Watchmen trailer

Lord Relvenous · Post by **Lord Relvenous** » 2008-08-19 04:44pm

I have not read the comics, and yet i found the line already quoted incredibly awesome. Also, while i was a little bit skeptical about the glowing blue man, the cgi for him was flawless. So that's an opinion from an unbiased viewer

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2008-08-19 05:27pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:It doesn't make sense even from a neutral perspective. The guy is a perfectly simulated male, like a blue Vitruvian man. That's not bad CGI at all, although the fact that he's blue and seemingly godlike might give others a few odd thoughts.

This is why I gave him a pass for his lack of knowledge about the other characters -- some of them do look a little silly, Nite Owl especially -- but not for the CGI on Dr. Manhattan. I should have thought that that was clear enough, but I've been criticized for my lack of clarity in the past.

Buddha · Post by **Buddha** » 2008-08-19 06:32pm

I saw the trailer and even though it didn't make sense, it's interesting. I might have to read the graphic novel it's based on and then see the movie. I wish I knew about this a while back. I hope this isn't the one with Keanu Reeves in it.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2008-08-19 06:37pm

Buddha wrote:I saw the trailer and even though it didn't make sense, it's interesting. I might have to read the graphic novel it's based on and then see the movie. I wish I knew about this a while back. I hope this isn't the one with Keanu Reeves in it.

Er, no. That'd be "The Day the Earth Stood Still." Slight difference.

Ziggy Stardust · Post by **Ziggy Stardust** » 2008-08-21 01:22pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:It doesn't make sense even from a neutral perspective. The guy is a perfectly simulated male, like a blue Vitruvian man. That's not bad CGI at all, although the fact that he's blue and seemingly godlike might give others a few odd thoughts.

From the clips in the trailer, it didn't look good. It wasn't "flawless" as someone here earlier claimed. Something about the proportions didn't quite look right.

I also find it incredibly odd that people are bashing me for my "ignorance" of the original work. Is this movie an invite-only affair, just for people who are fans of the comic? Get over yourselves.

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2008-08-21 01:47pm

Ziggy Stardust wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:It doesn't make sense even from a neutral perspective. The guy is a perfectly simulated male, like a blue Vitruvian man. That's not bad CGI at all, although the fact that he's blue and seemingly godlike might give others a few odd thoughts.
From the clips in the trailer, it didn't look good. It wasn't "flawless" as someone here earlier claimed. Something about the proportions didn't quite look right.

I also find it incredibly odd that people are bashing me for my "ignorance" of the original work. Is this movie an invite-only affair, just for people who are fans of the comic? Get over yourselves.

I wasn't bashing you for it -- I was using your ignorance to explain your statements. Yes, when viewed without knowing the story, the costumes do tend to look a little goofy, but as this is supposed to be how they look, more or less, then they actually look right. As I said, this is a useful perspective, but if what you're trying to say is that the costume designers (for example) got something wrong by going in the direction that they did, then no, that's where the usefulness of your perspective ends.

Ziggy Stardust · Post by **Ziggy Stardust** » 2008-08-21 01:57pm

SCRawl wrote: I wasn't bashing you for it -- I was using your ignorance to explain your statements. Yes, when viewed without knowing the story, the costumes do tend to look a little goofy, but as this is supposed to be how they look, more or less, then they actually look right. As I said, this is a useful perspective, but if what you're trying to say is that the costume designers (for example) got something wrong by going in the direction that they did, then no, that's where the usefulness of your perspective ends.

If it is supposed to look bad, then I guess they got it right. But the general tone of the trailer was quite serious, which doesn't seem to mesh well with goofy character design.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2008-08-21 03:02pm

The tone of the comic is deadly serious. The slightly goofy designs are supposed to stand out. The essential point of Watchmen is a deconstruction of the concept of the costumed superhero, and how silly they would, in reality, be.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2008-08-21 05:04pm

The whole point is "how can you take yourself seriously when you dress up like a giant owl or like some sadomasochist Greek".

The Comedian was the only vigilante who seemed in on the joke.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2008-08-21 07:06pm

Vendetta wrote:The tone of the comic is deadly serious. The slightly goofy designs are supposed to stand out. The essential point of Watchmen is a deconstruction of the concept of the costumed superhero, and how silly they would, in reality, be.

Rorschach's costume is incredibly impractical, but doesn't look at all goofy to me. But yeah, one problem I had at first with the movie designs was that Nite Owl's costume didn't look goofy enough.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2008-08-22 06:11am

Dave Gibbons Q&Aon Watchmen and the early cut of the film he's seen