Slashdot Mirror
'Bourne' Director to take on Watchmen
Here's one of those mixed blessing stories: Paul Greengrass, the director of the Bourne Supremacy has been tapped to direct a film based on The Watchmen, one of the greatest comics ever made. No word on if Paul plans to add Tom Sawyer to the cast.
I first heard about The Watchmen through my g/f this year as it is on the required readings list for one of her English courses at Queen's University in Ontario. I'm looking to reading it during the Christmas break this year, as she really enjoys the book. Thought it was kinda cool to be doing literary analysis of a comic in a university English course. Also great seeing more comic books come to life on screen.. lets hope this one will be better than some of the latest ones that have come out--I won't mention any names as to hold back the flames.
Boxing Equipment Reviews
hrm.. I've never heard of it.
perhaps "greatest" is subjective...
One of Watchmen's great strengths is its interconnections. How is Hollywood NOT going to screw that up? I mean, movies like Memento are a rarity.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
If you are one of the few who has not read watchmen, do yourself a favor and buy it...you will never put it down!
Even since X-men came out, all the movie makers have been running around snatching up all the comics for "movies" I guess. What happened to reading a comic?
Have you noticed how Alan Moore's comics tend to be a little skruffy in movie form?
The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen and From Hell weren't exactly the greatest movies every made.
"Darren Aronofsky? I'm on the phone NOW!" said Law, clearly excited. "Adrian Veidt, King of Kings!" And then, as if to show off his Watchmen fanboy credentials, he whispered conspiratorially. "I'm tattooed with Rorschach, did you know that?"
Why is this a "mixed blessing"? "The Bourne Supremacy" was pretty good. I don't remember seeing Tom Sawyer in it--and I don't see that Greengrass was involved at all in the LXG movie, to which the Sawyer jab is obviously a reference.
If Greengrass finds a camera man who doesn't suffer from non-stop epileptic seizures, I'm cool with it.
If it stays reasonably true to the comic, I'll be taking bets on protest sizes and the first 5 countries to ban the film.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
I'm happy...in the sense that I'm sure the film will be successful. I worry, however (in fact, I'm pretty sure) that the comic and its message will be corrupted by Hollywood, which is almost certainly looking for another "Punisher" in Moores allegory.
There's a reason Terry Guilliam opted out of working on a film adaptation of Watchmen. The man stated in a book dedicated to Moore's fiftieth birthday that he drew comfort from the fact that he wouldnt' be the one to fuck over the work.
:(
This is Watchmen. This ain't spiderman, this ain't X-men, this ain't dime-store fluff. This is one of the greatest works in the genre and an absolute masterpiece of the superhero medium.
And Guilliam is on the record as being happy he won't be the one to fuck it over. Paul Greengrass has stepped up to the plate, proving he has some sort of perverse urge to alienate pretty much everyone who's ever read the book.
Watchmen can't be done in 90-120 minutes with Big Name Actors. Leastwise, it can't be done right, and if it can't be done right, it shouldn't be done at all.
I have lost all hope that the movie will do the books justice. They give one of the toughest projects to do right to the guy that made Bourne Supremacy so bad thanks to the horrible camera work throughout the movie. I was a huge fan of the first movie in a large part because of the smooth and clean camera.
The thing that worries me is the "based on" bit - just as "StarShip Troopers" was "based on" the book by Robert Heinlein - in that some of the character names were used, but that's about it.
If Watchmen the movie is "based on" Watchmen the graphic novel in the same way, I suggest installing seat belts in all the theaters to prevent the audience from being pulled from their seats by the suction of the movie.
If, on the other hand, this movie is a reasonably faithful rendition of the graphic novel... then count me in.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Though I hope Greengrass has the sense to keep it unchanged, I don't think the masses are going to like the ending. It's not standard Hollywood fare.
qntm.org
While I liked the Bourne Supremacy, I still thought the Bourne Identity was a better movie. The Bourne Supremacy had some kick-ass car chases and such, but it lacked the depth of the first movie, and the mystery presented was shallow and the twists were predictable.
The Watchmen is a very complex comic, I've often discussed with some of my film major friends about how a good Watchmen movie could prove to be impossible. It lies in the fact that a lot of plot development is presented in pure text as a preface to a chapter, a police report here. A newspaper story there. That and the pirate comic within the comic, if the director can figure out how to present all this info without the viewers figuring out the plot a half hour into the movie (like the Bourne Supremacy) It could be very good.
I however remain skeptical since the only good part of the Bourne Supremacy were the action scenes. The plot development left much to be desired. BTW Dr Manhattan Rocks!!!
'Bourne' Director to take on Watchmen
[in the voice of Harry Caray]
Watchmen win!
Watchmen win!
--
How about that Dr Manhattan? He's something isn't he. Would you eat him if he was a giant hot dog? Well, would you?
Well going on the Bourne Supremacy, I certainly hope there are no extended car chases in a movie based on Watchmen. That was an absolutely terrible scene, where frantic cutting and shaking cameras replaced actual rapidly moving cars.
For the article proves that (at the very least) whoever was writing it has no fucking idea what makes the story good, or (at the very, very worst) the director and studio are equally clueless.
I'm betting on both, and I'm betting this is going to make the recent Punisher movie look like Shakespear.
The Bourne Identity was a great story, and a great movie. The Bourne Supremacy was a great story, and perhaps the worst movie I ever saw.
Nearly everyone I talked to had the same experience I did: got dizzy and a headache from all the flash photography and quick cut scenes.
You couldn't even tell what was going on in the action sequences and car chases.
This director shouldn't be given another film, he should be flogged. That wasn't artistic, it was annoying and counterproductive.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
As I write this, the parent has a +3 "Informative Mod, when all he "informed" us of is his ignorance of the medium. Insightful I could see, if he broadened you horizons with his doubt, but "Informative?"
Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
What's next??? V For Vendetta starring Vin Diesel?? The Rock IS The Sandman... *gag* *wretch* *puke*
For those of you who haven't heard of Watchmen before, or haven't read it - you should. This is one of the works that really showed just how well comics could tell adult stories and be more than spandex and capes.
[insert sig file here]
If you have read the Jason Bourne series of books, which I highly recommend, you will have noticed the movies have NOTHING to do with the books, save for the main character having the same name. Some supporting cast kept first names, but that was just about the only similarities. It is rediculous how far he strayed from the books when adapting the Bourne novels to screen, I could not find any good reason for his so doing.
I would be highly skeptical about Greengrass taking on anything more complicated than a Hardy Boys novel, which he probably wouldn't read either, and just go off the book jacket.
Comics can make for good movies, because of course, they are very visual. But not fudging up Watchmen will be *very* hard. It's an amazing piece of Comic.
For some weird reason, I bought it around when it came out, and then did not read it for a couple of years. It just stood in my bookshelf and I almost forgot about it. Boy did I punish myself for that when I finally read it.
It *is* very good, people: If you like comics even just a little bit, you need to read it. Same thing if you like dark and "artsy" movies.
Go get it! Now! *plugplug*
That's just it. It hasn't transended its own genre. Not yet. So what's the reason for that? Why isn't more widely known outside of Comic book fanboy's? Anyone know? Or rather I should say, does any one want to ramble on for a while and pretend to be an expert on the phenomenon of popularity of a cultural piece in a distinct sub culture.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Ive though about his alot since rumors started circulating about a film based on Watchmen and I just dont see how a two hour film can do justice to the book. Just some of the central themes could take well more than two hours to hash out (much less the complexities of the story). Ive always thought a Sci-fi channel mini-series would be more appropriate.
NTT, but didn't Amazing Fantasy #15 do that over 20 years earlier?
Oops, I think I just started a DC-Marvel flame war. Better not click Submi...
Yet neither your post, or any of the other posts made up to this point, say WHY it is such a good comic.
What makes it so good?
I couldn't agree more. I really liked the Bourne Identity, but the second gave me motion sickness. I would have enjoyed the Bourne Supremacy a lot more if they didn't try to film it like the "Blair Witch Project."
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
Seems like Slashdot conveniently forgets its hatred of the Film Gestapo when it comes to certain approved movies. Take a real stand and boycott all MPAA films, not just the ones you don't like.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Example "From Hell", the book: one of the finest graphics novels I have ever read. Film: sucked ass. I predict this will go the same way.
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
Really, there is no reason to be panicky and down on this guy, any more than there is a reason to be excited about him. He's a no name up and comer, who made a crappy Keneath Branaugh movie a few years ago (not really in the same genre as Watchmen), is known mostly for making violent made for TV movies.
I haven't seen Bourne Supremecy, it seems to have been pretty much a wash. Greengrass's Bloody Sunday is pretty well regarded. He's got a thing for gritty realism, and his camerawork is adventurous, but not always successful.
David Hayter is the writer listed. Again, up and comer (at least as writer), and a mixed bag with previous efforts (both the X-men movies, but also the Scorpion King). Hayter has always been paired with other writers, not uncommon for someone starting out in script work.
See a pattern? Nothing to freak about, nothing to get excited about. Wait and see
Anyone telling me to not judge before the movie is made will be teleported to Mars *without* an air envelope.
Other prediction: The whole parallel Earth WW3 subplot will be eliminated and the villian of the film will be changed to a "right wing" corporate evil something or other.
Someone should do V For Vendetta but update it by having England taken over by Islamofascists.
--- Ban humanity.
Does the timing of this announcement have anything to do with the success of the Incredibles, which explores the same theme of superheros being discouraged to show themselves and their powers?
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Rorshach: Johnny Depp
Dr. Manhatten: George Clooney (alt: Hugh Jackman)
The Comedian: Tom Sellack
Ozymandius: Ralph Feinnes
Nite Owl: Stephen Root (alt: Tom Hanks)
Silk Spectre 1: Lucy Lawless
Silk Spectre 2: Natalie Portman? Too young. Probably need someone more muscular, true brunette, can actually act. Michelle Forbes is probably a little too old. Maybe Maggie Gyllenhaal.
Psychiatristic: James Earl Jones
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
THINK of the great pieces of cinematic perfection based on comic books!
Insipid and trite, yet full of rubust low quality acting and flat dialog, Hollywood again and again gives us.... Well, crap.
At least they're consistent.
Is if it were titled: Watchmen.....Verbatim.
There isnt a director in the world I would trust with making this movie, this is a sad sad day in geek history.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. -Fight Club
David Hayter wrote the script and to quote IMDB it is "...hailed as one of the most accurate translations of comics to films ever written."
Maybe it won't be so bad.
November 23,2004
This city fears me, because I have seen its true face. The Hollywood people want to tell my story. They think they can tell my story? No one can tell my story. No one except me.
In the past there were men who could tell my story. Men like my father or President Eisenhower. But that was before the lawyers and the pornographers and the bleeding heart teachers took over.
Now the smell of their corruption is in the air, polluting everything with their filth and their pornography and their so-called civil liberties.
But their reign will not last. There will be war soon. A Great War sewwping over everything like a storm. And it will wash away the stench and corruption of Hollywood, Las Vegas, New York and all the other cesspools of this country.
And, in their desperation, the people will look up to me an beg me for their help.
And I will look down and I will say
"No."
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
just like in theory Communism works. Movies have been doing the juxtaposed images and narrative structure for a while. Rules of Attraction and Timecode are both recent examples of crossing split-screen narrative that reintersect with each other (and you can get some pretty off the wall stuff such as Last Year at Marienbad). Leitmotivs have existed in movies forever and so has repeated symbolism. But because cinema velocity is artist-determined, not audience-determined (i.e. the director controls the pacing. In literature the reader can stop, reread and thus control the pace of the story) often such levels of interpretation are usually missed unless one is willing to invest the time rewatching a movie critically.
This will always be the problem between much literature and film, even for short written works. This is why movies are either of short stories or of novels that are completely gutted of everything but the highlight reel. Rarely are people going to sit through three movies that aren't epic drama. You might get a fan to sit down for the 312 minute Swedish TV version of Fanny and Alexander but no way is it going to survive a theatrical release.
So... if a studio can be convinced to release a 5 hour movie and if a select group carefully translated the symbols to film equivilents (playing into part of the bane and boon of movies being the temporal element) and if a budget can be collected to accurately reproduce everything from Vietnam to Mars to Veidt's Antarctic base to the annihilation of NYC... theoretically this could be the greatest movie ever made.
Of course, that's said by every Producer/Director/Studio Head before every movie they release...
Yeah, this is probably going to suck.
What is music when you despise all sound?
The book was written in the 80s, and has overtones of an upcoming and inevitable nuclear war between the USSR and the USA. The entire plot of the book is based around it.
IF they try and "adapt" it and make it have something to do with terrorism or whatever... DONE: The movie will suck. No need to read further.
They need to make it an alternate history, along the lines of "What would the world be like today, IF..."
They need to make it clear that if the US _did_ have Dr. Manhattan on its side, the level of tension around the world would have skyrocketed, insuring that the Soviet Union would never have collapsed.
I'm pretty worn out from these Comic Book based movies..
Wake me when they're making Preacher into a movie and I'll see it 5 times and buy 2 copies of the DVD.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Memento...sounds vaguely familiar but I can't recall...oops time for another insulin shot!
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Who will watch the watchmen?
I've never understood howa movie can be said to have "ruined" a book. Whatever. Watchmen, the comic, is a work of pure brilliance. It's actually better in the trade paperback than it was sequentially, I think, because the story will hit you all at once. Moore's language, combined with the visual echoing of themes, with just the sheer purity of the ideas, will smack anyone upside the head with a brilliant brick. This will be the same whether there's a crappy movie out there or not. Moore's "Saga of the Swamp Thing" run may be the best comic ever written. It continues to be great no matter how many iteratiosn of crappy movies, tv movies, etc., appear. His John Constantine was perfect. In Moore's hands, we never knew too much about him, how he did what he did, just what he was capable of, or what his true motives were. The American Gothic stories in Swamp Thing, and the early years of Hellblazer, will be undimished no matter what Keanu does. Frank Miller's Daredevil will still amaze after Ben Affleck's putrid movie. The Dark Knight Returns is not diminished by the the nipples on Val Kilmer's costume, really. And I found myself tracking down both the League and Hellboy after those movies.
Conversely, were there any Blade fans who remembered him all that fondly from the Dracula stires and pages of Dr. Strange? I barely remembered him, and I'm a live version of the Simpson's Comic book guy at heart.
My essential point is that these works exist independently. Everyone knows that a book will have far more depth and intelligence that the movies.
The best that I think any of these movies could do is to create interest in these characters, and in the stories. We've seen a resurgence in a heroic archetype in the movies, from The Matrix's the "One" to the Ringbearer, to the return of Superman. That can only be good for comics in general. It may show a renewed interest in stories of heroism for its own sake., for purity of motive, and for tales of good versus evil. Comics have suffered, and continue to do so, and anything that gets mainstream audiences talking about Alan Moore, Mike Mignola, and even Bob Kane has got to be a good thing for them.
/* No Comment */
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
When this happens, please do the right thing and save us the trouble of having to hunting you down.
First off, IMDB lists it with a 2005 release, so one of them is mistaken: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/ Also, no word yet on Alan Moore's take on things. The IMDB shows him still listed with writing credits for Watchmen, but then again it shows him with writing credits for League of Extraorindary Gentlemen and From Hell, and Alan wanted his name taken off those pieces of film, last I heard.
It's not going to happen, but I think the only way to do Watchmen is as a trilogy. There's just too much information to fit into a traditional Hollywood three act structure.
The first movie deals with romance between Laurie and Dan
Sets up Rorsharch's serial killer conspiracy.
Ends with Dr. Manhattan leaving earth and Rorscharch's arrest.
The second deals with Rorsharch's psychosis
Shows Laurie's appeal to Dr. Manhattan on Mars
Ends with the realization Ozymandias is behind things
The third focuses on the complex resolution of Ozy's plan
Resolves with Dan and Laurie's happy relationship
Has a scene post-credits that portrays the cliff-hanger of Rorscharch's diary.
1. V for Vendetta
2. Watchmen
I can't think of anything that I'd put anywhere close to those two.
I've said it previously on Slashdot (in someone's journal, if I remember correctly) but V for Vendetta would make a great movie. The only problem is that movies that have a terrorist attacking the machinery of a fascist state aren't exactly easy to sell in today's political climate.
Seriously, if you haven't read V for Vendetta (or Watchmen) then do whatever you have to to do so. I found copies of both at my library recently, together with a whole bunch of great graphic novels. which totally blew me away. Even the librarian who checked out my books remarked at how much she'd enjoyed them.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I recently read the book (recently, like two weeks ago) and I was unimpressed. I understand that it was the FIRST of its kind but I was baffled as to why it was the BEST. I will admit that I do not read much into that genre so, but I picked it up because I'd like to read MORE of the genre and I wanted to see where the bar was set. I'll admit that I guess that I expected too much.
The comic-within-a-comic was a nice flourish of parellelism, but why was it there? The link made in one of the later 'pre-chapter text' seemed a little tenuous to justify its prominent exposure through the narrative. The newspaper vendor seemed pointless, he moved the plot forward without adding anything TO the plot.
I did like the 'pre-chapter text' and I thought it added to the overall story. I also liked that the "superheros" were so self-conscious of themselves and their decision to dress up in a costume to fight crime; a jitteriness that adds some 'humanity' to the characters.
But ultimately I think I didn't like Ozymandius and Dr. Manhatten. They edge too close to 'superhero'-dom and I couldn't really identify with either. I thought Ozy...'s justification for destroying Manhatten was lacking and that everyone bought into it at the end (though perhaps because it had been set in motion and unstoppable) (and except Rorshach of course) and just didn't make sense. It felt like he was little more than Travis Bickle with a lot of money and Bickle was nothing more than the criminals and urchins and he despised. Finally, I never really got any feeling for whether Dr. Manhattan had 'settled into' his new skin or whether he would have preferred to remain a non-mutant; he seemed indifferent to the transformation.
So, is this the best the genre has to offer?
Pogo
"We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us"
Strikes Back on the big screen seems more appropriate.
Think about it.
There's interesting comments on this in the Onion AV Club interview with Moore.
"What I've tried to do with my work, from Watchmen onward, is to do things that can only be done in comics. For example, with a movie, the audience is going to be dragged through that movie at 24 frames per second. That's the running time of the movie. It's going to take them two hours, or whatever, to watch it. It doesn't matter who they are; that is the speed at which they're going to watch that movie. Now, with comics, it's a much more user-friendly medium. The reader can focus upon one panel for as long as it takes to absorb all of the information that is there, and then move on to the next. If they want to see whether there's some correlation between a bit of dialogue and something that happened a couple of scenes ago, they can, in a matter of seconds, flip back."
Basically, a big part of the elegance of the comic is very deeply tied into its format. In that same interview Moore refers to "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and "Blade Runner" as a good model for translating one format into another: both are quite good, but they're good for different reasons, they each make use of their form in appropriate ways. I think this is the same kind of reasoning behind the critical praise for the third Harry Potter movie.
On the other hand, I'm inclined to be pessimistic: Moore was hoping that "From Hell" would pull off a Blad-Runner-like success when it moved from comic to screen. Not so.
As long as they don't use a freakin' handheld camera for the Watchmen like they did in The Bourne Supermacy, everything will be ok.
According to this site http://www.comicspriceguide.com/p-issues.asp?t_ID= 1098 , roughly $5 bucks a pop for "near mint".
That's $5 bucks for each comics, extra couple for issue #1, you're sitting on about $125 bucks worth of comic.
Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
"I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
This is the book that made Barbrady stay illiterate.
To clarify this declaration: Watchmen is absolutely positively one of best comics ever made ... IN THE SUPERHERO GENRE. Along with Dark Knight Returns, it spawned the "grim-n-gritty" style of comics noir, and allowed some to break free of the four-color spandex world.
But superhero != comics. Don't ignore Maus, Cerebus, Sandman, quite a few worthy manga series, etc, most of whom owe very little to the influence of Watchmen.
While seeing the Incredibles I instantly thought of the Watchmen when, during the subject of costume design, capes were dismissed outright as needless and dangerous.
In the Watchmen the first Nite-Owl relates the story of Dollar Bill in his Auto-biographry. Dollar Bill was a costumed adventurer sponsored and backed by local banking institutions who, while attempting to stop a bank robbery, was shot to death when his cape was caught in a revolving door.
One point you missed: the text FOLLOWED the chapter it is associated with.
Another: Everything to do with Dr Manhattan.
One you got but didn't realise was a revelation: superheroes are fascists.
Ozymandias is the smartest man in the world: if it seems a dumb plan to you it is because he is smarter than you (that's Alan Moore's response to criticism of the weak ending anyway).
What were we talking about again? I have a photo that I must have taken of the screen at the time, but there was screenglare, it got overexposed, and I can't tell anymore. {tattoos on arm:} "Get glare shield."
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
If they're going with the David Hayter script, which last I heard they are, New York is hit with a solar death ray ala what they use on Tetsuo in 'Akira'. I'm more worried about this than who's directing because it completely misses the point of the Rorschach/Ozymandias "We are alone"/"There are aliens so get to work" duality.
Did anyone else find the action in "The Bourne Supremacy" to be lacking? I thought the scenes were shot too close up and the editing too chopped up. Not enough flow to give a sense of what was going on. Lacking in impact.
Except for the car chase at the end, which was very well done.
Am I the only one who thought this?
Cheers.
Known for his "gritty style"? Did the authors actually see the Bourne movie? I would say known for his "typical hollywood action faire", but that's just me. Just because you've directed a movie with the word bloody in the title doesn't mean you've got a gritty direction style.
This is bound to be a disaster. When I heard that Aronofsky was at the helm I at least had a little hope.. but guys, there's a reason guilliam decided not to do this in the first place. Watchman is the greatest comic book saga ever told, and I have little doubt that a movie adaptation will be a complete disaster.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Watchmen is a clever dissection of the comic super-hero myth. It challenges the medium's clichés by ignoring them. Putting spandex-clad thugs in real world settings is a great way to observe them.
It also happens to be wrapped up in a "who done it" story. I suspect the movie will focus entirely on this aspect and ignore the real strength of the book.
Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
Jason Alexander ("George Costanza")? He's got the pudgy/geeky thing down. (Kidding.)
Roushank (sp it's been years) is a kind of mixed bad good and bad guy he does allot of shit that most people would find vile but he still goes through with it. Bruce willis comes to mind.
John Malkovich? Ooh, I get chills thinking of that.
What I want to know is, in today's increasingly puritanical, "Think of the children!" climate, how are they going to get around the fact that Dr Manhattan spends most of the story stark bollock naked?
You must think in Russian.
I thought the exact same thing when I read the comic. "Hmmmmm... so the man is given a choice of cutting through his ankle with a hack saw and certain death. Yup, seen this before."
Happy people make bad consumers.
So... if a studio can be convinced to release a 5 hour movie
I'll do you one better: a 9 hour movie called The Lord of the Rings. (No, it isn't a "trilogy" in the same way that SW IV-VI is a trilogy.) With LotR and Kill Bill, studios have shown themselves more than willing to break up a long story into multiple installments.
> "The Watchmen," created by writer Alan Moore and artist Dave Gibbon and originally released in 1986 as a 12-issue comic book, is credited with redefining the superhero genre. It tells a crime-conspiracy story that provided the first realistic look at the behind-the-heroics lives of superhero archetypes.
How could ANY comic based on ficticious characters in make believe world and powers not possible in real world can ever be portrayed 'realistically'? That clearly shows the Reuter is just another moronic news organization that churns out sensationalistic 'news' not worthy of reading.
John Malkovich? Ooh, I get chills thinking of that...
Damn, now that WOULD be cool. The story could essentially be reduced to a Rorschach narrative in order to fit into a couple hours and still remain true to the book. Malkovich would have the strength/talent to pull it off.
Malkovich as Rorschach...hmmm
Watchmen can't be done in 90-120 minutes with Big Name Actors. Leastwise, it can't be done right, and if it can't be done right, it shouldn't be done at all.
To be fair, lots of fans said the same thing about The Lord of the Rings. And look what we got out of Peter Jackson's hard work.
You say Watchmen can't be done "right" on the big screen? Neither could LotR, and it wasn't. What we got instead was a lavish production which heavily altered the original books, but was still an excellent story in it own right. This was mainly because Jackson knew going in that turning the book accurately into a movie would be a cinematic disaster. Changes must be made to any story when it changes media, and purists who insist otherwise are usually seen as whiners.
Terry Gilliam isn't the end-all and be-all of offbeat filmmaking, you know. Just because he doesn't want to do it doesn't mean it can't be done.
Ok, hear me out. Granted, there's a great deal of crap anime out there, but compared to Hollywood, the amount of depth some anime movies have is mind-blowing. Hell, why even TRY to fit the entire Watchmen into one 2 hr. long movie? Why not break it down into a 12 part mini-series and keep it faithful to the comic?
To do a live action version of Watchmen properly, it should be 12 episode mini-series on HBO. HBO is very supportive of shows that are a little off the beaten path. Do you think that Carnivale or Six Feet Under would have ever been shown on network television? Showtime and FX could probably do a Watchmen mini-series justices as well. They have some decent content these days. Just my two cents.
I was shocked at first why the Bourne Supremacy director was doing a film all about a now defunct band out of Winnipeg
But I did enjoy Tom Bombadil (maybe I'm the only one) and was sad to see that cut.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I'd have to agree that The Watchmen is one of the greatest comics. Just for the sake of putting it out there, I think it has the same calibre of greatness as Concrete , & The Dark Knight Returns .
All three would be nice on the big screen if they were done right. The problem with "comic" movies is that every comic reader imagines the reality of character's universe in a different way and is usually disappointed with the cinematic results.
Film at 11, a few years later, on obscure cable channels.
First, your apology for not remembering the names would be accepted if you weren't offering it in a post suggesting cast for a movie based on a comic you can hardly even remember. As it is, it's just ridiculous.
Second, Bruce Willis. Bruce Willis? BRUCE FUCKING WILLIS AS RORSCHACH???!!! That's the single most idiotic suggestion I have ever heard.
I've never read the books, I'll admit. I read the Hobbit, was sickened by all of the "poetry" and "singing" and stayed very far away from the rest of it. Might get to it eventually- until then, I'm still pissed that Barnes and Nobel (the only frigging chain of bookstores in this twon) has a complete RACK devoted to Tolkein and can't be bothered to keep a single copy of a new book by a current author. :|
:)
I mentioned the scouring because that's the bit everyone I know who's read the books and scene the movies bitches about the most- though at least one friend of mine mentioned Bombadil. So there's at least TWO of you.
Ugh
William Hurt or Jeff Bridges for The Owl.
1. Take one of the greatest stories ever told in graphic novel format.
2. Have it done by the director that hideously butchered possibly one of the best spy novels ever written.
3. ??
4. Profit!
-Styopa
Who do they cast? How about Jeremy Irons as Rorschach? He's got the voice which is the main requirement for that character. I'm not sure about the rest.
Regards, Ian
And consequently, telling it as anything else would be unworthy.
It's gotta be Cold War in the eighties. Back then, things were a little more clear cut and it was a little easier to be on the side of the US and allies than it would be today.
IMO, if we had a Doctor Manhattan today, well... either the US wouldn't exist, or we wouldn't look very much like we do at present.
Let's pretend that this won't suck, and that the budget would be unlimited. Here's who I'd cast:
The reality of it is that not all of these actors will be available, and, even if they were, they wouldn't all be affordable. I think it's much more likely that, should this story get told as a movie, that they'll pick a central character to focus on, and bring in the rest as time allows. If this wisdom is followed, I think the Dreiberg story would be the best suited for it--he's the universal everyman; depressed, but you can identify with him. Folks that identify with any other character, um, don't go to movies much.
This story has lots of problems to make contemporary and tellable, however.
Ah, who am I kidding. This'll suck. It's time has passed.
--
$tar -xvf
n/t
And fucking Hell to boot....
:(
Yet another classic piece of alternative culture which will undoubtedly get pureed into the usual mindless gloop by the Hollywood imbecile machine.
Who bets that the collection of drooling simps at the preview screening don't like Rorcharch (that spelling looks well off - ed.) and he gets turned into some simpering Disney-esque wimp. Dr. Manhattan ? "Sorry sir our test screening show he was both too otherwordly and his skins far far too blue".
Hell I bet they even try to lever in a nice happy "feel good" ending to boot
This rant comes courtesy of a true Deka Thargo who, if I had the cash, would have sued the bastards for the utterly disgraceful, piss poor, standard "Hollywood love plot number 2" that was released under the title of "Judge Dredd". Yeah right... as if old stoney ace would EVER take his helmet off for anyone - much less get involved with a "judge-ette".
The rotten fucking bastards...
Note to hollywood execs: Please stop making films out of comic book classics - you're utterly, hopelessly shite at it.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
That's um, brilliant.
After reading this, I will be of the
opinion that any other person will be
wrong for the role.
Of course, I'm not so sure that
William H. Macy would really want to
be involved in a movie which is going
to suck quite as badly as this one.
J
I went to see "Resident Evil" with a friend. If you don't know, it's a very violent and somewhat graphic zombie movie.
Two rows behind us, a woman and her friend had brought their children to this movie. No kidding, there were 4-7 year olds wandering around during the scary, graphic movie.
When did I hear complaint from the guardians? When, at the end of the movie, the lead character is wearing a bit of paper that somewhat covers her nakedness. Apparantly, it's ok for kids to see violence and dead people coming back to unlife as zombies and skinless dogs, etc., but a naked woman?! Shock! Outrage! Horror!
So, pulling this back on-topic, I too can not imagine what the average movie-goer might think of a naked blue man who continues to be naked for at least half the movie (if it follows the comic). Shock! Outrage! Horror!
-=-=-=-=-=-
fms/chi
I still remember being dumbfounded, and awed when I first read the series back when it came out. The art was cool the story so different from the usual superhero drivel of the time. Except for Frank Miller's Dark Night Returns series (sorry cannot remember the precise date on it's release, but it was not that long after Watchmen), the superhero genre had, at that time, grown so stale. I only hope they do not ruin cherished memories when they make this movie.
Well, it is far from being my favorite comic, but I enjoy Watchmen mainly for its subversion of the superhero genre. Superheroes are, in Moore's vision, fascists--or at least, tools of fascism. The novel undermines superhero worship, suggesting that if such beings walked our earth they'd be put to nefarious work by (literally) the Richard Nixons of the world. (To be sure, Moore ceased believing this, if he ever did; he spins out plenty of superhero worship today in his cloying "Tom Strong" series.) The thematic backdrop is America reeling from the Cold War, Vietnam and self-imposed repression, a land in which heroes are both less and more than what they are made out to be.
Moore's characters here are, in many instances, three-dimensional. So, too, is his language richer than what had come to be expected from comics, and he puts it in service of a deeply skeptical and ironic perspective: he has a sly, critical voice that puts him in league with, say, novelists from Nathaniel West and Kurt Vonnegut to Martin Amis and Will Self. And he has a gift for meta-fiction; there is more to Watchmen than meets the eye, and plenty for those who like to read in the margins, too. So, in short, this blurb: this is a complicated tale built on a richly imagined cast that turns the assumptions of (and about) its genre inside out.
It will make a godawful Hollywood movie, and not least because American popcorn-munchers don't pay to see dystopian visions. It's simply too complex to be told correctly in 90 or 120 minutes. Terry Gilliam--whose imagination is at least the equal of Moore's--gave up on it, saying it would require a mini-series. It's a shame HBO doesn't own the rights.
The Bourne Identity was flawlessly directed as opposed to Supremacy which had far too many unsteady handheld shots replete with shambolic editing. This occurs so frequently that it quickly becomes the focus of the film. This is a shame because it could easily have been as good as the first film.
The original book was - supposedly - an outlet for Heinlein's theories about why Fascist government was a Good Thing. The film took that premise and mocked it in a number of subtle ways:
- the white, American population of Buenos Aires
- the over-the-top, jingoistic commercial breaks
- the interspersion of "how great it is to be a soldier" stuff with people being brutally slaughtered
- etc.
So even though it doesn't follow the book exactly, I still think it's a great movie. And it's good with beer and popcorn too.
Not that anyone respects the greatest science fiction writer ever(TM) but didn't Asimov himself approve Harlan's screenplay? Whereas the one in theaters was actually based on hardwired, not even written by Asimov at all....
Changa hates change.
But a glareshield raped and murdered your wife!
Greatest? I don't know because I haven't read it. But I intend to. I have a friends copy on my shelf as I speak.
By the way, anyone ever read Maus? It was fantastic. Both volumes.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
The camera jerked around so much in The Bourne Supremacy it gave me a headache trying watch it. So much of it was out of focus you could of got just as much out of a radio broadcast. After the first Bourne film this was truly a disappointment.
For anyone who hasn't yet read the book, you would do well for yourself not to read the posting of fuckhead_buddy above.
Ugh...
David Fincher, of Figh Club fame, was going to direct Hardboiled last time I looked. Now I guess they've scrapped that for direction by some brainless hack instead. I guess that after pulling Aronofsky and Frank Miller off of Batman this kind of idiocy should come as no surprise.
And, worst of all.
If it is made they will ruin the ending, I guarantee you.
You see, that great ending will never, ever fly in a Hollywood flick.
Your average test audience would be rioting, baying for the directors blood as soon as the credits start to roll.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
I would also add one more. But that's about it.
4. Baker Street: Honor Among Punks
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
I'm probably too late for anybody to read this, but Tuesday's Independent has a story on Alan Moore's new project, reviving old UK comic heroes from the vaults of IPC.
Great, I wonder if he'll deploy the shaky cam. Jackass directory ruined Bourne Supremacy.