Actors Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Gerard Butler talked to Superhero Hype about what's up with the Zack Snyder-helmed tentpole. Morgan talked about playing the Comedian, saying, "It's good. It's crazy. It's unlike anything I've ever been a part of and it's such a departure for me from anything I've done recently. They guy I'm playing is a little short on the moral end so it's rough. He doesn't have any; he has no morals. There's days that are rough. It's a stretch sometimes. Oddly enough, he's a superhero, but he does horrible things. For some reason, in reading the novel, you don't hate this guy even though he does things that are unmentionable. They are horrendous things. My job is to kind of make that translate, so as a viewer you end up not making excuses to like him, but you don't hate him like you should for doing the things that he does. It's a tough one. It's hard."

As for Butler playing a pirate? He said, I know they were talking about that and at one point that part was cut from the film because of budget, but then they were talking about it again so I don't know. They are right in the middle of the main body of the film and at this point I'm not sure. But even a tiny little thing I would do for Zack Snyder. He's my boy."

Finally, Comic Related has a report from someone who worked as an extra on the production. "We were told that the scenes for today involved the newsstand. The first scene was the newsvendor and the black kid reading the comic, and Walter Kovacs. I headed over to the newsstand and checked it out. There was the box for the black kid to sit on next to a fire hydrant (not the electrical power plug from the novel) next to the dingy green newsstand. Behind the kid was a poster advertising the issue of 'The Black Freighter' he'd be reading. On the newsstand, again, the set designers had done an incredible job. Set in October 1985, I was stunned to see that ALL of the magazines on the stand were from October 1985! These were not mock-ups or dummy covers, but the actual magazines culled from second hand stores in the city. The comics amongst the magazines were also from October 1985. Even the newspapers had that date though they might have been dummy copies. Funny that the DC comics were behind the Marvel ones. There was also a few dummy Newsweeks with Dr. Manhattan shaking hands with Adrian Veidt and a magazine with a close up of 'Nixon's' face. The guy they made up to look like an old Nixon is the spitting image. The vendor had a little TV set and a stool. There were gum and chocolate bars and a mini-fridge with drinks. On the inside wall close to the vendor was a poster advertising a magazine with Dr. Manhattan on the cover. For the record, the newsstand looked just like the one in the novel. Dr. Manhattan looked right. So did Veidt and Nixon. Everything from the novel had been recreated with precise detail."

For some reason, in reading the novel, you don't hate this guy even though he does things that are unmentionable. They are horrendous things. My job is to kind of make that translate, so as a viewer you end up not making excuses to like him, but you don't hate him like you should for doing the things that he does. It's a tough one. It's hard.

You play The Comedian in the upcoming Watchmen Movie,have you wrapped yet?

Hell no I go back monday. I came in yesterday I go back monday.

Can you give us an update on how filming is going?

Its super huge man it is just mind boggling. Everyday I go to work on that thing and its sort of overhwhelming. I dont think I have ever done anything that is quite like that before. We are shooting the New York set now and all i can say is its the most amazing set I have ever seen in my life. We were doing this Night Exterior the Keen riots and seeing the gaphic novel come to life like I did that night it gives me chills just thinking about it.

It is one of those things, I was just telling somebody, it is so much to be doing it, just showing up at work everyday and getting into character, getting into costume and seeing what im seeing and how its all coming together. I dont know I have the right words to describe the experience till im well done with it.

Talk about your character for those not familiar with it.

Edward Blake is his I guess real name and The Comedian is the super hero character he is. The character I play is 180 degrees from anything I have ever done before, which is why I wanted to do it. It is a whole other thing. He is an animal you know. But i think one of the reasons I got hired, the things he does the physical actions are horrendous certainly the most horrendous things ive ever seen or much less portrayed.

But you dont hate him you know, so my job is to be able to do these f*cking horrible things, yet have the audience not hate his guts. You read the book you dont heat the comeidan there is a reason he does what he does. he just takes it to a level most people wouldnt but for him its normal. The work I am doing on watchmen is mind bending and physically just hard.

Talk to us about putting on the costume for the first time. And the experince of seeing everyone in their costumes.

It was awesome to see everyone in their costumes. Mine is the coolest costume to look at. My costume is insane but it also takes the longest to get in and out of. Michael Wilkinson the costumer who designed the costume stayed very true to the comic book, maybe a little bit updated. The comedian is spot on to the book, spot on...
His costumes are exactly like it is in the graphic novel. But seeing everyone in their super hero costumes, For one its hard to not start laughing at first everyone is running around trying to be a super hero. Its just a really cool experience. For me, as soon as I put on the costume and stuck a cigar in my mouth im him, you dont even want to talk to me anymore. I turn into the character.

Have you filmed the Vietnam Sequences yet?

Not yet that will be coming up after I leave here

How has the Canadian dollar impacted the production in Vancouver?

Im not sure, thats a good question. I couldn't answer that being that it is not my area of expertise. I dont know. I know alot of stuff is still shooting there. There is probably benefits to shooting there of which I am not entirely sure of. I know for awhile they wanted to shoot in New York because they had to build some very elaborate sets of New York. It might have been easier to go to New York. I know they had tons of empty stages which New York didnt have. We have a whole row of sound stages.

What is working with Zach Snyder been like?

He is not only incredibly passionate in staying absolutely true to the graphic novel he is also like a little kid, i dont know where he gets his energy. We are putting in some long hours, alot of nights and everyday hes running around and smiling through all of it. Hes just an amazing director, hes drawn out literally every frame of this movie before he shot it.

I dont think I have worked with anyone more prepared. He has a copy of the graphic novel in his hand all the time. It never comes out of his hand. Hes constantly referring to it and will setup a shot looking at the graphic novel. Its crazy and again its one of those things I will have to process when the whole thing is over and i will sit down and give you an in depth interiew. Its all so mind boggling i need to step away from it to put it into words im still blown away from it.

Have you had any seens with Jackie Earle Haley aka Rorschach Yet?
No.

I found Nite Owl to be a pretty sympathetic character.

you don't hate the guy, but here's the thing: you don't love him, either. you don't make any sort of emotional investment in any of the characters outside of Rorschach. that's one of the book's failings that's often glossed over.

I found Nite Owl to be a pretty sympathetic character.

Dave Gibbons visits the set - part 1 of 2
It's perhaps the most surreal experience of my life.

There they are, in a shadowy clubhouse, standing around a map of the USA, just as we'd imagined them. The smoke of the Comedian's cigar hangs in the air as I drink in the details of the scene. Framed old copies of The New York Gazette tell stories of past exploits; trophies glint in glass-fronted display cases; Moloch's solar weapon shines in a dusty corner and over there, on its mannequin stand, the faded costume of the original Nite Owl keeps silent vigil.

Then, a sudden flash of unearthly blue light announces the arrival of Dr. Manhattan and the tableau comes to life. The voices of quarreling heroes rise and fall, a Zippo flares and the map catches fire.

Somewhere, someone shouts "Cut!"

And I'm standing amongst them. Nite Owl shakes my hand. The Comedian slaps me on the back. Silk Spectre smiles a dazzling greeting. I'm overwhelmed by the depth and detail of what I'm seeing.

But more than that. I'm overwhelmed by the commitment, the passion, the palpable desire to do this right.

I'm starting to feel a glow that eclipses even Dr. Manhattan's...

-Dave Gibbons
December 2007

The cast has been revealed: http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=122573


Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach


I'm not really familiar with the others, but I'm glad they didn't go with a big name for Rorschach.

If they even shoot one scene from the Sam Hamm script I will kill a puppy.

It’s been rumoured for a while now, but Gerard Butler has confirmed to Empire that he will be lending his vocal talents to the animated Tales Of The Black Freighter short that Zack Snyder is planning as a companion piece to Watchmen.

The Scottish actor had been linked with a role in Watchmen for a long time, but when nothing materialised, it seemed likely that he wouldn’t be linking up with his 300 director on next year’s eagerly-awaited blockbuster.

But, when Snyder hatched plans to film the Tales Of The Black Freighter comic-within-a-comic that tells the tale of a castaway’s mental and physical deterioration and damnation as he tries to intercept a ghost freighter headed for his hometown, and include it on the Watchmen DVD, Butler’s name surfaced once more.

And, speaking to Empire just the other day, he told us that he had committed to the project.

“I’m going to do the voice of the captain,” said Butler. “They’re going to do it in the style of a Japanese anime and I’m totally stoked.

“I actually read the script before reading the comic book and I thought it was awesome,” continued the 38 year-old. “Then I read the comic book and it’s great. The little bits that have been added define it so much more. It’s very dark and there’s just something so descriptive and scary. It’s this descent into madness but explained in such a sane way that you totally feel it yourself. By the end, my heart was pumping!”

Although considered extraneous to the plot of the movie proper by Snyder and his predecessor, Paul Greengrass, Tales Of The Black Freighter is a story that deepens the impact of Watchmen’s main plot, mirroring the arc of a character we won’t reveal.

As a side project, the anime approach is brave and the addition of Butler – who has a great speaking voice – makes this even more exciting. Let’s hope he keeps that Scottish burr.

Watchmen will be released next March.

“They’re going to do it in the style of a Japanese anime and I’m totally stoked.

Ozy actually looks good...He looks like Robin from the Schumacher days!

Ozy actually looks good...He looks like Robin from the Schumacher days!

Oh, and the Ozy costume (shudder) does have nipples. Holy Schumacher, Batman!

Aside from Rorschach, those costumes look stupid and flashy.

Heh. Interestingly enough, there is one poster at that board bitching about how it looks like shit. The poster's handle? Pariah74.

Aside from Rorschach, those costumes look stupid and flashy.

Who mentioned irony?

What I want to know is what you did with Pariahs 2 through 73. Did they just not work out?

"good" and "looks like Robin from the Schumacher days" are two mutually exclusive concepts.

Those might be shots of the how the characters look in flashback, however. Someone at AICN pointed out that mask that the Comedian is wearing is his Vietnam-era one, not the one he was wearing in the 80s shortly before getting killed.

NiteOwlII will never not look like a fag Batman-Ripoff. Even though he's a fag some-other-guy-rip-off.

Do we really need the gimp mask?

Rob does.

Minus the nipples, the Robin costume was actually pretty good.
Much better than green shorts and pixie shoes!

But even if they are, movies will always take a degree of artistic licence.
Maybe all the fanboys were crying that Batman had a symbol on his uniform that he never wore in the comics, or that the X-Men were not in yellow and blue!

Its just a movie, and I dont expect every finite detail to be perfect.
I'll just be happy if it is a decent popcorn flick that stays reasonably close to the source material.
And hey, if they can put some better costumes on the Minute Men, I aint gonna complain either!

Ozy though, I do think should be bigger and more imposing (plus he should be a lot better looking as he is sposed to be some kinda Adonis type character).

To me, the Comedian and Rorscach look spot on.
Niteowl II looks about as good as I would expect (once again, the comic book costume would not translate well to the screen).
The Silk Spectre costume actually looks better.

But there is no excuse for Ozy looking like Klinton after he's been on a diet!

But there is no excuse for Ozy looking like Klinton after he's been on a diet!

Who mentioned irony?

What I want to know is what you did with Pariahs 2 through 73. Did they just not work out?

Blue Beetle you heathen!

Rorschach and The Comedian are really the only two that look at all exciting to me at this point. That doesn't mean the movie's gonna suck, just that I might not totally love all the characters.

Yes, I read the fucking book, I also got the PG-13 "non-fucking" version as well.
And thus far, all we have are those images to go by; most of 'em are just... meh.

Ozy actually looks good...just not like Ozy!
He looks like Robin from the Schumacher days!

The first impression I get is that it looks very dystopian German expressionist. Very Fritz Lang, very fascist. Which is I suspect just based on the who the character is, the entire point.

Alan Moore let them censor the comic?

plus he really likes milk!

Yeah cause Ozy was always about being German.......fuck all the Egyptian stuff!

Egyptian? I thought he was into Alexander the Great?

Retail’s love affair with the DVD is on the rocks and Warner Brothers Entertainment would like to patch things up.

Faced with a decline in DVD sales, Warner Brothers, part of Time Warner, is planning an unusual effort around its upcoming adaptation of the popular graphic novel “Watchmen.” Directed by Zack Snyder and set for a March 2009 release, the big-budget movie tells the story of a group of retired superheroes who are tied to a conspiracy that could change history.

The twist is that Mr. Snyder, known for turning the Spartan comic book series “300” into a global hit movie, is also directing a separate-but-related picture that Warner plans to distribute exclusively on DVD.

The second film, tentatively called “Tales of the Black Freighter,” follows a side “Watchmen” storyline about a shipwreck and will arrive in stores five days after the main movie rolls out in theaters. The DVD will also include a documentary-style film called “Under the Hood” that will delve into the characters’ backstories.

Warner, the No. 1 distributor of DVDs, bills the effort as a way to renew retail excitement for little silver discs now that the once-booming market has matured.

After years of blistering growth, domestic DVD sales fell 3.2 percent last year to $15.9 billion, according to Adams Media Research, the first annual drop in the medium’s history. While it is still a blockbuster business, any decline is cause for concern because DVD sales can account for as much as 70 percent of revenue for a new film. Results for the first quarter this year were mixed, with overall sales flat but notable softness for some new releases like Warner’s box office hit “I Am Legend.”

As a result — and as consumer adoption of the next-generation Blu-ray discs lags — some important retail partners like Wal-Mart Stores have been starting to rethink how much shelf space they devote to the category. Also up for discussion is to what degree retailers market new releases in circulars and with in-store promotions.

“There is a fear that if the DVD category declines over time that any well-run retailer is going to re-evaluate its commitment,” said Ron Sanders, the president of Warner Home Video. “We are offering retailers a meaningful opportunity to be involved with the theatrical event, to have a product that will generate foot traffic and sales.”

If that sounds like spin, to some degree it is. The movie studio would not be drafting one of its top filmmakers and sinking millions into “Tales of the Black Freighter” if it did not see a direct benefit for itself.

The immediate goal is for the parallel release to help start a potential new movie franchise. As television advertising becomes less effective because of declining TV viewership, movie studios need to reach a mass audience somehow, and having what amounts to ads sitting on store shelves is seen as a crucial antidote.

The effort is also a way for Warner to get more DVD bang for not many more bucks. The “Watchmen” film, Mr. Synder said, will probably generate at least three DVDs: “Tales of the Black Freighter,” followed about four months later by release of “Watchmen” itself, and then an “ultimate” edition in which the two are edited together into one megamovie.

“The überfans of this property are going to go crazy for that,” Mr. Snyder said.

Warner has another reason to make nice with retailers. The studio, under added scrutiny from Wall Street now that its corporate parent plans to spin off Time Warner Cable, has annoyed chains by leading a movement in Hollywood to simultaneously release titles on DVD and on video-on-demand services.

Retailers worry that DVD sales will suffer from the lack of exclusivity, but Warner — which enjoys 60 percent profit margins for video on demand, compared to half that for physical DVD sales — says there is no cannibalization. Warner said this month that it would distribute many new releases simultaneously to DVD and on-demand services.

Warner downplayed any friction from the growth of video on demand. “Our retail partners haven’t seen a dramatic impact one way or another on their business, so they’re allowing us to work on it,” said Mr. Sanders.

Retailers seem to be taking a wait-and-see approach to Warner’s olive branch. Wal-Mart, the nation’s biggest DVD retailer, with as much as 40 percent of sales, declined to comment. Target, which has historically accounted for about 15 percent of DVD sales, said, “We’re always looking for opportunities to generate excitement in our entertainment business.”

Tom Adams, the founder of Adams Media Research, predicted that retailers would embrace the “Tales of the Black Freighter” strategy. “They have every reason to try it,” he said. “It’s a fresh idea and it’s something that will be of value to movie fans.”

Warner knows releasing a related film on DVD at the same time it is trying to motivate people to buy tickets to “Watchmen” is not without risk. Consumers could become confused about which is which. And if they are disappointed in the quality of “Tales of the Black Freighter,” the plan might hurt sales of the “Watchmen” DVD.

“We feel a great responsibility to do this well for exactly these reasons,” said Diane Nelson, president of Warner Premiere, the division responsible for direct-to-DVD projects. “The movies that we do under this parallel content strategy have to be viable in their own right.” Although Ms. Nelson declined to reveal the budget for “Tales of the Black Freighter,” she said it was 30 percent to 50 percent higher than a typical direct-to-DVD effort.

Still, some concessions were made because of the budget, Mr. Snyder said. The original plan was to tell the “Black Freighter” story in a visual style similar to the mock-historical “300.” But an early budget was approaching $20 million and the studio balked, he said. Instead, the feature will be animated.

Mr. Snyder said he was eager to head a direct-to-DVD project, in part because it would allow him to use more material from the “Watchmen” graphic novel.

“I thought the ‘Black Freighter’ story would never see the light of day,” he said. “The main picture is nearing three hours long and I know I have a fight on my hands just with that.”

In addition, the studio plans a dozen 22- to 26-minute Webisodes to help make the complex story easier for the uninitiated to digest. Called “The Watchmen Motion Comic,” it will be a panel-by-panel slide show of the graphic novel narrated by an actor.

Although no decisions have been made, Mr. Snyder, who is overseeing the digital component but leaving the details to others, said the Webisodes would probably be combined for later release on — you guessed it — DVD.

saw the trailer before Dark Knight. it looks really good. didnt hurt that they had playing one of my favorte smashing pumkins songs...

The trailer looks damn good, but isn't that song the one SP did for Batman & Robin just slowed down?

and better version...

holy shit! Alan Moore looks just like Beardguy!

holy shit! Alan Moore looks just like Beardguy!

*splurt*

But some of those poses seem like they were done solely for the sake of the preview and not actually cut out of the movie.

Is it the same thing as this?

I've heard the "moving comics" are shit.

....no batman...

You could have saved yourself some work and just typed that. We all knew that was the real reason.

I had no idea those posters were based on these 1986 ads by Gibbons. Pretty cool!

Also, at least two of the WM characters are based on Batman. (Nite Owl I and II. Three or four if you count Rorschach (sp?) and/or Ozymyndias as partly based on Batman.)

Actually, Nite Owl is probably more Blue Beetle (with the legacy and all) considering that Moore's first story involved the Charleton characters. And Rorschach is the Question.

For years I thought that's who this was until I was corrected years ago.

Nikki Finke is reporting at Deadline Hollywood that a federal judge has denied Warner Bros.’ motion to dismiss 20th Century Fox’s attempt to preclude the production of Zack Snyder’s “Watchmen” film, a development that could potentially have immense ramifications for WB in 2009.

In February of this year, Fox filed a lawsuit to prevent the WB project from going forward, claiming Fox had the exclusive rights to develop, produce and distribute a film based on the hugely popular DC Comics graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Warner Bros. motioned for a dismissal of the lawsuit, and U.S. District Court Judge Gary Allen Feess denied WB’s motion last Friday. No decision has yet been made regarding Fox’s desire for an injunction of the entire WB project.
A Fox source told Finke, “"While the Judge's opinion is preliminary and his views could change in the course of the litigation, his current take on the facts is consistent with our position."

This news comes after the recent announcement that the Warner Bros. film “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” would be rescheduled from this November to instead premiere in 2009. Should 20th Century Fox manage to secure any profit from Warner’s “Watchmen,” the studio will need to count on the revenue generated by the Harry Potter film to maximize the year’s earnings.

Of Fox’s claim to the rights to “Watchmen,” Finke’s source said, “In essence, the Judge appears to conclude that Fox retained distribution rights in Watchmen through the 1991 Largo quit claim, and he concludes that, under the 1994 turnaround with producer Larry Gordon, Gordon acquired an option to acquire Fox's remaining interest in Watchmen that was never exercised, thereby leaving Fox with its rights under the 1994 agreement.”

More on this as it develops.

the G-man ass-kicky User Palin Maniac
15000+ posts Mon Sep 22 2008 11:38 PM Making a new reply
Forum: Media
Thread: Re: Watchmen Film Lawsuit Update

If true, count me as one of those now actually happy about the lawsuit. I've wanted the 1960s Batman on (non crappy bootleg) DVD for years.

Looking forward to spanking it on a freeze frame of Julie Newmar, huh?

Over at Lying in the Gutters, Rich Johnston reports that the Watchmen lawsuit may be less about Rorshach, et al, and more about the 1960s "Batman" series:

• Sources tell me that Fox want the 1960s Batman TV series. Currently Fox own the TV footage, but Warner Bros own the characters and trademarks, via their ownership of DC Comics. The rights to a DVD release have been held up for a long time now, and this case looks like it may be the instrument to release them.
  
  Oh, Fox will get a wodge of cash as well - many millions of dollars it seems. But it seems they also want the rights to release the Adam West-starring Batman on DVD, something long denied fans of the series. And Warners will get the “Watchmen” film, to release as planned.
  
  There were comic fans who threatened Fox boycotts over what they saw as their scuppering of the Watchmen movie. Looks like they may soon have cause to thank Fox for this action.

If true, count me as one of those now actually happy about the lawsuit. I've wanted the 1960s Batman on (non crappy bootleg) DVD for years.

Looking forward to spanking it on a freeze frame of Julie Newmar, huh?

I was invited on Wednesday to a screening of over twenty minutes of footage from "Watchmen," and I have to say that it looks like Snyder has done the impossible. The scenes had some unfinished visual effects and temporary music, but already I was able to get a sense of the energy and uncompromising dedication to the original text that Snyder is bringing to the film.

We were first shown the opening twelve minutes of the movie, which begins with the attack on the Comedian (Jeffery Dean Morgan). In the comics, this scene is only ever presented in flashbacks, but here it is a brutal fistfight that leads up to a breathtaking shot following the Comedian as he's tossed out the window of his high-rise. The action here is reminiscent of the slow-to-fast motion of the fight scenes in "300," but the setting feels more tangible, since it was shot on sets and not entirely in front of green screens.

This leads into the opening credits sequence that retells the history of the book's alternate universe from the '30s through the '70s, set to Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'." Avid fans will spot countless references to images and events from the book, but newcomers will quickly get a sense of the world where superheroes not only exist but directly impact major historical events.

We saw two more scenes from later in the film. First they showed the origin of Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), a physicist transformed in an accident into a blue-skinned superman who manipulates matter with a wave of his hand. Then we saw the prison break scene where costumed heroes Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) and Silk Spectre (Malin Ackerman) bust out their comrade Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley). It's obvious from the footage we saw that the filmmakers are delivering an R-rated, adult movie that is not going to soften the novel's violent, sexual, or political content.

I asked Snyder after the screening what reactions he has received from people who haven't read the book. He said he has shown the film to people who don't know the novel and they have been able to follow the story and get a feel for the movie's twisted reality. He also said that for the first time as a filmmaker he wishes he could forget his whole history with the project and watch the movie with fresh eyes.

Snyder said that currently the film's running time is at two hours and forty-five minutes, but a later DVD edition will expand it with the addition of an animated story-within-the-story. We'll have to wait until March 6th to see the full film,...

SCI FI Wire is hosting the new video journal for Warner Brothers Pictures' Watchmen, coming to theaters on March 6, 2009.

Creating the indestructible man, the video, "Blue Monday," offers a look behind the scenes at how director Zack Snyder and his team brought Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) to life.

Based on the seminal graphic novel, the mystery adventure is set in an alternate-universe 1985 America in which costumed superheroes are part of the fabric of everyday society.

When one of his former colleagues is murdered, the washed-up but no less determined masked vigilante Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) sets out to uncover a plot to kill and discredit all past and present superheroes.

Watchmen also stars Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl, Matthew Goode as Ozymandias, Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian and Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre.

Ah bless the fanboys!
After the first teaser talkbackers on AICN were going mental because the castle on mars was the wrong colour!

Granted, if Wolverine in the X-Men sounded like an Australian, then you might have something to complain about.
Or if Batman spoke with a Welsh accent, then that would also be something people could have a genuine gripe about.
But the tonality of someones voice (unless its totally annoying like Pee Wee Herman or Bobcat Goldthwaite), should not enter into the debate if the acting is not a problem.

Complaining about the colour of something in the Watchmen movie would be kinda like complaining about how someones voice sounds in the Iron Man movie!

I read that they're testing an alternate ending in the screenings to see if the fanboys overreact.

AYBGerrardo: We’ve all heard that you have seen Zack Snyder’s rough cut of the movie. How long was it? Were you pleased with what you saw? Was there anything that you weren’t particularly thrilled about?

Dave Gibbons: I’ll try and answer this comprehensively and clearly because I know that people have been very concerned about reports that have come back about the movie. There is a tendency, naturally, when you’re anxious about something that you’re going to read patterns and read stuff that isn’t really there. So I’ll try and be unambiguous.

I have seen the rough cut of the movie. I saw it the Tuesday after the San Diego Comic-Con, in Burbank in California. I was at the same screening as Kevin Smith and his buddy, and also David Hayter and Alex Tse, who are the screenwriters for it. Zack was there with his wife Debbie, and Wesley Collier with his wife, and the producers of the movie, Lloyd Levin and Larry Gordon. It was what they call a “friends and family screening,” so we were all there to see it and to give feedback on it.

[long pause] What can I tell you? Obviously, I’m not going to say anything that’s going to give away specific questions about what’s in or what’s out, because I don’t really think that’s helpful to anybody. And I don’t really think you want to know. But a lot of my favorite scenes are in there. Many, many of what I think are the best scenes that we did are in there.

Some scenes aren’t. The cut that I saw didn’t have the “Black Freighter” material in it. Although, as you probably know in the same way that I do — in other words, by reading on the Internet — this is being produced and, for all I know, one time will be integrated with the rest of the material.

[pause] There are scenes in the movie that weren’t in the graphic novel. And when you think about it, this is inevitable as well. In the graphic novel, we had a huge luxury of space. We had hundreds and hundreds of pages, the equivalent of hours and hours of film. Anybody who deals with story knows that sometimes you have to amalgamate stuff. This, I think, has been done very successfully in the Watchmen movie.

[long pause, chuckles] I’m only pausing because I’m just trying to be quite clear about what I should say and what I shouldn’t say, and I only mean that from the point of view of I don’t want to give any spoilers. I don’t want to say anything that’s going to be misleading. Not that anybody at the studio or anybody connected with this has told me anything I must or mustn’t say.

I really enjoyed it as a movie. I thought it was a great movie. It was a long movie, I think the cut I saw was about two hours and fifty minutes. I’m not sure about that, because I wasn’t timing it. I was just enjoying it. And I enjoyed every minute of it. I could have done with more of it. I mean, as you can appreciate, I’m unique in all the world sitting in the dark watching this, because it could easily be confused with me lying in the dark with my eyes shut, dreaming up the images in the first place. So many of the images in there are the essence of what I saw in my head when I came to design scenes based on Alan’s script. So, there was a really, rather dreamlike and surreal quality to it.

The film is very rich. It moves backwards and forwards in time, just as the graphic novel does, so each time period is very clearly delineated and very clearly identifiable, which means there had to be huge attention to set dressing and cars and costumes and hairstyles and music, all those kinds of things. A lot of almost subliminal things that you don’t really realize are necessary to set something in its correct time.

All of the performances, I really enjoyed. I think all of the actors made their characters come very convincingly alive for me. I wouldn’t want to pick out one over anybody else, but I don’t think there’s a weak performance in there. And they certainly came vividly alive to me in both their identities. It’s strange to play Dan Dreiberg and then play Nite Owl. And it’s a lot more subtle than, you know, “This is a case for… Superman!” It’s quite a difficult trick, I imagine.

[long pause] What can I tell you? [another long pause] It’s very fast-moving. It is very violent and it is very sexy and I made some remarks at the BFI show in London and those two phrases were quoted and I know they caused some people some dismay. It isn’t a violent sex film, it just happens to have those amongst the other elements, just as the comic book did. In that respect, it’s very, very true to the comic book. It undoubtedly deserves an adult rating, and certainly there are some very brutal scenes in it, and – as you know, from reading the graphic novel — things that you don’t normally expect heroes to be doing.

“Was there anything I wasn’t particularly thrilled about?” Yeah, I started to get an uncomfortable feeling in my bladder about an hour from the end, but I managed to overcome that. Funnily enough, the first time I got the chance to say anything to Zack after I’d seen it was when we were both in the men’s room, having made a run for it. I wanted to shake him by the hand, but it wasn’t really appropriate.

As I said, feedback was very much solicited from everybody that had been there, and I did give some extensive feedback. Very much a work in progress, things that clearly were unfinished, a lot of the computer graphics were unfinished, characters had wires on them and things that obviously were going to be removed at the post-production stages hadn’t yet been done. But even in that rough state, I really, really enjoyed it. It was unlike any movie that I’d seen before. It did have that richness, it had that sense of sweep across time and across space as well, going from the forties up to the eighties and from New York City to Antarctica to Mars, and a kaleidoscope of characters major and minor. I really did think that it is an experience and a kind of a movie-going experience that hasn’t been… experienced before [chuckles].

I can’t wait for everybody to see it. That’s the feeling I got from everybody involved with it, as well. I really can’t wait to get feedback on it. And certainly, having seen the screening at San Diego — though I only saw that on a monitor, which was a little bit frustrating, because of where I was sitting up on the stage — but when it was shown again at the BFI event in London, I got the chance to sit in the audience and see it twice on the big screen. Just an amazing experience, and I think I speak for everybody else in the audience there as well, you can feel the crowd just absolutely lapping it up.

So rest easy. Rest easy, WatchmenComicMovie.com people, I really don’t think you’re going to be disappointed. I certainly wasn’t.

Nathan: So many other directors have tried to make a Watchmen movie. Have you ever met with any of them? Were you invited by any of them to consult on their films?

Dave Gibbons: I did meet Joel Silver, way back after the graphic novel I think had just been released as a graphic novel. Alan and I met Joel and Jeanette Kahn, who was then publishing DC Comics. We had lunch in London and we talked about the movie. Joel was just… he was like a Hollywood movie guy from central casting. He was loud, enthusiastic, rather brash… not quite talking about the same thing that Alan and I were talking about when we talked about Watchmen. But we had a cordial lunch and we concluded it as friends. He suggested, memorably, that Arnold Schwarzenegger should play Dr. Manhattan, which we let past because he also said that he thought Arnold Schwarzenegger should play Sgt. Rock, which felt like a bit of a stretch to me. But apparently, the plot was that now Rock was an immigrant – or his father was an immigrant — to the USA, and had always been suspected because of his German-ness and him now commanding a platoon against the Nazis was his chance to redeem himself and prove that he was a true blue American.

Anyway, that was the meeting with Joel Silver, and then, the movie got passed around a little bit. Terry Gilliam, at one point, was in the frame to direct it. I know that Alan met with him briefly, I never had the chance to meet him. So really, until Zack came on board, I hadn’t really had a lot to do with the movie adaptations of it. My mum, when she was alive, used to read me snippets from the tabloid newspapers. You know, “Oh, the Monty Python man’s making a film of your comic! Oh, that’ll be funny!”

But once Zack got on board… I actually introduced myself to him at the premiere of 300 in London and immediately hit it off with him. The guy was very enthusiastic. I knew from the very beginning, seemed to me to completely get Watchmen. And since then, I’ve consulted… I suppose quite a lot. I was shown an early draft of the script and asked to comment. I have done a little bit of production storyboard for him in the form of drawing sequences in the style of the comic — and having them colored by John Higgins — that hadn’t actually appeared in the original graphic novel, because he wanted to see how we would have handled them if they had. Which I think shows a commitment.

As you know, I got to go to the set and see a couple of scenes being filmed. The scene that I really saw at great length was the Crimebusters meeting, which was amazing to see everybody in costume and just amazing to hear those words spoken and smell the cigar smoke and actually being in the presence of all these people. And again, the great sense of commitment came over. Do believe me, everything that I’ve said about attention to detail and everybody’s commitment… I’ve got my hand on my heart, it’s absolutely true. It’s not blowing smoke at all. It was quite staggering to see how much everybody was into it and how much they were using the graphic novel as a shooting script and a bible.

Seems that WB isn't trusting their test audiences to adhere to their non-disclosure forms, so the word is that they screened a different ending on purpose because they knew the fanboys would instantly hit the net and begin talking about it.

Synder tells Dark Horizons that the squid was not in any draft of the screenplay he saw, but that he and the screenwriters found an "elegant solution to the squid problem that I kind of embraced."

"I'm a fan of the thing as much as anyone, I was saying what are we going to do about this before I even read the script," revealed the director, indicating he agreed even before seeing a script that a literal adaptation of the ending was going to be difficult to pull off.

As to reports from the test screening that the squid has been replaced by multiple nuclear explosions?

"I won't say exactly," hinted Synder, "but... Dr. Manhattan has a certain energy signature, it's clearly his thing...so you know."

Finally, the director denied that he shot multiple endings to the film, confirming he only shot/produced one.

At Yahoo!

Hearing Zack Synder talk makes me pretty leery of this being anything more than a shiny, color-corrected mess with all the substance of moving construction paper.

Hearing Zack Synder talk makes me pretty leery of this being anything more than a shiny, color-corrected mess with all the substance of moving construction paper.

The long-gestating court battle over the film rights to “Watchmen” took a possibly cataclysmic turn late Wednesday, as Judge Gary Alan Feess ruled in favor of 20th Century Fox, declaring the studio held a copyright interest in the property that would cover distribution of the upcoming “Watchmen” movie.

The ruling doesn’t bode well for Warner Bros., which is producing the Zack Snyder-directed pic scheduled to hit theaters on March 6. That release date could now be in jeopardy, although the judge appealed for both sides to find common ground and negotiate rather than continue through a trial, The New York Times reported.

The theatrical rights to “Watchmen” — the bestselling graphic novel of all time — have been mired in a series of complicated dealings dating back to the 1980s when Fox acquired the property for producer Larry Gordon. The studio subsequently abandoned plans to make the film, and Gordon began the search for a new partner.

After brushes with Universal and Paramount, “Watchmen” eventually landed at Warner Bros., which began production on the film in 2007 with a budget reportedly close to $150 million. In an additional layer of complication, however, Paramount obtained international distribution rights through an agreement with Warner. That arrangement would presumably also be affected by this latest ruling.

In its long-standing lawsuit, Fox has argued that Gordon never exercized his option to acquire their remaining interest in “Watchmen,” thus leaving distribution rights with the studio. Wednesday’s court decision would mean the judge now agrees with that position.

Back in October, Snyder was tight-lipped about the trial and its potential effect on his film’s release date, but some have claimed that the legal wrangling over “Watchmen” could be tied to a rights battle over the 1960s “Batman” television series. That dispute, also between Fox and Warner Bros., has prohibited Fox from distributing the show to platforms other than television, such as DVD or online.

“Watchmen” figures prominently on Warner’s 2009 slate, and early footage from the film managed to dazzle crowds at July’s San Diego Comic-Con. With legal proceedings still ongoing, it seems the best fans can hope for is a quick settlement allowing the March release to go unimpeded.

LOS ANGELES – The superhero film "Watchmen" will be watched by audiences after all — and on time.

Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox settled their nearly yearlong dispute over the movie on Thursday, the studios announced in a joint statement.

The movie will open in theaters as planned on March 6, the statement said. The exact terms of the agreement were not disclosed and will remain confidential.

The release date had been in doubt for months as each studio's attorneys grappled for an upper hand. Fox contended that Warner Bros. shot the film knowing that it didn't have all the adequate rights; Warner Bros. countered that Fox had lost its rights in the graphic novel and was owed nothing more than a right of first refusal.

At stake was a movie that has stoked the excitement of "Watchmen" fans and that Warner Bros. claims cost it $150 million to film and market.

Until recently, the studios appeared to be in a stalemate as protracted as the Cold War backdrop of the film's source material. But a Christmas Eve ruling by U.S. District Judge Gary Allen Feess found that Fox did have at least a distribution stake in the film.

Within days of that ruling, Warner Bros. and Fox were in serious settlement negotiations.

Attorneys were scheduled to update Feess on the settlement Friday morning.

While the studios agreed on little throughout the case, the statement released Thursday sought to end months of acrimony.

"Warner Bros. and Fox, like all 'Watchmen' fans, look forward with great anticipation to this film's March 6 release in theaters," the statement said.

Fox is owned by News Corp.; Warner Bros. is a unit of Time Warner Inc.

As part of the agreement, both sides acknowledged the others were acting in "good faith," although Warner Bros. conceded Fox notified it of its rights before filming began.

Fox acquired movie rights to "Watchmen," a graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, in the 1980s.

The project has had a tortured course to the big screen, with Warner Bros. having to resolve issues with other studios that had considered making the film.

The various agreements led Feess to declare during one hearing that the case was "very complex, convoluted."

The same could be said for "Watchmen," which features a complex story line set in an alternate-history United States and characters with names such as Rorschach and Ozymandias.

"Watchmen" has generated considerable buzz, in part because of the threat that the film's release would be delayed or blocked. But the attention is also because its director, Zack Snyder, helped turn another graphic novel, "300," into a blockbuster.

'Better blue than red.'

This is coming out here a day before the US. Wee.

Those retro Youtube clips are damn good... I just hope they don't turn out to be better than the actual movie.

This is coming out here a day before the US. Wee.

Those retro Youtube clips are damn good... I just hope they don't turn out to be better than the actual movie.

Black Freighter Trailer

http://www.mtv.com/videos/movie-trailers...html#id=1605027

I would give a hundred buck to see a picture of Alan Moore's face when he sees this. OrganicCoffee.com has Nite Owl coffee for sale on their web site. The coffee retails for $19.85 plus S&H, and is limited to 10,000 cans. Click here to order the Nite Owl Coffee @ Amazon.com.

Can't get enough Watchmen? Director Zack Snyder tells MTV that a Directors Cut will be released to theaters in July with a length of 3 hrs. and 10 min. That will be followed by the "Crazy Ultimate Freaky Edition" DVD in the fall. Check out the link for all the details.

Geeks of Doom does a nice piece on the EW Guide To Watchmen special edition coming out Feb. 23. They have some quotes and pictures of the six different covers of the issue. Definitely worth checking out.

Wil Wheaton gives a little SPOILER free review of the Watchmen movie over at ComicBookMovie.com. He talks about the fan's worries that this film could stink it up like Ang Lee's Hulk and some other bombs, but he gives the film good marks summing it up with,"I can't think of a better, more faithful, graphic novel adaptation, ever. Nothing else even comes close".

The Dork Report offers "10 Reasons The Watchmen Movie Will Suck". Amongst the reasons, miscasting, lack of Moore's blessing and changes from the source material. The author summarizes his feelings with, "So why am I so apprehensive about Watchmen in particular? Because it has been historically misunderstood and misinterpreted for 20 years and I see no sign that Snyder is seeing any deeper than its surface." The article does list some valid concerns but ultimately I think a comic book picture should be judged on it's own as a separate entity from the original medium. Check this article out, you'll be glad you did.

The Dork Report offers "10 Reasons The Watchmen Movie Will Suck". Amongst the reasons, miscasting, lack of Moore's blessing and changes from the source material. The author summarizes his feelings with, "So why am I so apprehensive about Watchmen in particular? Because it has been historically misunderstood and misinterpreted for 20 years and I see no sign that Snyder is seeing any deeper than its surface." The article does list some valid concerns but ultimately I think a comic book picture should be judged on it's own as a separate entity from the original medium. Check this article out, you'll be glad you did.

yeah the gist of his complaints is this guy tries to recreate Moore's work, then complains that the guy isn't being faithful to the work.

It's a small moment in the film WATCHMEN - Dan and Laurie save a group from a tenament fire. Once inside the Owl Ship, the survivors are offered what else? Coffee. Among all that hardware, there's an airplane-style coffee maker. And Veidt Enterprise's Nite Owl Dark Roast is the imaginary brand of coffee they brew. What better name for the quinessential caffinated beverage when served in the context of nocturnal crime-fighting? In truth, this is 100% organic specialty coffee from WATCHMEN unit photographer Clay Enos and his Organic Coffee Cartel.

Designed on one side to resemble something straight out of the WATCHMEN universe, the other side features a striking black & white portrait of Nite Owl as captured by Enos. With just one run of 10,000 cans produced, this is sure to be a distinctive and unusal collectible.

Of all the people watching how "Watchmen" does at the boxoffice, Larry Gordon might have the most complicated feelings.

The veteran producer has an A-list backend deal on Warner Bros.' R-rated graphic novel adaptation and stands to gain financially if it becomes a hit. But if Warners has its way, Gordon also could be on the hook to Warners for a hefty percentage of the film's grosses based on his role in the legal debacle that ended with Fox owning a piece of the "Watchmen" property.

For this reason, Gordon and Warners have put off until after the $130 million Zack Snyder epic opens next Friday to resolve their standoff over what amount -- if anything -- Gordon should reimburse the studio for the cost of settling the litigation.

A clear idea of what Gordon might be liable for won't emerge until the film has largely played out, which could be a month or two, but if the pic is a mega-grosser, it could be tens of millions.

Fox sued Warners last February, claiming copyright infringement based on agreements the studio had with Gordon in the early 1990s.

The case was a rare public showdown between studios over a potential blockbuster and highlighted the challenge of maintaining a clear chain of title on projects that bounce around in development over many years.

When Judge Gary Feess ruled Dec. 24 that Gordon did not secure proper rights to "Watchmen" from Fox, Warners settled the case rather than face a possible injunction against the film's release.

The Warners settlement gave Fox a $1.5 million reimbursement for development costs as well as up to 8.5% of the film's worldwide grosses, although the percentage is lower until the film breaks even.

That could put Gordon in a strange position: The better the film does, the more he could pocket as a profit participant but the more he might have to fork over to make Warners whole. That's because Warners claims its agreements with Gordon contain an indemnity clause requiring the producer to reimburse it for any unforeseen problems with the pic.

Neither Gordon nor his litigation lawyer Dale Kinsella would comment, but they have maintained in court filings that Gordon is not responsible for the litigation and owes Warners nothing. Reps for Warners also declined to comment, but several sources said the studio plans to aggressively pursue Gordon for the settlement costs. In court papers Warners said Gordon should be liable "for all damages Warner Bros. suffers as a result of Fox's claims."

Complicating matters further is Gordon's position in the litigation that his own transactional attorneys who negotiated the deals are in part to blame for the mess. Gordon's litigation lawyers, who are not in the same firm as the transactional attorneys, wrote to Judge Feess that Fox's lawsuit might be traced to errors in the negotiation process by Fox as well as by Gordon's own counsel at the Jake Bloom law firm.

Gordon, who is still repped by the Bloom firm, is now said to be pushing for that firm's malpractice insurance carrier to make a contribution to any financial settlement. The Bloom firm declined to comment.

But the amount of any settlement will depend on how well the film does.

"Watchmen" premiered Monday night in London to mixed reviews, with the critic from tabloid News of the World (which is owned by Fox topper Rupert Murdoch) calling the 2-1/2 hour epic "spirit-crushingly disappointing" but several others predicting approval from fans of the Alan Moore-Dave Gibbons graphic novel.

http://6minutestomidnight.com/

i overheard this group of kids in the city

i overheard this group of kids in the city talking about how they couldn't wait to see watchmen. their number one reason is because they wanted to see who would win in the fight between batman (night owl) and iron man (ala robert downey, the comedian)

What the fuck does The Comedian have to do with Iron Man?
They are fuck all alike!

the comedian looks like robert downey jr.

WB is already is thinking that way after the success after Dark Knight.From what I heard they already think the next Superman movie should be "grim and gritty".

Just got back and loved it. I agree that it's the best we're going to get out of a movie version. I'd have preferred less slo-mo, but it's not a deal killer. I agree with Mxy that the change to the ending actually worked better than the comic ending. Adrian was really the only actor who didn't seem to step up to the role. Rorschach and Nite Owl were the best of the bunch. The guy playing Dan had a very Clark Kent vibe about him.  The opening credits was a good way of bringing the audience up to speed on the world of Watchmen. I liked the little nods and touchs (like the Comedian living in apartment number 3001, and the 1 getting knocked off the door in the fight). Really, it is the best adaptation that I've ever seen. I still won't say it's the best comic book movie, though. Oh, and there be titties in this film.

Adrian was really the only actor who didn't seem to step up to the role. Rorschach and Nite Owl were the best of the bunch. The guy playing Dan had a very Clark Kent vibe about him.  

That was a lucid well-thought out re......wait did you say titties??
Hurm.

You have to say as well, that he didnt look the part either.
Ozy was a big guy in the comics, and the one in the film was weedy looking and rather effeminate.

Comedian, Rorschach (without mask) and Nite Owl (without mask) were dead ringers to their comic book counterparts, even down to the hair styles.

I too saw Clark Kent traits in the portrayal of Dan, but when he was masked, his look (not actions) was certainly that of Keaton era Batman.

These titties

And they jiggle, just a bit.

to the average moviegoer, is this movie poised to be different than a typical action film? like... to us web nerds, there's a clear cut difference between this and, say, "wanted". does that come across to someone who doesn't know the history of the comic?

to the average moviegoer, is this movie poised to be different than a typical action film? like... to us web nerds, there's a clear cut difference between this and, say, "wanted". does that come across to someone who doesn't know the history of the comic?

my only complaint wasnt with the movie but with some people who brought their little kids to see it. They had to spend a lot of time covering their eyes...

Why the fuck was the theatre letting underage kids into the movie?
Dunno bout over there, but you have to be over 18 to see it here!

Ozy didn't bother me that much, but he was obviously the villain. I don't know whether that was the way it was written/directed or acted.

The rest I liked--I had no major problem with it (other than Bubastis just seemed thrown in as an afterthought--wasn't she in the comic way earlier?).

I think the R rating will ultimately hurt the theater sales.

Yeah from almost the beginning, I think. Bubastis in the book was there early on as foreshadowing as to how far along Adrien was with genetic engineering (later used to create the Squid of course).

I get the feeling that some people will believe that both Ozy and Comedian had superpowers (I didnt like the bit where Comedian punched that wall and smashed a huge chunk out of it),

Another plot hole was that Dan tells Laurie that the Manhattan cancer connection makes no sense because SHE doesn't have cancer, but how would he know that for sure just by looking at her? In the comic she's screened when they kick her out of the complex, but that's not shown in the movie. This probably won't be a problem in the extended cut, though.

Something that struck me as a weak plot point was the ending even though I liked it better that the alien squid. If you nuked NY and the other major cities there wouldn't be world peace and certainly not a newspaper pining for something to write about. Most likely there would be utter chaos. Possibly the biggest port in the nation and center of the financial world. Most likely the country would be in a socio-economic meltdown that would be difficult to recover from.

But one thing that'll always make me cringe is the part where Dan and Laurie cross Walter Kovacks in the street and there's a shot of him, and then a shot of Dan looking back. Why couldn't it be a long shot with the guy just standing there, waiting for the watcher to notice on second viewing? Why does every clever detail have to be a close up? That's indicative of everything I hate about Snyder's directing (AND THE WORLD), both in style and in substance.

Something that struck me as a weak plot point was the ending even though I liked it better that the alien squid. If you nuked NY and the other major cities there wouldn't be world peace and certainly not a newspaper pining for something to write about. Most likely there would be utter chaos. Possibly the biggest port in the nation and center of the financial world. Most likely the country would be in a socio-economic meltdown that would be difficult to recover from.

I'm not sure about the movie, but in the comic only part of the city gets destroyed by the squid.

Al Quaeda didn't make the Russians and Americans team up to wipe out Islam. So why would an alien attack?

in the movie it appeared the whole city was flattened.

were you stoked?

I think it was very much an adaptation for the fans, like the exact opposite of LXG or Schumacher's Bat-nipples. The best ones are the adaptations that reach a ballance, like DKR or Iron Man.

Well Al-Qaida only attacked the US, it did unite Americans until the media decided division sells. The theory is that if we had a common enemy we would be united. But as you say if a bomb went off in Moscow especially at that time, they aint gunna wait to see if Manhattan went rogue, they're gunna nuke us.

rob stoked is a term used in anticipation, not in retrospect. be a little mature.

I think the difference with this over a Dark Knight or Iron Man is this was more like an adaptation of a novel rather than a story about some comic book characters.

It'd be like doing adaptation of something like The Dark Knight Returns, in that there really should be as much of the original story included as possible, rather than writing a whole new story.

Iron Man and Batman are broad spectrum characters, who have changed a lot over the years, but Watchmen and Dark Knight are confined stories.

I think most fans of the comic book would be too pissed off if it was changed to much, just as any fan of a book by Stephen King, Dan Brown or whoever, would be pissed off if an adaptation of one of their books strayed too far from the source.

This film was certainly aimed at fans of the book first an foremost, where as most comic book adaptations are aimed at the non comic book reading public first, then moulded to make it acceptable to the fan boys!

its a post 9/11 world, who the hell are you to judge!?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought-in the book-the only site that was destroyed was a portion of New York. That's why I drew the Al Quaeda comparison.

Like 9/11, in Watchmen (the book) the US was attacked by an outside force that posed a threat to the entire world. Unlike 9/11, in Watchmen that resulted in the US and USSR putting aside their differences.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought-in the book-the only site that was destroyed was a portion of New York. That's why I drew the Al Quaeda comparison.

Like 9/11, in Watchmen (the book) the US was attacked by an outside force that posed a threat to the entire world. Unlike 9/11, in Watchmen that resulted in the US and USSR putting aside their differences.

I think as a fan though you'd like to see something new fleshed out of the material, I know I do. Though I'd rather see an exact adaptation like this than Elektra or Shumacher's take.

"well, I've faked you out with references to butterflies and flowers for about five minutes, and now...because the fans demanded it...I'm going to tell you about the dead dogs and the child molester I murdered."

I think the big difference there is that the alien attack was sposed to suggest that the whole world would believe the aliens would not differncitate between one country and another, where as with Al-Qaida, not every country would view them as a threat to them, plus the knowledge of this terrorist organisation was not something unknown to them where as the alien came totally out of left field.

I think the alien being uniting the world was somewhat idealistic, but to me, made more sense than the Manhattan devastation.
As you say, the first thoughts going through the Russians heads during a time of potential war would not be "Oh, its Doctor Manhattan" or "How many other countries have been hit", it would be "Fucking Americans, launch a counterstrike!

"I'm not going to let you inside my head, btw here's why I do what I do."

I think as a fan though you'd like to see something new fleshed out of the material, I know I do. Though I'd rather see an exact adaptation like this than Elektra or Shumacher's take.

In which case, the story's conclusion was just so ridiculous. What the Watchmen decide to do in the end makes sense according to their authoritative mentalities

In which case, the story's conclusion was just so ridiculous. What the Watchmen decide to do in the end makes sense according to their authoritative mentalities, which was Moore's point. But to say that they'd be given the opportunity to make such a decision based on what Ozymandias did is ludicrous. I mean, seriously: It wouldn't work. The world wouldn't just say, "Let's work together to thwart this mutual evil!"

I think the reason why Watchmen was considered un-filmable in the form the comic was is very evident in this movie. The Rorschach psychiatric sequences, the history of the characters ect needed fleshing out and in film time that's impossible unless you do a trilogy, or at least a part 1 and 2. and with the story telling technique of filling in the blanks that Moore used I don't believe people would have hung around for a sequel. thats why i think i would have liked to have seen more interpretation that verbatim.

I did like the part with Nick Fury after the credits.

I'm on the fence about seeing this.

I read the comic. I liked the comic. I certainly don't think it was the greatest comic of all time like most fanatics do. But I'm definitely willing to call it Alan Moore's Magnum Opus.

But My biggest problem with Watchmen has always been the fact that it's totally character driven; every time I read it, I always caught myself just drifting through the thought/speech bubbles just because I wanted to get to the next part that involved Rorschach rather than to immerse myself in the story. I might as well have just read The Question issues by Ditko. If it weren't for a few plot points of interest provided by the Comedian, I probably wouldn't have bothered buying the book.

In which case, the story's conclusion was just so ridiculous. What the Watchmen decide to do in the end makes sense according to their authoritative mentalities, which was Moore's point. But to say that they'd be given the opportunity to make such a decision based on what Ozymandias did is ludicrous. I mean, seriously: It wouldn't work. The world wouldn't just say, "Let's work together to thwart this mutual evil!"

If the movie's totally faithful, that means I'll just being seeing this same story played out on screen with beautiful visuals. I'm not sure if those visuals and the Rorschach segments will be worth ten bucks and 3 hours of my life.

It also makes me feel kind of dirty to go see it while knowing that the creator felt the rights to it were stolen from him. I mean, I'm not sure I agree with him, but it still feels weird to contribute to his misery.

I would have liked an episodic take since its a direct adaptation. I just would have preferred a new take.

'Watchmen': Why Rush Limbaugh isn't gonna like it

The biggest laugh Watchmen got at the sold-out, 9 a.m., IMAX suburban-theater show I went to on Saturday occurred [SOMETHING OF A SPOILER ALERT HERE -- LOOK AWAY IF YOU MUST!] when the Lee Iacocca-businessman-figure said, "Free is just another word for socialist." It was the happily derisive laugh of a crowd that was totally into the movie, and which also seemed well aware of the recent effort to label the Obama stimulus package as "socialist" -- and the audience clearly thought the use of that supposedly-inflammatory word was a joke.

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/03/watchmen-rush-l.html