As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Watchmen.

124

Posts

  • MonkeydryeMonkeydrye Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Whether you liked 300 or not, it was pretty dang faithful to the original Graphic novel. Based on that, I think Zak may do it as much justice as possible. I think i read him saying that he may push to make it two movies or a trilogy, so that it can be done right.

    I agree that it may not be as good as the original format...but so what? The Harry Potter movies aren't as good as the books, but they are still good.

    As for Doc Manhattan...CG may be a good idea...if you make it a real person, you run the risk of him looking like a naked version of the blue man group and male version of the X-Men movie Mystique.

    Monkeydrye on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Disturbed_1Disturbed_1 Registered User
    edited April 2007
    300 hundred was great to.

    Disturbed_1 on
    captain_america.gif
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    300 hundred was great too.

    300,000? Is that the sequel?

    DarkPrimus on
    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • edited April 2007
    OK. This is just an idea of the top of my head whilst reading the thread. Have the Doc be hand drawn into all the frames like in Roger Rabbit (with a far more sensible art style of course).

    References the comics and how he shouldn't really be there.

    I'm in a good mindset with these adaptions now. After League of Extraordinary Gentleman hurt every brain cell in my body - I assume they will be so bad I can actually enjoy them.

    I enjoyed V for Vendetta just because I got to the see the Mask walk about. And managed to let the rape of the book wash over me.

    Lave on
    poirot1vi.gif
    Scholar and a Gentleman? Critical of bad science and religion? Skeptobot - Is for you!!
  • Disturbed_1Disturbed_1 Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Dude. That would be pretty cool for him to be drawn. Only if they had a good artist though.

    Disturbed_1 on
    captain_america.gif
  • HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User
    edited April 2007
    TakeOnMe.jpg

    Hooraydiation on
    Home-1.jpg
  • Garlic BreadGarlic Bread Registered User, Disagreeable regular
    edited April 2007
    Lave wrote: »
    OK. This is just an idea of the top of my head whilst reading the thread. Have the Doc be hand drawn into all the frames like in Roger Rabbit (with a far more sensible art style of course).

    References the comics and how he shouldn't really be there.

    That's pretty dumb

    Garlic Bread on
  • BitstreamBitstream Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Keith wrote: »
    Lave wrote: »
    OK. This is just an idea of the top of my head whilst reading the thread. Have the Doc be hand drawn into all the frames like in Roger Rabbit (with a far more sensible art style of course).

    References the comics and how he shouldn't really be there.

    That's pretty dumb
    I'm not sure it is. I guess I'd need to see CGI vs hand-drawn in motion, but either way I think Jon definitely needs to be more 2-dimensional in appearance. He was basically projecting an image of himself into our plane of existence, right? I don't know, I guess I'd expect him to look flatter than normal 3D objects.

    Bitstream on
  • HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User
    edited April 2007
    I don't know where you guys are getting this. Everyone thought he was a human until the end, and someone too visually bizarre will have the audience going, "What did you expect?" when everyone finally realizes that he's as detached from mankind as God, and not just a blue man in underoos. To convey what you want, Dr. Manhattan needs to be played by a good actor, not constructed entirely out of computer magic.

    How does a 2-D man have sex with a woman anyway?
    Well if Flatman is any indication, he doesn't!

    Hooraydiation on
    Home-1.jpg
  • ShoggothShoggoth Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Am I the only one who thinks they should just paint a naked guy blue?

    In the comics he's essentially just a naked blue guy. There's nothing to suggest he isn't solid most of the time. Doesn't the fact that he's blue stand out enough? That's otherwordly enough for me.

    Shoggoth on
    11tu0w1.jpg
  • BitstreamBitstream Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I'm not saying he was 2-dimensional. He was superdimensional, though, and I'm not really sure how to convey that on film without at least partially subtracting a dimension (since it's sort of hard to add them).

    And wait, who thought he was a human? He was a big blue electric dude who exploded people with his finger.

    Bitstream on
  • Disturbed_1Disturbed_1 Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Exactly. Not to meation he walks through walls and does stuff like make matter.

    Disturbed_1 on
    captain_america.gif
  • Disturbed_1Disturbed_1 Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Shoggoth wrote: »
    Am I the only one who thinks they should just paint a naked guy blue?

    In the comics he's essentially just a naked blue guy. There's nothing to suggest he isn't solid most of the time. Doesn't the fact that he's blue stand out enough? That's otherwordly enough for me.



    Well there might be some paper cuts.............

    Disturbed_1 on
    captain_america.gif
  • HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User
    edited April 2007
    You're acting like all those things demand that a character look like some crazy protrusion into the 3rd dimension FROM BEYOND when there are plenty of comic characters who are able to accomplish comparable feats while retaining their humanity, even if they can do more than the prototypical human.

    If Dr. Manhattan looks completely inhuman from the very start, then he can't become more inhuman as the story progresses until he finally rockets off to create life. There's nothing to work towards, and character progression is more or less ruined.

    Maybe the problem is that people are remembering the character as a whole, and forgetting how he was treated (just a guy with amazing powers) in the beginning of the story.

    Hooraydiation on
    Home-1.jpg
  • Disturbed_1Disturbed_1 Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Ok. Youve got a really good point.

    Disturbed_1 on
    captain_america.gif
  • edited April 2007
    Hooraydiation has convinced me (but Keiths a big doo-doo head) it was just musing after all. But I still like the idea. He is the only one with superpowers after all.

    Maybe start with a blue painted actor and have him slowly become a drawing, and more abstract. But thats probably moving to far from the book.

    As long as they get his cock out I'll be happy. Him not seeing the point for clothes is weakened if they "action man" him.

    EDIT: size=4 isn't small on the new forums anymore....

    Lave on
    poirot1vi.gif
    Scholar and a Gentleman? Critical of bad science and religion? Skeptobot - Is for you!!
  • Garlic BreadGarlic Bread Registered User, Disagreeable regular
    edited April 2007
    look

    he's a blue man

    he's naked

    he doesn't need to stick out more than that

    also lave is a buttsniffer

    Garlic Bread on
  • MonkeydryeMonkeydrye Registered User
    edited April 2007
    What if you use and actor, but "blue" him using computer effects? That way he doesn't look like he's in prothetics or covered in makup.

    Monkeydrye on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Disturbed_1Disturbed_1 Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Theres some many things they could do but how would we know which one looks good?

    Disturbed_1 on
    captain_america.gif
  • Dublo7Dublo7 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    They could probably just give Manhattan the "Mystique" treatment.
    But just never ever have him say "That's my slave name".

    Dublo7 on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Crazy Old MoriseCrazy Old Morise Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Yeah I just read Watchmen for the first time recently. Its a great comic, and the way in which the story is presented is amazing, and I can see where it gets its reputation, but I just didnt find any of the characters that memorable or likeable except for Rorschach. It definately doesn't come close to touching Sandman as the best graphic novel in my mind. Something about Watchmen is just ... dry, and it keeps the reader at arms length at all times.

    Crazy Old Morise on
  • HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Something about Watchmen is just ... dry, and it keeps the reader at arms length at all times.
    What do you mean?

    Hooraydiation on
    Home-1.jpg
  • ShoggothShoggoth Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Yeah I just read Watchmen for the first time recently. Its a great comic, and the way in which the story is presented is amazing, and I can see where it gets its reputation, but I just didnt find any of the characters that memorable or likeable except for Rorschach. It definately doesn't come close to touching Sandman as the best graphic novel in my mind. Something about Watchmen is just ... dry, and it keeps the reader at arms length at all times.

    Sandman is up there, it's quite good.

    Watchmen's setting is finite, and that's a big part of why I love it. What Watchmen did was not compromise the story by dragging it out issue after issue like every other comic ever.

    Sandman while mostly amazing (esp the fourth trade) suffers from a dull story arc here or there for me.

    Shoggoth on
    11tu0w1.jpg
  • Disturbed_1Disturbed_1 Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Exactly.

    Disturbed_1 on
    captain_america.gif
  • Rabid_LlamaRabid_Llama Registered User
    edited April 2007
    On the subject of the movie, does anyone else think it would be cool if they rotoscoped the whole thing like they did with A Scanner Darkly. That could solve both the Rorschach's mask problem and the Doc Manhatten problem with the added benefit of making it look like the comic in motion.

    Rabid_Llama on
    /sig
    The+Rabid+Llama.png
  • Herr CaesarHerr Caesar Registered User
    edited April 2007
    On the subject of the movie, does anyone else think it would be cool if they rotoscoped the whole thing like they did with A Scanner Darkly. That could solve both the Rorschach's mask problem and the Doc Manhatten problem with the added benefit of making it look like the comic in motion.
    It'd also solve the problem of me wanting to see it.

    Herr Caesar on
    civbandit.jpg
  • Disturbed_1Disturbed_1 Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Ya. That worked for that movie but it wouldnt work anywhere else.

    Disturbed_1 on
    captain_america.gif
  • ShoggothShoggoth Registered User
    edited April 2007
    On the subject of the movie, does anyone else think it would be cool if they rotoscoped the whole thing like they did with A Scanner Darkly. That could solve both the Rorschach's mask problem and the Doc Manhatten problem with the added benefit of making it look like the comic in motion.

    I fail to see how there is a doc manhatten problem.

    He's blue.

    You colorize the actor blue.

    Problem solved.

    I don't think any effort should be made to make the movie seem like a comic book. The comic book is even made to seem like less like a comic book.

    Shoggoth on
    11tu0w1.jpg
  • El DudarinoEl Dudarino Registered User
    edited April 2007
    I don't see Doc Manhattan as being just blue. I think he looked like he was glowing, but not actually radiating light from his body. full brightness as someone said.

    El Dudarino on
    lebowski11.jpg
  • ShoggothShoggoth Registered User
    edited April 2007
    I'm looking through Watchmen right now and I see him as just blue.

    Only thing that sets him apart from everyone else is he's not shaded with any colors. His body is 99% of the time one shade of blue and the shading is implied with lines.

    He still just looks blue to me. I'm inclined to believe it's that way because Gibbon's is lazy, but who knows.

    Shoggoth on
    11tu0w1.jpg
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Gibbons wasn't the colorist, was he?

    And the colorist was in no way lazy for Watchmen.

    DarkPrimus on
    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • ShoggothShoggoth Registered User
    edited April 2007
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Gibbons wasn't the colorist, was he?

    And the colorist was in no way lazy for Watchmen.

    No he wasn't, John Higgins is (had to look it up, my bad).

    As far as Doc Manhattan goes I'm going to assume the colorist was lazy. There's nothing in the art to suggest he's anything but a naked blue man from what I can see.

    Shoggoth on
    11tu0w1.jpg
  • BitstreamBitstream Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Shoggoth wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Gibbons wasn't the colorist, was he?

    And the colorist was in no way lazy for Watchmen.

    No he wasn't, John Higgins is (had to look it up, my bad).

    As far as Doc Manhattan goes I'm going to assume the colorist was lazy. There's nothing in the art to suggest he's anything but a naked blue man from what I can see.
    I'm still sticking with that being a deliberate choice, pointing out the wrongness of Jon being in the room. I suppose it's also why I feel the "shading" on movie-Doc needs to be somehow different, be it CGI or rotoscoping or whatever.

    Bitstream on
  • BriareosBriareos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Shoggoth wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Gibbons wasn't the colorist, was he?

    And the colorist was in no way lazy for Watchmen.

    No he wasn't, John Higgins is (had to look it up, my bad).

    As far as Doc Manhattan goes I'm going to assume the colorist was lazy. There's nothing in the art to suggest he's anything but a naked blue man from what I can see.

    Nothing except the fact that he can change size at will, pass through solid objects, produce multiple copies of himself each of which is simultaneously individual and not, burn a symbol into his forehead, reconstitute his corporeal body from the inside out, and survive on Mars completely unchanged.

    He is not a man. He is not human.

    Also, artists don't color one of their man characters by mistake. At least, not artists on par with Higgins. If Doc Manhattan appears to be other-worldly and not human, then I can say with a high degree of confidence, his appearance is intentional.

    Briareos on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Disturbed_1Disturbed_1 Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Plus he darkens his color in the story too.

    Disturbed_1 on
    captain_america.gif
  • secondserkissecondserkis Registered User
    edited April 2007
    There was a period of time (I think he said a week) where Darren Arofnosky was tapped to direct the film. I suggest anyone who hasn't seen THE FOUNTAIN to rent it in May, and just think about what a Watchmen movie would've been like in his hands.

    2 words:

    Marvel Ous

    secondserkis on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ShoggothShoggoth Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Briareos wrote: »
    Shoggoth wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Gibbons wasn't the colorist, was he?

    And the colorist was in no way lazy for Watchmen.

    No he wasn't, John Higgins is (had to look it up, my bad).

    As far as Doc Manhattan goes I'm going to assume the colorist was lazy. There's nothing in the art to suggest he's anything but a naked blue man from what I can see.

    Nothing except the fact that he can change size at will, pass through solid objects, produce multiple copies of himself each of which is simultaneously individual and not, burn a symbol into his forehead, reconstitute his corporeal body from the inside out, and survive on Mars completely unchanged.

    He is not a man. He is not human.

    Also, artists don't color one of their man characters by mistake. At least, not artists on par with Higgins. If Doc Manhattan appears to be other-worldly and not human, then I can say with a high degree of confidence, his appearance is intentional.

    And yet he does all of that (change size at will, pass through solid objects, produce multiple copies of himself each of which is simultaneously individual and not, burn a symbol into his forehead, reconstitute his corporeal body from the inside out, and survive on Mars completely unchanged) all the while not being human but LOOKING EXACTLY LIKE A NAKED BLUE MAN.

    He might not be human, but he still looks exactly like a naked blue man.

    It's impossible to say why doc wasn't shaded with more colors without asking the colorist. I think the coloring in Watchmen was great, don't get me wrong. But I'm not going to say it's amazing, it was REALLY sloppy in some places and to me, Doc's monotone color seems like it was executed out of haste.

    The story does allow for some deviation just because the character isn't that strictly defined, if they wanted to give doc a faint glow or something I could live with that on the screen. I just think something way out there would be annoying especially since every other character in the comic is so portrayed with such realism.

    Shoggoth on
    11tu0w1.jpg
  • zadrugazadruga Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Shoggoth wrote: »
    Briareos wrote: »
    Shoggoth wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Gibbons wasn't the colorist, was he?

    And the colorist was in no way lazy for Watchmen.

    No he wasn't, John Higgins is (had to look it up, my bad).

    As far as Doc Manhattan goes I'm going to assume the colorist was lazy. There's nothing in the art to suggest he's anything but a naked blue man from what I can see.

    Nothing except the fact that he can change size at will, pass through solid objects, produce multiple copies of himself each of which is simultaneously individual and not, burn a symbol into his forehead, reconstitute his corporeal body from the inside out, and survive on Mars completely unchanged.

    He is not a man. He is not human.

    Also, artists don't color one of their man characters by mistake. At least, not artists on par with Higgins. If Doc Manhattan appears to be other-worldly and not human, then I can say with a high degree of confidence, his appearance is intentional.

    And yet he does all of that (change size at will, pass through solid objects, produce multiple copies of himself each of which is simultaneously individual and not, burn a symbol into his forehead, reconstitute his corporeal body from the inside out, and survive on Mars completely unchanged) all the while not being human but LOOKING EXACTLY LIKE A NAKED BLUE MAN.

    He might not be human, but he still looks exactly like a naked blue man.

    It's impossible to say why doc wasn't shaded with more colors without asking the colorist. I think the coloring in Watchmen was great, don't get me wrong. But I'm not going to say it's amazing, it was REALLY sloppy in some places and to me, Doc's monotone color seems like it was executed out of haste.

    The story does allow for some deviation just because the character isn't that strictly defined, if they wanted to give doc a faint glow or something I could live with that on the screen. I just think something way out there would be annoying especially since every other character in the comic is so portrayed with such realism.

    I see you haven't read much Alan Moore. Little of the work he attaches himself to is out of haste. Even when it looks that way, (V for Vendetta) its done on purpose. But asides from that, as for Doc, look at more then the visuals. Actually read it. Of course he was something more then a man. And everyone knew it. Several people mention being scared about it. I think a lot of people are missing the point about him having powers too. The thing was, he was the only one. No one else. He was a god and everyone knew it. Look at the flashback with the scientist on TV.
    I don't think a lot of people really get what Watchmen was. Its not just important because of its good story. Its important because its literature. Its like in the early years of the novel. From penny dreadfuls to War and Peace. From Captain America and the Human Torch fighting the Nazis to Watchmen.

    zadruga on
  • ShoggothShoggoth Registered User
    edited April 2007
    zadruga wrote: »
    Shoggoth wrote: »
    Briareos wrote: »
    Shoggoth wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Gibbons wasn't the colorist, was he?

    And the colorist was in no way lazy for Watchmen.

    No he wasn't, John Higgins is (had to look it up, my bad).

    As far as Doc Manhattan goes I'm going to assume the colorist was lazy. There's nothing in the art to suggest he's anything but a naked blue man from what I can see.

    Nothing except the fact that he can change size at will, pass through solid objects, produce multiple copies of himself each of which is simultaneously individual and not, burn a symbol into his forehead, reconstitute his corporeal body from the inside out, and survive on Mars completely unchanged.

    He is not a man. He is not human.

    Also, artists don't color one of their man characters by mistake. At least, not artists on par with Higgins. If Doc Manhattan appears to be other-worldly and not human, then I can say with a high degree of confidence, his appearance is intentional.

    And yet he does all of that (change size at will, pass through solid objects, produce multiple copies of himself each of which is simultaneously individual and not, burn a symbol into his forehead, reconstitute his corporeal body from the inside out, and survive on Mars completely unchanged) all the while not being human but LOOKING EXACTLY LIKE A NAKED BLUE MAN.

    He might not be human, but he still looks exactly like a naked blue man.

    It's impossible to say why doc wasn't shaded with more colors without asking the colorist. I think the coloring in Watchmen was great, don't get me wrong. But I'm not going to say it's amazing, it was REALLY sloppy in some places and to me, Doc's monotone color seems like it was executed out of haste.

    The story does allow for some deviation just because the character isn't that strictly defined, if they wanted to give doc a faint glow or something I could live with that on the screen. I just think something way out there would be annoying especially since every other character in the comic is so portrayed with such realism.

    I see you haven't read much Alan Moore. Little of the work he attaches himself to is out of haste. Even when it looks that way, (V for Vendetta) its done on purpose. But asides from that, as for Doc, look at more then the visuals. Actually read it. Of course he was something more then a man. And everyone knew it. Several people mention being scared about it. I think a lot of people are missing the point about him having powers too. The thing was, he was the only one. No one else. He was a god and everyone knew it. Look at the flashback with the scientist on TV.
    I don't think a lot of people really get what Watchmen was. Its not just important because of its good story. Its important because its literature. Its like in the early years of the novel. From penny dreadfuls to War and Peace. From Captain America and the Human Torch fighting the Nazis to Watchmen.

    I've read my share of Moore, don't be presumptuous. I've read Watchmen a few times.

    Never did I say Alan Moore did anything out of haste. Look, the whole thing about Doc being one shade only even applies in like a handful of panels, everyone else is colored in one color most of the book any way. I honestly think there is nothing significant about it. Doc Manhattan looks like a blue man with a symbol on his forehead.

    Does he have incredible powers? Yes. Is he godlike? Yes. He is still however an entity who manifests itself as human, even if he's blue. He's anthropomorphic, he speaks English, he occasionally shows human emotions ect.

    Should they portray him in the film as a giant glowing man with shit loads of visual effects popping out all over the place? I don't think so. I think that's deviating too far from Watchmen. I'd even argue that's deviating too far from the actual character, a being who attempts to be human again. But that's just me, I'm sure plenty of people would love something more ostentatious.

    Also I'm pretty sure everyone understands how significant Watchmen is, and that it comes from having a literary depth RARELY found in the medium of comics. As I mentioned before the fact that it's finite, and the fact that Moore has kept it that way is also noteworthy. Watchmen is really a very different beast than most of western comics, especially compared to comics of the time.

    There's a lot of depth in Watchmen, and I think a lot of people understand that.

    Shoggoth on
    11tu0w1.jpg
  • Disturbed_1Disturbed_1 Registered User
    edited April 2007
    You cant just paint a guy blue for the Doc. It just woudnt be right. And im not saying this beacuse of nudity but beacuse as lots off people have said and i agree. He supposed to look werid. Your brain isnt supposed to understand why theres this man here. If you paint a guy blue and put him on screen people arnt going to understand what he is.

    Disturbed_1 on
    captain_america.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.