Too Much Slo-Mo

[MaskedManJRK]

More than likely some of it is slo-mo (I can see Comedian's fall, some of Vietnam, and maybe some of the funeral being good places to use it) and others were manipulated for it in the trailer. So I'm not worried about that.

 

[Katsuro]

absolutely they were ripped straight from the book. its the general tone of the trailer i have a problem with. it'll take more than sleek shots to impress me, 300 was full of those and i thought it was a film of all style and little to no substance.
perhaps its just poor marketing, but the slo-mo does everything to show the aestehtics of this movie while doing nothing to highlight its depth.

It's a teaser. You really expect a teaser trailer to show off the depth of a movie like this? How would that be possible at all?

You want evidence they're gonna get the depth and complexity of this book right, read cast and crew interviews. They get it.

 

[Angel_Faerie]

I think most of the slo-mo is just so the trailer keeps in time with the song. I wouldn't mind if there was a little bit of slo-mo in the actual movie, such as when

Spoiler

Blake gets thrown out the window.

 

[laudanum09]

It's a teaser. You really expect a teaser trailer to show off the depth of a movie like this? How would that be possible at all?

You want evidence they're gonna get the depth and complexity of this book right, read cast and crew interviews. They get it.

i have read them. even snyder 'gets it'. surely the cast of v for vendetta got it, like when reading for instance Natalie Portman's interviews where she says something along the lines of wanting people to walk away from the film with the idea that perhaps even violence and terrorism must be employed to fight for liberty...that means she gets it, but that doesn't mean at all that the film 'got it'. because it didn't.

and you've got to understand why one might be skeptical at this stage. I want to eat my words, believe me, but I'm also not afraid of being critical. especially because I'm not very fond of the director and his style, which I see coming through to a great degree in the teaser as well as the comic con footage.

and of course you can show depth with these trailers, look at the friggin TV spots for TDK. they included some great lines that hinted if not revealed the level of the script's quality.

im not so much upset that they didn't show me more of the film, im merely afraid that behind the aesthetic gloss, there wont be anything there. its a typical fear, one Watchmen fans have had ever since movie-buzz had sparked up recently (and im sure throughout its existence as there is a long history of struggle for this film to be made) and I don't see how its unjustified. Its simple: the aesthetic of the trailer does nothing to show me that they've gotten it right. It shows me the opposite in fact. If the movie does not rely on the same eye-candy-ish aesthetic, then I'll be glad. Until I see proof otherwise I will remain skeptical.

 

[newwaveboy87]

and of course you can show depth with these trailers, look at the friggin TV spots for TDK. they included some great lines that hinted if not revealed the level of the script's quality.

not really. or even at all.

the TV spots and trailers were full of the cool, stuff-went-boom-real-good moments. lots of nice lines from Joker, zingers from Alfred, and blow-your-load shots of the Batpod doing cool stuff. they didn't even hint at the depth and complexity of the storyline. if they did that, they'd have shown Joker's final monologue in any of the trailers, or the part where he uses an old psychological test against the two ferries full of people, or the final monologue Gordon delivers, or any time Bruce spoke about what Harvey Dent means and what Batman means.

i would calm down at this point. the movie's still quite a bit of time aways, and it's just a teaser trailer to make the general public go "OOH! PRETTY!" and take notice. i also wouldn't worry too much about the slow motion-ness of the teaser -- some of it is very obviously slowed down for effect and very little of it looks naturally like its supposed to be in slow motion.

 

[Katsuro]

and of course you can show depth with these trailers, look at the friggin TV spots for TDK. they included some great lines that hinted if not revealed the level of the script's quality.

Maybe it hinted at the quality of the dialogue, but none of the trailers gave a hint of the character development, or the complexity of the plot. It gave no indication of the real themes behind the movie.

A trailer for Watchmen can have tons of really cool sounding dialogue, but until people see the story play out they'll have no idea what this really is. You can show Rorschach say cool-sounding lines, but you cant convey why he says them, and who he is, in a 2 minute trailer.

And honestly, i'm kind of glad. I want the general public to be tricked into seeing this movie. I want to be in a crowded theater, and overhear people whisper as they slowly realize just what kind of movie this is. I imagine that'll happen at some point near the second chapter, when they really meet The Comedian. And maybe I'm naive, and I just like Watchmen too much, but I really think that if most people give it a chance, they'll love Watchmen. I think if the movie can pull people into the theaters, they'll come out loving it, despite it not being what they expected going into it. Of course, maybe i'm giving American audiences too much credit.

And once again, i'm still confused as to what you dont like about the trailer's look. What scenes specifically bother you, keeping in mind that slo-motion is used only twice. What about it's aesthetic feels wrong to you? How should a Watchmen movie look?

 

[laudanum09]

Maybe it hinted at the quality of the dialogue, but none of the trailers gave a hint of the character development, or the complexity of the plot. It gave no indication of the real themes behind the movie.

A trailer for Watchmen can have tons of really cool sounding dialogue, but until people see the story play out they'll have no idea what this really is. You can show Rorschach say cool-sounding lines, but you cant convey why he says them, and who he is, in a 2 minute trailer.


And honestly, i'm kind of glad. I want the general public to be tricked into seeing this movie. I want to be in a crowded theater, and overhear people whisper as they slowly realize just what kind of movie this is. I imagine that'll happen at some point near the second chapter, when they really meet The Comedian. And maybe I'm naive, and I just like Watchmen too much, but I really think that if most people give it a chance, they'll love Watchmen. I think if the movie can pull people into the theaters, they'll come out loving it, despite it not being what they expected going into it. Of course, maybe i'm giving American audiences too much credit.

And once again, i'm still confused as to what you dont like about the trailer's look. What scenes specifically bother you, keeping in mind that slo-motion is used only twice. What about it's aesthetic feels wrong to you? How should a Watchmen movie look?

slo-motion is used only twice? ill count three for starts: rorschach on the rooftop, comedian torching charlie, and veidt. theres more. and its not a problem with the composition of the scenes, the 'mise en scene' or whatever. its, i'll reiterate once again, simply that some of the presentation of the trailer is adding to my skepticism about snyder. and if you recall, the three tdk trailers did a great job of showing the intensity and tone of the film. i tried to be hyperbolic by referencing teasers but im sure there are more examples that can be dug up. even our first teaser, dialogue only, hinted at its novel tone (at least for a batman movie). I wont complain that we didnt get a better teaser to show us (me) more of what snyder is doing with the film. but the thing i stand by is that we have no proof other than neat frame by frame parallels to the comics. thats IT. where else is the proof? and dont give me interviews BS, like I said V for Vendetta is a prime example of why that doesn't really count. And a scummy producer could have called that shot, oh make sure it looks like the comic. Great, thats a tiny tiny start.

considering my own regard of snyder, this all adds to worries rather than comforting them. not only this but watchmen and many other moore works are aimed to do things specific to the comic medium, never meant to be translated to film. so that means there are gaps the director will have to fill out. those are the gaps im worried will be filled with the type of aesthetic we got for 300, absolutely no way to capture the human level of storytelling specifically set by moore to contrast and deconstruct popular heroism.

and pop heroism=cool slo mo shots to superficially heighten the 'wham'. there is no 'wham bam' glamour about the watchmen. will manhattan's cold subtleties really show through when we've got CGI man on steroids? these are my worries, and sure they're early in the game but good god I've been hoping for an adaptation of the watchmen for a while and i've been debating with myself about various aspects of how this might translate to film and the problems it might have, especially regarding the interference of hollywood, for a very long time. so early or not, to begin the defense..perhaps more like offense, is not a matter of time for me.

 

[Dark Victory]

I don't mind slo-mo at all as long as he doesn't use it every two seconds.

 

[KenK]

not really. or even at all.

the TV spots and trailers were full of the cool, stuff-went-boom-real-good moments. lots of nice lines from Joker, zingers from Alfred, and blow-your-load shots of the Batpod doing cool stuff. they didn't even hint at the depth and complexity of the storyline. if they did that, they'd have shown Joker's final monologue in any of the trailers, or the part where he uses an old psychological test against the two ferries full of people, or the final monologue Gordon delivers, or any time Bruce spoke about what Harvey Dent means and what Batman means.

i would calm down at this point. the movie's still quite a bit of time aways, and it's just a teaser trailer to make the general public go "OOH! PRETTY!" and take notice. i also wouldn't worry too much about the slow motion-ness of the teaser -- some of it is very obviously slowed down for effect and very little of it looks naturally like its supposed to be in slow motion.

Yeah, nothing the trailers or commercials for The Dark Knight prepared me for the depth of that film. It glosses over a few of the themes, but it certaily didn't give you any indication of just how important the relationships between Batman, Gordon, and Dent were, and just how seriously those relationships would be tested. There's no indication of how dangerous the Joker really is. Very little in the trailers even hinted upon Joker as a character in the context of the film. Enough people are familiar with the Joker to make the leap of, "ooh, he's dangerous!" But you have no real idea how dangerous until you actually see the film.

 

[blightsbiohazar]

Hate to revive an old thread but I almost started another on this subject. The Slo-Mo is going to RUIN this film if it occurs throughout the entire movie just as it did with 300. 300 is a crap movie with a half an hour storyline extended into a 2 hour schlock fest. Watchmen, having so many small details and story nuances to tell cannot be held back my slo-mo. This is not some music video, this is the most important graphic novel of all time and I'm already forseeing it becoming an "I read badass comic books and rorschach is badass yayaya" stupid casual movie goer thing the way 300 did. I do not want to see T shirts and catch phrases all over ytmnd. I want Synder to actually handle this project with the utmost respect instead of wiping all his lack of talent as a director over it. I want to see more of the Watchmen, I want to see every detail from the panels. Slo-Mo is not cool. It's not epic. It's a dumb 80's fad being brought back and it's going to slow what could be the most epic movie of all time into a boring existential dream sequence.


*ends rant*

 

[Bubastis]

I actually heard from reports of the 20 minutes of footage from watchmen that there is alot of slo-mo.
Which I hate.

 

[The Guard]

The book has tons of slo-mo. Hell, the images hardly ever move.

 

[The Guard]

Watchmen, having so many small details and story nuances to tell cannot be held back my slo-mo.

You're right. It cannot be held back by anything. Slow mo will probably add to it, if nothing else.

How, pray tell, does having more time to appreciate the details in a detailed movie, hold the project back?

 

[The Mighty Wind]

The slo-mo to me seems just like an attempt by Snyder to appeal to the graphic novel fans by giving the eye the time to let specific frames from the book sink in.

 

[blightsbiohazar]

You're right. It cannot be held back by anything. Slow mo will probably add to it, if nothing else.

How, pray tell, does having more time to appreciate the details in a detailed movie, hold the project back?

There's so much to say that will be wasted on overblown slo mo. It's not even regular slo mo. It's that everythings really slow then it speeds up crap.

 

[gwynplaine]

More cowbells.

 

[Angel_Faerie]

The slo-mo to me seems just like an attempt by Snyder to appeal to the graphic novel fans by giving the eye the time to let specific frames from the book sink in.

We have a winner.

 

[RustyCage]

The slo-mo to me seems just like an attempt by Snyder to appeal to the graphic novel fans by giving the eye the time to let specific frames from the book sink in.

Exaaaactly. Not only that, but it makes it seem more stylish, artistic, and unique to people who don't know what it is and see it. They don't want to be pitched a trailer emulating Dark Knight, it'll seem like some kinda lame genre spin-off movie featuring some obscure heroes they don't care about. Redundant and even a turnoff. But since Zack did it this way, a lot of people are really fascinated and want to know more, want to hear what these mysterious and cool characters have to say. I think it's brilliant. t:

 

[The Guard]

I have trouble taking people who bash slow motion, a filmmaking technique, just because, seriously. It's a filmmaking tool, and it would appear he's used it appropriately in WATCHMEN.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

All this time, I thought the main reason Watchmen was supposed to be hard to film was because movies are usually too fast-paced.

 

[allfilms]

the slowmo really helps capture and recreate the amazing panels and single framed drawings of the book, ex: comedian thru window..any other director would have just had comedian go through a window..only that slow-mo could capture that epic single frame slowed down to see just how beauitful that shot is.

 

[Dirt Like Me]

I think this is a valid concern. I feel like this would be a tough project for a studio to get behind. These are all characters that haven't seeped into the public consciousness like Batman, Spider-Man and (obviously) Superman; the material is all about shades of gray and the ending is disturbing--especially when you think about other superhero movies that tend to deal in simple moral absolutes. (Good guy becomes hero, takes down bad guy and saves day, with door left open for sequel if movie is successful).

So, I worry that the studio wants/insists on a certain amount of "bad-ass" 300-style sequences, so that if nothing else, the movie will have some appeal to an action-hungry audience. Watchmen is about a lot of things, but the action sequences aren't what makes the book great. I hope the slow motion is used sparingly. Maybe the new trailer will give some more insight to that end.

 

[the_tortel]

The book has tons of slo-mo. Hell, the images hardly ever move.

you've gotta be high as a kite to see them move, then it gets fun!