Moore took the superheros of the time and fit them into a more realistic setting. Snyder is simply retrofitting that to the modern day version. It makes perfect sense to update them to a more modernized look.
I thought what he was trying to say is that given how the graphic novel took cheesy classic costumed heroes that starred in cheese filled comics and made it work so effortlessly in a gritty modern story, similarly he is trying to take cheesy iconic plastic looking costumes that were used in earlier glitzy movies and make them work effortlessly in his modern, grittier movie setting. Notice how he relates the transition from comic to comic and movie to movie.
Of course I could be wrong but I'd like to think I'm right and he doesn't actually think those costumes are cool for the current age. Those costumes died with Shumacher and then a gay costume was revived for Daredevil.
I thought what he was trying to say is that given how the graphic novel took cheesy classic costumed heroes that starred in cheese filled comics and made it work so effortlessly in a gritty modern story, similarly he is trying to take cheesy iconic plastic looking costumes that were used in earlier glitzy movies and make them work effortlessly in his modern, grittier movie setting. Notice how he relates the transition from comic to comic and movie to movie. Of course I could be wrong but I'd like to think I'm right and he doesn't actually think those costumes are cool for the current age. Those costumes died with Shumacher and then a gay costume was revived for Daredevil.
Snyder's is putting parts of his own imagerie to the movie. I think it's a good thing, shows that is not trying to get to close to the original material. A literal translation of the comic to movies would be doomed to fail. An interpretation is the only way it can work.
I just finished reading Watchmen, and I'm kind of astounded that anyone would really want to make a movie out of it. It'd be mostly 2 hours of talking followed by an ending that's rather flat and dull (in the Hollywood sense). I don't see what is going to engage mainstream audiences here.
I just finished reading Watchmen, and I'm kind of astounded that anyone would really want to make a movie out of it. It'd be mostly 2 hours of talking followed by an ending that's rather flat and dull (in the Hollywood sense). I don't see what is going to engage mainstream audiences here.
I loved it, but I'm wondering this same thing...it's not really superhero movie material. I guess they're just going to really overplay some of the action.
If this movie is able to establish a balance between the sylish visuals and the grit of the watchmen universe - that would please both fans and newcomers alike.
Guys, what can you tell me about the 'absolute' edition of Watchmen? Seems to be quite superior to the paperback one in every possible way (better / new coloring, additional material), but I'm worried it may prove to be a) too damn heavy, I understand the book weights more than 2kg!? and b) it may prove to be difficult to, you know, turn the pages, due to the book being hardcover.
one thing for sure: if ou have to purchase a cop of Watchmen DO NOT BUY THE LATEST VERSION; it's bolded text galore, in a way it would be too much even for the strongest bolded text fans
it really kills the book, avoid it
yes, the absolute edition is the way to go. I have it and it features a small bit of Moore's script. Jesus, that man is PRECISE, loads and loads of words for a single panel.
one thing for sure: if ou have to purchase a cop of Watchmen DO NOT BUY THE LATEST VERSION; it's bolded text galore, in a way it would be too much even for the strongest bolded text fans
it really kills the book, avoid it
yes, the absolute edition is the way to go. I have it and it features a small bit of Moore's script. Jesus, that man is PRECISE, loads and loads of words for a single panel.
This annoyed the shit out of me in the Sin City novels, and probably every other comic I can remember reading. It's rarely/never done right, and it's always over-done.
I think even in the original Watchmen I thought it was too much.
(honest-to-goodness spoiler even if you read the book)
Dan kills Veidt in both versions.
The fuck up the ending by killing him! That's supposed to be part of the moral quandary of the whole thing! Veidt kills millions, and is not punished! Instead they cop out with a fucking hollywood friendly "at least we kill him in the end" woot woot for teh heroes! Dan and Laurie are supposed to have effectively been converted over to Veidt! Rorshach is the lone dissenter, and he is killed for it.
Veidt is supposed to win. Completely. He has only his conscience to judge him. And if his discussion with Manhattan is any indication... it will.
I wouldn't know, man. It's really horrid and unreadable. All I know is that I needed a new version since my 1997 one is falling into pieces, and bought this brand shiny new version..and then I found out this:
second page, fifth panel, verbatim: "Hmm. I saw the body an' he looked beefy enough to protect himself. For a guy his age, he was in terrific shape"
same page, ninth panel, verbatim: "Hey! The guy he's shaking hands with in the picture....it's Vice-President Ford!"
third page, second panel: "I mean, what is this? A little money got stolen, but no way is this a straight burglary..."
It's bold text, who cares? Just read whatever version you come across. It doesn't exactly encourage new readers to tell them they need to hunt down a copy from over a decade ago.
I'd do it myself but maybe I'm pretty sure wasn't like that. On a sidenote, my Italian version has none of this crap, thankfully
border said:
It's bold text, who cares? Just read whatever version you come across. It doesn't exactly encourage new readers to tell them they need to hunt down a copy from over a decade ago.
i have to say, it's hard for me to overlook nonsensical bolding. but i was an english major in college, so i'm sort of stupidly picky about that sort of stuff.
You could say the same thing about 90% of the book adaptations out there as well. I don't see people railing against turning books into movies, though.
Some works are different than others. Ultimates, for example, is basically begging to be turned into a movie (an example of a comic acting as a poor man's film). But as I said, Watchmen was crafted in such a way that it proves to its reader why comic books are valid and unique as a medium. I hate to use the comparison, but Citizen Kane did the same thing for film. Adapting Kane into a play or remaking it in 3D would be idiotic. Kane is a brilliant film because of it's camera movement, use of depth of field, and sound design, among other things. Some or all of these things would be lost if it were transfered to another medium.
In much the same way, the elements that make Watchmen a piece of comic art are sacrificed in the transition to cinema. The addition of sound or movement are not improvements - and it would be condescending to think so - but rather alterations. Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons are keenly aware of the limitations of comics. And they chose to use those limitations as strengths. The silence of comics is part of what allows Watchmen to affect its readers on such a personal and private level (in contrast to the communal experience of film). The static nature of comic panels are actually exacerbated in Watchmen. Moore and Gibbon's nine-panel-per-page style forces you to take in the action in fragments, effectively slowing down time. This is why Snyder uses slow-mo so often in his comic adaptations, because comics are so precise when it comes to the manipulation of time in the readers mind (Miller, Moore, and Eisner have all spoken on this issue). But slow motion and bullet time are poor substitutes for the ability of the individual reader to pause on a panel for as long as they choose. There are other areas where Watchmen tests the boundaries and pushes the strengths of the comic book medium. I highly recommend reading Alan Moore's Writing for Comics. While it was written before he started Watchmen, it clearly shows where Moore wanted to take the medium in his future works (plus, it's only five bucks). And if you like that, you might want to move onto Eisner/Miller (an extended interview/conversation between Will Eisner and Frank Miller) and pretty much anything written by Scott McCloud.
With all that said, I am not against adapting comics to film as a rule. But certain works in any medium should have their artistic achievements respected and left unaltered or tampered with in other mediums. Furthermore, the transition from comic to film appears to be a particularly condescending one as there is always the implication of improvement due to the addition of motion, sound, and live actors that the cinema brings. That's something that particularly irritates me when discussing a work as well-crafted as Watchmen.
Fake edit:
There's also the issue of Zack Snyder lacking the mental capacity to handle the subject matter, as evidenced by the following (massive spoiler about the movie):
Markster said:
There's more.
I read both the Hayter 2003 script, and the Tse 2005(?) script, and (honest-to-goodness spoiler even if you read the book)
Dan kills Veidt in both versions.
The fuck up the ending by killing him! That's supposed to be part of the moral quandary of the whole thing! Veidt kills millions, and is not punished! Instead they cop out with a fucking hollywood friendly "at least we kill him in the end" woot woot for teh heroes! Dan and Laurie are supposed to have effectively been converted over to Veidt! Rorshach is the lone dissenter, and he is killed for it.
Veidt is supposed to win. Completely. He has only his conscience to judge him. And if his discussion with Manhattan is any indication... it will.
The original was a deconstruction of superhero comics at the time, so I'd be OK if this were some kind of play on shitty superhero movies of the moment - though I hope someone rings Snyder and tells him that Batman & Robin was so 10 years ago and that Schumacher's not really "the moment."
With all that said, I am not against adapting comics to film as a rule. But certain works in any medium should have their artistic achievements respected and left unaltered or tampered with in other mediums. Furthermore, the transition from comic to film appears to be a particularly condescending one as there is always the implication of improvement due to the addition of motion, sound, and live actors that the cinema brings. That's something that particularly irritates me when discussing a work as well-crafted as Watchmen.
I can't agree. As much as I see where you are coming from, I don't see works of art as fragile and they can withstand attempts to adapt them to other media. For instance, one of the best comics I've read was adapted from a novel which certainly would be said to be un-adaptable-- and yet it's brilliant. (City of Glass, check it out.)
That, and even doomed, certain-to-come-up-short adaptations have a place. They may never hope to reach the level of the original, and yet they may entertain, they may enhance our appreciation of aspects of the original, or they may achieve something completely different. My favorite example of the that would be the Kubrick Lolita. Lolita is to novels what Watchmen is to comics and Kane to film-- and yet the film succeeds at doing something completely different (and worthwhile) with Lolita. Dune is another-- the Lynch movie is a mess, a poor representation of the book and not quite all there as its own thing-- and yet it's fascinating and entertaining nonetheless.
Basing the criticism of Watchmen-the-movie on Snyder's track record is somewhat more valid an argument-- I'm willing to see what we get. I don't know if that spoiler is real-- I certainly hope not-- and I don't like some of the aesthetic decisions made in the trailer.
But even the novelty of the attempt is worth multiple viewings to me. Heck, I've literally read the book dozens of times-- when it was being released I read the whole thing from the start with each new chapter. How can I not watch?
That, and even doomed, certain-to-come-up-short adaptations have a place. They may never hope to reach the level of the original, and yet they may entertain, they may enhance our appreciation of aspects of the original, or they may achieve something completely different. My favorite example of the that would be the Kubrick Lolita. Lolita is to novels what Watchmen is to comics and Kane to film-- and yet the film succeeds at doing something completely different (and worthwhile) with Lolita. Dune is another-- the Lynch movie is a mess, a poor representation of the book and not quite all there as its own thing-- and yet it's fascinating and entertaining nonetheless.
On a certain level, I agree with everything you said. The Kubrick point specifically is most interesting to me. I think I would be happier if the Watchmen film didn't take the Sin City approach, and instead made radical changes to the source material. That may sound strange, but it would show that the filmmakers weren't trying to one-up the original. More importantly, it would be the only chance for the film to be an interesting work of art in and of itself. As it is currently, it is constrained by the limitations and strengths of a completely different medium.
I should also clarify that I don't see the original as being under threat by the adaptation. Watchmen will always have its place in comics history, and will probably be more well remembered than the movie. It's more about sticking up for one of the most important works of the least respected American artistic medium.
Ignatz Mouse said:
But even the novelty of the attempt is worth multiple viewings to me. Heck, I've literally read the book dozens of times-- when it was being released I read the whole thing from the start with each new chapter. How can I not watch?
Wow, how was it waiting a freaking year for the last issue?
icarus-daedelus said:
It's the nipples on Ozymandias' suit that really get me. Like, we get it: B&R had nipple suits. Let's move on, please, to more modern retarded superhero film cliches, like the villain at the end essentially being a bigger/meaner version of the hero. (Hello, Iron Man/Incredible Hulk/Spider-Man 3/etc.)
That would require story changes, which as I said, could perhaps hold more potential. I'd be really interested to see a deconstruction of the comic book movie genre done with Watchmen's characters and basic plot/political structure. I think that would be more beneficial to film audiences and comic fans alike.
There's more.
I read both the Hayter 2003 script, and the Tse 2005(?) script, and (honest-to-goodness spoiler even if you read the book)
Dan kills Veidt in both versions.
The fuck up the ending by killing him! That's supposed to be part of the moral quandary of the whole thing! Veidt kills millions, and is not punished! Instead they cop out with a fucking hollywood friendly "at least we kill him in the end" woot woot for teh heroes! Dan and Laurie are supposed to have effectively been converted over to Veidt! Rorshach is the lone dissenter, and he is killed for it.
Veidt is supposed to win. Completely. He has only his conscience to judge him. And if his discussion with Manhattan is any indication... it will.
There's more.
I read both the Hayter 2003 script, and the Tse 2005(?) script, and (honest-to-goodness spoiler even if you read the book)
Dan kills Veidt in both versions.
The fuck up the ending by killing him! That's supposed to be part of the moral quandary of the whole thing! Veidt kills millions, and is not punished! Instead they cop out with a fucking hollywood friendly "at least we kill him in the end" woot woot for teh heroes! Dan and Laurie are supposed to have effectively been converted over to Veidt! Rorshach is the lone dissenter, and he is killed for it.
Veidt is supposed to win. Completely. He has only his conscience to judge him. And if his discussion with Manhattan is any indication... it will.
On a certain level, I agree with everything you said. The Kubrick point specifically is most interesting to me. I think I would be happier if the Watchmen film didn't take the Sin City approach, and instead made radical changes to the source material. That may sound strange, but it would show that the filmmakers weren't trying to one-up the original. More importantly, it would be the only chance for the film to be an interesting work of art in and of itself. As it is currently, it is constrained by the limitations and strengths of a completely different medium.
I should also clarify that I don't see the original as being under threat by the adaptation. Watchmen will always have its place in comics history, and will probably be more well remembered than the movie. It's more about sticking up for one of the most important works of the least respected American artistic medium.
Wow, how was it waiting a freaking year for the last issue?
That would require story changes, which as I said, could perhaps hold more potential. I'd be really interested to see a deconstruction of the comic book movie genre done with Watchmen's characters and basic plot/political structure. I think that would be more beneficial to film audiences and comic fans alike.
Yeah, I do agree that this might be better if they were deconstructing comics movies with an original take. Still, a lot of the genre trappings are there regardless of medium, and it's still pretty rich material. My bigger concern is that some of the Watchmen ideas are quite mainstream now and lack some punch. Incredibles touched on some of the same themes, and even there it wasn't completely fresh.
As far as waiting-- anticlimactic. I feel that Watchmen peaks in Chapter 9 (one of my favorites) and from there is kinda peters out. I think all three issues-- 10, 11 and 12-- were delayed, with 12 being delayed the longest, and it just didn't match the buildup. Was it really a year? I don't even remember.
Re-reading that intensely has some interesting benefits. I figured out who Rorschach was in issue #2. I knew Veidt was behind it all after reading issue #5 (why else would he be in the center?).
And on the sixth day the LORD David Bowie created man and woman in His image. And he saw that it was good. On the seventh day the LORD created videogames so that He might take the bloody day off for once.
And on the sixth day the LORD David Bowie created man and woman in His image. And he saw that it was good. On the seventh day the LORD created videogames so that He might take the bloody day off for once.
when exactly does Nite Owl do that whole yelling bit in the comic? I see snow falling, so I'm guessing he's at Ozy's base, but I can't seem to recall him ever doing that.
I almost don't mind the ending in Hayter's script. Of course, Hayter's script also didn't set the thing in 1985, and the nuclear scenario at risk was us versus the Chinese, among other things (and this one is clearly closer to the source material, with things like Under the Hood and Black Freighter being produced as extras / deleted scene material).
Why wouldn't i mind it?
Well, I like me some dark, depressing endings, but an ending where
someone as flawed and gray and anti-hero as Rorschach is the only one capable of acting remotely like a hero, and he's killed for his trouble... yeah, not a fan of how things wind up, and I can barely stomach the earlier scenes with Dreiberg or Jupiter because of what useless tards they are at the end. I mean, at least Rorschach's journal is in the hands of someone who'll publish it at the end of the novel, so there's one little shiny ray of hope of Veidt being brought to justice, but yeah, there's a lot of characters there, and only one of them isn't totally contemptible and complicit in Veidt's evil at the end.
when exactly does Nite Owl do that whole yelling bit in the comic? I see snow falling, so I'm guessing he's at Ozy's base, but I can't seem to recall him ever doing that.
The only hope we have.
Neither script I read were final drafts.
The Hayter script is older, and effectively is superseded.
The Tse script is a draft from when it was set in modern times, and they have since relocated it back to the 80s.
Hopefully in the process of those edits, they cut the garbage at the end.
(not a spoiler)
(if you want to see the script for yourself, search megaupload for Alex Tse)
And on the sixth day the LORD David Bowie created man and woman in His image. And he saw that it was good. On the seventh day the LORD created videogames so that He might take the bloody day off for once.
I'd be very surprised if Hollywood and their focus tests would allow a director like Snyder, one who doesn't have much weight, to film the Watchmen ending as is. Already evidence in the trailer that has been altered.
Well, now that everyone has come around to my way of thinking, we can at least appreciate one of the few good things (along with new Gibbons Watchmen art) to come out of this shitwreck.
Commisioned for the movie as a Vargas style illustration of the character, played by Carla Gugino and of what looks like one of the few instances of a near perfect translation of a character.
Why did they change the Rorschach quote? Booooooo. The specific reference to "politicians and whores" is important to Rorschach's psychology. Could be a trailer edit, of course.
They completely fucked up Nite Owl, Silk Spectre, and Ozymandias. Owl and Spectre should look retarded. This change alone would be enough to ruin the movie. WTF is Veidt wearing? Horrible.
Manhattan looked good. Rorschach and COMEDIAN looked GREAT. Great job recreating some of the iconic moments as well.
Why did they change the Rorschach quote? Booooooo. The specific reference to "politicians and whores" is important to Rorschach's psychology. Could be a trailer edit, of course.
They completely fucked up Nite Owl, Silk Spectre, and Ozymandias. Owl and Spectre should look retarded. This change alone would be enough to ruin the movie. WTF is Veidt wearing? Horrible.
Manhattan looked good. Rorschach and COMEDIAN looked GREAT. Great job recreating some of the iconic moments as well.
Until we get official confirmation any of the leaked endings are the ones they'll follow, everyone should stop having a fucking heart attack. Owl looks fine, Ozy is really the only one that doesn't look faithful to the comic design.
I wouldn't know, man. It's really horrid and unreadable. All I know is that I needed a new version since my 1997 one is falling into pieces, and bought this brand shiny new version..and then I found out this:
second page, fifth panel, verbatim: "Hmm. I saw the body an' he looked beefy enough to protect himself. For a guy his age, he was in terrific shape"
same page, ninth panel, verbatim: "Hey! The guy he's shaking hands with in the picture....it's Vice-President Ford!"
third page, second panel: "I mean, what is this? A little money got stolen, but no way is this a straight burglary..."
I would completely have to agree with that. Bolding in comics is retarded. There are certain points where I lack the basic emotions being displayed because of how incoherent it can be. I got that version too, is there a version that has no bolding whatsoever? (See what I did there!)
Just for the record I've learned to read past the incoherent bolding as another poster here does, but it's annoying on the first read to be sure.
you kinda gloss over the whole if Rorschach did go and tell then the war would just start again killing millions more people? I mean, there is a huge sense of moral outrage and Veidt does deserve to die for what he did, but isn't it a little bit selfish for Dan, Laurie, and Rorschach to value their moral outrage over all those lives? Is justice really worth millions upon millions of death? And they couldn't kill Veidt because the investigation into his death would risk bringing down the conspiracy.
