Did I mention that I'm excited now, too?

The first two issues of the 6-issue series were excellent, but then, while I enjoyed the rest, it didn't quite follow through to my satisfaction.

this movie has NOTHING to do with the comic. they abandoned the entire superhero premise. its just a movie about assassins . with crappy matrix bullet time.
but the jolie crotch shot has me intrested. im not trying to be crude. im just being honest , as what i have seen of the special effects in the trailers hasn't impressed me. it might end up being one of those movies ostensibly based on a book , but that really has nothing to do with the book.

like STARSHIP TROOPERS .

@antimatty: "this movie has NOTHING to do with the comic."

Frankly, in this instance, I count that as a positive.

Okay, so I'm not buying this whole 'She's a super assassin" stint.

Let me make sure I'm understanding this right. She's some sort of super-assassin. She knows in this hit, she's going to be dealing with some other super asssassin with super-powers and heavy artillery.

And she shows up in heels and a skirt?

Seriously?

@Evdor: And she shows up in heels and a skirt?

that's because she's a *super* assassin.

honestly, i saw this trailer a while ago, and didn't connect with the fact that it was evern remotedly based on the comics - which, haveing read this better description of the plot, pretty much confirms that it's nothing like the book.

this is, imho, both good and bad. the comics suffered a bit from Mark Millar's "look how edgy i write" syndrome, which does not affect *all* his work, mind you, but this one especially so. That said, the premise of the book was excellent, and it's a shame they seem to be avoiding it.

Ok.
I just watched the trailer they have on Apple trailers and w000t?
It was badly edited and showed me just a mish-mash of "cool" posturing, gadgets and bullets.
Now, I have no problems with gadgets, bullets and a seekrit organisation of assassins, but c'MON? Also, Morgan Freeman? Really?
I'm getting to be so tired of Mr.Freeman that the mere hint of his mature-as-oak voice spouting profoundisms gives me a rash. In the brain.

Maybe yous guys saw a clip where the continuity was way better, but from what I've seen I can only go "meh".

I don't think film adaptations have to be accurate to the source material to be enjoyable. As long as you can hit a on some of the right notes, it can end up alright if not a little disappointing. This will probably negate any validity my comment might have, but I actually liked the Starship Troopers movie.

That said, I loved WANTED (the comic). I thought it was a clever concept. I thought the "look how edgy I write" fit the tone and point of the story entirely. To me, it was an original take on a story told from the villians' point of view, made brilliant by the way it handled it's allusions to comic mythology and history.

I think it could have survived toning down certain elements of the original material. And I think you could even omit entire plot points... but I don't think (from what I've seen in the trailer) it can survive the reworking of its core concept.

People were disappointed in Starship Troopers when they dropped the power armor. If they had also dropped the military theme and civilian/citizen commentary, it would have been unrecognizable. I think dropping the super-hero theme from WANTED is more in line with the later, the story could have survived if Wesley and the gang never actually suited up in costumes. I don't think it will live up to is source material having dropped the super-hero mythology.

I'll see any movie with Morgan Freeman in it. The most disappointing was the recent _The Contract_, which was just OK.

I just watched the trailer, and I'll definitely go see it. I was disappointed that Angelina didn't have "fox ears", though.

"Upskirt" became a verb when? ;)

I'll join the cries of "do not want" above- especially after viewing the trailer. Good ol' rooskie Timur knows himself a good visual, but he's incapable of stringing together a coherent plot or any semblance of characterization.

And the first tolling of the death knell was the casting of Jolie. Mrs. Smith Pt. 2.

Millar created a mostly entertaining comic. I sure hope they paid him well so he can go write something else decent for this "in name only" adaptation.

What I want to know is why they're even bothering to say it's based on the comic. Given that the story is almost completely unrelated why not just claim it's an entirely original work. Less likely to tick off the people who liked the comic that way, and they won't raise any sure-to-be-disappointed expectations.

the comic book is just soooo.....gah, i have no words, i don't know that i'd want to watch a movie of it, so the fact that this movie is nothing like the comic books makes me happy

Here's the puzzling thing to me. If the film makers are dropping, in my opinion, key components of what made the comic so original (regardless of whether or not you liked the source material) then why even call it "Wanted." Why not just come up with a whole new movie/idea and go from there? Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Don't get me wrong, I love Timur's visual style and it would've fit great with a movie like "Wanted" but as Han Solo said, "I've got a bad feeling about this."

Also, seems telling that Millar says he "likes" the movie rather than "love" it. Doesn't sound like a resounding endorsement.

Having never read the comic, I can safely say that I will not be whining about how unlike the comic it is when I go see it.