the watchmen
- Thread starter jgaeta
- Start date
it's certainly a must-see in IMAX for sure. i liked the movie a lot, it does do the novel justice, although like poni said, they did omit some stuff, but had most of the important stuff. don't want to ruin it for anyone, but go see it, and then we'll talk. haha
Electric Sheep
Dsicle - BoM Dec 06
While I'm no longer a big comic book geek, I damn sure was in the 80's and early 90s. In fact, I was the manager of a comic book store when I was in Jr. College in 90/91. And yeah, I read the Watchmen when it came out in 86/87--one issue per month, for just over a year.
I can't stress enough how BIG of a deal the Watchmen was in 1987. Think about how much Watchmen stuff as you're seeing now, and then multiply that times about a million--that might adequately illustrate how "overexposed" the Watchmen was to the comic book world at that time. You couldn't walk near a comic book store without someone bludgeoning you over the head with the latest issue of The Watchmen.
Make no mistake, The Watchmen is absolutely the greatest comic book/graphic novel ever put together by anyone--but NOT because of the story/characters.
You see, The Watchmen completely played to the strengths of the comic medium in almost a textbook fashion. The methods the panels were laid out, the narrative technique, the graphic repetition, the visual allusions, the sideline histories that indirectly flesh out the main story, and of course the story-within-a-story that foretold not in plot but in emotion what the (then unknown) villain was experiencing.
On top of all that, it painted a vivid picture with deep characterization that was a dark reflection of our world in 1987, and dammit, it did so with a cast of completely unknown characters. That was just unheard of in a world being spoonfed simple beat-em-up stories by known good guys like the X-Men and Superman and Spider-Man and Bat Man and The Hulk.
The Watchmen also proved that comic books could be "adult" oriented and be commercially successful. Prior to 1987 and The Watchmen, adult oriented comics were just a small subset of the comic book world. After 1987 and The Watchmen, the comic book world was PRIMARILY adult oriented--and the comic industry was never, ever the same afterwords. No longer a "kiddie book" industry, comics were now able to (in fact, expected to) cover grown up, adult issues in a mature manner.
There were also a lot of marketing things the Watchmen (along with Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" that came out around the same time) did that radically changed the comic book industry-including making a viable commercial product out of a one-shot story--meaning, a story with a beginning/middle/end, as opposed to a continuous and never ending monthly super-hero story. That in turn created the collected "graphic novel" as we know it today. It also made the 2-to-3-times-as-expensive "prestige format" comic book (glossy paper, thick cover, perfect bound) a wild commercial success. The crappy newsprint comic books we all grew up with were no longer good enough for the adult comic book consumer...not after The Watchmen.
So you see, The Watchmen is/was the greatest comic book/graphic novel of all time not because of the story (I mean come on, it's just a simple "whodunnit?" plot with a crazy twist for an ending) but because of just HOW BRILLIANTLY the story was told, and also the ramifications it had on the comic book industry.
The movie, unfortunately, is just going to be an adaptation of the story. I'm sure it'll be a damn-fine adaptation (Zach Snyder's proven he can do that with 300) but it won't be able to do much more than capture a fragment of the original storytelling.
<sigh>
Because in the end, the story isn't what really matters about The Watchmen.
It's HOW THE STORY WAS TOLD that matters.
I can't stress enough how BIG of a deal the Watchmen was in 1987. Think about how much Watchmen stuff as you're seeing now, and then multiply that times about a million--that might adequately illustrate how "overexposed" the Watchmen was to the comic book world at that time. You couldn't walk near a comic book store without someone bludgeoning you over the head with the latest issue of The Watchmen.
Make no mistake, The Watchmen is absolutely the greatest comic book/graphic novel ever put together by anyone--but NOT because of the story/characters.
You see, The Watchmen completely played to the strengths of the comic medium in almost a textbook fashion. The methods the panels were laid out, the narrative technique, the graphic repetition, the visual allusions, the sideline histories that indirectly flesh out the main story, and of course the story-within-a-story that foretold not in plot but in emotion what the (then unknown) villain was experiencing.
On top of all that, it painted a vivid picture with deep characterization that was a dark reflection of our world in 1987, and dammit, it did so with a cast of completely unknown characters. That was just unheard of in a world being spoonfed simple beat-em-up stories by known good guys like the X-Men and Superman and Spider-Man and Bat Man and The Hulk.
The Watchmen also proved that comic books could be "adult" oriented and be commercially successful. Prior to 1987 and The Watchmen, adult oriented comics were just a small subset of the comic book world. After 1987 and The Watchmen, the comic book world was PRIMARILY adult oriented--and the comic industry was never, ever the same afterwords. No longer a "kiddie book" industry, comics were now able to (in fact, expected to) cover grown up, adult issues in a mature manner.
There were also a lot of marketing things the Watchmen (along with Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" that came out around the same time) did that radically changed the comic book industry-including making a viable commercial product out of a one-shot story--meaning, a story with a beginning/middle/end, as opposed to a continuous and never ending monthly super-hero story. That in turn created the collected "graphic novel" as we know it today. It also made the 2-to-3-times-as-expensive "prestige format" comic book (glossy paper, thick cover, perfect bound) a wild commercial success. The crappy newsprint comic books we all grew up with were no longer good enough for the adult comic book consumer...not after The Watchmen.
So you see, The Watchmen is/was the greatest comic book/graphic novel of all time not because of the story (I mean come on, it's just a simple "whodunnit?" plot with a crazy twist for an ending) but because of just HOW BRILLIANTLY the story was told, and also the ramifications it had on the comic book industry.
The movie, unfortunately, is just going to be an adaptation of the story. I'm sure it'll be a damn-fine adaptation (Zach Snyder's proven he can do that with 300) but it won't be able to do much more than capture a fragment of the original storytelling.
<sigh>
Because in the end, the story isn't what really matters about The Watchmen.
It's HOW THE STORY WAS TOLD that matters.
wow sheep, thanks for that write-up. i had heard about the cult following of the comics when they came out, but never really read up on it. the graphic novel was given to me in college 10 years ago, and i loved it and read and re-read it probably 10 times since then. thanks again for the insight though, much appreciated!
BagfullofPings
IEHHC
Is this the one where Superman dies and Batman gets kicked out of the League of Justice? If so, I may watch it just to see that.
Jason
Jason
Electric Sheep
Dsicle - BoM Dec 06
Okay, yeah, I enjoyed it.
It stays extremely true to the main story in the book (for obvious time reasons they had to drop a lot of subplots) and even the altered ending (no squid!) is just fine and dandy because it doesn't change the INTENT of the ending or what it does to the characters.
BUT, even tho it played the story straight, I think it fails.
I think it fails at trying to cram 400 pages of story into a single movie (most movie scripts are only 80 to 100 pages, so you can image the cramming going on here). There's just too much story to absorb and not enough time for the vastly more interesting subtleties and nuances that make The Watchmen so good in the first place.
I think it fails at being a well-paced film. The story is paced because of how it was told (in 12 self-contained chapters) and that pacing really translates poorly to the film medium. Sure, it's faithful to the book, but it doesn't make it a good film for anyone except the comic book geeks circle-jerking to the fact that the movie is so faithful.
I think it fails at conveying the horror and disgust of rooting for characters that, ultimately, you don't like and don't agree with. I think that's specifically due to the fact that the story was crammed into a (relatively) short movie. The deep characterization really suffered, so all we got in the film was a surface-level representation of the characters. The characters in the movie were accurate, but shallow.
I think it fails--rather spectacularly, I might add--at capturing/communicating what really makes The Watchmen graphic novel matter in the first place: the narrative technique. It obvious they tried really, really hard: a ton of the scenes look like they're lifted straight out of the book. They got the "look" and the iconography 100% correct, and I applaud Zach Snyder for doing such a great job on that.
But he fails because The Watchmen isn't about the story at all--and his movie is just a telling of the story.
<sigh>
It stays extremely true to the main story in the book (for obvious time reasons they had to drop a lot of subplots) and even the altered ending (no squid!) is just fine and dandy because it doesn't change the INTENT of the ending or what it does to the characters.
BUT, even tho it played the story straight, I think it fails.
I think it fails at trying to cram 400 pages of story into a single movie (most movie scripts are only 80 to 100 pages, so you can image the cramming going on here). There's just too much story to absorb and not enough time for the vastly more interesting subtleties and nuances that make The Watchmen so good in the first place.
I think it fails at being a well-paced film. The story is paced because of how it was told (in 12 self-contained chapters) and that pacing really translates poorly to the film medium. Sure, it's faithful to the book, but it doesn't make it a good film for anyone except the comic book geeks circle-jerking to the fact that the movie is so faithful.
I think it fails at conveying the horror and disgust of rooting for characters that, ultimately, you don't like and don't agree with. I think that's specifically due to the fact that the story was crammed into a (relatively) short movie. The deep characterization really suffered, so all we got in the film was a surface-level representation of the characters. The characters in the movie were accurate, but shallow.
I think it fails--rather spectacularly, I might add--at capturing/communicating what really makes The Watchmen graphic novel matter in the first place: the narrative technique. It obvious they tried really, really hard: a ton of the scenes look like they're lifted straight out of the book. They got the "look" and the iconography 100% correct, and I applaud Zach Snyder for doing such a great job on that.
But he fails because The Watchmen isn't about the story at all--and his movie is just a telling of the story.
<sigh>
MichiganM
The One, The Only
I really thought I was going to enjoy this movie, but really didn't. I never read the novel, but I enjoy movies of this genre. I have a few problems with the movie, notably the fact that they don't really make me "care" about any of the characters. I also don't "care" about humanity because they don't show any people...it's only the struggle of governments and "superheroes". If you're going to make a movie almost 3 hours long, you had better make it great..and this one failed miserably imo. This movie pales in comparison to a movie like Dark Knight in so many ways it's laughable. Sorry to any fans out there...I give it two thumbs down.
Electric Sheep
Dsicle - BoM Dec 06
You guys said *EXACTLY* what I was trying to say in my last post--that it fails as a movie.
BTW Jason, in the novel, you *do* care about the characters, and you also care about the inhabitants of NYC (there are tons and tons of sub plots involving random people in NYC) so when they all die at the end, and you see their bloody bodies strewn in the streets (which isn't in the movie) it hurts you.
In the movie, people die and you just don't care.
BTW Jason, in the novel, you *do* care about the characters, and you also care about the inhabitants of NYC (there are tons and tons of sub plots involving random people in NYC) so when they all die at the end, and you see their bloody bodies strewn in the streets (which isn't in the movie) it hurts you.
In the movie, people die and you just don't care.