The biggest problems for me are things like rapid cuts from one scene to another for pages on end after only a few lines of dialogue, developing four separate stories simultaneously. You are simply not going to get the same intricately layered experience; it would be a jumbled mess on the screen. If they can somehow do it, it will revolutionize the medium.
There are so many things like that, (the entire book that is a reflection of itself?) that it really makes me ask the same question he has, Why are they adapting this book into a movie? I mean, why try? It's not going to be Watchmen the book that Moore wrote simply moved to the screen. It's going to be a different thing.
It's like V for Vendetta, it was a perfectly acceptable movie, but as Moore says, if they had any balls they would have written their own story and left his book alone. They wouldn't have to make a radically different movie to be legally safe.
It's not like this is the first adaptation that's raised these specters, far from it, it's just that in this case, one of the things I love most about the original is the storytelling itself, and that's simply not going to translate. A huge part of Watchmen itself is a guy saying, straight up, "Hey, people. Movies can't do this shit, can they." So I immediately question the reason for the movie at all when it's pretty clear that their intention is not to revolutionize Cinema but to make another big name comic book movie.
But like I said, I'm still looking forward to seeing the movie -- I am just trying my best to completely separate the two things in my mind so that I can.
It's just rough when you know that one of Moore's top mission statements in his career is to show that comics are not simply glorified movie storyboards, and are a full blown medium in their own right -- on equal footing with film or prose.
Which they totally are. It has it's disadvantages compared to either, but as a medium it combines the immediacy of film with the connection and power of prose. It might not be as effective at either, but the combination is formidable.
Sorry for the massive windiness, but this is just one of those topics where I just feel the need to spout off about it for a while.
Steeves, please don't take your rage out on me, it shakes me to my delicate core.
But yeah, what you said is basically on everyone's mind. But it sounds like they're at least trying to stay true to the story and keep in things that fans will like, which has helped in movies like Iron Man and Incredible Hulk. Once studio heads start getting their slimy little paws on stuff and taking away the essence, you get shit like Daredevil rocking out to Evanescense or Elektra fighting magical ninjas in the woods. Previous scripts sounded absolutely wretched, like placing it in the present or completely re-writing the "overly complicated" ending. I have very high expectations and hopes for this movie, and am still a little sketchy on some stuff, but all in all I think they're at least taking a somewhat right approach (considering how it could have ended up) to filming a comic that's considered unfilmable.
I will take my rage out on whomever I damn well please!
/snap piece of spaghetti in two /pout /storm off to lecture to children at the park about boating regulations /get mad at monkey bars for not being serious /attack monkey bars with monkey wrench /deliver lecture on irony to police officers /wake up /wonder why head and bottom hurt
I don't really disagree with any of that, and I don't think I ever will, and I really am in the same boat as you thinking that it may be another hollywood money grap.
However, I also acknowledge that movies are the popular media right now and that sales of Spiderman comics went up when Spiderman was released. Sales of the graphic novel of "V for Vendetta" went up when the movie came out. And I imagine that sales of the graphic novel of "The Watchmen" will also go up when that movie comes out.
I don't really fault these filmmakers for wanting to make "The Watchmen". The story is phenomenal, and if they can even capture the essence of the story, especially within todays world context, it has the potential to shake alot of people fundementally.
But I also acknowledge that something will be lost. It's just like a translation from book to movie, something is always lost. Reading a book and watching a movie are not the same experience, they are fundementally different.
But I still don't understand why I can't enjoy both. I've seen film versions of "The Importance of Being Earnest" and I've seen stage versions, and I've read the play. Every single one of those experiences was fundamentally different, and yet I enjoyed each one, and took it for what it was. I suspect that this movie translation of "The Watchmen" will yield similar results.
Unless the movie is just shit. Then what can you do. Then it's just shit.
And that's a lot of my reasoning for even attempting to look forward to the movie.
The keys to my feelings on the subject are that the original is a tribute to the medium of comics over film specifically, and author doesn't want it done.
I acknowledge that there may be ways to overcome the first one (to my satisfaction, certainly), but it's still a pretty deep confliction.
The book stands as one of my favorite pillars of my favorite medium, when somebody comes along and decides it's time to cash in on it in ways that both the work and author don't support, I might not be overwhelmingly approving.
The thing that's great is that is a completely reasonable expectation. I've found, again and again, that film makers can get away with changing quite alot if it's in line with the spirit and intent of the origonal document.
For example, X-Men. Yellow spandex went away, as did the famed "Wolverine Hunch." There had been yellow spandex in the comics for years and years, but this change was decided simply because it doesn't translate into film at all. They acknowledged fully that the comic was able to accomplish something that the film simply COULD NOT, and by acknowledging that the film was stronger for it. Now, I don't deny that "The Watchmen" is certianly a larger project then "X-Men" but the basic theory is the same.
If they go into the film thinking "Time to knock out another hundred million dollars and call it a day" then it's going to show. However, if they go in going "Here is a work of art that has recieved some of the best critical acclaim of any writen work, graphic novel or otherwise" that will ALSO show. It's alot like "I Am Legend" in that regard. That's a stark example of a work that the filmmakers ultimately just did not understand. The didn't get the ultimate point, and so anything they did, no matter how cool or awesome looking, was tainted because of it.
At the end of the day this will be the distinction that we will recognize and notice. We will either be able to say, with clarity, that they either got it or they didn't, and that they were either in it for the money, or they were in it to make a credible artistic contribution to society.
My gut says the latter, but my experience and mind say the former will, unfortunately, prevail.
But what I just said is that the spirit and intent of the original document is inherently at odds with film as a medium. You can't throw away the spirit and intent of the original document and stay true to the spirit and intent of the original document.
Success or failure, at the end of the day I will walk away from the theater going, "Based on what I just watched, I can say that comics have substantial advantages over film." If they elicit that reaction through success, I will applaud them for days.
I just don't see why there needs to be an adaptation of everything, or more precisely, why anyone should look forward to or support one that is so clearly problematic.
Basically, why does it need to be Watchmen? it's going to be different enough that if they did a comparatively small amount of work -- changed names, appearances and a few plot points -- they could have their own property. Why adapt something that clearly doesn't want to be adapted?
Well there's two ways to answer that. As a businessman and as an artist.
The businessman arguement is easy. I'd like to make a bunch of money and the Watchmen is going to facilitate that.
The artist arguement, I feel, is actually just as easy. I want as many people to know about this as I possibly can, film is the popular medium, so I will make a film about it. Every time a comic book movie gets made, sales of that comic go up. I may expose someone who has never heard of the watchmen, and who may very well be coming to see the movie to see a "crappy comic book movie" in their mind, to something truly wonderful.
I mean, you can't just make something and then put it in a corner forever, unless you legitimately don't care about anyone ever seeing it for forever. Then at that point, why should it bother you if they make a movie out of it? You know what matters to you, and if the movie doesn't matter to you, then why care about it?
Yeah, you'll get people who walk out of the theatre going "Oh man, what a great movie" who will never understand that the comic is better. But you'll also get people who'll think the movie was shit, and who thought the book was shit, and you also have the people who will love the movie and will hate the book, and who'll hate the movie and love the book. There's just no accounting for tastes.
I suppose the artistic arguement boils down to this. If you want more people to read the graphic novel, and understand why comics ARE a better medium then movies, then this movie should be made. If you don't care about people reading the graphic novel, then you shouldn't care about them making a movie either.
See, I'm with Moore on that point, too. That just doesn't hold water for me. Watching the movie first will detract from the book, and that's not worth an increased audience.
It just seems much more like an excuse to do it than a reason to. An artistic excuse to justify the businessman.
If you don't want it in a corner so bad that you're going to spend so much money on it, have big ol' reissue and advertising campaign.
And if the work is going to fade away into obscurity -- which it isn't doing now -- it seems like a better, more natural end than to be Frankensteined into another decade of relevancy.
I think we're just going to have to disagree on this point steeves. You believe it impossible for the story to come across in film, and I fully disagree. You also think that the comic will be ruined by people watching the movie, again I fully disagree.
The only possible reason I can really hold onto for not wanting to make the film is because I believe the graphic novel format to simply be superior. But if I'm going to believe that, and not be hostily elitist in thinking that way, then I should allow the film to be made to simply prove that point.
If the origonal document is of any worth then a movie won't hurt it in the slightest except to people who never cared about the origonal document in the first place.
My argument has nothing to do with comics being a "superior" medium. In my opinion it's apples and oranges. Whether or not it's superior would have no bearing on anything, anyway. If it's the "substantial advantages" comment that gave you this impression, perhaps I was unclear: Comics have substantial advantages over film, and movies have substantial advantages over comics; comics are not film's retarded, stunted clone, but an equal. It's exactly that thinking in reverse that largely inspired Watchmen. (And it's largely that which gives this project the feeling of like... If Strom Thurmond had The Black Panthers over for dinner.)
It has everything to do with a single work being intrinsically unsuited to adaptation to a new medium because it's construction and aims are intentionally at odds with that medium -- whatever it's format of origin -- and, through consideration of that, questioning the concept of adaptation as a whole.
I have to ask the same questions about why anybody would adapt The Matrix into a novel if they had a seriously deep respect for the work. Certainly it has aspects that would be excellent in the medium it's being adapted to, but it would be so changed that I wonder why you wouldn't simply write your own work based on the original and give it a glowing writeup in the foreword or dedication.
And this is me, of course. I'm not saying there aren't reasons, and that's why I'm talking about this instead of just ignoring it. I'd really like to be able to put these nagging doubts aside with a nice, solid justification for this movie. A big part of me wants to look forward to it. I certainly don't want to go to the theater and get torn up by it, and if I don't clear these misgivings up I probably will.
I'll certainly accept agreeing to disagree and letting it lie, but I had to clear that up. The central disagreement, it seems to me, is on whether a work needs to be adapted and to reach the largest possible audience to be worthwhile. I say that in this case it is too large of a compromise.
I think this is a fair way to characterize the sides: I am more concerned with the work's integrity, you are more concerned with it's relevance.
Oh, and I don't think it's impossible for the story to come across. I think the story is entirely adaptable. So adaptable in fact that it could have a different name. The Work with a capital W, I don't think they have a very good chance at capturing that -- but humans fly every day.
Also, I never said ruined. You can't ruin something that way, certainly. Degrade, though, you certainly can.
This has been an arguement that's been going on between liturature and film for sixty years. Replace the word "Comic" for "Novel" and it's precisely the same arguement. The conclusion that was reached between those two bodies was simple. "Don't think you're smart because you watched the movie version" and "The book is always better" ("better" here being a subjective term.)will be the phrases used by the liturature side and "We're just trying to show the excellent stories" will be the phrase the movie side uses.
I imagine the much same thing will happen between comics and movies.
Yeah, totally. Basically I'm questioning how much I respect that. And the more I do, the more I think that the argument hasn't really been "settled" -- it's just so old that nobody has it anymore. It's become accepted, but it's still problematic. I'm just finally finding the route to it.
Even if you take something like The Lord of the Rings where they produced a very enjoyable series of movies that most people would call a success -- I'm not sure that making it was the "right" thing to do. On a practical level I am fine with them doing it, but I would feel like they were starting off on the wrong foot and I would never have as much respect for the work as if they had made their own.
I think the key difference from the norm that produced the wrinkle and made me really stick on this issue is that I can't think of a novel I've read that's been adapted into a movie where the book was specifically intended to show why books are better than movies.
And, of course, movies are the upstart kid lacking in respectability in the book/film relationship; film/comics is the opposite. Film is dominant, wealthy and has widespread respect as an art form. Comics are the upstart without respect or a dominant audience. When the less respectable upstart takes from the venerable written word, that's a different thing from when the respected, dominant medium takes from the one trying to get a foothold.
To make the adaptation is probably better for the medium, though. So, perhaps -- accepting that it's bad for the book -- I can make myself feel a bit better by thinking that one of the best pieces of evidence that even the stereotypical superhero comic is not worthless is getting exposure. And the more exposure the best of comics get, perhaps it's for the medium's greater good. Degrading the effectiveness of it's best works might be a bad thing for comics, but maybe the exposure will gain comics itself a bigger audience, which, hopefully, will be able to easily find those great comics and build the respectability.
It hasn't been cutting the mustard so far, though. It's good enough that I won't picket the movie, and even to recommend it to people who don't know it. But there's certainly no reason there to watch the movie.
Your last point kind of confused me. You'd recommend the movie but you wouldn't watch it yourself?
Doesn't that sort of set yourself, and other movie goers, up for an inevitable failure? I mean, if you demand that they, at the very least, stay close to the SPIRIT of the piece, doesn't it require a viewing yourself to know if they've botched it entirely or not?
You could be sending sheep into the metaphorical grinding machine.
There are so many things like that, (the entire book that is a reflection of itself?) that it really makes me ask the same question he has, Why are they adapting this book into a movie? I mean, why try? It's not going to be Watchmen the book that Moore wrote simply moved to the screen. It's going to be a different thing.
It's like V for Vendetta, it was a perfectly acceptable movie, but as Moore says, if they had any balls they would have written their own story and left his book alone. They wouldn't have to make a radically different movie to be legally safe.
It's not like this is the first adaptation that's raised these specters, far from it, it's just that in this case, one of the things I love most about the original is the storytelling itself, and that's simply not going to translate. A huge part of Watchmen itself is a guy saying, straight up, "Hey, people. Movies can't do this shit, can they." So I immediately question the reason for the movie at all when it's pretty clear that their intention is not to revolutionize Cinema but to make another big name comic book movie.
But like I said, I'm still looking forward to seeing the movie -- I am just trying my best to completely separate the two things in my mind so that I can.
It's just rough when you know that one of Moore's top mission statements in his career is to show that comics are not simply glorified movie storyboards, and are a full blown medium in their own right -- on equal footing with film or prose.
Which they totally are. It has it's disadvantages compared to either, but as a medium it combines the immediacy of film with the connection and power of prose. It might not be as effective at either, but the combination is formidable.
Sorry for the massive windiness, but this is just one of those topics where I just feel the need to spout off about it for a while.
Reply
Reply
But yeah, what you said is basically on everyone's mind. But it sounds like they're at least trying to stay true to the story and keep in things that fans will like, which has helped in movies like Iron Man and Incredible Hulk. Once studio heads start getting their slimy little paws on stuff and taking away the essence, you get shit like Daredevil rocking out to Evanescense or Elektra fighting magical ninjas in the woods. Previous scripts sounded absolutely wretched, like placing it in the present or completely re-writing the "overly complicated" ending. I have very high expectations and hopes for this movie, and am still a little sketchy on some stuff, but all in all I think they're at least taking a somewhat right approach (considering how it could have ended up) to filming a comic that's considered unfilmable.
Reply
/snap piece of spaghetti in two
/pout
/storm off to lecture to children at the park about boating regulations
/get mad at monkey bars for not being serious
/attack monkey bars with monkey wrench
/deliver lecture on irony to police officers
/wake up
/wonder why head and bottom hurt
Reply
However, I also acknowledge that movies are the popular media right now and that sales of Spiderman comics went up when Spiderman was released. Sales of the graphic novel of "V for Vendetta" went up when the movie came out. And I imagine that sales of the graphic novel of "The Watchmen" will also go up when that movie comes out.
I don't really fault these filmmakers for wanting to make "The Watchmen". The story is phenomenal, and if they can even capture the essence of the story, especially within todays world context, it has the potential to shake alot of people fundementally.
But I also acknowledge that something will be lost. It's just like a translation from book to movie, something is always lost. Reading a book and watching a movie are not the same experience, they are fundementally different.
But I still don't understand why I can't enjoy both. I've seen film versions of "The Importance of Being Earnest" and I've seen stage versions, and I've read the play. Every single one of those experiences was fundamentally different, and yet I enjoyed each one, and took it for what it was. I suspect that this movie translation of "The Watchmen" will yield similar results.
Unless the movie is just shit. Then what can you do. Then it's just shit.
Reply
The keys to my feelings on the subject are that the original is a tribute to the medium of comics over film specifically, and author doesn't want it done.
I acknowledge that there may be ways to overcome the first one (to my satisfaction, certainly), but it's still a pretty deep confliction.
The book stands as one of my favorite pillars of my favorite medium, when somebody comes along and decides it's time to cash in on it in ways that both the work and author don't support, I might not be overwhelmingly approving.
Reply
For example, X-Men. Yellow spandex went away, as did the famed "Wolverine Hunch." There had been yellow spandex in the comics for years and years, but this change was decided simply because it doesn't translate into film at all. They acknowledged fully that the comic was able to accomplish something that the film simply COULD NOT, and by acknowledging that the film was stronger for it. Now, I don't deny that "The Watchmen" is certianly a larger project then "X-Men" but the basic theory is the same.
If they go into the film thinking "Time to knock out another hundred million dollars and call it a day" then it's going to show. However, if they go in going "Here is a work of art that has recieved some of the best critical acclaim of any writen work, graphic novel or otherwise" that will ALSO show. It's alot like "I Am Legend" in that regard. That's a stark example of a work that the filmmakers ultimately just did not understand. The didn't get the ultimate point, and so anything they did, no matter how cool or awesome looking, was tainted because of it.
At the end of the day this will be the distinction that we will recognize and notice. We will either be able to say, with clarity, that they either got it or they didn't, and that they were either in it for the money, or they were in it to make a credible artistic contribution to society.
My gut says the latter, but my experience and mind say the former will, unfortunately, prevail.
Reply
Success or failure, at the end of the day I will walk away from the theater going, "Based on what I just watched, I can say that comics have substantial advantages over film." If they elicit that reaction through success, I will applaud them for days.
I just don't see why there needs to be an adaptation of everything, or more precisely, why anyone should look forward to or support one that is so clearly problematic.
Basically, why does it need to be Watchmen? it's going to be different enough that if they did a comparatively small amount of work -- changed names, appearances and a few plot points -- they could have their own property. Why adapt something that clearly doesn't want to be adapted?
Reply
The businessman arguement is easy. I'd like to make a bunch of money and the Watchmen is going to facilitate that.
The artist arguement, I feel, is actually just as easy. I want as many people to know about this as I possibly can, film is the popular medium, so I will make a film about it. Every time a comic book movie gets made, sales of that comic go up. I may expose someone who has never heard of the watchmen, and who may very well be coming to see the movie to see a "crappy comic book movie" in their mind, to something truly wonderful.
I mean, you can't just make something and then put it in a corner forever, unless you legitimately don't care about anyone ever seeing it for forever. Then at that point, why should it bother you if they make a movie out of it? You know what matters to you, and if the movie doesn't matter to you, then why care about it?
Yeah, you'll get people who walk out of the theatre going "Oh man, what a great movie" who will never understand that the comic is better. But you'll also get people who'll think the movie was shit, and who thought the book was shit, and you also have the people who will love the movie and will hate the book, and who'll hate the movie and love the book. There's just no accounting for tastes.
I suppose the artistic arguement boils down to this. If you want more people to read the graphic novel, and understand why comics ARE a better medium then movies, then this movie should be made. If you don't care about people reading the graphic novel, then you shouldn't care about them making a movie either.
Reply
It just seems much more like an excuse to do it than a reason to. An artistic excuse to justify the businessman.
If you don't want it in a corner so bad that you're going to spend so much money on it, have big ol' reissue and advertising campaign.
And if the work is going to fade away into obscurity -- which it isn't doing now -- it seems like a better, more natural end than to be Frankensteined into another decade of relevancy.
Reply
The only possible reason I can really hold onto for not wanting to make the film is because I believe the graphic novel format to simply be superior. But if I'm going to believe that, and not be hostily elitist in thinking that way, then I should allow the film to be made to simply prove that point.
If the origonal document is of any worth then a movie won't hurt it in the slightest except to people who never cared about the origonal document in the first place.
Reply
It has everything to do with a single work being intrinsically unsuited to adaptation to a new medium because it's construction and aims are intentionally at odds with that medium -- whatever it's format of origin -- and, through consideration of that, questioning the concept of adaptation as a whole.
I have to ask the same questions about why anybody would adapt The Matrix into a novel if they had a seriously deep respect for the work. Certainly it has aspects that would be excellent in the medium it's being adapted to, but it would be so changed that I wonder why you wouldn't simply write your own work based on the original and give it a glowing writeup in the foreword or dedication.
And this is me, of course. I'm not saying there aren't reasons, and that's why I'm talking about this instead of just ignoring it. I'd really like to be able to put these nagging doubts aside with a nice, solid justification for this movie. A big part of me wants to look forward to it. I certainly don't want to go to the theater and get torn up by it, and if I don't clear these misgivings up I probably will.
I'll certainly accept agreeing to disagree and letting it lie, but I had to clear that up. The central disagreement, it seems to me, is on whether a work needs to be adapted and to reach the largest possible audience to be worthwhile. I say that in this case it is too large of a compromise.
I think this is a fair way to characterize the sides: I am more concerned with the work's integrity, you are more concerned with it's relevance.
Reply
Also, I never said ruined. You can't ruin something that way, certainly. Degrade, though, you certainly can.
Reply
I imagine the much same thing will happen between comics and movies.
Reply
Even if you take something like The Lord of the Rings where they produced a very enjoyable series of movies that most people would call a success -- I'm not sure that making it was the "right" thing to do. On a practical level I am fine with them doing it, but I would feel like they were starting off on the wrong foot and I would never have as much respect for the work as if they had made their own.
I think the key difference from the norm that produced the wrinkle and made me really stick on this issue is that I can't think of a novel I've read that's been adapted into a movie where the book was specifically intended to show why books are better than movies.
And, of course, movies are the upstart kid lacking in respectability in the book/film relationship; film/comics is the opposite. Film is dominant, wealthy and has widespread respect as an art form. Comics are the upstart without respect or a dominant audience. When the less respectable upstart takes from the venerable written word, that's a different thing from when the respected, dominant medium takes from the one trying to get a foothold.
To make the adaptation is probably better for the medium, though. So, perhaps -- accepting that it's bad for the book -- I can make myself feel a bit better by thinking that one of the best pieces of evidence that even the stereotypical superhero comic is not worthless is getting exposure. And the more exposure the best of comics get, perhaps it's for the medium's greater good. Degrading the effectiveness of it's best works might be a bad thing for comics, but maybe the exposure will gain comics itself a bigger audience, which, hopefully, will be able to easily find those great comics and build the respectability.
It hasn't been cutting the mustard so far, though. It's good enough that I won't picket the movie, and even to recommend it to people who don't know it. But there's certainly no reason there to watch the movie.
Reply
Doesn't that sort of set yourself, and other movie goers, up for an inevitable failure? I mean, if you demand that they, at the very least, stay close to the SPIRIT of the piece, doesn't it require a viewing yourself to know if they've botched it entirely or not?
You could be sending sheep into the metaphorical grinding machine.
Reply
Leave a comment