Why I will not be seeing Watchmen.
71 Comments | Posted: February 19th, 2009 | Filed under: Thinking About Comics, Thinking About Movies | Tags: alan moore, dave gibbons, watchmen, zak snyderDespite being an avid fan of Watchmen, purchasing multiple copies over the years and tracking down issues of magazines like Amazing Heroes and The Comics Journal from the period of the series’ release, I can’t help but look down on the upcoming cinematic version (you know, the one with the action figures, coffee, condoms, ad nauseum.) If you know me, you’ve heard me scream that Watchmen is at its core a comic book, much like Citizen Kane is a movie. It uses its medium’s strengths and weaknesses to the story’s advantage throughout, doing things that can’t work on screen, even if you take each and every panel from the book, carefully edit the voiceovers into it, and ensure that each line of dialogue is exactly as it appears on-page. I can go on and on about the technical aspects, but there’s a more important element that’s sitting at the core of my misgivings about this slick-looking piece of superhero cinema.
Watchmen is at its core a drama. Yes, there’s a mystery that brings its main cast of players together, but it’s really about broken people and the fucked-up lives they lead. Laurie and Walter’s respective relationships with their mothers; the way Dan’s nostalgic values and fierce devotion to an intellectual ideal leads him down a lonely path; Adrian and Jon’s parallel devotion to logic, with the first becoming more alien as the other is held aloft as the height of humanity – all of these make the book work, and that’s where the real power of Watchmen lies, not in the (elegant and rewarding to be sure) investigation into the murder of Edward Blake. Even as they peel apart the superhero meme, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons devote a considerable amount of the book’s pagecount to exploring the common man in all its diversity (the newsstand vendor and the kid who reads pirate comics, the lesbian couple’s relationship woes, the psychiatrist who becomes obsessed with Rorschach.)
It’s this elegant dissection of people that allows Laurie’s realizations about her father to have a greater impact that the multiple pages devoted to Veidt’s final solution and its implementation. Moore is telling a story about everyone while Snyder, with his video game cutscene aesthetic and the stilted, too-mannered performances that pervade the clips available of the film, seems to have missed that point entirely, focusing on the costumed identities and the mystery. Yes, these are a few short pieces of scenes from a movie with a 2+ hour running time, but they seem quite telling. The riot scene from the 70s becomes high camp thanks to music by KC And The Sunshine Band and a jump that takes place in slow motion because it looks cool. Laurie and Dan’s re-emergence as superheroes is positively generic in its execution, lacking charm and tension entirely. Perhaps in the context of the film, these scenes have more power, but as someone who has read the book at least a dozen times over the years and knows how each beautifully-constructed simulacrum of a scene from the book fits into that story, I can’t help but pre-judge.
The more I see of the film version of Watchmen, the less I like it, and perhaps more importantly, the more I dislike what it represents: the dumbing-down of something greater for the sake of a false “authenticity” that’s apparent only to those shallowest of readers of the source material. Zack Snyder may have a made a movie that’s called Watchmen, features a cast of characters directly from the book, and liberally makes use of the book’s contents, but I’ll be very surprised if it has any of the original’s heart.
Damn you. Why you got to make me think about things? *sigh*
Oh shit, condoms? Time to go buy me some glow in the dark Dr. Manhattan rubbers.
They’re a promotional item, so, you know. They’re free!
While I appreciate your thoughtful point-of-view, I gotta say…lighten up! I hate to think it but one of the only reasons we’re still even given the chance to buy comics is because Hollywood is essentially subsidizing the industry through their passion for remakes (and the cash that goes with it).
I share your worry, but I’m still going to head in. A glutton for punishment, that’s me. The only thing that gives me any hope, is that from interviews with Zak Snyder he seems to really get it. This was his baby, that he pursued and wanted to get made. Does this mean that it will be successfully transferred to the big screen? I agree with you, probably not. And I HATE the slow-motion shots that are all over the previews.
If nothing else it got thousands of people reading the graphic novel that might not have otherwise, so there is some tangible good coming out of it.
“Hollywood pays our bills, so we should be grateful for the scraps they throw us!”
Sorry, that doesn’t cut it.
I actually want to see this movie. I’m a fan of Snyder, and though I’m fairly certain he won’t do anything but the surface story… I still have to KNOW.
I’ll probably see it through Netflix in six months, but yeah. It could be the best goddamn movie ever and I still know it won’t hold a candle to the source material. Unfortunately, I’d rather bet it’s going to be a soulless pile of rubbish.
“one of the only reasons we’re still even given the chance to buy comics is because Hollywood is essentially subsidizing the industry through their passion for remakes (and the cash that goes with it).”
wat.
Any money from Hollywood comics movies goes to about three people in the comics industry. Films have in no way proven to contribute to week-to-week comics sales. It’s the same 350,000 wolfshirts buying comics every week. Hollywood has nothing to do with it, as they’re focused on an audience that’s infinitely larger.
I have to agree: As more clips get released, I am less interested about seeing this film. Maybe I’ll go read the trade again.
At least with something like X-Men Origins: Wolverine, you get what you expect: A bunch of buff dudes beating up on each other. The Watchmen film might have just take all the wind out of the legitimizing effect the book’s had for the comic book industry for years.
I feel like someone should start a pool on when Kevin gives in and goes to see it despite all this. But….eh, who cares?
(Then why did I respond? Why? Because it’s the internet! My lunch break boredom must be soothed!)
I’ll go in on that action. You have no idea how stubborn I can be and how much I’ve come to dislike going to the theater in the last few years.
I pretty much share most of your underlying concerns, but I’d argue that in the current movie studio climate it’s absolutely 100% impossible to make any judgement on a film based on pre-release marketing. In my own dealings with studios it’s become increasingly clear that teasers, release clips, EPK’s, press-releases, whole campaigns are commissioned, assembled, and approved by people who have no interest whatsoever in reflecting the underlying property – but rather accessing precisely targeted demographics to ensure return. This started with the bizarre trend a few years back of constructing conflicting “genre” trailers that make the same film look entirely different depending on what it’s playing in front of.
With “Watchmen” the WB marketing flacks have clearly decided to push anything remotely resembling “300″ to the fore – as that clearly will resonate with… someone… fans of “300″ I guess.
I’m not saying that “Watchmen” will be any good – it could be indeed what they are selling – but it’s increasingly important to divorce what we are “sold” prior to a films release with what that movie actually “is”.
Put another way, in an alternate reality where Snyder had made a film that, say, spent ninety minutes focusing on the relationship between Moe Vernon and Hollis Mason’s dad – the marketing, promotion, and release clips of the film would look *exactly the same*.
Kudos for skipping the obvious and not titling this post “I won’t be watching the Watchmen.”
Naturally, I did think about the marketing aspect versus finished product quite a bit with this, but it was the clips that really held sway with me. Yes, it’s a combined two minutes of footage for a 100-something minute long movie, but there is literally no tension in them. Nite Owl and Rorschach’s conversation feels like it belongs as a coda to According To Jim‘s very special Spandex Fetishists episode, while Dan and Adrian talking about the death of The Comedian is less interesting than any given autopsy on CSI. It’s like there’s no direction to the story, only to the action.
I try to watch these previews and think about what they look like to someone who hasn’t read the source material.
And I can’t keep from chuckling everytime they toss up that come-on, “You’ve never seen superheroes like this!” but stuff on the screen — from the slow-motion shots to the light and even costume designs — look EXACTLY like every other superhero movie from the last five years.
Brad’s got an excellent point: while I’d hesitate to say marketing has NO impact on me, whatever impact it may have is negligible. Not that you can’t build up any kind of gut feeling about a movie… but it’s better to base that gut feeling more on who’s involved than on how the commercials are cut.
Which is what Kevin has done, clearly indicated when he says “It’s like there’s no direction to the story, only to the action.” Which is Snyder to a T.
I say this as someone who rather likes Zak Snyder movies. I think he has a tendency to see a movie screen as a palette, rather than a constriction, which puts his movies in the same class as, say, Speed Racer: wildly inventive visual feasts that can be rather dizzying for anyone looking for a story-driven film.
Watchmen is story-driven, which is where the problems come in… and I’m not underselling Gibbons’ contribution; his work is as important to telling the story as Moore’s script. Snyder has proven himself capable of creating what I like to call “moving paintings”: his stuff is downright impressionistic, relying more on how they make you feel and react than the more cerebral work of something like Watchmen. I have confidence in him as a filmmaker, but not necessarily for THIS film.
I suspect we’ll see a fairly literal rendition of the comic (one that puts “murder mystery” first, though “murder mystery” ranks 5th or 6th–at best–on my list of “what the comic is about”) that raises nothing more than a rousing “Eh” from the nation’s critics, with a few parties railing one way or another. Comic fans will react as they do, but who gives a fuck about them?
And, again, that said: I really want to see it. I just have to know how it turns out.
And, my standard closing line: The Dark Knight has rendered the idea of a Watchmen movie — specifically, a movie that “changes everything” for superhero movies — largely irrelevant. Key to TDK’s success in that arena is that film is its home turf.
After “LXG” (ugh), From Hell and V for Vendetta, having positive expectations for a film adaptation of an Alan Moore comic fulfills Einstein’s definition of insanity. They always screw something up. (V wasn’t terrible but it suggested he had romantic feelings for Evey, From Hell combined the main characters and turned it into a whodunit, and LXG just got everything wrong.) I’m not saying it’ll be a total trainwreck, but I have sincere doubts it’ll be satisfying. I just hope he keeps the slo-mo to a minimum. It got so very tedious in 300.
All I’m sayin’ is that comics are fun. Movies are fun too. Sometimes movies based on comics are good. Sometimes comics based on movies are good. But come down off your high horse and enjoy them for what they are.
The machine may be evil, but good people are pouring their hearts into making the best Watchmen adaptation they can. Until you’ve seen it, who are you to judge their efforts?
Golly, Scott, I’ll get right on that. The phrase “…for what they are” is my most hated thing in criticism. It’s a fanboy panacea that allows them to swallow the bitterest of pills. The Dark Knight was a fantastic movie because it was a well-written, well-acted, and well-directed film, not because it had Batman in it. Speed Racer is something I find genuinely enthralling because it takes place in its own world, is confident from its opening frames, and provides a sense of kineticism that no other movie has achieved. Watchmen looks to be a too-literal, lifeless adaptation of a work instead of being its own film. For what it is (a movie based on a book I enjoy,) it looks like it’s going to be of very little interest to me.
Well, if they keep putting up advance clips of the film that prove my point, then how can I avoid judging their efforts? I’m very sorry my judgment doesn’t appear to align with yours in this case, but that’s what free will and intelligence can do for people.
“Stuff is just stuff, guys! Whatever!”
Scott, I think you’re on the wrong blog.
“They always screw something up.”
Who is “they”? Surely you’re not referring to an industry populated with tens of thousands of people with different goals and objectives as a single entity.
Zak Snyder he seems to really get it. This was his baby, that he pursued and wanted to get made.
Yeah, how’s that Spirit movie that Frank Miller really wanted to do working out for you?
Fine, replace “They” with “The people directly responsible for adapting the works, be they the screenwriters, directors or producers” so you don’t think I’m talking about the key grip. I apologize if I tripped a pet peeve with my lack of specificity.
While you’re well within your rights to not see the movie, and you may be entirely correct in your assessment of the film, I find it a little silly to judge an entire film on a few small clips. The movie won’t be the comic book, something which should be self-evident, and it might be terrible and miss all the important notes, but I’m waiting until I see it to pass judgment.
Again: why did they put the clips out there, then? Oh, right, to hype the movie. We surely shouldn’t use them as the basis for a decision to not see the film, then. Sorry.
Oh, and thanks for telling me my rights.
Frowny:
Yeah, but you’re still suggesting some connection between four different adaptations by four completely different creative teams. Hell, they weren’t all even handled by the same producers… or studios, for that matter. So what value of “they” applies here?
And yeah, it is a pet peeve of mine. “Hollywood” is not a monolithic entity, and what Stephen Norrington did with LXG has sweet FA to do with what Snyder will do with Watchmen.
You’re probably right, Ken. I hope you drew a couple snarky chuckles at least with your paraphrase of my comments.
However, three bad movies based on one writer’s source material back-to-back does indicate that there might be a fundamental disconnect between Alan Moore’s scripts and the way a large number of people in Hollywood think. It’s almost as if – wait for it – he’s writing for another medium.
The truly good adaptation is rare, and usually because the films take liberties with the source material to make it work on-screen instead of slavishly reproducing the original work. LA Confidential boils down an 800+ page novel into a movie that’s less than two hours but is extremely satisfying, even to someone who is as…we’ll say enthusastic a fan of Ellroy as I am. It can be done, but it has to be done by working within one medium, not by photocopying another.
Of course we’re supposed to use the clips to decide whether or not we want to see the film. That’s why I started my comment as I did. My issue comes not with using them to decide whether or not to see the film, but declaring the movie to be “the dumbing-down of something greater…” That’s the sort of assessment I’ll reserve for those who have actually seen the film. Something I’m guessing I shouldn’t be looking for here, since you won’t be seeing it.
Everyone knows the only medium Watchmen can be appreciated in is the ancient art of the Punch and Judy puppet show.
Sure, but even in “back-to-back” there’s wiggle room… namely in the number of years between each adaptation, shifting conventional wisdom on what “works” on screen, and so on.
Watchmen sat idle for YEARS, but in the wake of Spider-Man 2‘s success (and S-M3′s relative failure, largely blamed on the inclusion of a studio-mandated character) and Batman Begins/TDK it seems far more plausible for a studio to let a successful filmmaker basically do whatever he wanted with a large chunk of money.
I think we’re in “studio backlash” territory now, what with The Spirit‘s massive failure, but there are so very many factors in what gets made, why, and how, that broadside “theys” drive me nuts.
But your larger point about adaptations is spot on. I think awhile ago it seemed like Snyder was prepared to make his movie a commentary on other similar movies, which is absolutely The Right Track. I’m skeptical on if that’s panned out, though.
Everyone knows the only medium Watchmen can be appreciated in is the ancient art of the Punch and Judy puppet show.
Yes, and my upcoming interpretive dance production of Big Numbers will rule you all.
Since I feel about this way about every single adaptation of a novel to film that I have ever seen, I’m not too concerned about it. If anyone can recommend a film that adapted a novel to the screen that didn’t turn out to have ripped the guts out of the work and only presented the superficial shell as the film, I’d be interested in knowing what it is (novels, not short stories – it seems to be somewhat easier to translate the essence of a short story to film than it is to do that with a novel).
And since I long ago decided that I’d either have to ignore that bit of my brain and judge the film on it’s own merits or just not watch an adaptation of a work to film again, I’ve made some compromises. Some I’ve seen and enjoyed … ahem .. “on their own merits” (The Lord of the Rings trilogy, for example, works quite well on it’s own merits. Even if it rips the guts of the source material right out and only holds the superficial shell of the story up for display, Jackson is able to put his own mark on the work enough to make it a worthwhile endeavor in its own right) and others I’ve just skipped.
I’ve been long debating which way I’ll take with Watchmen. I’ll probably end up seeing it, though not opening weekend and maybe I’ll wait until the local $2 theater shows it. I don’t see anything in the hype that makes me think the film will be all that good “on it’s own merits”, and since that’s the only way I can allow myself to judge adaptations, I’m just not enthused.
I will say, though, that this movie has already gotten a number of folks I know to read the novel for the first time. And so if the hype exposes more folks who might like this stuff to the novel, it’s probably worthwhile. And if the movie is even passably entertaining, there will probably be some more people who are driven to read the novel – if only out of curiosity over what bits Snyder changed and what bits were in the book originally. So in that respect I’d count any passably entertaining film version of the book as a potentially “greater good than ill” for the book.
(Snyder set himself up for a trap with this, though – make a film out of a work that has enough depth to be a mini-series, with a relatively small budget, and a fanbase that is hyper-critical of anyone playing with the work to make it their own. If he’d changed the work too much to make it his own, his target audience would have rebelled. But using the book as a storyboard and filming a completely “true-to-the-source-material” version of material doesn’t work because it necessarily will be lesser than the source material. That’s the main reason why I’ve thought for the last decade or so that the book would be unworkable as a movie – there’s no room for another creator to slip in and put his own mark on the material and still have something that won’t be met with disdain by the target audience).
I pretty much agree with everything in this post, although I can see Moore getting a chuckle out of the Dr. Manhattan condom.
“And, my standard closing line: The Dark Knight has rendered the idea of a Watchmen movie — specifically, a movie that “changes everything†for superhero movies — largely irrelevant. Key to TDK’s success in that arena is that film is its home turf.”
I heard you mention this on a Joe VS. Ken episode a while back and it managed to raise my opinion of The Dark Knight, while simultaneously dampening any enthusiasm I had for Watchmen. It just makes sense– the Watchmen of superhero movies should be written for the screen, not translated from a comic book. I just hope that we don’t get Hollywood’s interpretation of the grim and gritty 90′s now, but with a possible Youngblood movie on the horizon, it doesn’t look good.
I also want to add that if the rumored ending is true, then Snyder really did miss the point. You can’t substitute untying the Gordian Knot for cutting it.
I agree with you, but I will go to see it because, while I love great comics, I also love really bad movies.
I expect to be laughing my ass off.
I really, really, really believe that Watchmen the movie doesn’t need to adapt the book–it needs to be a good MOVIE.
If it’s a good MOVIE, I don’t give a shit whether they captured every nuance of Moore/Gibbons work. For that matter, if it’s a bad movie, that doesn’t matter much either. I believe true adaptation absolutely has its merits–taking the core of a work and translating it to another medium, along with whatever has resonance and meaning about the work from the POV of the person doing the adapting. But the success of an adaptation should rest on its success on its own terms, not on its ability or failure to capture every level and aspect of the original work. Harry Potter 1 & 2 were way too reverential about their source material, and as a result, I think they’re boring and stiff.
Fortunately, they’re not running around and torching every copy of the graphic novel before they put the movie out, so it honestly doesn’t really matter.
I do agree with Ken’s assessment that Dark Knight pretty much did what Watchmen seems to be trying to do, in terms of telling a different caliber of story using superheroes on film.
I just watched that tenement fire rescue clip, and I think it’s the most disappointing thing I’ve seen so far. In the comic, that scene is all about the little moments — Dan reminding himself where all the buttons on the control panel are, Laurie sniping at the rescuees. “Charm” is exactly the right word. This is . . . not charming. Ah well. I had let myself get my hopes up a little.
Wow. There was not a single one of those clips that was not absolutely awful.
I mean, I was initially leery given how heavily the promotional material and the images Snyder was releasing were fetishizing Rorschach and the Comedian, but seeing the actual footage outside of the context of a promotional highlight reel is frankly dismal. If there was any doubt after 300 that Snyder has no idea about how to elicit a good performance from actors, this should put them to rest.
Every scene here just falls completely flat, and it’s so obvious that he’s completely focusing on visual spectacle to the detriment of every other aspect of the storytelling. But who cares about dialogue delivery and a convincing performance when we can throw in some more BAD ASS SLOW MOTION? It’s a comic book anyway, you guys!
Well, man, I dunno. You guys can all have fun sulking and pouting, I’m going to go to the movies and probably enjoy the hell out of it. Even if the movie is terrible, I go home afterward and I can read the same Watchmen comic that I had before the movie came out.
Yes, it’s not going to be “Watchmen:The Comic:The Movie”, but I think Snyder is doing the best job he can and really has a passion for the work. It’s not like Snyder pulled Orson Welles off the project so he could do it, and better Snyder than say, Brett Ratner or Michael Bay, right? I guess I just don’t understand what there is to be upset about when someone who genuinely loves Watchmen is making a Watchmen movie. Think about how bad it could have been! (and also think about the fact that, really, you have no idea how bad or good it is based what you’ve seen).
Plus, Dave Gibbons has given it all sorts of thumbs-ups and was really genuinely excited about it when I saw him at Comiccon.
Speaking of Dave, let’s talk about something more positive. Did you guys read The Originals? That shit was pretty damn good. Thoughts?
Kevin, thank you for being a responsible human being and someone who actually appreciates both what makes comics unique and what is exactly of value where there is value to be had in the superhero genre. If WATCHMEN were to have been anything other than what it was, Moore would have done something else rather than a comic, regardless of how long it would have taken him to accomplish. Of anyone on this matter, Geoff Klock had made perhaps the most compelling argument in his book HOW TO READ SUPERHERO COMICS AND WHY for why Watchmen had to be exactly what it was when it was, from which one can clearly see (though a formal reading of it alone should make this clear enough) that it does not and will never lend itself in any constructive way to any adaptation because its deeper aesthetic merits lie in how it functions in terms of and what it has to say about the aesthetic politics of the superhero genre which are completely tied into things that are specific and unique to both comics and superhero comics. An it’s also in this, moreover, that its unique, utterly singular value lies — it’s a comic in the fullest most indivisible sense (a comic qua comic). I would say that anyone who has any appreciation of the superhero genre, comics, and narrative moreover really owes it to him/herself to read Klock’s book (for a host of reasons, it changed my life, actually) whenever they get the chance, and that one has an obligation, if he/she honestly believe that WATCHMEN has affected their life profoundly in some way (as it did mine when I first read it), at least upon its initial release, not to support this pathetic and repellant bastardization cooked up by Zak Snyder. More power to you, Kevin.
I’ll go see because it’s my job. And the curiousity would kill me.
But I’ve been worried from the first slow-mo shot. Why so much Slow Mo Zak? WHY?
What i’m still wondering is what will the civilians think? The non-comic crowd…
I like how doing one’s best automatically means one cannot possibly fail.
Kevin, why do you hate the scene?
Jer:
I think your point is interesting… since the “guts” of a novel, or the richer meaning that is derived from any reader’s interpretation and emotional connection to the events, will change based on the experiences of said reader.
HOWEVER, some novels whose adaptations I’ve enjoyed as being the “essence” of what those books meant to me when I read them:
A Room with a View
The Green Mile
Beloved
Jaws (although, to be honest, it has been quite some time since I read that book and I cannot really remember if the movie “gets it.”
Apocalypse Now (and I’d argue this is the heart and soul of what you’re getting at: the movie cleanly dissects the point of Conrad’s work and shoots it scene for scene while totally and effectively “replacing” it elsewhere and when)
Snow Falling on Cedars (which is a tremendous book if you’ve not read it but do yourself a favor and stay away from Guterson’s Our Lady of the Forest whose final chapters are pretty much the author just throwing up his hands and saying “I don’t really know where I’m going with this.”)
Oh, and the Showtime original movie Lolita with Jeremy Irons is excellent and even for once finds something to do with serial sex-actor Irons that captures the ridiculous fopishness of Irons being a sex-actor.
I think those are all pretty good. But again, the experience of these movies takes the “heart” of what those novels spoke to me and translated it well into a completely different medium. And I think Kevin’s point is that Watchmen cannot accomplish that feat in principle.
Chris, you know that’s not what I meant.
Really? Because your central point seems to be that Snyder really likes Watchmen and really wants to make a movie about it, neither of which has any bearing on the quality or necessity of the finished product.
I mean, I like skateboarding and I want to do a totally awesome McTwist over a helicopter, but I’m pretty sure that would end terribly.
Kevin’s right that the corallary to what I said before is absolutely that you can base a judgement on what promotional material the studio choses to release – my underlying point remains that whoever chose *those* clips, and released them at *this* time have objectives entirely different than “accurately representing the film”.
That isn’t to say judgements about elements can’t be made (“Look out vietcong CGI solider!”) – but that drawing an inference to the film as a whole is a sticky wicket. I can pretty much guarantee that there’s one cringe-inducing out-of-context clip in everyones favourite film(s).
Where I’m absolutely on-board with Kevin is that “Speed Racer” was a great film. I’d go farther that it’s possibly the most important film of 2008 – and that’s coming from a guy with a BFA who’s a foreign academy member.
Or, if you’re me, awesomely.
Well, my main point was really in the first sentence. The second paragraph was more like “this is nowhere near as bad as it could have been”. I know as much about how good the movie will actually be as you, any of the commenters here, anyone else who’s seen the trailers and Comiccon footage (which was pretty awesome). It’s certainly not a guarantee that the movie’s going to be good, but if it’s up to me, I’d rather have a director that cares about the source material (I think X-Men1/2, Spider-Man 2, Dark Knight and Speed Racer are great examples here) vs one who doesn’t (er, LXG, X-Men3, etc). Anyway, I know this isn’t going to convince anyone who’s already dead-set on hating it based on the marketing clips, so this is all irrelevant anyway.
Seriously, though, The Originals was great, right? Did anyone hear Dave on TSOYA? What a good dude.
Can we go a day–ONE DAY–without you trying to get me chopped up by helicopter blades?!
Pete, I’m sorry, but I’m too busy sucking to bother responding to any of your points. I hope somebody else can fill in that gap.
While I have misgivings as well, I’m reminded of the sentiment that prevailed before the Sin City movie hit us- how could the movie medium do the comic novel any justice?- yet it did. IMHO, anyway.
Good movie bad movie what does it matter anyway? It can’t/shouldn’t dilute your love for the source material. You’ll still be a member of the “I loved it more when it was just a comic” cool crowd.
Well played, Church. That wasn’t good of me and didn’t really reflect what I thought, so I took it down. I think your comments in the post are a little harsh and I think your overall conclusion is a little snobby maybe, but I don’t know you from Adam, so maybe you’re really great.
As for the slow-motion, I think it can be realllllly played out in mediocre movies who aren’t taking it much past bullet-time, but I thought Zack used it really well in 300 as a way to capture these really powerful “moment-in-time” images from the source comics. I think taking a second to pause on that really great Gibbons image of the Comedian busting through the window is pretty effective, as long as it’s not overused when inappropriate. Different strokes, I guess.
Brad, I completely agree with you on Speed Racer. I left that theater (twice!) thinking “Jesus, what the hell just happenned, I have never seen anyone do anything even remotely close to that with movies.” LOVED it.
I won’t see Watchmen because it looks like a sucky movie. Then again, I rarely watch movies anymore. They just seem like an enormous waste of time.
Man, sometimes the Internet is a fascinating place. Someone can post something on his own personal Web site that says, “I will not see this movie because I anticipate it would disappoint me, and I would rather not be disappointed. Instead I will do something that will not disappoint me.” And like 20 people show up and say, “nuh-uh, it’s gonna be good, or at least you don’t know it’s not.”
By “fascinating,” of course, I mean “dismayingly predictable.”
Well, ya got me there. It really HAS gotten a lot worse out there in the seats, hasn’t it? In fact, I’m kinda shocked these days when I get to hear a whole movie in one sitting.
I think this round goes to you, sir.
“I like how doing one’s best automatically means one cannot possibly fail.”
I do not understand, Chris. Are you actually suggesting passion for something can go wrong? When has that ever happened?
Kevin, I think I may have found the silver lining in all this.
The “suits” will never get their hands on MIRACLEMAN and make a Blockbuster du Jour out of the last of Alan Moore’s remaining “classic” works.
At least that will remain sacred and we won’t get Kid Miracleman Condoms.
Kimota, bitches, and I’m out!
Having actually seen Watchmen – it’s been screened outside the US for media in advance of upcoming promotional tours by the cast – I can safely say that it’s, um… well, pretty much exactly what you’d expect. That is to say, it is as close to a direct transfer from comic to movie as they could manage, which makes it both halfway decent and pretty depressing, depending on what you were hoping for.
For example, when you turn every one panel fight into a cool slo-mo fight scene, you suddenly have a movie that feels a lot more violent than the comic did. And when you don’t have room in your film for all the average NYC residents, the climax has a lot less impact. And then there’s Nixon’s nose – didn’t they have any photos of the real Nixon in 1985 they could have based the make-up on?
The best comparison I can make is that Watchmen takes the same path as the V adaptation did: gets the surface details right, not so great on what it all means. It does do a better job then V of getting the surface stuff right, which means that plenty of scenes work just as adaptations, but it’s still pretty hollow.
Gee, Jim, by “his own personal website” do you also mean, “a widely read opinion blog, complete with a comments section?”
Anyway, Kevin, what Brad said. You know, they’re not marketing it to you, the guy who has read it a dozen times over the years. They’re marketing it to the rest of the world who just wanna see things go kick-’splode. Of course, Snyder probably made the movie you’re dreading, or at least a version of it and it might not, even if he had your best interests at heart (he didn’t), come anywhere close to a movie version of the graphic novel that you’d wanna see. And that’s fine.
I for one am glad that I’ll be able to go with my friends to a cool looking movie, slo-mos and all, and be the guy who “knows about Watchmen”. That’ll be fun for me. In fact, a couple of them have asked to borrow my copy of the book so they can read it before they watch the movie – look at that, more people who wanna read comics, because Zak made his movie.
So don’t go see it, that’s fine. I’m just not sure, based on your post, that anyone could have done the movie justice for you. For me though, I’m glad someone attempted to anyway, for the reasons I mentioned above.
There is a persistent misunderstanding among many people that just because cinema and comics are both “visual mediums†they are somehow interchangeable. Well, they’re not, at all.
One of the comic medium’s greatest strengths is that it exists outside the province of time. As three dimensional beings, looking down on the two dimensional comic page, we are able to view that “world†in much the same way as Doctor Manhattan can. We see the past, the present, and the future simultaneously.
In order for The Watchmen Movie to have any possibility of success, we would have to view it from the fourth dimension, and as far as I know, they aren’t going to be handing out 4-D glasses at the screenings.
My husband has not read the book, so when he sees the Watchmen commercials he says “That’s looks so cool!”, whereas I am concerned.
I think we’ll go see it before he reads it, and then have him read it immediately after. I’d like to see how our perspectives differ.
I’m not expecting to love it, I’m not expecting to hate it.
I’ve been pretty hesitant about this film for a while, but had also been avoiding these clips until today. Snyder loves Watchmen, but he also loved 300 — this is not a good sign. The slow motion explosion in the tenement fire scene actually made me laugh — this is not a good sign. The clumsy attempts at drama in Dan’s various serious conversations with people — these are not good signs.
“I dislike what it represents: the dumbing-down of something greater for the sake of a false “authenticity†that’s apparent only to those shallowest of readers of the source material.”
I can certainly understand and accept where you’re coming from, but this phrase bothers me greatly. It makes you seems like you’re better than everyone that wants to see this movie and, God forbid, might actually enjoy it. Can’t people like the comic book as a brilliant work of art and portrayal of an era and also enjoy the movie just for what it is, a movie?
I’m sorry I wrote something that bothered you.
I watched some of the clips link to in this article, and they really weren’t as horrible as I thought they’d be. No, it’s not Felini, but it’s probably a good deal better than the film version of LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN.
The overall question is will it cheapen the value of the novel, and I think that perhaps to an extent it will, but not in the long run. Does anyone think first of THE GREAT GATSBY as a Robert Redford movie?
Mr. Church, as far as media tie ins go you forgot to mention the best of the bunch; a cell phone video game featuring The Comedian walking through the jungles of The ‘Nam(tm) fistfighting the Viet Cong and whores, Streets of Rage-style.
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/video-and-picture-preview-of-watchmen-mobile-cell-phone-game
Also, that Nite-Owl/Rorschach handshake scene was painful to watch. I’m monumentally sad over it. That was worse than expectations, and I had some very, very low expectations.
Well, like Shawn said, I totally agree that the movie is distinctly not marketed towards someone like you Kevin, or me for that matter, as people who have read the book dozens of times since high school. I never had any hope for anyone in the cast (I mean the Comedian is played by a guy who plays Katherine Heigl’s dead boyfriend on Grey’s Anatomy–were you even trying to get good actors?) I think where this movie will come out in the giant win pile is the fact that it will literally get a ton of people reading the book and that’s a huge win in my book, and that’s what its marketed towards–new people. Not people who read this site.
You know, I never thought it was going to be as awesome as the comic, but I think it’s not going to be a bad movie. At the very least, the people making it appear to be genuine and sincere fans of the comic. It’s not going to be the disaster that has befallen, oh, let me think, Daredevil? Catwoman?
So I’m going to see it. Without buying into the hype, without expecting anything like the brilliance of Alan Moore, I am going to go and see a movie. It’s going to be fun!
You know, I understand to a point. I am one of those people who likes books better than the films made based on them.
But I won’t boycott a film just be cause it’s based on a book or comic. I’m willing to be proven wrong. I’m willing to see all the evidence.
It might not be full price at the theater. it might be at home, or at a friend’s house who has cable. But I won’t just say no to a movie based on subject matter.
The reason for this is so I can say in a conversation “I saw this, and based on my experience, this is what I think.” The opposite approach is to demonize something that might not be demonic. It seems extreme to me to speak in absolutes. I wouldn’t condemn homosexuals to hell, I don’t think people of other religions are going to burn, and while I think Communism is doomed to failure I’m willing to be proved wrong.
I see no point in drawing a line in the sand over a frigging movie.
However, I will point out that some movies should not have been made, but rather the funds donated to world charities. That piece of crap Eragon film is one of them!
Bottom line, I’ll see Watchmen. The theater/film company may not see any money from me for it, but I’ll see it and decide. I may wait for DVD and borrow it from a friend. That way, my conscience is clear. Just in case.
I hope you enjoy Watchmen, then.