The Watchmen movie

[Tamburlaine]

Is anyone else out there dying for this movie to be finished, yet slightly apprehensive that they might make a mess of it?

[commander43]

Unfortunately, I think it's virtually impossible to make a good movie out of this book. It's more cerebral and detail oriented then any other comic I've ever read.

They did an okay job with V for Vendetta (although it has nothing on the book), but I just can't see Watchmen being made into a good movie.

[Tirian]

The movie is going to be a very beautiful train wreck. I don't hold out any hope for anything better. Alan Moore has said that he has no intention of ever watching a Watchmen movie, and I'm inclined to follow his lead.

In theory, the movie will create new readers for the original work, which is welcome as it is among the finest novels of the twentieth century. But in practice, I suspect that it will follow the same course as V or LXG or Constantine in which a mediocre movie makes people shrug their shoulders and say that now they don't need to bother reading because they know that it is a bland Hollywood story. Also, I do regret that any new readers will not have my experience of reading the first nine chapters without knowing who the BBEG is, but apparently that already happens.

[Kaelaroth]

I kind of want to see it, as I am a fan of massive budget Hollywood sci-fi movies.

But then I realise how easily it will be to ruin, and I cry inside. :smallfrown:

[....]

I very much look forward to it. I loved the V movie, found it better than the book, actually, and Zack Snyder made 300 and the remake of Dawn of the Dead, two of my favorite movies.

As for Alan Moore not going to see it, well, who cares. He's got his head so far up his own rear that he's breaking the laws of physics by looking out of his own mouth.

[feghoot]

I very much look forward to it. I loved the V movie, found it better than the book, actually, and Zack Snyder made 300 and the remake of Dawn of the Dead, two of my favorite movies.


Dude, why? :smalleek:

[Corinthian]

... and Zack Snyder made 300...

I don't know if you have noticed the works of Millar, but they tend to blend in well with the movies since that's his style... Millar's comics are compatible with the big screen... Moore's are not


And I fear the Watchmen... but I'm still having hopes for it to be at least nice, and nothing like LXG or Constanteen

[Finn Solomon]

Really looking forward to it. I've gotten so I kind of ignore Alan Moore's habitual moans, and I will enjoy the movie on its own merits. It shouldn't be compared to the graphic novel, and I have no doubt it can stand up well enough on its own.

[tetsubo]

I just don't understand how anyone can look forward to this movie. Every other Moore based movies as sucked hard. And with watchmen being even more intricate story than anything else how can it possibly be good? I would not be surprised if the only thing that it has in common with the book is the title and possibly a few of the main characters. It would not be the first time something like that has happened to a book turned movie.

As for Moore being upset about the movies who can blame him, If Hollywood turned something I made in to steaming pile I would be upset too.

[Finn Solomon]

I just don't understand how anyone can look forward to this movie. Every other Moore based movies as sucked hard. And with watchmen being even more intricate story than anything else how can it possibly be good? I would not be surprised if the only thing that it has in common with the book is the title and possibly a few of the main characters. It would not be the first time something like that has happened to a book turned movie.

As for Moore being upset about the movies who can blame him, If Hollywood turned something I made in to steaming pile I would be upset too.

Zack Snyder's a good director, and I trust him to come up with a good adaptation. How fun would it be to see Rorscharch or Dr. Manhattan brought to life, regardless of whatever they do to the plot? Alan Moore complains too much, I enjoyed V For Vendetta the movie much better than the novel. However, I do agree with him that the novel and the movie are two different things, and must be judged on their own merits. I would not be surprised to see a smart, edgy, political thriller that Hollywood's capable of making, especially if guys like Jude Law get to play the parts that they want.

[SnowballMan]

Well, given that I've not heard who is adapting the script, who is directing it or who they are considering acting in it, I only have the movie industry as a whole to judge how this film will turn out. Given that:

It will suck.

It will suck so hard, vacuum cleaners will become jealous.

I have lost all faith that the industry could ever pull off a movie like this. My only hope is that they get some good sounding actors and keep certain lines intact. At least then I could salvage some sound files out of it.

[tetsubo]

Zack Snyder's a good director, and I trust him to come up with a good adaptation. How fun would it be to see Rorscharch or Dr. Manhattan brought to life, regardless of whatever they do to the plot? Alan Moore complains too much, I enjoyed V For Vendetta the movie much better than the novel. However, I do agree with him that the novel and the movie are two different things, and must be judged on their own merits. I would not be surprised to see a smart, edgy, political thriller that Hollywood's capable of making, especially if guys like Jude Law get to play the parts that they want.

Zach seems to be a good director. With really only 2 big releases it is hard to say one way or another and since I really did not like dawn of the dead I cannot say that he is a great director. However my dislike of it had really nothing to do with the directing. Which is my point even a good director cannot make up for a crap script and that is what will happen. It will be a crap script and if somehow it is not it will be after editing because it will have to be edited down to only be 90 min long as the average moviegoer cannot stay in the seat longer than that.

As for a smart, edgy, political thriller. I would have to think Hollywood is actually capable of making a movie like that to think that they can make that type of movie.

[....]

Dude, why? :smalleek:

The book is so utterly convoluted and layered that the message of the story is hard to pick out from it.

Also the character of V is much more likeable in the movie, as is the character of Evee.

And some of the things that V does to people are sort of stretching credulity, IE: Driving a man insane by burning his dolls.

The movie does have down-sides, I didn't like that the government 'tricked' the people into voting them into power. Works much better when you realize people don't have to be tricked to do stupid things. But on the whole, the movie was better.

But even if it wasn't, people should take Stephen King's approach. He knows 99% of movies based on his books suck, but he dosn't care. Why? Because the books are there, they won't change, they'll be around forever. People say things like, 'Hollywood turned Moore's art to crap', but they didn't. Moore's work is printed and sold. I own copies of V and Watchmen. Even if the movie is just Rorsarch making out with the Silk Spectre, I'll still always have the real book to read. Just take the movie for what it is, a movie.

[SteveMB]

But even if it wasn't, people should take Stephen King's approach. He knows 99% of movies based on his books suck, but he dosn't care. Why? Because the books are there, they won't change, they'll be around forever. People say things like, 'Hollywood turned Moore's art to crap', but they didn't. Moore's work is printed and sold. I own copies of V and Watchmen. Even if the movie is just Rorsarch making out with the Silk Spectre, I'll still always have the real book to read. Just take the movie for what it is, a movie.

There is also the cynical view allegedly taken by Michael Caine: "I have never seen [Jaws: The Revenge], but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific."

[Rare Pink Leech]

A few months ago, when they just released the casting choices for the main cast, I was reading a lot about the movie, watching interviews with Zack Snyder, and I was really totally freaking excited for the movie.

Then that died down with time, and now I'm merely excited. Which is good, since every other time I've been that exicted for a book or movie, I've been universally let down (hype kills otherwise good books/movies, people). So now I'm not getting my hopes up - I'm merely looking forward to it, and I plan on keeping it that way. If it isn't very good, I won't be as disappointed then.

Something we should all keep in mind is that it's not going to be a perfect portrayal of the book, especially since we all regard Watchmen in our own way. Yes, there will be some changes to the story. Yes, there will be stuff let out. Yes, some of our favourite lines may not make the final cut, and sometimes the characters will be presented in a way different than the way we saw it in our heads. Deal with it. If you want it to be just like the book, then read the damn book.

Regarding Snyder being the director, I'm pretty neutral. The only film of his I've seen is 300, which I saw after reading the book. On the one hand, it was amazingly faithful to the book. On the other hand, 300 isn't in the same stratosphere as Watchmen when it comes to storytelling and characters. I'm also not a fan of Snyder's decision to add the storyline involving the queen. I'm fine with changes and omissions to make a story work better as a movie (Peter Jackson did well when changing and omitting things when making the Lord of the Rings movies), but this was unecessary. My biggest fear is that he'll add some lame plotline to Watchmen.

[Tamburlaine]

Lame plotlines like a romantic subplot that is resolved happily for all the characters, especially Rorschach! Or something involving time travel assassination and ending up in a parallel dimension!

[Rare Pink Leech]

Lame plotlines like a romantic subplot that is resolved happily for all the characters, especially Rorschach! Or something involving time travel assassination and ending up in a parallel dimension!

By ending up in a parallel dimension, do you mean they end up in our Earth, or a third dimension? :smalltongue:

[commander43]

Blech. I didn't like 300 at all. I haven't even read the comic, but I didn't like the movie. Maybe I'd like the movie if I read the comic, but ehhh.....

[Green Bean]

By ending up in a parallel dimension, do you mean they end up in our Earth, or a third dimension? :smalltongue:

Or maybe the Archie-verse! :smalltongue:

Page 1 (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h87/osiris32/1183456802672ig5.jpg)


Page 2 (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h87/osiris32/1183456829403pp6.jpg)

[....]

I think the queen subplot was added just to put so more running time, and give a break from the combat scenes.

I mean, we all love watching Spartans tear through mooks and monsters and rhinos, but an hour and a half of nothing but combat would get boring and dull the awesomeness of Spartan fighting.

[feghoot]

The book is so utterly convoluted and layered that the message of the story is hard to pick out from it.

That may be because Moore focused on moral ambiguity in V for Vendetta, so there are at least two different ways of interpreting each character and their actions. For instance, is V really a good guy? Was he really trying to save England or ensure its destruction?


Also the character of V is much more likeable in the movie, as is the character of Evee.

The V in the comics was... unsettling, to put it mildly. He'd go around talking to statues, stalking evey, and well, acting pretty darn creepy (Allow me to introduce myself. I’m a man of wealth and taste. :smalleek: ) The movie V seemed reduced to a generic super hero to me, though a good deal more funny.


And some of the things that V does to people are sort of stretching credulity, IE: Driving a man insane by burning his dolls.

Yeah, I've always hated that part too. In fact, if you enjoy black humor, its rather funny. The rest of the series was played with a straight face though.

Well, except the part with the cutlass. :smallsmile:


The movie does have down-sides, I didn't like that the government 'tricked' the people into voting them into power. Works much better when you realize people don't have to be tricked to do stupid things. But on the whole, the movie was better.

The movie is good if you want to see swashbuckling action in an dystopian future. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just not what the comic's about.


But even if it wasn't, people should take Stephen King's approach. He knows 99% of movies based on his books suck, but he dosn't care. Why? Because the books are there, they won't change, they'll be around forever. People say things like, 'Hollywood turned Moore's art to crap', but they didn't. Moore's work is printed and sold. I own copies of V and Watchmen. Even if the movie is just Rorsarch making out with the Silk Spectre, I'll still always have the real book to read. Just take the movie for what it is, a movie.

The real difference here is that King says its Ok, were as Moore foams at the mouth if you bring it up. Thats why I'm hesitant to go see the forthcoming watchmen movie.

Edit: Btw


Allow me to introduce myself. I’m a man of wealth and taste.
Stones quote Ftw! :smallbiggrin:

[MisterSaturnine]

I'm not really sure how they'd make it into a movie. It's one of the few things I'll reread, and I'm more apprehensive than excited for it to come out. But I'm hoping I get proved wrong. I usually am.

[....]

.The real difference here is that King says its Ok, were as Moore foams at the mouth if you bring it up. Thats why I'm hesitant to go see the forthcoming watchmen movie.

Like I said before, Moore is obsessed with how cool he is, and his opinion should always be ignored.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I wouldn't badmouth Alan Moore. He's a wizard, you know.

[Turcano]

I wouldn't badmouth Alan Moore. He's a wizard, you know.

Will he turn us into a newt?

The movie could be nearly identical to the graphic novel and Alan Moore would still be pissed off with it. Of course, he's had a few bad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Hell_%28film%29) scrapes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_League_of_Extraordinary_Gentlemen_%28film%29) with Hollywood, but V for Vendetta was better than he could have realistically hoped for.

[Shatteredtower]

Will he turn us into a newt?"Newt them. New them all!"

(Cookie for the first person who can identify the source of that quote.)


The movie could be nearly identical to the graphic novel and Alan Moore would still be pissed off with it.Yeah. Sad thing is that he knows better. The movies have no effect on his product, save to draw attention to them.

I liked Constantine, to be honest. That's not the character Alan Moore wrote, but neither was Mr. Delano's take, nor Mr. Ennis', and I admit I tired of the book shortly after that, so I can't say if anyone else wrote him the same.

But then, Mr. Moore's Swamp Thing wasn't what Len Wein created, and Mr. Wein couldn't have been happier.

If I wanted a "faithful" remake, I'd photocopy the original. What I got from the film was someone else's vision, and it was recognizably close enough to be familiar to anyone that has read some of the authors that put it together. It was closer to faithful than Bram Stoker's Dracula (which borrowed heavily from Fred Saberhagen) or I Robot or Starship Troopers (which was like paying to see "The Little Engine that Could" and watching the engine spend its entire time under the wheels of a monster truck rally, a hundred miles from the nearest set of tracks).

I also liked V for Vendetta, even if it avoided the anarchy vs. fascism question, replacing the former with democracy and phrasing it instead as an answer. The film improved on a few problems with the original (Britain surviving a nuclear war was a big one, but they also avoided Finch's use of drugs in the lamest excuse for detective work I have ever read). The decision to give Britain a comfortable standard of living was also a good one compared to the comic's desperate state -- the latter doesn't challenge us at all. It doesn't speak to what's relevant in our world, which both Alan Moore and David Lloyd wanted to do. (Mr. Lloyd wrote that V for Vendetta was written for people who don't switch off the news. The movie had a field day with that point.)

It took an omniscient character down a few notches, making the god into a monster by virtue of making him more human. While I'm not entirely happy with the romance angle, the Dumas' parallel makes it acceptable to me. Hell, the movie was a damned sight better when it came to the portrayal of female characters (eliminating both of the most offensive cases and making Evey more independent of V's plans while more faithful to his better nature.

And of course it made the film more relevant to the general American audience, while still having it set in Britain. Granted, it was damned heavy-handed at times, but I'm grateful for that on at least one occasion: despite having read the series at least a dozen times over the years, I'd never once noticed the major difference in the parallel between V's rebirth (in fire) and Evey's (in water).

As for Watchmen? I admit I'd prefer a trilogy... with extended scenes on the DVD. Actually, I'd prefer a two-year series on HBO -- but if I'm left with two hours? Then I'll see what kind of story someone can put together in two hours. I fully anticipate a lot of stumbling over the background history, but it wouldn't surprise me to see them veer away from the heavy-handed Nixon connections as well, so they might actually jettison a lot of that anyway. The newspaper vendor, the comic book, and the cops are all readily expendable, as is much of the psychiatrist's arc (though that was one of my favourite parts of the series).

I'm hoping we'll get some of the story's best visuals at least, because what's the point of putting it onscreen otherwise? But if all it does is let me view the original story from a different perspective (even if I never want to see the film again), I'll be satisfied.

[turkishproverb]

Alan Moore complains too much, I enjoyed V For Vendetta the movie much better than the novel.


proof that an opinion can be wrong. The film was cheap, shallow, and painfully simplistic in both plot and philosophy. it didn't even give the same remote point the story in V did. this was one of the times moore was right in his exact wording. It was made by people too afraid to set a political commentary in their own country.

[Finn Solomon]

Let's agree to disagree, shall we? Anyway, I fully concur with everything shatteredtower said.

[turkishproverb]

Let's agree to disagree, shall we? Anyway, I fully concur with everything shatteredtower said.

Fine, i certainly don't feel like making my argumetn more multilayerd than you would enjoy reading. :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

(Sorry, joke involving shattertower's argumetn about too manythings going on at once in the novel.)

[Revlid]

So... yeah. I agree with Shatteredtower. And I'll go and see Watchmen, good reviews or bad. I have to. It is a moral imperative.

[watchmenfan]

Has anyone seen the hninsider website, they have great footage from the production video and pictures, the clip below is first day of filming at tannex industries..

http://www.hninsider.com/node/56

[Shatteredtower]

(Sorry, joke involving shattertower's argumetn about too manythings going on at once in the novel.)Did I write that? I believe my point was that there were too many things that would not fit within a two hour movie and could easily be cut with no real harm to the movie. I enjoyed them in the book, even the ones that weren't very good (I love symmetry and parallels, but Moore and Gibbons took them to indulgent and ridiculous levels at times), as would be more apparent in a screen version.


proof that an opinion can be wrong. The film was cheap, shallow, and painfully simplistic in both plot and philosophy.As was the original series. You could tie it into some pretty sophisticated stuff, but let's not kid ourselves about how much it actually brought to the table on its own. A bunch of visual links on the news, when V gives his, "I'm thinking of letting you all go," speech, is about as close to complex as it got. Nothing else required research, though you could certainly get a lot of value out of it.

Granted, the movie version of the Chancellor lost a lot of depth and complexity, but considering how much of that complexity came out of internal monologue, I could do without it. Some of that depth went into Finch, and the written version could have done with some of that -- salvaging one of several very embarrassing characters.


it didn't even give the same remote point the story in V did.That fear gives rise to fascism? Sure, Mr. Moore originally assumed that it was desperation that got us there, but his foreward to the collection indicates that he doesn't believe that any longer. (On the other hand, he still lives in the United Kingdom. That also speaks volumes.)


It was made by people too afraid to set a political commentary in their own country.See, this is where we talk about complexity and multiple layers. This is where the beauty of parallels comes into play.

Because if the Wachowski Brothers had created a similar story about a freedom fighter in the United States of America (but not too similar, of course), seeking to bring down the American government, it would have met with a lot more closed ears and minds within their own nation.

That happened anyway. A number of people panned the movie for its anti-American sentiments, despite the fact that it wasn't set in the Americas and only mentioned them in passing in clearly biased news.

But the reasoning behind using a familiar, but distinctly foreign, setting to make political commentary is to avoid a direct attack on your target audience, while still making your point to it. Orwell and Swift both felt free to use the technique, as have many other writers and comedians, so I'm not sure I understand your complaint. It could have been more subtle, perhaps? Ah, but then it goes over the target audience's head, and what good is that? Sure, the "smart" people would get it, but if they were really that smart, they would hardly be relying on any form of V for Vendetta to deliver such messages.

[Tirian]

Did I write that? I believe my point was that there were too many things that would not fit within a two hour movie and could easily be cut with no real harm to the movie.

But someone has already identified the essential 15% of Watchmen and made a feature-length movie out of it: it was called The Incredibles. And it was an outstanding movie, so there isn't any need to make a live-action version of it, no matter how cool you think Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan's effects will be.

[Shatteredtower]

But someone has already identified the essential 15% of Watchmen and made a feature-length movie out of it: it was called The Incredibles.Actually, it was called The Magnificent Seven -- or rather, The Seven Samurai.

If we're going to take the attitude of "Been there, done that," then there's no point in discussing Watchmen as a graphic collection either -- the Greeks and Egyptians summed most of it up adequately ages ago.

Thankfully, most artists recognize the value of revisiting a concept or even a work -- at least until perpetual copyright makes that impossible. Sergio Leone did a fine job of remaking Yojimbo, just as Akira Kurosawa's reinvention of King Lear has a lot going for it.

Besides, The Incredibles owes more to the Fantastic Four than the Watchmen, since the movie never once touched on the question, "What kind of person dresses up in tights to fight crime?" in anything more than idealized fashion.


And it was an outstanding movie, so there isn't any need to make a live-action version of it, no matter how cool you think Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan's effects will be.Making movies -- or fiction -- is never about need. Trotting out a "no need" argument when discussing them is about as daft a thing as you can do.

As for whether I go see a live-action performance out of interest in the effects (usually lost on me) or the designs (again, lost on me, to the frustration of my more artistic friends) or the character portrayals, so what? If it gives me a new perspective on an old character or an older tale, I am richer for it, whether the movie itself is, as a whole, good or not.

But hey, more power to you if you've seen the Final Word on the subject. Me, I'm going to go right on trying to gain something from the insights of other people -- even the ones looking only for the "quick" buck.

[Tirian]

Besides, The Incredibles owes more to the Fantastic Four than the Watchmen, since the movie never once touched on the question, "What kind of person dresses up in tights to fight crime?" in anything more than idealized fashion.

I agree that this is the theme of the graphic novel. What makes it such a noteworthy work is that it asks "What does it mean to be heroic" and answers it in ten different ways across the cast of characters. And among them there's a CEO and an auto mechanic and a mercenary and a retired pin-up girl and a theoretical particle physicist who all ultimately decided that it wasn't about the costume: only Rorschach and Dan and probably Nelson were taken over by their tights.

I do not agree that a feature-length movie is going to even scratch the surface of this theme. It's a complex scheme even when you take away large subplots and they're going to have to keep the action sequences long to keep the teenagers from falling asleep.

I don't know what FF has to do with The Incredibles other than the fact that there is a team with a strong person, a stretchy person, and a forcefielding invisible person. Here's what it the storyline has in common with Watchmen, which is really much more than your average archetype hero movie.

*** SPOILERS FOR TWO STORIES COMING UP ***

Superheroes have been outlawed for about fifteen years, but Everyman has never been able to shake the compulsion to do good. Aided by his buddy, he suspects that former heroes are disappearing and gets caught up in the conspiracy so fully that the heroine, who was much more comfortable with civilian life, is forced to put on her costume and get dragged in as well. Ultimately, they get to the bottom of the scheme: the villain is an ex-hero who decided that "business as usual" heroism wasn't carrying the day so he formed a legitimate business to fuel a tech-inspired attack on other heroes and society at large.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Just because the same archetypal plot has been used before - and the only detail that separates this from a set of pure archetypes is the "superhero" motif - doesn't mean that it can't be used again ever. I mean, jeez, do we stop with the first Heroic Journey story ever written and call it quits? The two stories there share a plot framework, but they have very different characters, tones, themes, and all manner of different details.

[Invisible Queen]

I don't know if you have noticed the works of Millar, but they tend to blend in well with the movies since that's his style... Millar's comics are compatible with the big screen... Moore's are not


And I fear the Watchmen... but I'm still having hopes for it to be at least nice, and nothing like LXG or Constanteen
Millar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Millar) writes for Marvel. You're probably thinking of Frank Miller, who wrote 300.

Just had to say that. ^_^

As for Watchmen, I have no great hopes. I think it'll be watchable at best. >_>

[Shatteredtower]

I agree that this is the theme of the graphic novel. What makes it such a noteworthy work is that it asks "What does it mean to be heroic" and answers it in ten different ways across the cast of characters. And among them there's a CEO and an auto mechanic and a mercenary and a retired pin-up girl and a theoretical particle physicist who all ultimately decided that it wasn't about the costume: only Rorschach and Dan and probably Nelson were taken over by their tights.Actually, Dan was liberated by the costume. Hollis was taken over by nostalgia. Veidt made himself more than human, which is what a classic hero is, and damned himself in the process, while Osterman was condemned to the fate of a titan.


I do not agree that a feature-length movie is going to even scratch the surface of this theme.It doesn't sound like you've got much experience with good filmmaking. If entire philosophical schools of thought can be summed up within five minutes, a film has time to spare on the subject of what it takes to be a hero. By all means, you can expand on that subject for decades, but it's better to get your audience do that.

Heck, the Comedian demonstrates that beautifully at the Crimebusters meeting in under two minutes of conversation.


It's a complex scheme even when you take away large subplots and they're going to have to keep the action sequences long to keep the teenagers from falling asleep.If your argument relies entirely on insulting the attention span of people younger than you, it's a bad argument. It was cheap when I was 18 and has continued to go down in value over the 23 years since then.


I don't know what FF has to do with The Incredibles other than the fact that there is a team with a strong person, a stretchy person, and a forcefielding invisible person.Both are about squabbling families in matching costumes. Personality owes as much to Lee and Kirby as costumes and designs do. There's also the matter of the Underminer and a villain that blames the hero for making him -- a classic trope Watchmen pretty well ignored. (Veidt and the Comedian? We'd get a closer comparison in Miracleman, but even that's stretching it.)


Here's what it the storyline has in common with Watchmen, which is really much more than your average archetype hero movie.It's been three years. The statute on spoilers is long past. Nevertheless, those wishing to avoid them for either work should avoid reading below.


Superheroes have been outlawed for about fifteen years, but Everyman has never been able to shake the compulsion to do good. Aided by his buddy, he suspects that former heroes are disappearing and gets caught up in the conspiracy so fully that the heroine, who was much more comfortable with civilian life, is forced to put on her costume and get dragged in as well. Ultimately, they get to the bottom of the scheme: the villain is an ex-hero who decided that "business as usual" heroism wasn't carrying the day so he formed a legitimate business to fuel a tech-inspired attack on other heroes and society at large.That's an inaccurate summation of both stories. It's also a rather misogynistic summation of Laurie's role in Watchmen, when you get right down to it.

Syndrome's not an ex-hero. He's an ex-fan. That's one of the most significant elements of the movie.

Rorshach went it alone. It's not until he's taken down that Dreiberg becomes suspicious and rises out of the fear that's left him diminished for the better part of a decade.

Veidt stopped playing the hero. Syndrome didn't. Only the latter saw it as a game. Veidt's goals only called for the removal of one hero and he had no intention of replacing them. Unless they got in his way, he was content to ignore the rest. He wasn't out for revenge (though he certainly took it against the Comedian when the excuse came), while Syndrome's plan was all about it, with Mr. Incredible's death and replacement as the capstone.

These aren't cosmetic differences. If you're treating them as such, it's really just another version of The Seven Samurai: heroes go to the aid of a society that no longer trusts them, sometimes with good reason.

Furthermore, one of the significant themes of Watchmen, absent from The Incredibles, is summed up in the final panel: no amount of heroism keeps our fate out of the hands of the common person. (It could also be summed up in the final lines of The Seven Samurai, translated as: "Only the farmers won. We lost. We always lose.")

If one panel can say that much, I'd be hesitant to sneer at what you can achieve in a two hour film. If it's as complex a work as you claim it to be (and the things your summary ignored suggest it is), then there's no limit to the number of points a film version can illuminate. I'm not operating under the illusion that it will come close to demonstrates most of them, or even that I will agree with how it goes about it in most cases, but I can still get plenty out of that. I didn't think Short Circuit was a very good movie, for example, but two scenes have had considerable influence on my thoughts ever since I saw it.

[DarkEternal]

I don't know. I will go watch the Watchmen(see what I did there?) because I like to watch comic book films. I don't consider the said work anything more or less but a good read. Some may consider it art in comic book form, some may even think of it as the second coming of God in written form, and I am quite sure some have altars of Alan Moore at home to which they sacrifice cats and poultry on a daily basis. To me, the said novel was good. Not "godly", not "fantastic", but good. And I will enjoy or criticise the movie but sure as hell will not oppose it being made.

And the Incredibles are certainly influenced far more by the FF then Watchmen*spoilers for said thing I suppose*



First of, there is the entire family aspect which has been a driving force for the Fantastic Four from day one. They argue, piss each other off and so on, but when they unite forces nothing can stop them. Not even to mention the similar power set. The main bad guy is basically a rich guy depending on technology who makes himself into an uber powerful thing with said money(Doom-Latveria-technology) who grew jealous of the main character to the point of obsession and did what had to be done just to get his revenge, no matter how far he had to go.

[Midnight Lurker]

Did anyone see Alan Moore's appearance on the Simpsons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDlOfKHm0YY) Sunday night?

[WitchSlayer]

Did anyone see Alan Moore's appearance on the Simpsons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDlOfKHm0YY) Sunday night?

Shorter than I wanted, but glorious none the less.

[HealthKit]

Did anyone see Alan Moore's appearance on the Simpsons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDlOfKHm0YY) Sunday night?

Augh, I missed the episode and the clip has been removed from youtube.
I'd love to see it though.
If anyone comes across it online again, please shoot me a link.

[duckie]

I liked Constantine, to be honest. That's not the character Alan Moore wrote, but neither was Mr. Delano's take, nor Mr. Ennis', and I admit I tired of the book shortly after that, so I can't say if anyone else wrote him the same.

What is there to like about the Constantine movie? The plot is shallow and boring, Keannu Reeves couldn't speak his lines as if he meant it if his life depended on it. And he quits smoking at the end of the movie! I mean, come on, people, Hollywood really hollywooded that great character into something as interesting and tasty as eating charchoal. Lit up, burning charchoal!

Needless is to say, I will go and see Watchmen. But I won't get my hopes up.

ps: Did you realize that the spartans in 300 ended up with more arrows than a porcupine has spikes, yet not a one of them has an arrow stuck in his short-pants? How's that for unnecessary correction?

[Green Bean]

Well, Snyder's released some stills (http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/) from the set, and I have to admit that it looks quite good.

[Rare Pink Leech]

Ooh, those are some spectacular picks. It definitely looks like Watchmen to me. The newspaper vendor in particular looks perfect. Of course, they are just a few stills, so they're definitely not an indication of what the movie will be like. But visually, Snyder seems to have it down pat.

Did anyone else get a shiver when they saw Rorschach walking down the street in that last shot? I know I did. Something seemed wrong, though, and it took me a minute to figure out what: his mask is all white. Makes sense that they'll have to finish it off with CGI.

Speaking of that last shot, it was weird seeing all of "Who Watches The Watchmen?" - it's always partially off panel in the book. I wonder if Snyder will be very careful not to show the whole thing in the actual movie?

[sealemon]

I plan on seeing it, but I do have the fear that it might be another LXG. V For Vendetta was enjoyable, IMO, so I feel ike the movie has the potential to be good...and yes, it will be different from the book. People who complain about a movie not being exactly like the book need a pimp slap.

[Random NPC]

Millar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Millar) writes for Marvel. You're probably thinking of Frank Miller, who wrote 300.

Just had to say that. ^_^

As for Watchmen, I have no great hopes. I think it'll be watchable at best. >_>

This gives me an idea!

We should mix Frank Miller and Mark Millar into Frark Millær.

Think about it. Gay superheroes bashing skulls in while reciting Shakespearean monologues about their lives of violence and decadence!

Prepare one of those crazy transmuter wizards, for the comic industry needs this writer!

And, uhm, I'm neutral with Watchmen :smalleek:

[WalkingTarget]

I will go see the Watchmen movie and look forward to seeing it, adaptation decay or no. I find it lamentable that Moore can't seem to get movie adaptations that don't radically alter what he wrote (I can watch V for Vendetta and From Hell on their own, but I still enjoy the comics more).

I firmly believe that it would work better as a miniseries, which would still lose a lot of nuance.

[horseboy]

I plan on seeing it, but I do have the fear that it might be another LXG. V For Vendetta was enjoyable, IMO, so I feel ike the movie has the potential to be good...and yes, it will be different from the book. People who complain about a movie not being exactly like the book need a pimp slap.

Yeah, I'm expecting around the level of The Crow differences. Similar characters, same basic idea. Goofy villain to spend the time beating up on instead of the really weird, deep stuff.

[Cryptrat]

The trick to enjoying the movie's based on comic books is to view them as two different forms of entertainment.

V for Vendetta the movie should not be compared to the comic book, despite the movie being based (as it were) on the comic.

Taken as two different forms of entertainment, I do enjoy the V for Vendetta movie as a stand alone form of entertainment. The visuals are well done, the story is interesting (but not much more than that) and the sounds and actors and the plot twists and end all made me feel pretty good afterwards.

The book on the other hand is not meant to be 'watched.' It is a completely different beast than a video or movie is, and while enjoyable on it's own merit it does not really leave one feeling exhilerated at the end. It may be quite a different experience for you all, but when I was done I didn't walk away with a smile on my face. The book was moving, for certain, but it felt more like a lesson had been illustrated to me. The comic could conceivably exist in a place similar to it's world, while it's arguable that the movie is as realistic.

I am looking forward to the Watchmen movie, but in NO WAY is it going to be watched as if I were reading the comic book. I doubt anyone has a happy little smile on their face when the end of that book comes, and the reader, if they are at all like myself, is left wondering what will become of the world we stepped away from and if Adrian Veigt made the right decision much less if we would have done the same thing. The same goes for Dr. Manhattan's final act on Earth. Or Owlman's plans for the future.

I fully expect to be filled with awe and wonder at Watchmen, get to watch a few knock'em sock'em battles, see enough CGI to make my brain implode and walk away from the movie with a grin on my face feeling good.

It will be an experience that will be considerably lessened if I spend my time comparing the written medium to the filmed one.

That's the difference between Alan Moore and Hollywood. He seems to want us to think and feel totally awful about ourselves while making us realize that we're just puppeting along.

Hollywood wants to entertain us and make us feel good at the end.

Trying to put them together in perfect form would be like making a Reese's peanut butter cup with chocolate and cement.

[Irenaeus]

I do think that Moore's gripes with a few of the films has to do with the fact that due to DC screwing with him, he has not had any say in most of the adaptions at all. E.g. he is supposed to gain full rights to "V for Vendetta" and "Watchmen" when DC was finished publishing. The problem is, they never stopped printing them, and thus still retain the rights.

He seems a rather angry fellow, though, but I can sympathize.

As for the upcoming Watchmen movie, I see no reason to expect anything good from it, nor see it. I don't like the director very much, I don't think the actors involved in the movie of can pull off their roles (at least not the ones I know of). And, like many others, I don't see how the story can easily translate into a movie. I feel confident that if this is somehow made into a work of genius (or at least a decent movie) I will be informed of this by friends or trusted reviewers. As of now, however, the only appealing thing I have seen about this is the movie stills.


What is there to like about the Constantine movie? About one-fifth of the scenes, and half of the scenes with Tilda Swinton.
The rest was rather bad.

[tetsubo]

I think I can safely say that I can separate the comic from the movie as the only Moore story that I have read that has is being turned into a movie is Watchman. I think that have all pretty much sucked. I see no reason to think the next one will be any different. Although I would love to see a Lost Girls adaption, I don't see that happing anytime soon though.:smallbiggrin:

I think part of the problem is that they are based off of One story. In that was it is hard to separate the original from the movie. Look at the comic movies that have done well. the first Spiderman, the first 2 X-men, arguably 3 of the 5 Batman’s and so forth, They are not based off of a single Story in their respective comic. They are inspired by a particular story but do not really follow one particular one. All they have to worry about is capturing the feel for the character. That is not the case with any Alan Moore movie. It is based off of One story so they kinda have to adapt that story into the movie they can't really take the character and do something else with them. and as other people said it is hard to transfer something like that to a 1 1/2 movie.

[Irenaeus]

It's also a rather misogynistic summation of Laurie's role in Watchmen, when you get right down to it. Why, if you don't mind me asking? She explicitly states at some point that she only did the masked hero thing because of her mother, doesn't she?

[DoomsdayBadger]

Will he turn us into a newt?

You'll get better...

[Cryptrat]

... I would love to see a Lost Girls adaption, I don't see that happing anytime soon though.:smallbiggrin:

For the love of good and evil I hope someone makes a movie of that.

*is a lecherous Cryptrat*

[Skyrocket]

For the love of good and evil I hope someone makes a movie of that.

*is a lecherous Cryptrat*

A hentai movie maybe. :smalleek:

[tetsubo]

They could definatly get away with more if it was a hentai

[....]

From those pics, it looks like the Black Freighter will at least be seen.

You can see the black kid reading it :smallsmile:

[Skyrocket]

From those pics, it looks like the Black Freighter will at least be seen.

You can see the black kid reading it :smallsmile:

My understanding is that the Black Freighter stuff will be filmed but we won't get to see it until the DVD as an extra.

[JabberwockySupafly]

An android very near & dear to my heart once summed up my feelings about the Watchmen movie quite succinctly:

IThis will all end in tears, I just know it.


and he also summed up what I'll probably say after the movie comes out:

Incredible... it's even worse than I thought it would be.

for those of you wondering, the above are quotes from Marvin, the paranoid android of Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, another great work of art, that was made into an extremely mediocre movie.

[Closet_Skeleton]

IThis will all end in tears, I just know it.

At least in the radio version, I'm sure that Eddie says that rather than Marvin.

Unless that line was used more than once of course.

[Paradigm Shift]

I, too, cannot see it translating well to film. Then again, I don't like any "turning things into films" projects, but I will admit that some work decently at least. This is not one of those. (I'll still go see it, of course. I'll just complain to whichever poor friend I manage to drag along with me afterward.)


Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, another great work of art, that was made into an extremely mediocre movie.
If you want to watch a good adaptation of HHGTTG, I suggest the old BBC series. It originally aired in the early 80s (1981, if I remember correctly, but don't hold me to that), but you can find it on VHS and DVD.

[Diakos]

Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, another great work of art, that was made into an extremely mediocre movie.


Wouldn't call i mediocre, it was a good half hour that adhered wonderfully to the book, then some dimwit seems to have recorded a bad epidode of Red Dwarf over the master tape for the last hour of so.

[Green Bean]

Wouldn't call i mediocre, it was a good half hour that adhered wonderfully to the book, then some dimwit seems to have recorded a bad epidode of Red Dwarf over the master tape for the last hour of so.

Yeah, they should have fired the writer. :smalltongue:

[psycojester]

You can't fire him, he died!

Which is why i don't like to comment on the H2G2 movie, its not sporting to kick a man while he's down. Unless its Robert Jordan, he had it coming.