. They're going to see the comments this film is making on all past superhero films.

Yes, Zack Snyder's film is going to take place in 1985, and despite that, like ir or not, it's going to say something about the films that came before it. That's how you have to look at it. There's a reason Alan Moore's book is still relevant today. Most of the themes of the book can still be applied to all past superhero movies. It has something to say about the humanity of the hero.

I've seen the same kind of argument with Ken Russell's film "The Devils" and how the theme in that movie can be applied to those currently in power in government. But how can that be? A 1970's movie about a 1633 Witch trial with something to say about 2008?

 

I just think the whole debate on what the costumes look like is absolutely ridiculous!! So what! They only way Id find complaining justified is if they changed Rosarch's or the Comedian's look completely. Other than that, big woop. I can give a rats ass if Ozy's suit isnt as bright. "It symbolizes his personality". How he is and acts and how the actor portrays him will symbolize his personallity. The point of it all is that ANY superhero costume looks ridiculous. Anyone who wears Nite Owls comic book suit and the new movie suit will look ridiculous if they go outside. And why the heck not can this new movie suit have existed in the 70's?? What's so new about it? People just love to complain.

Its wrong to criticise anything about the movie so far. Ecspecially when Zach has said the ending is intact and he keeps a book in hand while filming. Ill judge the final product on how the movie is...not what the costumes look like.

 

What? Since when did the THEMES of Watchmen have a year attached to them? Who the hell says the movie designers can't make a "statement" about the ridiculous overdesign of comic book movie suits (THE DARK KNIGHT, I'm looking in your direction). Just because the movie is set in the 60's, 70's and 80's doesn't mean the themes are only meant to apply to those time periods.

 

I think the costumes are great! Nite Owl's is actually my favorite of the updates. All of that was possible to make in the late 70's/1984. Remember, the 70's weren't the 30's, or the 40's, or the 50's, or even the 60's. There were planes, helicopters, and by '84 modern computers were starting to be made, things weren't as primitive as you seem to think they were. So I think the costume is great. Plus, it brilliantly comments on today's superhero films.

Watchmen is brilliant because it comments on the state of comic books at that time in history. If the movie fails to comment on the state of superhero movies at this time, then it would fail to accurately adapt the brilliance of Watchmen to the medium of film. And that is easily done while keeping the 1985 setting.

By the way, I was actually against Zack Snyder doing this, when I first heard of him getting it. I wasn't a big 300 fan (That's a separate argument), but the more I've seen of this the more I feel like he really has a grasp on what makes the book "tick".

Also, it isn't really fair to judge based on these images, because these are touched up and stylized promotional images. There's aren't screens from the movie. So saying that the Comedian looks too clean doesn't really work, because tons of superhero movies have cleaned up stylized looking pics of characters in poses that never occur in the movie. And this mocks that. Perfectly. Which again is why I think this movie is headed in the right direction.

 

Exactly.

 

wow, that talkback thing was pretty stupid. Just watched it now.Seriously? Why Snydes? It's the same amount of letters as snyder and just sounds stupid. "Comedian looks like a soldier from 2025 on steroids!" That made me crack up. "Ozymandius looked like a character who got bullied in school." Now, it's been a while since I read watchmen, but wasn't ozymandius the same man who was accused of being a homosexual by Rorschach?



How does this man not look weak?

And the nipples Comment? That's works on two different levels, 1. the suit is based off egyptian armor, many armor types had nipple bits:


2. It's a play on the batman costume of the movies.

Silk spectre They pretty much put the pic up, moaned and grunted, and said things like "Come On! What's up?!" Without really stating real issues with it



The movie version Has a skimpier look and as stated above, adds to Rorschach's distaste for her.

Nightowl, they stated he looked too high tech, that his armor rivaled Tony Stark.

The suit maintains a similar look to the GN, while making a play at Recent Batman Movies, adds to the fact that Dan is a genius, and adds to the fact that this alternate universe has been pretty heavily influenced technologically by Doc Manhattan. It's a bit different, but different isn't always bad.

Also, (once again, it's been a while but) didn't Dan gain weight after retiring? These pictures don't have specific time periods, so this may be when he first dons the costume and thus doesn't have the extra poundage.

 

double post.

 

^ Nice post. Also, take a good look at that pic of nightowl, look at his stomach, and his thighs. He is pretty chubby. I mean, he wasn't exactly fat in the graphic novel, no need to make him obese or anything. He's just out of shape, with a little potbelly. And the new look still has that. Look at him. What a tool. He's trying waay too hard to look cool, but he's a nerd. All of that comes across in the new look.

As for Ozy, I thought that he was the kid who got picked on in school. Then he gave up his parent's money and took a trip through the mid-east. He's a prick. He thinks he matters. He's gonna make sure he looks perfect, so that nobody can pick on him anymore. He's gonna be the smartest, quickest, most acrobatic person alive, so that he can't be picked on anymore. Not just that, he's gonna be his idol, Ramses II. What a prick. Thinks he knows so much. Look at the picture, all of this can be seen in the picture.

I don't see what arguments can really be made against Comedian, Silk Spectre, and Rorschach, as nothing really has been changed.

Snyder nailed the essence of the characters. He nailed the look. He successfully adapted the characters while commenting on superhero films. I say bravo to him.

 

In this 1985 they have electric cars and genetically modified lynxes. We don't have either of those in 2008.

While we are on the subject. The big thing about Watchmen was that it was a super hero comic that was a commentary on super hero comics. So it makes sense for the movie to be a commentary on super hero movies.

 

Based on the Comedian's suit and face I'm placing these pictures around Vietnam until I know more.