[Otal Nimrodi]

It's probably been mentioned already, but it bears repeating. They're making Watchmen movie. Or they made it already... Something like that.

I heard they wanted to make some of the characters look scarier.


Nite Owl

Ozymandias

Silk Spectre

I'll admit it. I'm scared.

This post has been edited by Otal Nimrodi: 15 March 2008 - 11:03 PM

[civilian_number_two]

Zack Snyder.

'Nuff said.

.......

Actually I am holding out hope that visually it'll still work. The thing is what works on a page and what works on the screen are not always the same thing. I don't think any special effort was made to make the characters look "scarier;" it's just that translated literally, Nite Owl's costume would have looked pretty stupid. Silk Spectre is reasonably faithful, and Rorschach and the Comedian look right. Making the costumes tonally darker doesn't mean they wanted them to be "scary;" it's just that they look more credible that way. The X MEN movies did the exact same thing, the first film even adding a self-referential line of dialogue to acknowledge it.

The real problem IMO is in taking the narrative, which is told a lot in voice-over and journal entries (with a few incredibly lobg expositiry monologues), and translating that to film. Alam Moore didn't want it done, but then he doesnt want any of his works made into films. Maybe this one especially, I dont know. I don't expect it to work at all without massive cutting (I am already aware of some), but it may end up being a decent Cliff's notes version of the comic series.

I have long held that the greatest honour you can do to something that is successful in one medium or another is not always to make a movie out of it. But folks seem to disagree, and want to make a movie out of everything. If you'd like to see a brilliant parody of that concept, watch ADAPTATION.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 16 March 2008 - 01:33 PM

[J m HofMarN]

Like me for instance, and in that spirit I bring you:

Troll Watch 2020

Based on the true* story of one man's struggle against trolls! Civilian Number X is all that stands between Chefelf and total obliteration. Dawning a tight and revealing spandex suit she becomes a breasty one woman army ready for battle. But when monstrous CGI trolls Hannibal, Snake and their lightsaber wielding fascist armies converge it will be a battle... to the death!

Coming to theaters this march.

*True, but woefully lacking in breasts, explosions and cgi.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 16 March 2008 - 12:35 PM

[Lord Aquaman]

The costumes look pretty decent, but I wonder if a TV miniseries would have been a better format as opposed to a 2-hour (at most) film.

[Otal Nimrodi]

A key thing about Watchmen seemed, to me, to be all those things in between chapters. Like the excerpts from "Under the Hood" and other such things. And I bet they'll take out that newspaper guy. I loved that dude.

Also, I think that Ozymandias' costume makes him look... Well... Evil. I mean, one look at that guy and you think "Villain" I don't think it's supposed to be that apparent.

This post has been edited by Otal Nimrodi: 22 March 2008 - 11:21 PM

[TheOrator]

Also, I think that Ozymandias' costume makes him look... Well... Evil. I mean, one look at that guy and you think "Villain" I don't think it's supposed to be that apparent.

To me what makes him look evil is that "Proceed as planned" pose and his pale stare. Put him in a heroic pose, he looks mighty not villianous.

Hell, Nite Owl looked like a respectable super-hero kind of guy in the comics.

In this one he looks like a crazy Victorian inventor type.

-- -- --

And why are we missing out on, let's face it, everyone's favorite character? I've seen the promotional stills of ol' Rory, and they look fantastic! Why is he missing from the thread? Is everyone just as lazy as I am?

[Dr Lecter]

I'm suprized Alan Moore let them make it after they butchered V for Vendetta.

[TheOrator]

I'm suprized Alan Moore let them make it after they butchered V for Vendetta.

They made V for Vendetta into a different, but also good movie.


They did, however, butcher LXG.

[Dr Lecter]

They made V for Vendetta into a different, but also good movie.

No really, I mean, I tried comparing the film to the book. I could only find one scene in the film which was better than its book counterpart. They destroyed the whole meaning of the book, just to make it more acceptable.

I would have loved it, if had been atleast as anarchic as the book, even more if it was more anarchic than the book, but the fact is that the film was just one long butcher with a few redeeming scenes.

Even the fact that they cast Natalie Portman has Evey was butchery, and it had nothing to do with making it different, it was purely to make the film more acceptable, which to me, is unacceptable.

[civilian_number_two]

Yeah. Maneuvres to make films acceptable are unacceptable.

V For Vendetta was a flawed comics series. Intended as an ongoing series, it was wrapped up into one story after weak sales. Several threads begun and undeveloped were forgotten in the conclusion, and as always in that sort of wrapup there was a lot of exposition in the finale.

In an action movie, dead-end plot threads as well as an abundance of exposition in the third act are anathema. The film needed a break from that sort of tale. Agreed that the film had a hopeful conclusion while the series ended with some cynicism (and held out hope for a follow-up), leaving the world with one dead vigilante but with a new one to take over.

I thought V FOR VENDETTA was a decent enough film, and yes it was different from its comic book counterpart. Its comic bok counterpart was flawed with a muddled conclusion and the film worked to remove some of the flaws. This as well as the altered hopeful ending made it different, but apart from that the events of the movie are more or less the same as the events of the book. Evey isn't a whore in the opening scene, but honestly if you thought they were going to play that straight you're stuck in the 70s. Leading ladies don't carry that sort of ethical ambiguity in today's comic book movies.

Getting back to WATCHMEN, of course they won't have enough time to handle the material. They've made a movie based on the material of the 12-issue series, abd the movie will be there for people who like to watch movies based on things. Folks who want movies to supplant the literature that inspired them should never ever watch movies, apart from FIGHT CLUB, which kicks ass on the book. In general though the folks who want to coplain that "the book had more in it than the movie did" really ought to look back at all the movies that have been based on books. They might find that they aren't exactly saying anything new.

[TheOrator]

Well, I don't think "books having more content" should be rationalized just by precedent.

Here's what it is:

Books take a long time to read.

Books on tape take a long time to listen to.

Movies aren't supposed to take a long time. Unless you're an established professional screenwriter, movie scripts over 130 pages will be pretty much disregarded, because no one wants to spend more than two hours at the theater unless the movie promises to be pretty epic indeed (like Lord of the Rings, not much at all like Titanic). Also, shorter movies can be played more frequently than longer ones, meaning more revenue (and yet Titanic still holds the box office records...I hate everyone).

In short, movies are supposed to take less time to watch than books do to read.

So yes, things will be left out. In the good adaptations, the theme and plot are preserved but new angles, ones more suited to motion pictures, are explored.

Yes, I agree, movies based on books shouldn't try to make the themes that made the books so popular more acceptable, but I hold that it worked out pretty well in V for Vendetta.

And also, both Jaws and Jurassic Park own the pants off of the books. Considering his other films, however, I don't think this has anything to do with Mr Spielberg.

[No Idea]

I really don't ever see why someone could get upset over them making a movie of it. If the movie is good then you get to enjoy a good movie, if the movie is bad then you only spent a few hours of your life at most on it.

The comic or book or video game or (insert whatever damn source material you want) stands separate from the film just as any film stands separate of any book or comic or video game that is made of it.

[civilian_number_two]

Agreed. But what upsets rabid fanboys (and girls) about bad film adaptations is that everyone really wants to see whether a thing could be adapted to film. It's like, encoded in our DNA or something, to want to see film versions of the stuff we read. This is lovingly parodied in ADAPTATION, which a lot more people should watch.

Anyway, the problem with a bad adaptation is that once made, it can't be unmade, and remaking is unlikely for a long time. Had Peter Jackson's adaptation of LOTR been bad (and it had its faults), noone would have adapted the material again for probably 20 years. If WATCHMEN is bad, then probably it will never be adapted again.

So it's a big responsibility for the filmmaker to try to make the thing good. It looks like this Snyder dude has his heart in the right place, but he still may not be up to the job. Time will tell.

PS: I saw a trailer for HELLBOY 2 the other day. That looks like a pretty pretty bunch of garbage. The worst of it is that it will have Hellboy in it. Watching the trailer I was thinking "This looks like an awesome fantasy film with all sorts of crazy visuals - - - too bad Hellboy is in it."