Comic Book Resources

The comic geek in me says that it looks pretty faithful, even if they had to add more flare to the action.

As a movie geek I find it laughable to consider Zack Snyder a visionary director. And the CGI looks kind of cheap to me, though I suppose they still have time to work on it.

what an awful, awful song choice.

Yeah, there’s something off putting about that Rorschach spray can/match lighting scene that looks a bit cheesy. But I suppose all I can do is wait and see.

Seriously. The part of me that was admittedly into the spectacle of the trailer was totally turned off by the shitty music. Was that Billy Corgan? Aren’t we rid of him, yet?

You make it sound like reusing a song from Batman & Robin would be a poor choice for a Watchmen trailer.

Terrible. Nothing looks or feels right in terms of the tone of the original, and yes, the song choice was really strange. Fortunately for me, this changes nothing, as I was never excited about it in the first place.

Song-wise, what’d you want/expect: something overblown and faux-orchestral? I found it aurally appropriate. It’s the sort of sound one of Watchmen’s Cold-War-inspired bands (Krystalnacht, Pale Horse) would produce, in a world very like the 1980′s, but much grimmer and (in some pivotal ways) more technologically advanced.

Visuals…well, that’s just about inarguably Snyder’s forte. I just hope the over-use of slow-motion, reminiscent of 300, was for the purpose of stretching each visual’s trailer time. If that’s employed as liberally in the final product, it’ll cut waaay against the realistic (or so we can still hope) tone.

One gripe about the structure of the trailer, though. Can we just pretend, for the sake of those few who will see the movie with no previous exposure to the story/characters, that Veidt has nothing to do with Comedian’s death? The juxtaposition of Comedian going through the window and Ozy looking epically triumphant was just this side of coy.

Well, the movie geek in me thinks it looks spectacular.

The comic geek in me has weird, mixed feelings. I mean, I haven’t read the book in decades (I think 2, to be exact) but I remember there was a sort of “Apocalypse Now” vibe to the book. It was gritty and there was a lot of nuance & noir to it. It was essentially a “period piece” with a lot of Bob Dylan music (in the form of quotes or lyrics or poems… I forget). So it’s weird seeing all these “modern latex” Michael Keaton Batmanesque costumes in a story that had a “tone” of what if… the Adam West Batman walked into the set of Dog Day Afternoon and got a shot of reality & drugs. I mean, in the comic series, the world looked futuristic, but the people looked (visually) like they were still stuck in the 60′s & 70′s.

Then again, maybe it’s all in my mind. After all, I haven’t read the book in 20 years.

Despite my better judgement I’m actually excited about this. I mean sure its not going to live up to the caliber of the source material but I still think it could easily be the best comic book movie ever made, not that it has a huge amount of competition. The least we can say from the trailer is at least most of the plot seems to be in the movie and whatever you say about Snyder (and feel free to ’cause I certainly did) at least 300 was pretty faithful. And don’t forget it could be a hell of a lot worse. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, anyone?

Oh man, based on what they showed, it looked like they stayed true to the graphic novel while modernizing the visual effects.

Am I ever so looking forward to seeing this, with an “open mind”.

I sure hope the rest of the movie lives up to the trailer as well as the graphic novel.

Maybe this time a Moore creation will have been “handled” well.

Visually, yeah, it’s good. But the opening makes it look like a Dr. Manhattan origin movie, and the whole vibe just doesn’t feel like Watchmen. Is it not set in 1985? Did I miss that they changed that?

Not that it *needs* to be, but it’s very rooted in that late-Cold-War time period.

I think visually they’ve made huge mistakes – for a story that’s meant to be set in the ‘real’ world, every location there looked like a set, every shot/action looked over the top, and everything was lit like a video clip or Final Fantasy cut scene.
If the director of 12 Monkeys and the director of Requiem For A Dream can’t get a handle on the project, the guy who remade Dawn Of The Dead shouldn’t even have been allowed in the room.
Speaking of which, how the hell are you a visionary director if you’ve made a remake, and your other is an adaptation that not only took heavily from the source, but also stole techniques by another director who was adapting the same persons work?

It looks pretty good although I really don’t like Veidt’s costume. Theres no way it can “live up” to the comic because the comic is just to dense and nuanced to be filmable. All we can hope is that it won’t be too terrible and won’t be so popular that they try to make a sequel.

“Theres no way it can “live up” to the comic because the comic is just to dense and nuanced to be filmable.”

Sure it can live up to the comic. There’s an obvious path. Step one: be willing to completely abandon the comic.

Watchmen really needs a Kubrick style adaptation: recognize the important major themes, find the best way to convey those themes on a movie screen, and be willing to ditch the rest. It needs someone who can take the same concepts and integrate them deeply with the nature of film in the same way that the original was integrated with the nature of comics.

The trailer made me think we might get an interesting film that acts as a highlight reel of the big moments from the comic but I didn’t see anything that made me think that the real heart of Watchmen was being brought over. Still, it didn’t turn me away, it just didn’t make me think that this is going to be the monster hit that some people are hoping for.

God, the elitism and nose upturning in these comments is beyond sickening.

God, the elitism and nose upturning in these comments is beyond sickening.

Yeah, fuck us in the eye for expressing an opinion that isn’t full of love for a popcorn meeting!

Who do we think we are?

And by meeting, I meant movie!

And if that lapse of concentration didn’t show me I’m a sickening arsehole for deciding that trailer doesn’t look like a good film to me then nothing will!

Screw that, “popcorn meeting” is my new favorite phrase eh-var.

But I still think Crash is right: sometimes I grow weary of the collected internet’s rush to be the first to hate something.

One gripe about the structure of the trailer, though. Can we just pretend, for the sake of those few who will see the movie with no previous exposure to the story/characters, that Veidt has nothing to do with Comedian’s death? The juxtaposition of Comedian going through the window and Ozy looking epically triumphant was just this side of coy.

Yes, it’s coy, but that’s all it is: it’s a juxtaposition that speaks to the fans who know the story, but to other other 99.44% of the audience who will see this movie popcorn meeting, it’s no more connected than any other two scenes in the trailer…

It’s a trailer so I guess they chose all the ‘action’ moments rather than the ‘story’ moments, which explains the overall feel. Two things stick out though: the characters are too ‘cool’. The Watchmen were never cool, they were never jumping out of a building aflame or doing cool jumps in slo-mo. And why is everything at night? Why is everything so dark? It’s like when people want to pretend they’re doing a serious movie nowadays (you know, instead of a gaudy pulpy adventure action like every superhero comic truly is) they make it really really dark.
So there is still hope it could be a good but unnecessary movie.

sometimes I grow weary of the collected internet’s rush to be the first to hate something.

I liked the glow on Dr. Manhattan.

But other than that, I didn’t like it, and as a fan of the original, and a big film addict, it just looked terrible to me.

I agree with half of what you said: I’m a fan of the original and a big film addict, but to me, this trailer just looked so right! I still wish the costumes weren’t so “modern,” though.

And why is everything at night? Why is everything so dark?

Because a lot of the scenes in the trailer took place at night in the comic?

You’re all a bunch of whiners. That was great. I’m looking forward to the movie.

I didn’t see anything in this trailer that discourages me about the finished project. I am still looking forward to this movie. And lets not forget that this is a teaser trailer. If we were to judge everything based on the teaser trailer, then I would believe that Dark Knight was going to be a radio broadcast, because it had no footage with it.

Just read the first slide on the video on Empire. “Thanks to Empire”??? Ummm….I watched it on Apple.com, like the CBR article said to.

The trailer looks cool, but it’s holding back on the talking.

There is no doubt in my mind that there will be a lot of talking in the movie, and not hearing what these iconic, classic characters sound like makes me hesitate. Also I don’t think anything will ever replace Alan Moore’s reading of Rorschach’s Journal in my head. (just type “alan moore watchmen” into youtube)

“God, the elitism and nose upturning in these comments is beyond sickening.”

Really? You’re having that strong of a reaction to what people post on a comics blog? Maybe you should lighten up a bit.

Hmm. I’m a mite surprised at the number of people commenting on this already. (Umm, I’m presuming you’ve all watched the trailer before commenting (?). I haven’t.) Aren’t all of you/some of you going to see “The Dark Knight” tomorrow or sometime this weekend? Because I’m pretty sure this trailer is going to precede the movie. Which will make a nice little bonus for those of us who’ve been on a big media blackout.

“Song-wise, what’d you want/expect: something overblown and faux-orchestral?”

That song WAS overblown. I was expecting something that didn’t distract from the visuals. Instead, I got a whiny white guy whose career hasn’t existed in ten years. I couldn’t help but think of Billy Corgan while watching it, and that speaks to my major problem with Zack Snyder’s movies. They’re full of grace notes to get you excited, without really doing anything beyond imitation. Maybe that’s why he likes doing adaptations.

I dunno, this trailer basically reaffirmed my every belief that Zack Snyder has no grasp of the actual tone of Watchmen and has no artistic vision beyond “make everything look like an Xbox 360 game.” The simple fact that they’re trying to make Nite Owl and the Silk Spectre look badass is pretty dismaying, and I pretty much cringed as soon as Veidt hit the assassin into the fountain in slow motion.

I was not excited about the Watchmen movie beyond mildly curious, but this trailer changed that. I thought it looked great. I want to see it.

I re-read Watchmen a little while back and while it’s still one of the greatest comics ever, it has flaws that, to me, make it less than some “sacred cow” that no one should dare mess with. It’s likely that the movie won’t surpass the comic but so what? If it looks as good as this trailer then it’s going to come closer in quality than anyone expected and still be an entertaining film.

All in all, if they want to adapt this story, more power to ‘em. Purists uncomfortable with it can just stick to the book, which will always be around and always be a classic.

I’m just as ready to hate this as any other sickening nose-upturned elitist, but I really have to admit, Rorschach’s line at the end followed by the visual of John’s floating palace on Mars did elicit in me a reaction that I found not completely unsavory.

Aren’t all of you/some of you going to see “The Dark Knight” tomorrow or sometime this weekend?

I’ll see it at some point, but I’m not going to not watch a trailer because it will also play before a movie I also want to watch.
It’s cool you’re doing that, but I find it odd that you’d expect it to be the norm.

I agree with half of what you said: I’m a fan of the original and a big film addict, but to me, this trailer just looked so right! I still wish the costumes weren’t so “modern,” though.

I’ve been complaining about since the first pics of the film, but it just uses such an over the top style of lighting which is getting more and more popular, but just drives me nuts.
To me in comic terms, it’s like watching Liefeld (or any early Image style guy) draw Watchmen – I can see where the ‘wow’ factor comes from, but it just feels like all substance and storytelling is lost for it.

I’ll just have a big smoke before watching it, if I ever do.

“I’ll just have a big smoke before watching it, if I ever do.”

Well, that’s always been a given for me.

Watchmen, to adapt, would require to take all the metatextual elements about comics (the time stuff, the panel stuff, the commentary, etc.) and somehow find a way to translate that to film.

This isn’t doing it. It’s a goddam plot train with special effects. Missing the point and boring.

This isn’t doing it. It’s a goddam plot train with special effects. Missing the point and boring.

Maybe when you have a minute Joe you can tell me how you managed to invent a time machine to travel to next March to watch the movie.

As a huge fan from day one I am thrilled with the look of this. They have really captured that dark inky comic book world that Gibbons illustrated. I was really not interested in the movie adaptation until I saw this trailer. Of course this tells us nothing about how the narrative or character development but yes it looks very good.

“I’ll see it at some point, but I’m not going to not watch a trailer because it will also play before a movie I also want to watch. It’s cool you’re doing that, but I find it odd that you’d expect it to be the norm.”

Well, to more fully explain: There’s not a lot of movies I make a point to see ASAP. “Dark Knight” is one of them. (“Batman Begins,” “Superman Returns,” the first two “Spideys,” “The Simpsons Movie” and the “LOTR” films were others. Yes, I’m a geek. But hopefully one with some good sense. (e.g., I waited, based on very accurate bad buzz, to wait for “Spider-Man 3″ until it played a cheapo second-run cinema. Man, they screwed that one up royally.))

Point being, I’m going to see “DK” this weekend. And “Watchmen” the trailer will be there. And it’s made to be seen on a big screen, so why spoil the fun for myself? Sure, if they’d released the trailer any other time, I’d've watched it at home on my computer screen. But I can be patient for 48 hours, which will grant me the much bigger payoff of being surprised (delighted and/or disappointed? or a mix of both?) by what the “Watchmen” film has in store for us when I see the trailer at the Imax theater.

So it’s not that I figure everyone here would typically eschew trailers so they could see them in a movie theater. It’s that I figured most everyone here would be going to see “Dark Knight,” and much sooner rather than later.

Ironic thing is the way Brian Cronin, who’s more immersed in, knowledgeable about and probably attached to comic book culture than most of us here, can just ease up and acknowledge the trailer for what it is: a great-looking trailer.

He more than anyone else here could get all cynical and aloof to look smart.

Cautious optimism is more than understandable, all things considered. But some people seem to be actively looking for things to bitch about, and more notably, shifting goalposts in order to be snarky about stuff that’s hard to fault. I particularly love how one poster evaluated the whole movie, and how it intends to deal with thematic subtext, by looking at less than two minutes of footage that virtually mirrors the images on the pages of the comic.

I’ll say it again: sickening.

Thanks to Cronin et al, not for sharing my viewpoint on this trailer, but for consistently maintaining a readable, reasonable and generally positive attitude in their commentary instead of descending into the stereotypical elitist nitpickery that’s made the world laugh at us for so many years now.

I’m off to read Comic Book Urban Legends, where I’m bound to crack a smile.

Crash-Man, casual and overly verbose condescension towards those that don’t share your exact opinion of something is so Web 1.0.

I think it’s a great trailer. I agree it’s off-tone in some ways (they look too young, too hip and too shiny. it misses the burnt out feel the book evoked – on the other hand, I found the two second shot of Ozymandias to be kind of amazing, and most of those scenes were directly from the book, unlike any of the other Moore adaptations), but at the same time, the trailer for 300 was about 200x better than the movie.

It might be enjoyable, but I’m dubious about it as a faithful adaptation. That being said, I’ve hated almost every adaptation of anything I’ve seen.

The trailer has nice visuals, yes. But it’s a self-important trailer about superheroes no one has ever heard of. It’s not gonna do too well. AND it indicates I’m probably right about how it’s just the plot and none of the substance of the book. (I mean, how COULD you do the substance in cinematic form, anyway?)

But, hey, if I’m wrong and it ends up being a beautiful, masterful adaptation, I’ll come back here and apologize to anyone offended by what I said and maybe even post pictures of me eating something unpleasant.

(I mean, how COULD you do the substance in cinematic form, anyway?)

I don’t think it’s possible, really. Too much of Watchmen is a superhero comic that is, essentially, about how we read and experienced superhero comics up to that point. The cultural landscape has changed a great deal since then — ironically, in large part due to the wave Watchmen set off — and so most of the superhero premises it was set up to comment on and mess with are now already being done Watchmen-style a lot of the time. In 1986 it was shocking — now it’s status quo.

Even if they did the adaptation word-for-word from the comic, and it looks like they are trying, it probably would get lambasted by film critics for being cliche and depressing. That’s the burden of being first with something that ends up getting stolen over and over for decades.

“But it’s a self-important trailer about superheroes no one has ever heard of. ”

Watchmen was a self-important book about super-heroes no one had ever heard of.

“Watchmen was a self-important book about super-heroes no one had ever heard of.”

Moore + Gibbons > Snyder.

By a great deal.

And, besides, Watchmen was sold in direct market stores to people who would care. This trailer, I’m not convinced it’s going to appeal to anyone who doesn’t know the book.

Oh god, I have seen the light. My dislike of the cinematic aesthetics of Zack Snyder is sickening. Why, grown men have been known to become light-headed with utter revulsion at the mere thought that ANYONE could not find filmmaking that looks like the marriage of a car commercial, a Final Fantasy cutscene and gameplay from Doom 3 to be utterly brilliant and groundbreaking. How could any sane man find that anything less than a thrilling cinematic vision on par with Kubrick or Welles?

Truly my opinions with regard to cinematography and production design rank up there with the mindsets of the Westboro Baptist Church in terms of their repulsiveness to any openminded human being.

Wow, I kinda liked it. A lot.

I’m still scared of the final project. Sticking good-looking scenes together doesn’t make a strong theme. But I’m willing to give Snyder a chance. He seems to love the source material, so maybe he actually has a clue. And hearing that he currently has a three-hour film, and can’t see how to cut it down… well, that’s a good omen, right?

As for the costumes… Well, the comic versions mirrored comic-book superhero costumes. I’m ok with the movie mirroring movie super-hero costumes.

And the song choice didn’t grab me.

But I loved the heavy use of Dr. Manhattan after Snyder has held back for so long. He looked great. Well, it all looked great.

And were the Minutemen supposed to be lame in their prime? I thought Moore was pretty clear that lame heroes get killed. As long as those weren’t the 1985 versions, I’d be ok with that. Moore never said that Nite Owl and Silk Spectre weren’t athletic in their prime.

Snyder has said in interviews that he is trying to make the movie be a commentary on superhero movies (like the comic was for superhero comics). In order to do that he needs to use costumes and effects like those from other superhero movies. Seems pretty simple to me.

It amuses me that some people are complaining that he is keeping too close to the book, while others are complaining he’s not keeping close enough.

I will say this – the shot at the end on Mars is absolutely stunning.

“I will say this – the shot at the end on Mars is absolutely stunning.”

No argument there!

I’m a huge fan of the book, and one of the best things about it is that it so artfully uses its medium. It does things that wouldn’t work in prose, and wouldn’t work in film. Because of that, I’ve had my doubts about this movie since I first heard rumors that it was finally coming.

A friend of mine pointed out that either the movie is going to be true to the book, and suck, or it’s going to significantly break with the book, and maybe be good. Either way, the really hardcore angry internet fans will not be satisfied.

RE: the trailer itself: I expected to hate it, but I enjoyed it. I’ve known all along that I’m going to end up seeing the movie, but I want to go with a low expectation – I’d rather do that and maybe be pleasantly surprised than go in with high hopes and be disappointed. So, I’m a little irritated that this trailer is making me more excited about it.

The only thing I didn’t like was Nite Owl’s costume – too (modern) Batman, not Blue Beetle enough. I always read him as more of the fun hero fallen on dark times, instead of as a dark hero in dark times.

Regarding the comment about “those few who will see the movie with no previous exposure to the story/characters”: I think you’ve got that backwards. In all likelihood, far more people will see this movie than have ever read or even previously heard of the book. Even a huge comic like this has a fairly small fanbase. Sad, but true.

I liked the trailer, a lot. The excessive slo-mo was a little irritating. But this is Snyder’s movie, and Snyder clearly likes himself some slow-motion. He should, and will, make this his project.

But no love for the Pumpkins here? First off — a song titled “The Beginning is the End is the Beginning” seems pretty spot-on for Watchmen. I think the first version of that song — The End is the Beginning is the End — is the version used in Batman and Robin. I’m glad this trailer rehabbed the song. Moreover, if you watch it again, the lyrics cue the visuals, which I read as a nice homage to Moore and Gibbons.

Look, I’m just thrilled that this is actually coming to screen. I yield to no one in my love for the book. I’ve read it about three times a year for the last thirteen years, and it gets better every time. I’ve obsessed over every panel, as I’m sure many of you have. But hey — this is going to bring the story to more people than ever before.

A couple of other things — how nice was that shot of Manhattan and Laurie kissing? Perfect, I thought. And the Owlship coming out of the water? Beautiful. Snyder has paid attention to detail, and I think that’s going to pay off.

Now, we just need to hear some dialogue.

Well, I watched the trailer because I actively avoid opening weekends. I hate the crush and the lineups and full theatres and the way that a movie’s success these days is so ridiculously dependent upon opening weekend numbers. I would only go if I was reliably informed that a film was guaranteed to be such a flop that it wouldn’t last any longer than that, and it was a project that looked to me like an interesting mess (I have a thing for interesting messes, so even if the worst things said here about the Watchmen flick turn out to be true, I’m seeing it). Dark Knight is a film near the top of my “must see” list for this year, but with a hit of this magnitude, there’s no way you’re catching me in the theatre any sooner than next weekend and even that might be too crowded (I made the mistake of thinking that the crowds for Wall-E might have calmed down by the second weekend, to my regret).
As for the Watchmen movie…. Well, the original can’t really be directly translated into another medium, but I’m cautiously optimistic that we might end up with the most we can really hope for, namely a smattering of set pieces from the book rendered into motion that will be available to pull out years from now (in whatever format the future brings) whenever the conversation rolls around to “so, they actually tried to make a movie of that, huh?” And yes, that really is the best we can hope for regardless of who attempted this, due to the original’s dependence on its medium, and I’m fine with it.
The old “but they haven’t ruined the book, there it is on the shelf” argument (forget the source of the quote and can’t be bothered looking it up) is absolutely right, and one of the few things I don’t mind saying I think Alan Moore is Just Plain Wrong about.

*sigh* Must we complain about everything? I only read watchmen for the first time last summer, so it’s still very fresh in my head. And everything i saw in that trailer looks faithful to the comic, except for Nite-Owl not being chubby (And come on, that’s REALLY not a big loss.) and Silk Spectre’s outfit is less see-through (Kind of a loss). but I’m excited! Manhattan looks great, Comedian is perfect, and i actually liked the music and thought it went well with watchmen. I can’t wait to see everyone complain about the “squid” later.

This isn’t doing it. It’s a goddam plot train with special effects. Missing the point and boring.

Aww you were bored by two minutes. Do me a favor, stop with the reactionary, self important, whiny fan boy BS. ppreciate the fact that the world is accepting of our once insular world and react to a product that is in front of you. You are a hair in the ice cream my friend. You act as if these things exist to honor your own limited sensibilities. Do you remember the days of Batman and Robin and Hulk TV movies, where we were reading Gaiman, Moore, Miller, and Spiegelman,while the rest of the world visualized Adam West? After viewing a film your words would be welcome and no doubt compelling as you judge a complete entity not a quickly cut group of images. As it is you come across as petulant and ooze a feeling of entitlement.

Find a new hobby or find joy in the one you have. The buzzkill needs to end

Wow, why so much anger on both sides? Can’t we all just get along?

Adam West was a lot of fun.

Now, Joe, that’s just trollin’….

“they haven’t ruined the book, there it is on the shelf” – I can’t find the source, but I’ve usually seen this attributed to Raymond Chandler.

True enough, but it doesn’t work for me. My mom, who has never read a comic book and never will, pretty much always thought I was a little nuts for loving Spider-man. Of course, her only exposure was to the awful newspaper strip version. So, when the first couple of Spider-man movies came out, she was able to see at least some of what I loved about the early Spidey stories.

If the Watchmen movie is terrible, that will be the only exposure many people have to this story, and that would be a shame. No, the book won’t be worse, but the reputation of the book might be damaged unfairly.

As I said, I enjoyed the trailer. Personally, I don’t expect much from the movie – no matter how hard they try, I tend to think that this work is too closely tied to the medium in which it was executed to make it a good candidate for adaptation. (That was one of Moore’s goals for the piece, after all.) I do hope I’m wrong, though – I’d really rather have this be a great movie than be a bad movie.

Loved the trailer. Didn’t know they’d be releasing one with Dark Knight — even though I’d been discussing what movies they’d preview before the show started (my money was on the Punisher, different comic book company aside) — so it was a very pleasant surprise. It looks really good. Hope it’s as rich as the book since I really want it to inspire my non-comic reading friends (who gladly tag along with me to every comic book movie I see opening night) to actually check the comic out.

By the way, I was really glad to see the DC logo front and center at the beginning of the trailer. Hopefully this’ll get more DC movies coming out down the line as they establish their screen presence the same way Marvel has.

Have a good day.
John Cage

Great trailer. Hope Snyder reins in the bombast fopr the movie.

I also think its pretty neat and appropriate that this is debuting with the “Dark Knight” film, given that that movie’s title is inspired by Frank Millr’s Dark Knight Returns, which is Watchmen’s contemporary in so many ways.

Tyson, I believe it was crime writer James M. Cain that said that, or something very much like it. Hollywood can’t ruin books, the worst they can do is damage people’s perception of some books. But nowadays, more often than not the bad movies are simply forgotten. No one can say the awful LOEG has ruined the comics.

I think it was a good trailer. The only character that looks significantly different is Nite Owl. I can see why they did it, as the Watchmen weren’t really supposed to look any sillier than your average superhero, but the average superhero in movies wears armor. I can only hope that Dan Dreiberg’s melancholy and insecurity translates to the movie. We’ve only seeing the big action moments here.

But, hey, if I’m wrong and it ends up being a beautiful, masterful adaptation, I’ll come back here and apologize to anyone offended by what I said and maybe even post pictures of me eating something unpleasant.

Me too – I’ll be ecstatic to be proven wrong.

But Joe and Greg have hit it on the head – it won’t be anywhere near as good because it is so of the medium.
I explained it to a friend as it’ll be like reading a novelisation of Apocalypse Now. Even if it’s by the best damn writer, and the best damn novelisation ever, it’s not going to capture what made the film so great.

If you only like Watchmen for the overall plot and the ‘cool’ moments – of which there are many – then the film will probably rock.
But if you enjoyed it not only for that, but the subtleties and nuance, you probably won’t like the film at all.

The fact they are releasing the pirate story as a separate straight to DVD release leaves me very worried, almost as much as the time someone posted on CBR that they skipped the pirate bits, it wasn’t two separate stories just put together, they totally relied on each other to have effect.

The comment I made to a friend about the film is “Well, they’ve certainly managed to capture Dave Gibbons’ visuals. The question is will they manage to capture Alan Moore’s writing?” And in that respect I’m in agreement with those who have criticized the trailer. But I do think it’s funny that in the rush to judgment the critics fail to acknowledge even that, which is, frankly, huge. If Watchmen had been made twenty, even ten years ago we would never have even had something that used the comic panels themselves as storyboards for the film. It’s huge.

Will they be able to wrest *all* the thematic nuances from the graphic novel? I don’t know… but I also think it’s unfair to put the burden of achieving that on the film as well, given the limitations of the medium. I would be happy–and would consider it a complete and total victory– if they manage to pull off what the film adaptations of The English Patient, Jules and Jim and No Country for Old Men did (all three highly regarded films of highly regarded novels): they captured the ‘voice’ of the source material, the core essence. It can’t capture everything, it can’t hope to, but I think if we look to successful literary adaptations we can see it’s possible to capture a lot. I’ll consider it even a partial win if they just at least use Moore’s actual dialogue– it would be a step up from From Hell and V For Vendetta.

I honestly don’t know about the Zack Snyder version. I’ve only seen the trailer and I can’t time travel. I haven’t even read Alex Tse’s script. I did, however, read David Hayter’s version and I thought it was pretty damn good and as close to a good adaptation of the source material as you can get: it excised what won’t work in film, kept the most essential plot elements, made the hard choices on what had to go or be changed (which is necessary: there’s a lot in Watchmen that won’t work in a film. Just as there were things in the novel Jules and Jim that wouldn’t work in the film version), and kept the key thematic elements. More importantly kept so much of Moore’s actual dialogue. I don’t know how much of Hayter’s script they used, but I have to give Zack Snyder credit because one of the key changes he made was bringing it back to the 1985 setting, and (at least left it open to) put back in the Pirate sequences– excisions Hayter made that I thought were fine, but I’m happy that when stuff gets changed it’s in the actual direction of the source material.

So in summary: it looks great. Will it do everything else? I don’t know. Let’s talk on March 7, 2008.

“they haven’t ruined the book, there it is on the shelf” – I can’t find the source, but I’ve usually seen this attributed to Raymond Chandler.

Certainly, Alan Moore attributed it to Chandler. It was his attitude toward his film adaptations, at least until League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, anyway.

But Joe and Greg have hit it on the head – it won’t be anywhere near as good because it is so of the medium.

As I say above, I think that attitude sets it up for complete failure in the first place. Print and film are separate media and there are loads of successful adaptations of novels to film: Jules and Jim, The English Patient, No Country for Old Men, The Accidental Tourist, Kramer vs. Kramer, even Casino Royale (the 2006 movie). They all made deletions, ellisions, excisions of characters and plotlines, changes, updatings, restructurings and additions– but they also reflect well on the original literary source material as well.

I think if you go in saying “It will never be able to countenance the subtlety and scope of the graphic novel in a two hour film” then you might as well not bother to go see it. I think it’s a much more reasonable question, and a better attitude to go in saying “Given the differences in media, will they capture what I loved about the original source material?” You might be more pleasantly surprised.

there are loads of successful adaptations of novels to film: Jules and Jim, The English Patient, …

Yikes – so YOU’RE the person who liked The English Patient? Man, that movie was three hours of my life I’m never getting back, and there is a Southern expression which I think does it justice: “it’s a four-finger stinker.”

However, I’m eager to see the Watchmen movie, and while there are going to be significant differences with the book, that’s required by the translation between media. Anyone who is fluent in multiple languages knows that every translation IS commentary – there are concepts which simply do not translate between languages.

Certainly, Alan Moore attributed it to Chandler. It was his attitude toward his film adaptations, at least until League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, anyway.

LXG saw Moore get dragged into court to swear that he didn’t steal the concept from a screenplay, and then the studio settled with those suing.
After that he lost faith in the idea that people could tell the difference between the two.
(Follow that up with his name being used to advertise movies, and he decided to have nothing to do with them)

If Watchmen had been made twenty, even ten years ago we would never have even had something that used the comic panels themselves as storyboards for the film. It’s huge.

So?
I don’t go to the movies to see shot for shot comic panels.
It was interesting with Sin City, but it didn’t really work all that well – was very stiff, and the shots weren’t fluid with each other at all.
Gibbons laid out his panels to work on a page, not as a storyboard.
I know in both film and comics there is a trend to try and blur the mediums as one, but that defeats the purpose of having two different mediums.

“If you only like Watchmen for the overall plot and the ‘cool’ moments – of which there are many – then the film will probably rock.
But if you enjoyed it not only for that, but the subtleties and nuance, you probably won’t like the film at all.”

That’s kind of a rigid either/or view.
I’ve pretty much resigned myself to the fact that the subtleties and nuance you mention are pretty unlikely to be in evidence in the film, but I’m not getting too upset about it. I can always go back to the book for what I find wanting in the film. Even the “successful” adaptations mentioned in previous comments underwent massive reductions from their sources.
Also, Moore’s experiences may have been horrific, but that doesn’t make the old “the book isn’t ruined, there it is on the shelf” line we’ve been bouncing around any less valid. He should just cite his shitty time getting mixed up in showbiz crap for his disinterest in being involved and not claim the original works were marred.

Does he claim the original works are, or just his name by being attached?

I think he feels League was marred because they settled – by settling they give off the impression that he did steal it from someone else.

Massive reductions the case may be, but most really good adaptations take the core of the source and change it for the medium it is being adapted to.
This looks like it’s taken the window dressing and carried it over – it’s a Stepford Wife adaptation.

Yikes – so YOU’RE the person who liked The English Patient? Man, that movie was three hours of my life I’m never getting back, and there is a Southern expression which I think does it justice: “it’s a four-finger stinker.”

I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy it, but it still has an 84% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes and received many, many awards so I think you’re more in the minority than I am.

Alan Moore felt League was marred because it was changed so much from his original vision… read volume one and then watch the film… So much that made the comic brilliantly differnet was jettisoned. And Americanised… If the League was to protect the Crown/British Empire, why was Tom Sawyer involved?? I had really high hopes… this was like the Moore comic that COULD have worked as a movie… It was AWFUL…

As for Watchmen… The trailer has sent tingles down my spine… hopeful ones… I hope that slow-mo i just for the trailer… I can live with the costume update… The atmosphere suits a world slipping into decay, on the brink of nuclear holocaust… the characters look right… Sure, we won’t have (CAN’T have) the more detailed insights via the lengthy textual chunks that add so much depth… BUT if Snyder can get the FEEL across, the atmosphere, etc.. then cool…

We already know the Black Freighter bit won’t be in it, but will we really lose that much from the main plot??

Let’s all wait and see… I’m sure it will polarise everyone (just as the English Patient above!) but as long as people talk about it, has it actually therefore met Moore’s original objective? Assuming that it’s the story that gets talked about and not the fact that Ozy doesn’t look pretty enough…

The toughest thing for this film is that (just like Lord of the Rings) everyone has their own idea of how a character should sound, who should play them, etc… we need to rememebr taht Snyder is allowed to have his own opinion too…

I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy it, but it still has an 84% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes and received many, many awards so I think you’re more in the minority than I am.

Quite a good film that one.

“We already know the Black Freighter bit won’t be in it, but will we really lose that much from the main plot??”

I thought Snyder said the Black Freighter stuff was in. Personally I hope they get rid of it. Those bits always detract from Watchmen for me.

Apparently the Black Freighter bit is “probably going to be an extra on the DVD release”…

That seems a sensible approach.