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.
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
Perhaps you are not a comic geek. The Watchmen, by Alan Moore, set the standard that comic creators today are still trying to meet. It's praise throughouht the industry is universal.
Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
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.
There are several sites dedicated to critical readings of Watchmen, because it is so dense.
These are all dripping spoilers, so care should be taken in following these links. Having Watchmen spoiled is something I wouldn't wish on anyone.
Watching the detectives, a Hypertext guide to Watchmen.
Watchmen observations.
Watchmen annotations.
Taking Off the Mask, a bacheolor's thesis by Samuel Asher Effron, class 1996.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
Bah, I thought "Supremacy" was teh major suck. It was about a tenth as good as the first one, which was quite entertaining and well done--and the cinematography was among the worst I've ever seen. It's like the whole thing was shot with a handicam resting on one of those vibrating hotel beds. I'm not one prone to nausea (thanks FPSs!) but this movie brought me close.
The first movie had soul, this one had none. It's a revenge flick, and I just didn't feel it. Totally disappointed.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
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
OK, it appears that no one (at this moment)has answered your question with the specific items that put "Watchmen" in the "greatest" category. Here's my feeble attempt (caveats - I'm not a huge comic book expert, and I'm at work, so details, links, and good writing aren't here.... others have suggested more in depth analysis sources)
1) Watchmen was one of the first "super hero" comics where the "good guys" weren't always heroic. The committed atrocities, sometimes felt bad about their violent acts, sometimes didn't, had complex,screwed up relationships with each other, and their families.
2) "Watchmen" used several literary devices not normally found in comic books. Allusion, metaphor, and symetry are sprinkled (or trowled) on liberally through the series.
3) Excellent, original, and innovative plot lines. Several of them. Not everything ges tied up in a neat bow at the end.
4) Excellent dialogue.
5) Subject matter included things not normally seen in a comic published by a major publisher in the 80s: lesbians, cannibalism, old people having sexual urges, prostitution, child abuse, atrocitiies. All portrayed in a "tasteful" non-lascivious manner, and not for shock value.
6) Complex charaters and motivations. The ultimate "rightness" or morality of almost any of the characters is open to debate.
7) Attempts to deal with what would really happen if super heroes truly existed in the real world. If superman was around in the 60s, why wasn't he used in Vietnam? If Reed Richards can make a Fatasticar, why are we all riding in internal combustion engine automobiles?
Some of these issues have been addressed in other comics since then, but "Watchmen" in general ws there first.
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.