Watchmen

[Tim Tyler]

http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/2008/09..._journal_6.html

 

Short EPK with Director of Photography, Larry Fong.

[Marcus Joseph]

Sounds promising, I just hope the whole legal issue between Fox and WB is settled prior to the release. ;)

[A. Whitehouse]

Sounds promising, I just hope the whole legal issue between Fox and WB is settled prior to the release. ;)

 

From what I understand the original release was boxing day so its already slipped. I'm not really looking forward to this, classic case of style over substance in my opinion but then people loved the Dead remake and 300 so what do I know. They certainly can achieve a distinct look which has spawned a lot of imitators and at least each film is distinct but not my cup of tea I guess. I read a Alan Moore interview from August or so and he intimated that he'd put a curse on the film (Snake worshiper) so perhaps that's what happened, Id be interested to know if his or Dave Gibbons names will appear in the credits.

I say all this but will see it of course when it screens at Imax (or maybe if?). Its incredible that a film with this much weight behind it could get caught up in a legal dispute this late in the process, it must be heartbreaking for the people involved.

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

I read a Alan Moore interview from August or so and he intimated that he'd put a curse on the film (Snake worshiper) so perhaps that's what happened

 

Hasn't stopped anyone else from "ruining" his graphic novels, as is his opinion of Hollywood adaptations of his work. Still, looking at the trailers, the film is pretty close to a shot for shot remake of the novel. As far as key frames and iconic images from the novel are concerned.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I'm a little pissed that they hijacked the Koyannisqatsi score (Prophecies) for the trailer :/

But what I really don't get is why make a shot by shot remake of the graphic novel? Why not use cinema to "interpret" the graphic novel to the screen. It always seems, to me at least, that going shot for shot is a bit lazy. Of course I'm not one to really talk as hell, I'll probably never make something that amazing looking. Still, though, I always half wish that they would find a unique synthesis between what is written/drawn in the novel, and what one might film had there been no guiding pictures. Hope that makes some sense.

[Will Earl]

But what I really don't get is why make a shot by shot remake of the graphic novel? Why not use cinema to "interpret" the graphic novel to the screen.

 

If it works then why not?

 

While I agree that adaptations between literary mediums often need to be reinterpreted and reworked for them to work on film. Graphic novels serve as pretty good storyboards already, and it would be silly not to treat them as such. Disregarding them in the interests of completely reinterpreting the visuals would be foolhardy - especially if the visuals from the novel are strong enough to work just as well or even better on film. Also one would hope the film-makers are smart enough to realise where and when a particular shot from the source material doesn't translate well and needs to be changed.

[A. Whitehouse]

Hasn't stopped anyone else from "ruining" his graphic novels, as is his opinion of Hollywood adaptations of his work. Still, looking at the trailers, the film is pretty close to a shot for shot remake of the novel. As far as key frames and iconic images from the novel are concerned.

 

The other adaptations are pretty terrible its true. I guess its a bit of a damned if you do / if you don't situation because a shot for shot adaptation is never going to live up to the book and interpreting the material is always going to fall short in a 2 hour film. There's a lot of material in those books, including subsidiary text which is going to get rinsed out in the wash. I don't see them doing any of the golden age material.

I like a lot of other adaptations, I just feel closer to this one but the best of luck to them its an ambitious project which has been abandoned by a long list of big directors.

I have a great interview with Alan Moore talking about his experiences with Hollywood and DC, not a lot of kind things to say. He had a very dark experience with "V for vendetta". They refused to take his name off the film...

[Marcus Joseph]

For the record, Kevin Smith has seen an early cut of the movie, twice as of now. The first with 10% of the visual effects shots complete, and the second with 15%. He said it seemed almost like reading the graphic novel, but watching it on the big screen.

 

I trust his opinion with these advanced screenings that he seems to score ever since he released his short review of The Dark Knight much before every other critic did. And what he said regarding it was pretty accurate to how the general public and critical world ended up feeling. He has a good sense and critical eye as well, he even filled in for Ebert on their review show alongside Roeper. Even if you don't like his work, you must say that he's a pretty articulate guy.

Edited January 23, 2009 by Marcus Johnston

[Jaron Berman]

Well, after seeing it tonight, big congrats go out below the line. Well done technically. (with the exception of makeup)

 

But, IMHO I really hope Zach Snyder is never given the reigns of a film again. ANY film. You could physically FEEL when he made a decision in the movie, especially the horrific choice of music and timing of that horrific music. It felt as though a more knowledgeable voice in post said "are you sure you want that here," only to be overruled. I get it, the song has lyrics that kinda describe the scene. Cute. But for EVERY scene? Also did anyone else notice the blatant "borrowing" of shots from other movies from Apocalypse now (complete with Ride of the Valkyries) to Batman (complete with knock-off score) to Dr. Strangelove (every detail of the war room set). Perhaps Snyder thought his audience would be too young or dumb to notice that he ran out of ideas and simply went to the employee picks section of Blockbuster for directorial advice?

 

Any film adaptation of a story this strong and twisted will obviously suffer in translation, but to anyone who's read the original it smacks of "let's dumb it down to gunfights and love scenes." And if you have read the story, you'll probably have the same feeling that I did when leaving the theater - did Snyder ever read the book or just look at some of the pictures?

 

The sets were beautiful, the camerawork was excellent, and it was, like most people have said, like watching the cells come to life. Unfortunately, they decided to make the two worst actors in the film the leads, so much of the beauty of the film was wasted in an under-explained love story that misses the undercurrent of the film. In closeup, no less, where even on a terrible print you can see every one of the 12 inches thick makeup.

 

Well, hopefully in 10 years a capable director will take another crack at it once this version is long forgotten and relegated to the cult section. Just goes to show - the best cinematography and production design in the world can't save a talentless director.

 

Sadly, the best part of the film was the preview for Public Enemies.

Edited March 7, 2009 by Jaron Berman

[Walter Graff]

Saw it. Sucks. A lot of hype about a bad film. They talk about a visionary director. Guess no one looked up what the word visionary means. Not even worth a rental which this film will be in about two weeks. Plenty of better ways to waste your money.

[Daniel Carruthers]

really? I thought the movie was great

I thought the music choices where good.

[Tim Tyler]

I liked the look of it. I thought the set & production design, costuming, and cinematography worked really well together. Very glad it was shot on film, but that's a personal preference.

 

There was one scene between Laurie Jupiter and her mother that I thought looked out of place with much of the rest of the film, and I wonder if it was a re-shoot without Fong.

[Chris Keth]

Saw it for free, had fun watching it and picking out all of the allusions/homages (and man were there a lot). Wouldn't have paid for it.

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

Saw it, liked it, but found a lot of things to nitpick about, having read the book. Visually, everything was great...perhaps a bit too "300" sometimes. Also, there were some really bad wigs althroughout.

 

And where was the alien squid monster thing? That was my biggest disappointment.

[Brad Grimmett]

Nobody mentioned that it's about 45 minutes too long. You could even trim an hour off it and not miss anything.

[Keith Mottram]

Nobody mentioned that it's about 45 minutes too long. You could even trim an hour off it and not miss anything.

 

presumedly by removing all zac's hackneyed slow-mos!

[Daniel Carruthers]

I thought it was the fastest near 3 hour movie Ive ever seen

I could of gone for another hour.

[A. Whitehouse]

I thought it was the fastest near 3 hour movie Ive ever seen

I could of gone for another hour.

 

Then you're in luck. From what I understand they shot over an hour of extra material for the dvd release.

[Will Earl]

For me it was neither here nor there - I didn't find it terribly bad in any sort of way but if the film was trying to illicit any sort of emotional response from me, good or bad, then it failed.

 

The only thing that really bothered me was the speed-ramps. Snyder uses them in action sequences like kids use 'lol' to punctuate every sentence they make on the interweb. There were a couple of specific moments where I thought they would have had more impact if the had been used in isolation.

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

Yeah, the part with Night Owl and Silk Spectre in the prison was a bit too "Matrix"...literally, it was almost exactly like the scene in where Neo and Trinity storm the building, only strictly hand to hand combat.

[Brad Grimmett]

presumedly by removing all zac's hackneyed slow-mos!

That's a start. Also, every CG zoom that starts as a two shot and ends as a shot from above the earth, and vice versa, could go too.