The Watchmen (film and graphic novel)

[Alleluia_Cone]

I went to see Watchmen with my brother and enjoyed the movie tremendously. Big fan of the graphic novel as well, and thought the adaption was excellent. That said, I'm not surprised with its lack of success (given the huge second week drop off). It was a hard sell to start with, and many people did not understand that the movie was not Superman or Batman. Hence, the old lady with her kids in the theater, seated behind me, exclaiming during the sex scene: "Is this movie rated PG-13?!?!"

[MrTerrorist]

Since I been reading great reviews about the movie especially it being very faithful to the comics., Do you think creator Alan Moore would be please that he has a faithful adaption of his work or just the same old piss-off weirdo who thinks he a wizard and curses it and "bleep" it like "beep" cause he still thinks it's not faithful and trash?

PS. Even he thinks it's the latter, I still think he should be proud that director Zack Snyder & script writer David Hayter kept it faithful or in my view "the most faithful comic book film adaption ever".

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Since I been reading great reviews about the movie especially it being very faithful to the comics., Do you think creator Alan Moore would be please that he has a faithful adaption of his work or just the same old piss-off weirdo who thinks he a wizard and curses it and "bleep" it like "beep" cause he still thinks it's not faithful and trash?

PS. Even he thinks it's the latter, I still think he should be proud that director Zack Snyder & script writer David Hayter kept it faithful or in my view "the most faithful comic book film adaption ever".

It's so faithful that it became "meh", a victim of the graphic novel's success back in the 1980s, when psychopathic costumed heroes were truly revolutionary. Nowadays, everyone expects the average superhero, from Batman to Spiderman, to have a tormented backstory to justify his need to strut around in his undergarments. A costumed anti-hero isn't such a "big" thing any more. It's passe.

Alan Moore wouldn't be impressed with the movie. In fact, it'll probably vindicate his belief that no film will ever do justice to the concepts he and Dave Gibbons had originally created. The movie failed to adequately capture the diabolical energy of the graphic novel's pages, which were unique for its time, but have since become old hat to today's viewers and comic-book readers.

[JubeiYamazaki]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Since I been reading great reviews about the movie especially it being very faithful to the comics., Do you think creator Alan Moore would be please that he has a faithful adaption of his work or just the same old piss-off weirdo who thinks he a wizard and curses it and "bleep" it like "beep" cause he still thinks it's not faithful and trash?

PS. Even he thinks it's the latter, I still think he should be proud that director Zack Snyder & script writer David Hayter kept it faithful or in my view "the most faithful comic book film adaption ever".

No. He's never watched any of his film adapted movies and he's always say his movies were never meant to be put on film because his style of writting worked as a comic book and would not translate well at all on the big screen. As usual I believe his name aren't in the credits of this one.

If you've read David Hayter's first script where Dr. Manhattan was giving people powers and Rorschach had no mask and was a homeless lunatic, you'd be grateful as hell for how the movie turned out.

[MrTerrorist]

Originally Posted by JubeiYamazaki

No. He's never watched any of his film adapted movies and he's always say his movies were never meant to be put on film because his style of writting worked as a comic book and would not translate well at all on the big screen. As usual I believe his name aren't in the credits of this one.

If you've read David Hayter's first script where Dr. Manhattan was giving people powers and Rorschach had no mask and was a homeless lunatic, you'd be grateful as hell for how the movie turned out.

Really? I once read Alan Moore used to be optimistic when one of his works was becoming a movie in the 1980's before he became the angry weirdo we all know who hated any of his works if they ever became a movie. Moore musta have a bad experience with Hollywood to become the cynical man that he is today but at least he still finds it funny to make fun of himself in The Simpsons.

And thanks clarifying about the David Hayter script.

[Alleluia_Cone]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

It's so faithful that it became "meh", a victim of the graphic novel's success back in the 1980s, when psychopathic costumed heroes were truly revolutionary. Nowadays, everyone expects the average superhero, from Batman to Spiderman, to have a tormented backstory to justify his need to strut around in his undergarments. A costumed anti-hero isn't such a "big" thing any more. It's passe.

Alan Moore wouldn't be impressed with the movie. In fact, it'll probably vindicate his belief that no film will ever do justice to the concepts he and Dave Gibbons had originally created. The movie failed to adequately capture the diabolical energy of the graphic novel's pages, which were unique for its time, but have since become old hat to today's viewers and comic-book readers.

I agree with you to a certain extent. The biggest problem with adaptions from graphic novels is that, in many ways, they came too late. While the current frenzy over making comic book movies is in full gear right now, a lot of the source material is really dated.

In fact, the two must famous and/or successful graphic novels of all, Watchmen and the Dark Knight Returns, are so grounded in the Eighties decade, that short of making major alterations, they are bound to come off as strange in the present day. What is particular jarring about Watchmen, and the Dark Knight for that matter, is that Alan Moore and Frank Miller are both writing predominantly about a Soviet threat. Given that the Soviet Union does not exist anymore, it is hard to see the stories as anything more than antiquated. I mean, for one, Richard Nixon is a character in Watchmen and Ronald Regan is a character in the Dark Knight, which, given that they are both dead, seems a little ridiculous.

Thus, like you pointed out, Watchmen the movie can't help being less impressive than Watchmen the comic book, and what is more, maybe even a little passe.

[JubeiYamazaki]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Really? I once read Alan Moore used to be optimistic when one of his works was becoming a movie in the 1980's before he became the angry weirdo we all know who hated any of his works if they ever became a movie. Moore musta have a bad experience with Hollywood to become the cynical man that he is today but at least he still finds it funny to make fun of himself in The Simpsons.

And thanks clarifying about the David Hayter script.

Here's his most recent interview with Wired:http://www.wired.com/entertainment/h...03/ff_moore_qa

I think he said something along the lines of getting pissed about how they wanted to use to morph his movies into things that they weren't like V for Vendetta. I think it all started with LXM.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Alleluia_Cone

I agree with you to a certain extent. The biggest problem with adaptions from graphic novels is that, in many ways, they came too late. While the current frenzy over making comic book movies is in full gear right now, a lot of the source material is really dated.

In fact, the two must famous and/or successful graphic novels of all, Watchmen and the Dark Knight Returns, are so grounded in the Eighties decade, that short of making major alterations, they are bound to come off as strange in the present day. What is particular jarring about Watchmen, and the Dark Knight for that matter, is that Alan Moore and Frank Miller are both writing predominantly about a Soviet threat. Given that the Soviet Union does not exist anymore, it is hard to see the stories as anything more than antiquated. I mean, for one, Richard Nixon is a character in Watchmen and Ronald Regan is a character in the Dark Knight, which, given that they are both dead, seems a little ridiculous.

It's more than just the fact that the storyline itself is dated (who really worries about the nuclear apocalypse anymore, considering the possibility of biological warfare, etc?); rather, it is the fact that the original comic was deeply ironic. The film adaptation is too damn serious; it doesn't realize that the comic was, at times, set-up as a strong parody of former comic book conventions. From Veidt's victory, to the entire Nite-Owl storyline (which was a direct parody of Batman/Blue Beetle); Moore was parodying and sometimes poking fun at the deeply disturbed psychosis of the "caped crusader". Consequently, within the film that takes itself too seriously, the actions of the host of superheroes is not based the allusions of their comic predecessors, but instead the simplistic idea that all superheroes must have problems.

I am not saying that the film should have been funnier, or in any way more humourous, rather I am saying that it should not have been a superhero film at all. This was a deeply ironic, yet complex, story about characters that put on suits in order to fight other characters that put on suits.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by JubeiYamazaki

Here's his most recent interview with Wired:http://www.wired.com/entertainment/h...03/ff_moore_qa

I think he said something along the lines of getting pissed about how they wanted to use to morph his movies into things that they weren't like V for Vendetta. I think it all started with LXM.

I skimmed through the first two pages (will read in full later when I have time), and he pretty much said what I'd thought he'd say.

Heheh, I love his knack for words. To paraphrase him for this particular forum:

"Everybody knew that (cartoons) were for children and for intellectually subnormal people, whereas (anime) sounds like a much more sophisticated proposition... The average age of the audience now for (cartoons), and this has been the case since the late 1980s, probably is late 30s to early 50s — which tends to support the idea that these things are not being bought by children. They're being bought, in many cases, by hopeless nostalgics or, putting the worst construction on it, perhaps cases of arrested development who are not prepared to let their childhoods go, no matter how trite the adventures of their various heroes and idols."


Ouch. Touche, Mr Moore, touche.

[Alleluia_Cone]

Originally Posted by james0246

I am not saying that the film should have been funnier, or in any way more humourous, rather I am saying that it should not have been a superhero film at all. This was a deeply ironic, yet complex, story about characters that put on suits in order to fight other characters that put on suits.

That was always going to be the problem: how to sell to the studios where the pitch is, it isn't a superhero movie, but it's about superheroes. Given all that, I think the film was the best it could be under the circumstances. I mean, in my view, the biggest divergence from the comic book is how much the fighting dominated certain scenes. But then again, I thought, if they took away the stylization involved with the fighting sequences, there is no way the film would have ever been made. Which is to say that, yes, Watchmen cannot be filmed if the requirements are that it conform exactly to the comic book--no studio would want to make a that picture.

[AnimeFan188]

Reminder: The 'Watchmen' TV Show Shouldn't Exist:

"HBO's Watchmen has scratched an itch we didn't know we had: an itch for a weird-
ass relevant show with solid performances, a banger post-industrial soundtrack, and
Jeremy Irons doing inexplicable shit in a purple toga. Too bad none of it should exist.
Not in a just world, anyway.

A lot of people know that Watchmen co-creator Alan Moore is angry (it's the main
thing he's known for these days), but considerably fewer know why. Didn't the whiny
old fart sell his characters to DC Comics? Nope, not exactly.

When Moore and artist Dave Gibbons were making Watchmen, they were aware of the
horror stories about comics creators coming up with multi-million-dollar characters
but ending up living in a ditch somewhere. They specifically told DC they weren't
interested in a work-for-hire contract. So they struck a deal with the company: DC
would hold the rights to the characters while the comic was being published, but a
year after the last issue came out, those rights would revert to the duo so they could
"make all the money from the Slurpee cups." Here are Moore and Gibbons talking
about it at a 1986 convention (we're assuming this question was asked by someone
wearing blue body paint and nothing else):"

See:

https://www.cracked.com/article_2688...dnt-exist.html