Japanese ‘Watchmen’ trailer lays it on thick

Posted by · 6:34 pm · January 6th, 2009

Tricky Dick AND the Kennedy assassination?  Boy, they’re really going for it.  And my vote is the Japanese trailer dude should narrate all trailers from now on:

→ 16 Comments Tags: | Filed in: Daily

16 responses so far

  • 1 1-06-2009 at 6:49 pm

    Kevin said...

    Waitaminute, I’ve read WATCHMEN many times, and I don’t remember The Comedian being the second shooter in the Kennedy assassination!

    Curious and curiouser…

  • 2 1-06-2009 at 6:56 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    Tell me about it.

  • 3 1-06-2009 at 7:12 pm

    Lane said...

    They mentioned the Kennedy assassination in Watchmen? I do not recall. They never had panels on Nixon either.

  • 4 1-06-2009 at 8:03 pm

    Mr. Harmonica said...

    I’m going to just go ahead and reread Watchmen on March 6th, thanks.

  • 5 1-06-2009 at 8:59 pm

    JAB said...

    Nixon’s in like a second of it, nothing like what they show in this trailer though…

  • 6 1-06-2009 at 9:00 pm

    JAB said...

    the book that is.

  • 7 1-07-2009 at 4:16 am

    Jonathan Spuij said...

    Hmm that’s sure a lot more changes than there should be. And they talk about not being able to cram all the stuff from the novel in there. Insanity!

  • 8 1-07-2009 at 7:45 am

    actionman said...

    This film looks phenomenal. At least from a visual standpoint. Have never read the graphic novel, nor do I intend too. Just want to see the film.

  • 9 1-07-2009 at 9:45 pm

    Michel said...

    It is implied in the novel that the Comedian was involved in the assasination of Kennedy and also in the invented murder of Woodraw and Bernstein, the Watergate scandal reporters.

    Nixon has several brief appearances in the comics, if you count the arrival to VietNam and the posters and graffitis talking about him and his third term. Besides, Nixon appears in the Situation Room when Manhattan goes to Mars, as does Kissinger.

    Castro never appears in the novel, but it is mentioned by two men talking in a washroom where Osterman rematerializes himself.

  • 10 1-07-2009 at 9:49 pm

    Michel said...

    Actionman, I highly recommend reading the graphic novel. Not only it is really the most celebrated comic of all times (the trailers don’t lie about that), but also was included in Time’s list of the “100 most important pieces of Literature since 1923” and it was the only comic on it. It’s not a hard read at all. Read it, really, it is the best advise I can give you right now.

  • 11 1-07-2009 at 10:07 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    Agreed with Michel.

  • 12 1-07-2009 at 10:42 pm

    Michel said...

    I remember that when I finished seeing The Return Of The King, I thought Jackson had really accomplished a masterpiece adaptation. The films departed many times from the books, many times in ways that were inferior to the book, but were a few defeats in an ocean of successes. Maybe I’ll eat my words when the Watchmen film comes out, but these trailers are not making me feel like I’ll see a completely satisfactory adaptation. I understand many of the decisions: Moore’s novel is strong in complexities and benefits a lot from multiple views, and Snyder simplifying some of that would be only logical. He’s aiming for a mainstream audience and needs to dumb down things a little. But, then again, even the detailed precision of the shots, emulating the comics panels doesn’t do it for me. The Lord Of The Rings trilogy had that advantage, it was visual fest of what I had imagined reading Tolkien’s work, but with Watchmen, the visuals are already there, and trying to compete with Moore’s and Gibbon’s near perfect transitions from panel to panel (something that only works on paper, and not the screen, IMHO) is a fool’s errand.

    But I digress. Perhaps (hopefully) I’ll eat my words on March. If Fox wants to, of course.

  • 13 1-07-2009 at 11:05 pm

    Scott Ward said...

    “He’s aiming for a mainstream audience and needs to dumb down things a little.”

    Exactly Michel. Kris, this is something similar to what I was getting at in a previous post when I talked about Synder. I had sound reason for what I said about him. Like Michel, I really want the film to be great, but I’m very cautious because I think it has a bigger chance of being an average, dissapointing movie rather than the masterpiece many feel it will be.

  • 14 1-07-2009 at 11:26 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    I don’t buy it. You’re banking on one film for that “sound reason.” And that one film was supposed to be a visual feast above all else. You’re not giving the guy the benefit of the doubt that, in my opinion, he deserves.

  • 15 1-07-2009 at 11:58 pm

    Michel said...

    For those of you trying to have a better understanding of what has been accomplished with the movie, this is a HEAVILY SPOILERISH review of the current script. I read it, and it’s very favorable, at least on paper. We must reckon that, until this point, all we have seen are trailers, which are only footage set to “cool” music. I think the deal-breaker for me will be the quality of the performances. If the performances don’t work, the film won’t work. But, like I said, this review is very favorable, and has a seemingly quite thorough list of the which elements made it into the movie and which were left out or changed.



  • 16 1-09-2009 at 12:52 am

    BurmaShave said...

    DAWN OF THE DEAD is a masterpiece, 300 is okay, I’m hoping this is somewhere in between rather than continuing the downward spiral.