Watchmen news: trailer, runtime and more

[The Guard]

1) Not suggesting a movie can't have the depth of any book. I'm saying you can't pour a full barrel inside a bottle and make it all fit.

I don't know that anyone believes this is the case, or that this should even be attempted. They've wisely pared it down, so that they don't quite have to do that to the material.

2) Not about Rorschach. I used him as an example, of course. Try to imagine now all that I said about him + everything that should come from the others. Watchmen had almost an issue for each one. That's my point: they can't give the movie the same proportions the book has, in just 2:45 h.

I'm curious as to what integral elements/layers and story points of characters you feel will be missing. When you say "should", it is very telling. We'd all LIKE to see some things, but I think at some point, we have to be realistic.

It's just not logical to fit everything about every character and every story element that is found in WATCHMEN into this movie. Which, again, is my point about different mediums. Obviously they're going to have to cut some things, and obviously the movie is going to have different "proportions". But again, this just seems like common sense to me. It's a movie. Not a twelve issue series in print.

3) TDK is another kind of stuff completely. Nolan had multiple versions and different material from which to borrow and make his own movie. And that's what he actually did.

That's more or less irrelevant, because the point is, because Nolan was making an adaption with a lot of material, he felt the need to pare it down, to excise some of that material, in order to make his film. The fact is, for one reason or another, Nolan chose to show some things about Batman in THE DARK KNIGHT that are featured in the mythology, and he left other things out (even simple things like Bruce and his parents), and he did so because of the movie's nature as an adaption. It's more or less that simple. And hey, you can take "solo works" and apply the same logic. Look at LORD OF THE RINGS, or any literary adaption. Some stuff just isn't going to make it in. That's the nature of adaptions.

4) Not asking to have everything from the book in the movie, but stated that with 2:45h they can't get the complex nature of this particular book in a movie that should be a cinematic translation of what this same book represents to superhero genre.

You've said "They can't get this complex nature" in a movie. What you seem to mean, however, is "They can't get all of it". Which, again, I won't argue, but I won't argue it because it's just common sense.

What makes you think that even considering that, that this film won't be complex, or that it won't be the cinematic equivalent to superhero movies of what WATCHMEN was to superhero comics?

 

[DarkReflections]

1) Not suggesting a movie can't have the depth of any book. I'm saying you can't pour a full barrel inside a bottle and make it all fit. t:

2) Not about Rorschach. I used him as an example, of course. Try to imagine now all that I said about him + everything that should come from the others. Watchmen had almost an issue for each one. That's my point: they can't give the movie the same proportions the book has, in just 2:45 h.

3) TDK is another kind of stuff completely. Nolan had multiple versions and different material from which to borrow and make his own movie. And that's what he actually did.

4) Not asking to have everything from the book in the movie, but stated that with 2:45h they can't get the complex nature of this particular book in a movie that should be a cinematic translation of what this same book represents to superhero genre.

that is a great metaphor, man. i think that really explains the whole idea of a comic book to film adaption.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

Really, not all the stuff from the book deserves a place in the movie. I like reading about Dr. Long private life in the book, but a movie is a different beast. Give more than 30 seconds of movie time to his quarrels with the wife and you'll have people from the theater screaming because they want to hear the story of the red headed psycho and see if he can bust out of jail. In movies you have the need to feel the story progress.
I'm reading an Italian book right now, a good one. It's more than 400 page long full of detailed description of the setting with flashbacks of the backstory of every character.
In December I'll see the movie based on the book. Do I expect to find everything in it?
No. Sure in the book it's nice knowing that a guy became an alcoholic because his wife left him after their daughter choked on a bottle cap, but in a movie would it weigh down narration?

 

[Doctor Jones]

Yeah, even though they can't fit everything, what makes you think that it will be a bad film? As long as the spirit of Watchmen is there. Then I'm happy. You seem to be concerned with fitting every single thing. Would each scene with the vender and kid from the GN fit into the film? No, it slows down the pacing, and doesn't make any sense. In a book, you can do this. But a movie has a specific amount of time to tell a story.
You seem to be the only person that thinks this that putting everything from the GN would make a good film. If they did that, I would be sitting there thinking, 'I''ve already seen this.' and I could just read the GN. What would make you happy? Every single scene, shot, dialogue from the GN? That would be boring. If they did that, than what's the point?

 

[[A]]

my fellow hypesters, how do you think we're going to see the characters' origins..? here and there, every once in a while, or a whole origin story somewhere at the beginning of the movie..?

 

[The Guard]

Both. There will be hints of their origins at the beginning, and then sprinkled throughout the movie.

 

[Doctor Jones]

my fellow hypesters, how do you think we're going to see the characters' origins..? here and there, every once in a while, or a whole origin story somewhere at the beginning of the movie..?

Well, I definately think we'll see Rorscach's origin. Most of it if not all. We know we're going to see Manhatten's. But those are the two important ones I'm most concerned about.

 

[[A]]

Well, I definately think we'll see Rorscach's origin. Most of it if not all. We know we're going to see Manhatten's. But those are the two important ones I'm most concerned about.

Yeah--plus there's that long scene with him and the shrink

 

[copywrite]

When one presents a sound argument, it's not enough effort to counter it with just:

"You seem to think that just because it's a lot of material that it needs to take up a lot of time when in reality it doesn't."

This sentence above has no meaning in itself, it's a statement that asks one to believe your word that "it doesn't", see?

You have yet to show me a sound argument for the runtime being way too short. Everything you've said is absurd up to this point and my belief is that you're just being a smart ass for the sake of it.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Yeah--plus there's that long scene with him and the shrink

Yep. Though I don't think we'll see the shrink's personal life. One of Kovas great moments in the film. Great opportunities for Jeffrey Dean Morgan's acting to shine through!

"A pretty butterfly." t:

 

[[A]]

^Jackie Earle Haley, you mean

 

[Dark Victory]

Yep. Though I don't think we'll see the shrink's personal life. One of Kovas great moments in the film. Great opportunities for Jeffrey Dean Morgan's acting to shine through!

"A pretty butterfly." t:

Jeff plays The Comedian.

Do you mean Jackie Earle Haley?

 

[Mercurius]

I don't know that anyone believes this is the case, or that this should even be attempted. They've wisely pared it down, so that they don't quite have to do that to the material.



I'm curious as to what integral elements/layers and story points of characters you feel will be missing. When you say "should", it is very telling. We'd all LIKE to see some things, but I think at some point, we have to be realistic.

It's just not logical to fit everything about every character and every story element that is found in WATCHMEN into this movie. Which, again, is my point about different mediums. Obviously they're going to have to cut some things, and obviously the movie is going to have different "proportions". But again, this just seems like common sense to me. It's a movie. Not a twelve issue series in print.



That's more or less irrelevant, because the point is, because Nolan was making an adaption with a lot of material, he felt the need to pare it down, to excise some of that material, in order to make his film. The fact is, for one reason or another, Nolan chose to show some things about Batman in THE DARK KNIGHT that are featured in the mythology, and he left other things out (even simple things like Bruce and his parents), and he did so because of the movie's nature as an adaption. It's more or less that simple. And hey, you can take "solo works" and apply the same logic. Look at LORD OF THE RINGS, or any literary adaption. Some stuff just isn't going to make it in. That's the nature of adaptions.



You've said "They can't get this complex nature" in a movie. What you seem to mean, however, is "They can't get all of it". Which, again, I won't argue, but I won't argue it because it's just common sense.

What makes you think that even considering that, that this film won't be complex, or that it won't be the cinematic equivalent to superhero movies of what WATCHMEN was to superhero comics?

Well, one example of elements/layers/story points is that about Rorschach: take the same procedure to all characters, and voilà. t:

To keep science in the level of complexity shown in the book, for instance, concerning Manhattan.

IF you think they'll keep it in this tiny version, ok, but I'm quite skeptical. That's another example. How to build Daniel from a frightened and failed hero to what he becomes? It takes a great deal of story to tell it decently.

Again, how to make it all fit in 2:45h?

And, Guard, please, understand it once and for all: I'm not asking to put everything in the movie as it is in the book. It's quite obvious the media are different.

I said: "I do not believe they can make a very complex book of originally 12 issues of filigranate writing and several deep characters in constant interplay into a movie with runtime 2:45h".

Peter Jackson had the ultimate care (not to say love) to keep it lenghty and even to expand it as he wished originally.

Have you read the books? If you did, you see they're bulky, but miles away from Watchmen’s level of difficulty, structure-wise, and theme-wise.

Snyder should make this movie at least 3:30h. And cut the excesive slow motion, and create some new cinematic narrative solutions to keep up with the inventiveness of the book.

And you are mistaken about the TDK thing: it is really relevant, because the nature of it was completely different. Nolan was totally free to build his own tale there. No comparison about it.

What you call “pare it down” is what I call “make it fit in 2:45h, ‘cause this movie needs to be a hit”.

That's what makes me think it won't be as complex: the effort to make it inside a 2 hour scheme, the slow motion appeal to the crowds already used in The Matrix "awsome" features, etc.

 

[Mercurius]

Really, not all the stuff from the book deserves a place in the movie. I like reading about Dr. Long private life in the book, but a movie is a different beast. Give more than 30 seconds of movie time to his quarrels with the wife and you'll have people from the theater screaming because they want to hear the story of the red headed psycho and see if he can bust out of jail. In movies you have the need to feel the story progress.

Saying that an adaptation is an adaptation is what we all know, and I keep telling over and over that this is nice common sense.

Not arguing this point, evidently.

What I put in bold above is one of the things, I suppose, that explain Moore's utter lack of interest in how his books will be handled in cinema.

These "people from the theatre screaming because they want to hear the story of the read headed psycho" etc. can't really grasp what the story is about, and I'd even venture to say: they're not interested in it, at all.

When the director supposes that's what he can get rid of and let's get to the point, there you see he isn't about to make the right choices where to cut it.

He's cutting it to the "awsome" syndrome. He's letting out what the story is about, and that's why Nite Owl, for instance, looks so cool: would it be interesting enough if he went out there, chubby and a bit ridiculous?

If it's to be a suckcess, we need teens going to see it, and also the general public who doesn't want to see something that looks like it's dragging the narrative.

Ok, then, so: punch, slow motion, explosion. Psycho, rape, scream. Slow motion, a few bits of montage with references, punch. Jailbreak, slow motion, sex. Wow, 2:45h! What do you know? And we couldn't take our eyes off the screen! Man, awsome movie! t:

 

[Solidus]

Now I have to run off to bus 451 *sigh* But real quickly Merc you claim that they are making it fit so that it can be a hit. I don't think so what so ever. Because if you look at records, the biggest hits of all time, Titanic, LOTR, even if we were to include TDK in there. But as for LOTR, and Titnaic, those are incredibly long movies, so I don't think a lot of movie producers believe that if a movie is long it will lose box office numbers.

I believe that Snyder cut, and created what he needed to to make the deep story/adaptation that he felt necessary, Whether you agree with that or not is another subject.

You remind me of an old poster on the Hype. Constantly spinning your words like a polotician, and just getting to the simple point, you don't want to like this movie. Thats fine, we understand, point taken.

Which may be a lot of old posters I remember lol

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

These "people from the theatre screaming because they want to hear the story of the read headed psycho" etc. can't really grasp what the story is about, and I'd even venture to say: they're not interested in it, at all.

When the director supposes that's what he can get rid of and let's get to the point, there you see he isn't about to make the right choices where to cut it.

Then tell me, are the quarrels between Dr. Long and his wife necessary to the main plot of Watchmen? Do they progress the story?
I think the bit with NiteOwl and Silk Spectre after their dinner together in the restaurant to be more important to define their lives. But as we've seen the same kind of dialogue in the Incredibles, I won't cry if they cut it.
Reading a book and watching a movie are different experiences, you read a book at your own pace, go ahead, get back, reread. In a movie the director has to keep the things moving, to keep the audience connected to the story. They can't rewind or stop and start again in a theater.

 

[The Guard]

Well, one example of elements/layers/story points is that about Rorschach: take the same procedure to all characters, and voilà.

But again, there's nothing that says to me that they're removing these elements/layers from the movie. In fact, everything I see (and have read) suggests these types of layers (with a few exceptions) are being kept intact.

Have you read the books? If you did, you see they're bulky, but miles away from Watchmen’s level of difficulty, structure-wise, and theme-wise.

I have. LORD OF THE RINGS (which, like anything, was "dumbed down" to a point) is a much longer story than WATCHMEN. WATCHMEN is more complex and layered structurally, of course, but that's not neccessarily because of it's length. It's because of the level of writing found in it, and because of its nature as a piece of graphic art instead of just literature.

Snyder should make this movie at least 3:30h. And cut the excesive slow motion, and create some new cinematic narrative solutions to keep up with the inventiveness of the book.

Maybe he (and WB) "should". I'd love to see a WATCHMEN that is that long, but I live in what I like to call "the real world".

And you are mistaken about the TDK thing: it is really relevant, because the nature of it was completely different. Nolan was totally free to build his own tale there. No comparison about it.

It's still irrelevant to my point, because the point I was making was not one of being faithful. It was about the nature of a movie as an adaption of anything. Some material is going to have to excised to fit into that medium. Period.

What you call “pare it down” is what I call “make it fit in 2:45h, ‘cause this movie needs to be a hit”.

Call it what you want. I call it a realistic and appropriate approach to an adaption.

These "people from the theatre screaming because they want to hear the story of the read headed psycho" etc. can't really grasp what the story is about, and I'd even venture to say: they're not interested in it, at all.

What, exactly, are you basing this statement on? WATCHMEN is not just about Malcom Long, nor is it just about the "street people". Are they a key element of the graphic novel? Yes, as they inform and reflect the work's main theme. But WATCHMEN as a work, is easily as much and probably moreso about Rorschach as it is about Malcom Long's home life. Far moreso, in fact. What's relevant to the story of WATCHMEN, and to the themes of WATCHMEN, is what effect Long's interactions with Rorschach's have on him as a person, on his outlook on life, and ultimately, on his values.

 

[Mercurius]

To Guard: you have fine arguments, and my respect. Don't agree about your opinion on Long (which is perhaps the same as our fellow Antonello), but that's fine, too.

I couldn't say "I disagree" concerning the overall effect of an upcoming movie, but according to the situation now, I think it's far from what it should have been, and I acknowledge, of course, Snyder's effort.

We'll have to wait, as I told Doc, for the movie, and I hope you're right. But I suppose that your acceptance of what you called the "real world" is far more generous than mine, and mine is far greater than Moore's, that's for sure. t:

But we'll see.

 

[Doctor Jones]

^Jackie Earle Haley, you mean

Yeah. I get confused between the two of them.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Now I have to run off to bus 451 *sigh* But real quickly Merc you claim that they are making it fit so that it can be a hit. I don't think so what so ever. Because if you look at records, the biggest hits of all time, Titanic, LOTR, even if we were to include TDK in there. But as for LOTR, and Titnaic, those are incredibly long movies, so I don't think a lot of movie producers believe that if a movie is long it will lose box office numbers.

I believe that Snyder cut, and created what he needed to to make the deep story/adaptation that he felt necessary, Whether you agree with that or not is another subject.

You remind me of an old poster on the Hype. Constantly spinning your words like a polotician, and just getting to the simple point, you don't want to like this movie. Thats fine, we understand, point taken.

Which may be a lot of old posters I remember lol

Agreed. Snyder only cut down what seems neccessary to tell the Watchmen story in its film form. It doesn't mean there is any less substance in the film than there is in the GN. Who knows? Through the right direction, actors, and writing, it can be even more effective than the source material. It doesn't have to be a three and a half hour film to make it great. There are some examples of being too faithful to the source material. And Mucurius, Snyder wants to release a three and a half hour DVD release. I think once we see that DVD release, it'll finally show you why the things that were cut didn't work for the film.

 

[Mercurius]

Now I have to run off to bus 451 *sigh* But real quickly Merc you claim that they are making it fit so that it can be a hit. I don't think so what so ever. Because if you look at records, the biggest hits of all time, Titanic, LOTR, even if we were to include TDK in there. But as for LOTR, and Titnaic, those are incredibly long movies, so I don't think a lot of movie producers believe that if a movie is long it will lose box office numbers.

I believe that Snyder cut, and created what he needed to to make the deep story/adaptation that he felt necessary, Whether you agree with that or not is another subject.

You remind me of an old poster on the Hype. Constantly spinning your words like a polotician, and just getting to the simple point, you don't want to like this movie. Thats fine, we understand, point taken.

Which may be a lot of old posters I remember lol

In spite of your inane attempt at insulting at the end, you really have a point: the big hits that were big movies as well.

But consider that:

a) Titanic was a very cheap lovestory, and cheap lovestories have all potential;

b) LOTR is like Bildungsroman with a core of wholesome adventure that is very catchy. It doesn't demand a lot of thinking (and, to Guard: I think the opposite about LOTR. I think PJ never dumbed it down, but made it much more mature);

c) TDK was a very good movie, ok, but it would be it if it wasn't for the absolute genius of Heath Ledger. His Joker was pure gold. Plus the disaster, that moved everybody and called attention to his last finished role.

Watchmen is been advertised as the adaptation of the "best graphic novel ever written". It has some appeal, but unlike the others, the material itself is really difficult, complex and adopt tones of very harsh social satire at times; at times, it sounds like a philosophical treatise; etc.

Not very appealing. Producers know that, and they don't want to see their money flying around in a failure.

I bet Watchmen had to be toned down (Snyder of course must have done his best to keep everything he could, I'm sure), and kept under 3h.

 

[Mercurius]

And Mucurius, Snyder wants to release a three and a half hour DVD release. I think once we see that DVD release, it'll finally show you why the things that were cut didn't work for the film.

OR it will show me what Snyder was originally thinking of. Which would be a lot better.

 

[The Guard]

To Guard: you have fine arguments, and my respect. Don't agree about your opinion on Long (which is perhaps the same as our fellow Antonello), but that's fine, too.

What don't we agree on, exactly? Long's role in WATCHMEN, or that Rorschach is a more important element of the story?

I couldn't say "I disagree" concerning the overall effect of an upcoming movie, but according to the situation now, I think it's far from what it should have been, and I acknowledge, of course, Snyder's effort.

What should it have been? Realistically.

We'll have to wait, as I told Doc, for the movie, and I hope you're right. But I suppose that your acceptance of what you called the "real world" is far more generous than mine, and mine is far greater than Moore's, that's for sure.

I didn't say I accepted the real world. But things are the way they are in Hollywood. Four hour movies are a rarity. That's just the way it is.

b) LOTR is like Bildungsroman with a core of wholesome adventure that is very catchy. It doesn't demand a lot of thinking (and, to Guard: I think the opposite about LOTR. I think PJ never dumbed it down, but made it much more mature);

In my mind, he not only dumbed down the story, but also much of the dialogue, and several of the characterizations. And that's ok, because it worked. But he still dumbed them down a bit. If anything, I think Peter Jackson made LOTR more culturally relevant to current events, not neccessarily more mature.

Watchmen is been advertised as the adaptation of the "best graphic novel ever written". It has some appeal, but unlike the others, the material itself is really difficult, complex and adopt tones of very harsh social satire at times; at times, it sounds like a philosophical treatise; etc. Not very appearling.

Producers know that, and they don't want to see their money flying around in a failure.

I bet Watchmen had to be toned down (Snyder of course must have done his best to keep everything he could, I'm sure), and kept under 3h.

It's very simple. As a business, the studio wants to make as much money as possible. This is their right, as they have bankrolled this film. Four hour movies make that a bit difficult. Of course it was going to be toned down a bit and kept under three hours, even beyond financial reasons. It's an adaption. Aren't most adaptions toned down and trimmed in some respects? Again, this is just common sense. Very, very few movie studios are going to spend a ton of money on a four hour movie made with a relatively unknown property. And for good reason, really.

 

[Doctor Jones]

OR it will show me what Snyder was originally thinking of. Which would be a lot better.

Oh. So you're just blaming the studios? Ok, because that's fine with me then. I see your point there in studios trying to make the bucks.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Saying that an adaptation is an adaptation is what we all know, and I keep telling over and over that this is nice common sense.

Not arguing this point, evidently.

What I put in bold above is one of the things, I suppose, that explain Moore's utter lack of interest in how his books will be handled in cinema.

These "people from the theatre screaming because they want to hear the story of the read headed psycho" etc. can't really grasp what the story is about, and I'd even venture to say: they're not interested in it, at all.

When the director supposes that's what he can get rid of and let's get to the point, there you see he isn't about to make the right choices where to cut it.

He's cutting it to the "awsome" syndrome. He's letting out what the story is about, and that's why Nite Owl, for instance, looks so cool: would it be interesting enough if he went out there, chubby and a bit ridiculous?

If it's to be a suckcess, we need teens going to see it, and also the general public who doesn't want to see something that looks like it's dragging the narrative.

Ok, then, so: punch, slow motion, explosion. Psycho, rape, scream. Slow motion, a few bits of montage with references, punch. Jailbreak, slow motion, sex. Wow, 2:45h! What do you know? And we couldn't take our eyes off the screen! Man, awsome movie! t:

I'm 16, and I love all that stuff. I love character depth, development, smart writing and directing. I don't just look at films for its action scenes. I look at the film for its quality, acting, writing and direction. I think hard after I see a great film. I notice its symbolism and metphors and themes and such. I know, I'm one of the rare few. And I agree, teenagers don't have a very good taste in films. People and/or teens must have an IQ lower than 70 if they think the only thing that makes a film good is action.