Ahem... unfortunately Syder wanted Nite Owl to look like that because it's sopose to be a " comment directly on many of todays modern masked vigilantes".
Here's a link to the interview where he says it:
http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/021408-zack-snyder-watchmen-interview.php
He also says:
The costumes, as theyre drawn, might not be accessible to many of todays audiences. I also felt that audiences might not appreciate the naiveté of the original costumes. So, there has been some effort to give them a slightly more
I would say modern look and not modern in the sense of 2007, but modern in terms of the superhero aesthetic. It was also important to me that they appealed to my own taste as a moviegoer.
So, which one is it? He's trying to make them look more modern and cool, but at the same time he wants to make a meta-commentary on modern superhero movie aesthetic?
I'd say he's trying to have his cake and eat it too. He's actively using the very thing he's criticizing. He wants to have it both ways, and for that I say he's full of s***.
------------------
You are not a very smart person, are you?
Whatever, bud.
In other news, see below.
The heroes (and, by extension, costumes) represented arch types and alluded to already created (and popular) characters. That is unarguable. That is just how it is.
Moore's original plan was to use the recently bought Charlton characters, but DC wanted to shove them into continuity. If Moore got away with what he originally intended, the character designs would be exactly the same as the original designs for Captain Atom, Blue Beetle, The Question, etc.
Since he had to create new characters, he decided that they would be archetypes of the Charlton characters he originally intended to use. That's it. That's where the look of the characters comes from. They look like generic superheroes because they were based on specific superheroes that were somewhat generic.
The whole book is a commentary on superheroes in general (among other things), but the designs of the costumes weren't created with this specific goal in mind. What Moore did was say to Gibbons "Now, this guy is our 'Blue Beetle', but he is actually an Owl. This other guy is The Question, but instead of having no face, his mask is like a constantly shifting Rorschach Board."
And so on. And then Gibbons designed them as he saw fit, and Moore approved these designs. The final costumes are very "gibbonesque" and, as I said, you just have to read something else drawn by Dave Gibbons to see that.
You can't look at the costumes in this movie, especially Nite Owl and Ozymandias, and not see the obvious intended similarities from past better known Superheroes - in this case, from the movie industry.
Well, it's impossible to say what the true intentions really were, but I already stated my opinions on Snyder's declarations on this matter in my response to Wolfman's post.
Anyway, I would like to see some comparisons between the Watchmen movie costumes and those of "past better known superheroes of the movie industry". If it's that obvious, it shouldn't be too hard.
But I want enough of them to make a solid point. A couple of Batman costumes won't fly.
----------------
No. I would have no way of knowing how much it cost, or how much effort it took to make, or what it is made of, as it is depicted in a rather simple drawing. It could be Halloween costume quality, it could be some kind of advanced material. The drawing looks flimsy and impractical, but again, it's a drawing. The movie suit, not so much.
So you're basically saying that in the book this is irrelevant.
Regardless, the one in the book looks clearly less laboured.
Where is that written? This is a man who clearly "labors", or did, when he became Nite Owl. The suit in the graphic novel, he went to the trouble of sculting it to resemble an owl. He went to the trouble of putting "feathering" on his cowl, cloak, and neckpiece. And he made a snow owl suit that looks like it took some work, as well as a number of other "costumes". So obviously he IS concerned about his theme and his appearance. Don't tell me this is a man who wouldn't put work into something.
Now, the one in the comic is a drawing. The one in the movie follows the same basic concept, but he's taken the "making the design resemble the elements of an owl" a bit further.
He's taken the whole "I'm making a costume" a bit further.
I'm talking levels here.
Of course he would put himself to some trouble, but
that much trouble? Think about how time-consuming it would be for a single man to produce that kind of stuff. Yeah, yeah, he made an owlship. But an owlship needs to
fly. You
have to spend time making it, or else it won't work. An owl-suit works regardless of feather-patterns or metallic tints. It doesn't need that. It wouldn't be productive.
People are loving to say his suit is commenting on the Batman Begins suit, but remember that one was made from several pieces of military apparatus that had to be order separately and by the hundreds to avoid suspicion. Lucius Fox didn't build it by himself with the crap he had hanging on the basement.
The thing is, he doesn't look like an owl in the comics. Or the movies. Although he certainly looks like he tried harder to mirror an owl's elements in the movie suit, sans the "hood", which all owls do not have.
Now you're pushing it. Of course he doesn't look like an owl; he's a man. I was clearly speaking in a semiotics sense.
Batman also doesn't look like a bat, and don't even get me started on Spider-Man. I'm talking symbols here.
I don't know that Dan ever meant to appear menacing, and he didn't, and doesn't. In both versions, he looks like a goof dressed up in an owl themed costume.
As he's an established superhero, I can see that. But I don't think there's any argument over whether he actually ever appeared menacing, in the movie or the comic book.
Near the end, when he's terrified because they are about to face Veidt, he says to Rorschach something like "Now I know how normal people feel around us".
He
did look menacing. When he and Rorschach are out investigating, the guys at Happy Harry's are scared ****less of them. Granted, it
could be because they are known vigilantes with a history of assault and a hovering owlship with a flamethrower outside, but come on, the costumes are a big part of it.
In Under The Hood, Hollis talks about this. He says the only thing he made sure about when making his costume was that it wouldn't constrict his movements, but subsequent vigilantes took appearance very much into consideration.
Practicality in terms of whether or not one could concievably fight crime in the outfit. This is armored, and it's less restrictive in design, so I can at least begin to believe he'd have a shot in it.
Less restrictive? It looks totally stiff. The one in the book at least looks flexible.
Are you complaining about how "overdesigned" it is, or how expensive it looks?
Overdesigned.
What if he tore his graphic novel costume?
He would sew it, or replace the whole piece. Whichever, it would take much less time and work to fix.
It's not a question of money; it's a question of (yes) practicality. Having money means nothing when you can't hire people to do your work for you. He sure wouldn't have a lack of materials, but does he really want to spend most of the time in his basement fixing stuff when he could be... oh, I dont know...
fighting crime?
What if, what if, what if. He's a millionaire. If his suit was damaged, he'd probably, oh, I don't know...fix it?
See above. He has to do everything on his own, because of that little thing called secret identity.
Wanting Nite Owl to look kind of cool isn't a crime. As Snyder pointed out, society has fetishized superhero costumes. They expect heroes to look cool, and if you don't think half of his original comic book design was the designers then trying to make him look kind of striking and "cool", you're nuts.
The general tone of Watchmen is a very specific and hard one to grasp*. The whole book (costumes very much included) walks a thin line between "cool" and "ridiculous".
I just think Nite Owl's movie costume is a bit much on the "cool" side. That's all I'm saying. You people are blowing this thing way out of proportion.
*And that's my only fear when it comes to this movie, i.e. that Snyder isn't mature enough to get the tone right.
There may be no evidence that Moore intended for his suits to be a commentary on superhero costumes. That would point to him just having lack of imagination in terms of Nite Owl's design, and taking the most generic approach possible. I don't buy that for a second.
Regardless of Moore's intentions for the graphic novel, it makes perfect sense for a movie that serves as a commentary on the nature of superheroes to also serve as a commentary on the idea of superhero costumes. If Moore did not intend this, he missed a golden opportunity.
See: my response to StormingNorman.
Also, intention becomes irrelevant as soon as a work of art makes its way into the public. Watchmen is ours now, not Moore's. If it works as a commentary on so and so for
you (and I think in this case it sure does, why not), then that's all that matters.
The fact is, these suits CLEARLY serve as come sort of commentary/study of modern superhero outfits, intentional or not, and Snyder has said that this approach WAS intentional:
"Lastly and possibly most important, I wanted to be sure that they comment directly on many of todays modern masked vigilantes who shall remain nameless
"
Yeah, and I said way over there on the top that this approach is fundamentally contradictory, but whatever, really. I can't believe I spent all this time discussing crimebusting apparel. I was supposed to be working right now.
