Watchmen Trailer Online

Karl Hungus

Yep, it really misses the point of the ending. I'm sadly dissapointed. Not that it isn't going to be a great film, I'm sure it will be, but it's not going to be as good as it could have been, there's no way it can, and it seems Alan Moore is right again.

lostexpectation

the film doens't look gritty enough, i don't know if anyone like synder can bring that english sarky sensibilty to it

speedboatchase

They're testing multiple endings guys, lets not get our knickers in a twist just yet :P

New footage
http://io9.com/5066933/new-watchmen-footage-is-lovely-and-tormented

Karl Hungus

speedboatchase wrote: »

They're testing multiple endings guys

Source for that?

Actually, a thought occurs. Imagine if this whole ending thing was just to throw us off a bit, and when we see the final film, it's the original comic book ending. That's be a head****er right there, and a brilliant way of surprising the fans. I won't get my hopes up, mind you, but it would be something quite devious.

Otacon

Karl Hungus wrote: »

...it would be something quite devious.

Almost

Ozymandias-like...

tba

that gorgeous wascall

hes so smart

BlitzKrieg

They're testing multiple endings guys, lets not get our knickers in a twist just yet

I've seen alot of people say that but no one linked to production yet.

Seems rather elaborate excuse

considering the ending seen recently the amount of content that needed to be removed/changed from the original to fit that ending is quite subtantial.

the other excuse is that

A giant squid wouldnt look good on film

which is an even weaker excuse and doesnt explain why its such a substantial change to the plot.

sprinkles

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

*there be big spoilers*



http://io9.com/5065725/the-inside-scoop-on-watchmen-trek-and-transformers-2
http://io9.com/5064874/first-reports-on-watchmen-from-portland-screening

it seems the ending has been changed that Ozymandias frames Dr Manhatten as the great threat at the end of the film and uses a variant on his powers to nuke a number of cities across the world. There is no fake alien invasion. Now it might not be the hollywood crime people would expect, but to me its worse, its not that they didnt care about the source material and urinated over it for profits and a safe ending. The rumoured ending doesnt make sense because the whole point of the fake alien invasion was to unite the world behind a common cause thus bringing peace, but nuking a number of cities and blaming it on Dr Manhatten doesnt work unless they gutted his entire plotline, he was the walking talking US weapon of mass destruction in the graphic novel, having him the cause of the attack puts the blame still at the feet of the US, there's no common cause and there is no reason to unite for peace.

not writing the film off, I'm just not going to get excited that it could be the graphic novel to film opus we are all waiting for.

Damn it. I really hope you are wrong! As you said, that doens't make sense.

faceman

Kevin SMith did say the ending had changed slightly from the novel but that it was a positive change. THe rumoured ending seems slightly larger than a slight change!

I with the theory that they are testing a number of endings. The ending that was screened in the US as part of the recent test screen

the one with Dr Manhattan sets of nuclear explosions around the world

does make any sense given the crisis of the book. After all

if Manhattan is setting off nuclear explosions, surely that could be interpreted by the US and Russia as the other side launching an attack?

Either way, i dont have a lot of faith in Snyder, i wasnt mad about 300.

I did laugh at one comment i read about the new trailer and the first trailer. Some guy said that the film must be very long as it appears it was shot in slow motion!

ziedth

How was the ending of 300 changed?

pixelburp

Tbh, I always thought the Squid at the end was a total "wtf" moment in an otherwise solid, realistic novel. It was like something from "tales of the unexpected", so I shed no tears if it indeed has been exised.

Fysh

pixelburp wrote: »

Tbh, I always thought the Squid at the end was a total "wtf" moment in an otherwise solid, realistic novel. It was like something from "tales of the unexpected", so I shed no tears if it indeed has been exised.

I know a lot of people feel the same way but I really don't get how you can accept the Dr. Manhattan aspect of the entire novel while simultaneously finding the

psychic squid monster

to be just too much of a stretch. How is

the idea of a man being torn to shreds by what amounts to a large electromagnet, only to subsequently reform himself and gain superpowers along the way any worse than the idea of a genetically engineered psychic monster being teleported into a city

?

pixelburp

Fysh wrote: »

I know a lot of people feel the same way but I really don't get how you can accept the Dr. Manhattan aspect of the entire novel while simultaneously finding the

psychic squid monster

to be just too much of a stretch. How is

the idea of a man being torn to shreds by what amounts to a large electromagnet, only to subsequently reform himself and gain superpowers along the way any worse than the idea of a genetically engineered psychic monster being teleported into a city

?

You just answered your own question there in many ways. Dr. Manhattan's story was as much a personal one as much as it was a superhero story; his journey & arc grounded his fantastic origin into a greater realm of believability. He was Superman, for all intents and purposes & we accepted that and his life. On the other hand,

Ozy's plot reads like a bad supervillain story (unless that was intentional), with his ultimate aim somewhat glib.

faceman

pixelburp wrote: »

On the other hand, Ozy's plot reads..

Should lash spoiler tags on the sentence above dude..

pixelburp

faceman wrote: »

Should lash spoiler tags on the sentence above dude..

Just have, better do the same yourself

pixelburp

Hmm, apparently, according to comicbookresources.com,

the supposed non-squid ending was a delibrate ploy by the studio during the test screenings to see what the reaction would be to a non-squid based ending (and that the catastrophe was just nuclear based, ala Heroes)
Quoth the site:
Last week's LITG talked about the different "Watchmen" endings that are being tested. And the one ending that's been seen and reported that has a bombed out New York, but no hyperdimensional alien squid.

I'm told that this screening was intentionally leaked to the fan press - with the exact time and place posted online with details of how to evade the security. The intent is to gauge fan reaction to a squidless ending for Watchmen and see what they can get away with, believing it to be more suitable for a more mainstream audience. The FX for the squid has been completed however.

And the "Watchmen" footage from the Spike TV Scream Awards (and online here on CBR) does appear to show a bombed out New York City sans squid.

BlitzKrieg

seems far too elaborate of a process to be true personnally.

I mean if its the filmmakers decision and they want to be true to the book (as they have said many times before) then I dont see why they considered doing a different ending. If they have no intention of staying through to the book and are making minor changes, then I'd be more worried as the ending tests would be to see how well they could meld their changes into the original plot point meaning if the squid ending is intact then there could be other more crucial changes throughout the film.

If its a studio decision then it reaks of lies and damage control as no studio in their right mind would put more money into testing if a mainstream ending would scare away fans or not, they would stick with the mainstream ending and just reassure fans (who even if crappy ending was confirmed would still go see the film) that is the most cost effective choice which is what would be the prominant motivation for the studio.

Either way filming multiple test endings and showing them at previews just to gauge fan reaction is just not believable with a major blockbuster. With a teen slasher or similar horror film yes maybe (because usually multiple endings are cheap with them and adds more weight to marketing and dvd sales etc

just personal opinion of course

How was the ending of 300 changed

It wasnt the ending I meant when I mentioned 300, it was the really really bad hammering in of the political plotline with the wife and the politics, wasnt in the original book and it really clashed with the material that was in Frank Millers original (most of the stuff on the battlefield) Not to mention [and I know alot of people roll their eyes at these comments] but there were seriously heavy allusions to patriotic support your leader and damn the political process (which were big things in the US when the film was being made)

monkeyfudge

Well Snyder has now confirmed that

there is no squid and only one ending was shot

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/081107k.php

But on the bright side... this Super Friends trailer is awesome:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I33IuPXEou4

pixelburp

Yup, guess it's gone. No harm done, Synder's already seemingly bracing the studios for a less than stellar audience reaction so he knows the squid would have pushed things too far.

faceman

Ah pox, i would have settled for an

octopus

aidan_walsh

Holy calamari, Nite Owl.

monkeyfudge

Brand new trailer.... this one uses some Philip Glass music at the beginning and gives you a better idea of the plot:

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/watchmen.html?showVideo=1

They seem to actually refer to themselves as Watchmen though... which is a bit odd.

Vokes

That's an awful song choice.

Trailer looks good tho.

Tusky

SofaK wrote: »

That's an awful song choice.

Trailer looks good tho.

I thought the music was really suited to the trailer. Another great trailer, very excited about this.

pixelburp

People seemed to have got quite hung up about the music choices in all these trailers; so odd. As for the trailer itself, I am not sure about the characters referring to themselves as "watchmen", but I suppose it's a gesture to those unfamiliar with the work.

faceman

Hmm im getting annoyed at this now. Ive only read the graphic novel once and i couldnt name the most of the supporting characters but I fail to see the logic of many changes.

Calling themselves Watchmen makes no sense, its obvious why in the novel they never do it.
Why change the ending to an already critically acclaimed novel? It already skews some of the themes running through the story unless they eliminate them completely.

Dont be at yourself

Calling themselves Watchmen makes no sense, its obvious why in the novel they never do it.

It is? I don't see what the big deal is, to be honest.

Rabies

Most people that watch the movie will never have read the novel. They'll only know its from a graphic novel because of the media, very few will read it and notice the difference.

homerun_homer

Just finished the book 2 nights ago so it's a pity to hear the ending has been messed with. Granted I was a bit let down at first but it works. Are they gonna say Aliens are bombing New York or what?

Music wise - trailer 1 it was a bad move to use Smashing Pumpkins song from Batman and Robin - what are you thinking??

trailer 2 - Better but the editing of the Muse track was really shoddy. Music in trailers and film is vital. You can't mess it up.

BlitzKrieg

still getting a meh from me.

CodeMonkey

homerun_homer wrote: »

Music wise - trailer 1 it was a bad move to use Smashing Pumpkins song from Batman and Robin - what are you thinking??

Who the hell cares? Who the hell even remembers what song was in the Batman and Robin trailer? The smashing pumpkins song works for the Watchmen trailer.

sprinkles

I think the trailer is excellent - bar the music.

Anyway I don't think the changes will dtract from the film. I generally approach these film adaptations as completely seperate from the graphic novels of comics that preceeded them. It's a different media and the director will want to stamp his own mark on the film along with pressures from the studio to appeal to the masses and hence make money. The changes here (the use of the word watchmen isn't a deal breaker tbh) aren't all that terrible - and there's no point in complaining about the ending until you see it. Imagine if it turns out to be a better ending than the graphic novel. That would be a shame wouldn't it!

homerun_homer

sprinkles wrote: »

and there's no point in complaining about the ending until you see it. Imagine if it turns out to be a better ending than the graphic novel. That would be a shame wouldn't it!

Fight Club had a better ending in the film than the book, visually it works whereas it wouldn't have as good an impact to read so hopefully the Watchmen have something cool to add to the ending.

Holsten

The visuals of the trailer were good, the music chosen was dire!

Also I think Dr Manhatten sounds crap, I always assumed he'd have an otherwordly god like voice... like how his speech bubbles were different from everyone elses.

Other than that I thought it was damn cool, can't wait for it.

faceman

homerun_homer wrote: »

Fight Club had a better ending in the film than the book, visually it works whereas it wouldn't have as good an impact to read so hopefully the Watchmen have something cool to add to the ending.

True. and the ending to The Mist was better than the book.

pixelburp

Holsten wrote: »

The visuals of the trailer were good, the music chosen was dire!

Also I think Dr Manhatten sounds crap, I always assumed he'd have an otherwordly god like voice... like how his speech bubbles were different from everyone elses.

Other than that I thought it was damn cool, can't wait for it.

Well I dunno about that; considing Manhatten is a character who steadily loses his own humanity and emotion, it stands to reason he should speak in that eery calm voice we hear. Much more effective than some booming god-voice.

homerun_homer

faceman wrote: »

True. and the ending to The Mist was better than the book.

Agh!! It's as if you know I saw that film the other night... It was awful, I laughed through it, it was so bad. The ending was hilarious.

faceman

homerun_homer wrote: »

Agh!! It's as if you know I saw that film the other night... It was awful, I laughed through it, it was so bad. The ending was hilarious.

What did you not like about it? How would you have preferred to see it end?

pixelburp

As I have mentioned already,

I always thought the squid was the weakest element of the original book. Manhatten worked because at the core of it he was a human being, struggling to come to terms with his responsibility & his diminishing humanity. It was easy to accept the man first, the super-human second & read as he came to his ultimately depressing conclusion. The squid on the other hand was just plain daft, straight out of the very kind of comics Moore was surely trying to steer clear of (not to mention daft looking anyway) and only served to tie up the otherwise pointless subplot involving the two artists on the island while being a needlessly elaborate scheme to simply get the US & Russia to down their weapons.

BlitzKrieg

Its not so much the cutting

of the squid, but more so the changing of the focus that dr manhatten is framed for the whole thing seems to change everything about the original plot, you speak highly of manhatten as a character yet it is that character that is going to be most changed by the new ending.

pixelburp

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Its not so much the cutting

of the squid, but more so the changing of the focus that dr manhatten is framed for the whole thing seems to change everything about the original plot, you speak highly of manhatten as a character yet it is that character that is going to be most changed by the new ending.

Perhaps; though the only significant change I see is that Manhatten's hand is now somewhat forced in that his decision to leave the Earth at the end would be partly based on taking the blame for the disaster, aside from his own personal decision. If the timeline of the story remains the same, then he will return from Mars after the deadly deed has been done, so both his personal moment of clarity will overlap with Ozy's plot for world peace

Fysh

pixelburp wrote: »

As I have mentioned already,

I always thought the squid was the weakest element of the original book. Manhatten worked because at the core of it he was a human being, struggling to come to terms with his responsibility & his diminishing humanity. It was easy to accept the man first, the super-human second & read as he came to his ultimately depressing conclusion. The squid on the other hand was just plain daft, straight out of the very kind of comics Moore was surely trying to steer clear of (not to mention daft looking anyway) and only served to tie up the otherwise pointless subplot involving the two artists on the island while being a needlessly elaborate scheme to simply get the US & Russia to down their weapons.

I have to agree re:

the squid insofar as being the weakest point of the story. It's one of those "mileage-may-vary" moments where some people can accept it, but for others it will seem too at-odds with the established story thus far", and really it comes down to personal taste I suppose

.

That being said, I do get the feeling that

the squid, Ozymandias' sudden self-doubt at the end along with Rorschach's refusal to go along with the plan and subsequent elimination

were all in part metatextual commentary from Moore about how neither traditional superhero characters nor their enemies really have any place in any "real" world.

As for the ending of the film being changed, I think I'll wait and see what Snyder has done. Seems only fair to criticise him on what he does, rather than what he may or may not have done...

faceman

Part of the point of the original ending in the book is that

humanity could unite to fight a common foe not of the earth who didnt care what differences humans have as nations.

It doesnt work the same with Manhattan because he is still human, and american. That complicates the ending even further and opens a can of worms. Would Russia so easily go "ah its alright lads, manhattan is the real threat." I think it would be case of "ah its alright lads, manhattan is the real threat. wait hang on, he's an american war hero. They had this planned all along!"

Or am i reading far too much into this????

Karl Hungus

faceman wrote: »

Part of the point of the original ending in the book is that

humanity could unite to fight a common foe not of the earth who didnt care what differences humans have as nations.

It doesnt work the same with Manhattan because he is still human, and american. That complicates the ending even further and opens a can of worms. Would Russia so easily go "ah its alright lads, manhattan is the real threat." I think it would be case of "ah its alright lads, manhattan is the real threat. wait hang on, he's an american war hero. They had this planned all along!"

Or am i reading far too much into this????

Pretty much my sentiments exactly.

homerun_homer

faceman wrote: »

What did you not like about it? How would you have preferred to see it end?

Sorry to be off topic for a minute but it was just the film as a whole - the acting, the effects, the direction (especially given Darabont being on board). The ending would have been effective if everything leading up to it was actually any way decent.

Back on topic, I hope they don't use Manhattan to affect the ending of the story and make it all about him. Will have to wait and see. Looking forward to seeing it.

pixelburp

Dave Gibbons and Synder took questions after a screening of 30 minutes of the movie:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39131

The point made about the squid is an interesting one; that in terms of the character arc it's a means to an end (and would have seemed too much like Cloverfield 2 to the general audience). And there's also a suggestion that perhaps it was the sacrificial lamb when the studio came knocking. It was the squid or a PG13 cert / modern day watchmen etc. I know what I would have chosen.

pixelburp

Oh and however bad the movie is, nothing can surely match ... the video game tie in :mad: I'm no fanboy but yeeeeeeeesh, whose bright idea was this?

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/11/17/who-watches-the-ah-fuggedit-screenshots/

johnny_ultimate

Just watched the new trailer - Philip Glass is always good, but wish they'd stop referring to Snyder as a 'visionary'. I am still cautiously excited, and despite the lack of

giant squids, which we can only wait and see pan out for ourselves

it is still looking loyal to the novel. Main other worry is that it may be overstylised - some unique visuals will be nice alright, but don't want loads of slo-mo and so on.

And hearing Dr Manhattan speak is... peculiar. Always imagined him to have a slightly more godlike voice for some reason.

faceman

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Just watched the new trailer - Philip Glass is always good, but wish they'd stop referring to Snyder as a 'visionary'. I am still cautiously excited, and despite the lack of

giant squids, which we can only wait and see pan out for ourselves

it is still looking loyal to the novel. Main other worry is that it may be overstylised - some unique visuals will be nice alright, but don't want loads of slo-mo and so on.

And hearing Dr Manhattan speak is... peculiar. Always imagined him to have a slightly more godlike voice for some reason.

+1 on both your points!

Karl Hungus

Is anyone else boggled by the fact that they're film the Black Freighter as a DVD extra, when it played a part in

the squid. It was the artist who wrote the comic that was comissioned by veidt to degisn the squid.

Seems like a bit of an empty gesture, doesn't it?