Does anyone actually believe this won’t suck?

I'm currently erring on the side of it not sucking, but maybe being a little disappointing.

We'll see though. The director did a cracking remake of Dawn of the Dead and actually improved on 300 while remaining faithful to the original.

I still have hope that this'll be something special.

Plagiarism scandal rocks DC's Vertigo line. A comics blogger has discovered shocking evidence of theft in Fables, Y: The Last Man, Sandman, and other major Vertigo titles. (Via Comics Should Be Good!)

Also keep in mind I was addressing someone elses point about "the need for the Watchmen" movie before you starting doing your pithy comments and later these rants. Honestly I'm not interested in arguing about your personal attachment to material and how the movie effects it. All I can say to that is you probably shouldn't see the movie and ease up on the caffiene.

Sorry if that sounds snippy.

Grant
Walking on Sunshine

More sunshine from you; more dark clouds from me. Although just once more, for the last time -- Snyder may surprise me. Of course I'll be pleased enough if it's simply bad, and not outright garbage.

However, you've got me all wrong. And also, I accept that you do not mean to say STFU -- but look, your suggestion that I simply ignore what may disappoint me pretty much includes the idea of me shutting up about it, right? So I hope you can understand my confusion, there.

Here's your first misapprehension of my position: you seem to think the "problem" is that I think they shouldn't make the movie because it may not meet my expectations. But that is NOT AT ALL what I'm saying. My expectations for any Watchmen movie are naturally low, in fact they're very low. I've had high expectations for adaptations of comics, and I've had low ones; I've seen movies that met those expectations, exceeded them, fell below them, all kinds of stuff like that. That is NOT the problem; that's just business as usual. For example, Ghost World didn't live up to my expectations, but I still liked it. So if the expectational bar for Watchmen is set much, much lower than that, does that mean I'm going to hate it? Not necessarily. A Watchmen movie that was merely a failure, a movie whose reach merely exceeded its grasp, that wouldn't bother me. Shittiness is just shittiness. It's no good, of course; but it isn't worth sweating. A bad movie, in fact, though it might not be what I hoped, will rarely fall below my minimum requirements for not hating it. I may not like it; I may have snarky things to say about it. But it probably won't offend me.

What does offend me, though, is if someone makes a movie adapted from another source (that I really love) and FAILS TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE THING THEY'RE ADAPTING. This is what they call in the business "doing justice" to the source material and its fans. And sometimes they don't do justice to it, sometimes they cack it up horribly. Sometimes they even turn it around to a point where the themes are REVERSED. "Traffic was a bitch", etc. I hope you see my point. This isn't a matter of my expectations not being met, and how they shouldn't make the movie if I'm not going to like it -- this is a matter of how if you think it would be cool to make a movie of Equus that had some car chases and wire-fu in it, but lose the horse and the psychiatrist, they don't work...then you don't deserve to be ignored by those whose expectations you didn't meet, you deserve to be condemned for thinking that it's no problem mixing Dom Perignon with Dr. Pepper because there's no difference between Dom Perignon and Dr. Pepper anyway, and in fact let's just re-label this Dr. Pepper as Dom Perignon, and what the hell. I respect that you don't have a problem with anybody making a movie out of anything, just to see how that goes, and that if it's no good it's no skin off your nose -- seriously, Grant, that's great. No animosity here, I can definitely appreciate that point of view. But I'm not operating off that principle, you know? Watchmen may turn out to be great, after all -- it's possible. More likely it'll suck. But if it turns out to be Howard The Duck, I'm going to be pissed.

And, second misapprehension: I'm not worried about the source material "surviving" a bad adaptation. That's not a concern of mine. Actually I'd like it if DC stopped printing Watchmen, so Moore and Gibbons could reclaim the rights to it! I know my copy of Watchmen isn't going to spontaneously burst into flames on the shelf if the movie sucks. That is NOT what I'm saying, so there's no need to try to assuage my fears about that: I don't have those fears, and that's not my point.

Third and final misapprehension is not about me, but about Howard: I'm afraid you've got it wrong, there -- the movie continues to ruin HTD's reputation to this day, and what Marvel chooses to publish unfortunately doesn't affect that in the slightest. The work is fine, and "survives" -- I'm sure if I could get someone to read it, they'd like it. But people still snort in derision when they hear the words "Howard The Duck", Christ it's like being back in the Seventies all over again! That movie was an embarrassment to HTD fans, and it still is. Even if I'd decided simply to ignore it, and not watch it, that would still be true.

Sorry if any of that sounded overly snippy; haven't had my coffee yet.

I don't know plok, maybe you like the Watchman more then I. But I have faith that the work is strong enough to survive any adaptation. It's been in print for twenty years, taught in colleges, received accolades from the mainstream press (Time Magazine had it on the 100 greatest books between 1923-2005). I'd feel the same way if someone decided to make Catcher in Rye.

At the same time if someone thinks they can make a property into a movie and then I'm all for anyone trying to make a go at it. They are the ones who have the most to lose from this. That's how we get great adaptations like Children of Men, The Godfather, or No Country for Old Men. We also get some bad adaptations. Mike Newell thought he could make Love in the Time of Cholera (which I haven't seen) into a movie. Considering the reviews and box office he failed miserably. But the book and the reputation of Gabriel Garcia Marquez is intact. Newell's rep on the other hand is probably hurting though.

As for the argument that the Watchmen movie is a one shot deal I really don't buy that either. The property is beloved enough that if Snyder screws it up I'm sure there will be another director who wants to give it another shot to "do it right" a decade or two from now. If a book is popular enough they will keep remaking it. Usually the only thing that prevents is if the book drops out of the public eye or the movie is considered a classic in it's own right.

For all this worry that adaptations ruin their source materials respectabilty again I have my doubts. The Spider-man movies and X-Men movies despite their success and acclaim didn't help sales of their comics that much. On the other hand League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell and V for Vendetta have managed to go through multiple printings despite the lack of success and acclaim in their screen adaptations. Black Dossier was also one of the best selling graphic novels of the last year too despite the efforts of Mr. Sean Connery and Steve Norrington to ruin the property (not to mention DC/Time Warners own efforts). As for Howard the Duck, considering that Marvel is releasing an expensive hardcover collecting Steve Gerbers run I think even that property survived a bad adaptation.

Sigh. I suppose there's a chance I will pay money to see this in the theatre. I was going to see the first FF movie in the theatre, and then balked...I didn't see V For Vendetta in the theatre and now I suppose I might've liked to...actually, now that I think about it, NO. "Street Fighting Man" just freaked me out way too much even on DVD...

Naturally I had no inclination to see HTD in the theatre. I waited for TV, I think. Hmm...

I don't know. I think I'll let you all see it first. But man I wish it was Gondry making this thing.

But really, I bet at least one fan has said about every announced adaptation of every comic and even every novel, and every re-recording of a treasured song for that matter, "they can't do it right" which probably really means "don't spoil this for me." Wasn't it said about both Gone With the Wind and the Godfather that they would be impossible to film, or at least to do justice to on film?

And that fan can always say "if the comic/book/song meant as much to you as it does to me, you wouldn't want this either." But really, the guy on the other side can honestly retort, from his perspective, "if the comic/book/song meant as much to you as it does to me, you WOULD want this, no matter what, no matter how bad it might turn out, just on the slim faint chance that they might actually do it right."
Whose view is more valid? Whose form of fanboy passion is more genuine?

And did we really have to quit pushing Howard because of that travesty of a film?
Should I hide my beloved FF 49 because Rise of the Silver Surfer sucked so bad? Should I stop giving people trade paperbacks of Extraordinary Gentlemen because the movie mangled everything, and scowl at my Hellblazers because Keanu freaking Reeves was so lame?
Should I box up my Sandmans now, because it's only a matter of time and you KNOW they'll blow that one too?

No bad movie ever ruins great source material, it only makes the fans look silly. But hey, we are comic book fans, the few, the brave, the impervious to ridicule. I know, I know, the odds for this movie do not look good. But if you really truly love the book so much, then bite the bullet. Wear your human bean juice happy face button and your Rorschach t-shirt, and sit in the front row, clutching the graphic novel telling everybody around you "Worst. Comic. Book. Adaptation. Ever."
And you will hear the other true fans in the shadows behind you, snorting in agreement.
Unfortunately then Grant might possibly throw his Pepsi and natchos and shout "hey shut up, I'm really into this," and things could get ugly real fast.

So here's the problem: it's difficult to argue against the idea that all this doesn't really amount to much of importance in an objective sense, and if the movie turns out great, hey we're on the plus side! But the thing is, there can be Batman movies and Batman movies, and Batman TV shows and Batman TV shows, and yes Batman comics and comics and comics. Some are good, and some are bad (and some are awful), but none are necessary and so all are luxuries...and Batman's always there to do over again maybe better the next time. Plus, a Batman story's pretty much a Batman story: it can be made shitty, but it can't really be made completely and totally wrong. You can have a million stupid versions of Batman, and still never encounter a travesty of Batman. Okay, Spider-Man 3 comes awfully close to being a travesty, but at least we'll always have SM1 and SM2, right?

Watchmen's a little different. It isn't just one more superhero story, to be made into one more superhero movie in the regular way, and we won't have Watchmen 2 or 3 to come along and make it better afterwards -- ipso facto. Glad Fourthworlder mentioned Howard The Duck -- Batman and Robin was just awful, but HTD was a travesty. HTD the movie failed utterly to capture any of the themes, humour, or quality of storytelling at work in the comic -- in fact it was almost like it didn't understand what any of these were in the first place, didn't realize that its source material was good. And very possibly it was just a dumb idea in the first place, with extraordinarily long odds against it ever being any good at all, under any circumstances. A cigar-smoking duck in a comic-book? Okay. On screen? Hmm, I don't know...sounds like a stretch. Sure, they made Planet of the Apes, and that worked, but that doesn't mean people are gonna like Howard.

And besides, it wasn't Howard.

Watchmen is in that same ballpark, I believe. A ferocious technical accomplishment perfectly suited to the comics form (as perfectly as a wisecracking, world-weary duck is suited to it as a protagonist), Watchmen uses the superhero genre to explore and accentuate the matter of growing up, growing old, and letting go in a universe where freedom is very strictly and cruelly curtailed, to the point where one is tempted to think of it as wholly illusory. Watchmen is about time, and fate, and doom; it is not about who's killing the superheroes.

Who's killing the superheroes would be an easy movie to make. In fact they made it already: The Incredibles. And it was really good!

But it was made to be a movie, and Watchmen really wasn't. Consider that almost every image in Watchmen becomes a motif, that belongs to a greater family of motifs: Watchmen is extremely graphically rich, logically dense, loaded with detail, packed full of juxtaposition. In a comic, you can dwell on such details. In a movie you can't...at least, not easily. That's one thing right there, that makes it hard to imagine how to do a good job. Of course Mr. Snyder is a professional film director, and I'm not: very likely he's got some brilliant ideas about how to approach this subset (super-set?) of the subject matter, which I haven't thought of. But will those ideas be brilliant enough? If I try real hard, I can maybe think of a director who might've been able to do justice to Howard. Wait...no, actually I can't, but there may well be somebody like that out there. Watchmen's a little easier: some directors have already shown themselves to be interested in and excited about this same double vu obsession with Time that Moore and Gibbons make such a stunning show of. If it was announced that Michel Gondry was directing Watchmen, I'd be more than happy to think positive thoughts about it -- I consider that guy a real artist, whose oeuvre suggests he'd be well-suited to such material. For that matter, I wish he'd made From Hell.

But Watchmen has got to be a tough adaptation to make in any case, regardless of the director being all simpatico with the original vision. For one thing, all that detail makes it a very big story. Also, its themes don't admit of easy summary. Also, some of the most affecting parts of it were bound up in long episodes of layered flashback and narration, something I imagine would be difficult to preserve in film. Was it Sam Hamm who wrote a treatment for it, that circulated online a couple of years ago? Wow, did he ever miss the point with that one. That one was no good at all. Just an X-Men movie with the Watchmen names, and cape-killing. Rorschach for Wolverine. Nite Owl for Beast. Blah.

And should I not care about that, not be glad that version of Watchmen was never made?

A friend of mine also points out that the scene-changing in Watchmen, so thrilling on the page, would be trite and stale on a movie screen, and I think maybe he's right -- one of the things comics can do that movies can't, is to make stuff that would look stupid in a movie come vividly to life on a page. And obviously that sword cuts both ways, too...when comics ape the vocabulary of movies too enthusiastically, sometimes they essay pronunciations that fall hopelessly flat on the "ear", too. So what would it take, to overcome this little matter of convergent, but occasionally dissonant, visual style?

I don't know. But I know that if it is not overcome, the movie would be better off not being made...oh, except for the purpose of Warner Bros. making money from it, of course. Grant brings up something I consider to be an unfair tactic, there: "it's their money, and they can do what they want with it, so pipe down, your objections are pointless." I apologize if that sounds harsh; I think maybe I was just dropping the one-liners in there in an effort not to say something that sounded harsh, strangely enough...but oh well, in for a penny...and I really do not mean to be a dick about it, but invoking Warners' right to spend their money as they see fit does very little to settle the issue of whether a film version of Watchmen that ends up being a travesty of its excellent source material is something we as comics fans, or indeed anybody, "needs". Actually I think we probably do "need" good movies to watch, if we're going to have movies at all -- and as a matter of fact I don't think every movie that gets greenlighted has a better-than-even chance of stinking out the joint anyway, so we have to take the good with the bad and be happy with the occasional flower growing out of the garbage dump... In fact I repudiate that view: that Spider-Man 3 sucked so very, very badly is not the fault of the odds, it's the fault of the person or persons who made it suck...and that they did a bad job with it is reason enough to find fault with them, and lay blame at their feet. I don't think that's unfair, or just negative thinking, or anything like that. Movies, like comics, should be Good, shouldn't they? And isn't it faintly insulting to filmmaking professionals to say they're pretty much bound to screw the pooch every time they go to work?

And if they did...why would that be okay, and no big deal?

Sorry, ranting a little -- again, no offense is intended, Grant, it's just how I see it. Your sunny live-and-let-live attitude isn't anything I feel compelled by a grouchy character to sneeze at, but at the same time...wow, you think it's cool they're making it, and you're rooting for them, but if it sucks then you won't be too disappointed, you'll just go see Wolverine instead and maybe that'll be better...seems to be what you're saying, and I just can't bring myself to agree with you. I will be disappointed -- very disappointed -- if someone makes a movie of Watchmen that completely misses its point except for the costumes and the super-killer whodunnit and Rorschach being a badass, and people don't notice or don't care, who should and could. Meanwhile if Wolverine sucks, I really couldn't give a damn, but I'm thinking it could very well be pretty good. However, I'm not condemning Snyder -- maybe he'll astound me! -- but let's face it, Watchmen isn't Wolverine. For one thing, it isn't really a superhero story.

Though I'd like to repeat that I'm not trying to be a dick about these things, and hopefully I'm not succeeding despite myself either, the reason I guess I've so far given Grant these short, lippy replies instead of something longer and (again hopefully) more well-reasoned is that basically I read his comments as STFU...and that piques me a little. Is my disquiet over the possibility, perhaps even the likelihood, of a bad Watchmen movie really just so much fanboy entitlement and nerd rage? Grant is stoked about it; why am I being such a downer?

As I said, that argument may not be persuasive, but it's hard to rebut. So forgive me if I fall back on my last-ditch defence against it, which is: maybe I just like Watchmen more than you do, Grant? That's possible, you know. It's a real top favourite of mine, a formative reading experience. And I still push Watchmen on people, occasionally.

But I've had to give up on pushing Howard The Duck.

So -- if I really need a more personal reason to be trepidatious here -- it'll be a certain amount of egg on my face, too, if the movie sucks.

Do not want.

Okay, I hadn't taken that into account -- thanks for the heads-up, Fourthworlder. And Grant, I'm not trying to be a dick or get personal, it's just that it seems to me you're mostly arguing for everybody to CHILL OUT, what's the big deal, hey if it works out that's great, but if it doesn't no big loss, anyway no one's gonna force you to go see it...

And this point of view isn't one I find particularly persuasive; however, it is difficult to rebut.

More on that in just one second -- first I want to get this posted before Grant really does take offense. Whoops!

Probably everybody following this thread cares (to some extent at least)about Watchmen. I'm still kind of choked that Brian isn't letting us vote for it in the current poll, I'd love to see just where in the top three it would end up. I'll make up my own mind whether to wait until dvd to see it (or whether to even skip it then, I still haven't watched Extraordinary Gentlemen or Ghost Rider all the way through, I gave up on both about half-way) based on what I read and the trailers I see between now and then.

They'll film whatever adaptations they decide to film, and my expectations are never too high. The only time I take real offense is when the movie is so bad it makes the source material appear equally ridiculous (I remember the late '80s, trying to convince people that actually Howard the Duck had once been a wonderful comic, after they'd seen that wretched movie).

And at least Watchmen won't have Alba as Sue Richards.

Not arguing that. And while the style they used in the movie worked for the movie it didn't have the same impact me as the American Splendor comics. Which is an unrealistic expectation to have.

"I feel the same about Watchmen personally. I don’t think a direct adaptation will work, but unlike with American Splendor, I have absolutely zero faith in Snyder’s ability to do anything different with it."

I'm not saying he's the best guy to do it. But at the same time I think he's a little more passionate about this project then say Michael Bay on Transformers or Brett Ratner on X-Men 3. I'm not going to fault a guy for trying to make a good movie even if the odds are against him. And I do think a direct adaptation isn't the best take but at the same time I'm curious because he's doing things that normally one wouldn't do when adapting a superhero comic. I do question the creative motivations for that and whether or not it will work but at the same time I kind of want to see it.

"And with regards to Batman, yes I see your point. But I’d say Batman is a more unique case. Sure Batman will always be a comics character most of all, but more than that hes a pop culture figure with a long history in multiple forms of media/art. I think fans who complain about Batman films not being faithful to the source material miss the point somewhat - Batman no longer just belongs to comics."

Do they need to keep making Batman movies other then purposes of making money though? We've got 6 of them already. Would the cinematic world suffer if they stop making Batman movies? I don't see the "need" to make Batman movies.

"Watchmen on the other hand does, and I don’t see why we need an inferior version of something that already works so well in comic form."

I think it's pretty simple. It's a good story and has elements in it to make a good movie. I have my doubts that the guy who directed 300 and Dawn of the Dead is the right person to do it. And there's a bit of a novelty to seeing these characters on the screen. But at the end of the day if it sucks will it really that much harm? We survived some shitty Alan Moore adaptations an yet those books remain on the shelves (some of them are even taught in schools).

Eiither way it's Warner Bros money to spend. If they want to make a movie they can. If you don't want to see you don't have to.

"All that’s been done with the costume is to update it to modern mores."

Ah yes, 2008 fashion sensibilites for people in 1986 who haven't worn their costumes since the seventies.

Don’t try to obfuscate my argument by hinting at accusations. I’m not speaking from the fanboy entitlement mentality, and you have no reason to suspect me of doing so.

All audiences of all art deserve quality art. They pay to view, and are therefore deserving of a meaniingful experience. There’s no reason that can’t be entertaining for them as well.

What on earth are you talking about? You said 300 and Sin City were not good movies and that audiences "deserve" good movies. All I'm saying is that based on how great the public's reaction was to both movies, as shown by the enthusiastic fans of both films and the brisk movie ticket and DVD sales, I think a lot of people feel that they did get two good movies. I don't think all those guys that love 300 and Sin City, own the DVDs and rewatch them as frequently as possible feel like they got less than they deserved. Just because you feel like you didn't get the level of depth you like from your entertainment doesn't mean the audience was shortchanged and got less than it deserved. I think the audiences on a whole were happy and find the movies to be good.

With regards to American Splendor, no we definitely didn't need a film but yes it was great and I'm glad they did it too. Crucially for me they recognised that directly translating the source material page for page into film form wouldn't work, and instead did something very clever with it that took advantage of some of the tools of film (adding the cool postmodern documentary-like interviews and such). I feel the same about Watchmen personally. I don't think a direct adaptation will work, but unlike with American Splendor, I have absolutely zero faith in Snyder's ability to do anything different with it.

And with regards to Batman, yes I see your point. But I'd say Batman is a more unique case. Sure Batman will always be a comics character most of all, but more than that hes a pop culture figure with a long history in multiple forms of media/art. I think fans who complain about Batman films not being faithful to the source material miss the point somewhat - Batman no longer just belongs to comics.

Watchmen on the other hand does, and I don't see why we need an inferior version of something that already works so well in comic form.

Awesome.