The Official "Watchmen" Movie News & Discussion Thread (Possible Spoilers)

[William C. Maune]

According to The Hollywood Reporter the acclaimed director of Pi and Requiem for a Dream is set to take on The Watchmen. We'll see if it happens since his Batman never did, but this sounds pretty cool for now.

[Nick K.]

I'm thinking of getting the Watchmen when I reach my free $20 at my comic store to help me pay for this. I've heard great things. Now is a good time to get it if this movie comes out so I can compare. Anyway, I loved Requiem for a Dream, it was amazing, and if this director made that wicked movie then his Watchmen will probablly rick all, as well.

[HelloKittyKat]

The question is: do we need a Watchmen movie?

If an adaptation were to be made, I'd say that the ideal format would be a TV miniseries.

[Terminatah]

Aronofsky's involvement was reported back in April, and since then, there has been no word about anything. At one point, I saw something in Entertainment Weekly that implied this had fallen through, which was tragic at the time, so this news provides momentary relief for me.

The question is: do we need a Watchmen movie?

It's a valid question. But I don't know if it's entirely relevant. I would pose the question -- knowing that it's only a matter of time before it gets made, is this a good way to make it? Of all the possible creative teams that could be assembled for anything, I think Aronofsky doing Watchmen is something of an equivalent to Nolan doing Batman.

In other words-- necessary or not, if they're gonna do it, might as well do it right.

If an adaptation were to be made, I'd say that the ideal format would be a TV miniseries.

I disagree. The absolute last thing this story needs is censorship, limited budgets, and... commercials.

-Terminatah

[Cyporiean]

I dunno, a Nice TV Miniseries by the BBC might be good.. how much would really need to be censored aside from Dr. Manhattan's Nakedness?

[Spastic Minnow]

I just watched Pi a couple days ago. It was good. I hated Requiem, but there's no denying Aronofsky's style. However, how is his style suited for The Watchmen? Both of his films are enigmatic paranoid drug/psychosis trips and Watchmen is mostly a straightforward story. Aronofsky could do a piece on Rorshach or Manhattan trying to reconstruct himself and that would work, but the whole story? Who's going to be the one to open the pills, drops them in the hand, pop them in the mouth and freak outs?Aronofsky really needs to do another film before I'd consider him good for doing anthing but a mind**** movie.

[DR.MID-NITE]

Can someone give me a background about who & what the Watchmen are?




"Thank You" -Jay Loundon (Last Comic Standing)

[Spastic Minnow]

Can someone give me a background about who & what the Watchmen are?

It's a very involved story going deep into the characters and spanning decades. I'd say the core of the story is what would happen if there were only one superpowered person in the world and he was American.


The Watchmen world mostly progresses like our own except for having various costumed vigilantes/ crimefighters appearing since the 30's, none actually being superpowered. Then in the 60's comes Dr. Manhattan, one tremendously powerful superhero. Manhattan makes the U.S. a true superpower that keeps oppenents like The Soviet Union in check. The vigilantees who were tolerated before are eventually outlawed in the 70s. Most retire, one becomes a government agent, one goes crazy and continues underground, one was already a multi-millionaire head of a multi-national company. Manhattan of course continues to work with the government but is increasingly disinterested with work and the Earth in general. The books begin with the murder of one of them and the story progresses from there.

[BatKid]

Aronofsky and Hayter are gonna one helluva job to do to make this right. With the big story that Watchmen has, this film needs AT LEAST 150 min. Anything shorter would just ruin it imo.

[PeterFries]

Can someone give me a background about who & what the Watchmen are?

Alan Moore originally conceived of the project as a sort of update of the Charleton Heroes that DC came into ownership of -- Captain Atom, Blue Beetle, The Question, Nightshade, Thunderbolt and Peacemaker. DC had no plans to use them at the time (1985) and said, sure, but when they saw his outline which took the heroes down some truly dark alleys, they changed their mind and Moore made them analogues of those characters, instead.

What he did was create probably the most convincing look at the idea of "real world" superheroes ever -- what would drive them to dress up in those goofy outfits (mostly a touch of mental disorder), how the existence of a superpowerful being would affect politics and so on. The depiction of the Question-like vigilante character Rorshach is more than worth the price of admission -- he's a completely repugnant, degraded human being and yet a noble hero for the ages. Even the villain of the story has a nobility of purpose.

Gibbons' artwork for the series was absolutely amazing -- he fully realized the world these people lived in, down to the last rusty bolt or stained concrete. There's no way to do justice to his art in words -- he keeps showing you the same city and characters from different angles until you feel like it's real. You could study the comic just for all the layers of detail in story and art.

It's actually funny that superhero comics didn't just end with Watchmen and the concurrent Dark Knight Returns -- each author has said they were intended to be like the epitaph for the whole superhero concept.

[Raissa]

Law Eager For Watchmen:

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2004-08/13/10.00.film

[HelloKittyKat]

I disagree. The absolute last thing this story needs is censorship, limited budgets, and... commercials.

-Terminatah

Do it on a premium channel. For narrative purposes, I feel this would be the best way to go.

[Hatter]

Oh, come on. That's always the most unimaginative idea with any adaptation - "make it an HBO miniseries so they can do a 100% direct translation!"

Why would I want to watch a miniseries of everything I've already seen? The adaptation is what makes the feature film interesting - what gets kept, what gets changed, what gets dropped. That's what I want to see.
If I want to see the original, I'll pick it up off my shelf.

[MonkeyFunk]

I dunno, much of Watchmen's size comes from the amount of subplots. A good writer would be able to adapt it for the screen but still keep the central point.

However, I'm not sure how they'll deal with

Spoiler:

the part where Ozymandias destroys half of New York to prevent World War III.

It'll take on a whole different meaning post-9/11...

[HelloKittyKat]

Oh, come on. That's always the most unimaginative idea with any adaptation - "make it an HBO miniseries so they can do a 100% direct translation!"

Why would I want to watch a miniseries of everything I've already seen? The adaptation is what makes the feature film interesting - what gets kept, what gets changed, what gets dropped. That's what I want to see.
If I want to see the original, I'll pick it up off my shelf.

I'm not asking for a direct translation (in fact I'm not asking for any adaptation at all, but that's neither here nor there). I'm saying that in terms of narrative, and character growth and background, this best fits the format for Watchmen. It's simply too big for a movie, but it's also a finite story.

And really, I don't se why most of this can't be done on regular network television. My post was simply in response to another post.

[Hatter]

It wouldn't work on TV because

1) No TV show would have that large of a budget.
2) No major directors ever work on TV (produce maybe, but not direct)
And 3) A TV series just doesn't have the appeal of a major motion picture. There's a charm to seeing something on the big screen that you can't get on your premium channels.

[Fone Bone]

It wouldn't work on TV because

1) No TV show would have that large of a budget.
2) No major directors ever work on TV (produce maybe, but not direct)
And 3) A TV series just doesn't have the appeal of a major motion picture. There's a charm to seeing something on the big screen that you can't get on your premium channels.

Barry Levinson, Quentin Tarantino, David Lynch, and Mike Nichols have ALL done television AFTER they were already big. And I mean directed.

I really want to read the Watchmen comic now.

[Terminatah]

The following is from Superhero Hype!:

Ain't-It-Cool-News has learned that Darren Aronofsky is no longer directing Watchmen because he will be tied up shooting "The Fountain," starring Hugh Jackman.

Now, the good news here is that the reason he left involves timing issues. See, THE FOUNTAIN is about to start principal photography. We're talking about a matter of days here. And I love THE FOUNTAIN as a project. Paramount just couldn't wait, though. They want to have WATCHMEN in a theater by the summer of '06, no matter what. That means they need a filmmaker who can be ready to shoot long before Aronofsky would be ready.

Stay tuned for who his replacement may be.

I really can't speak intelligently about the reliability of AICN, since they don't have a perfect track record. But I guess this isn't the greatest of news.

-Terminatah

[Lord Dalek]

How many people have been attatched to this project?

More to the point, how many times has Arronofsky been attached to this project?

[RD!]

How many people have been attatched to this project?

More to the point, how many times has Arronofsky been attached to this project?

How many superhero projects has Aronofksy been attatched to?

I love Aronofsky's two movies and so I'll have to say it will be a shame that he is no longer involved with it.