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.
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.
Good call - he suits the role. Its still gonna suck. I'm still in pain from LXG.
The fact is that I don't think its possible to really do that book properly in movie form. I've got a copy with dog-eared pages, and I just don't see how it could work without the juxtaposed images and character narration - that's the best part of the comic medium.
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!!!
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.
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.
And don't forget the movie "I,Robot", which had nothing at all to do with Isaac Asimov's book other than having robots and the same three laws.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
It's a decent movie on its own... but the moment you compare it to the books, everything goes to hell IMO.
As an example... at no time during the book The Bourne Supremacy, is Marie killed, nor does anything occur in India or Russia. Hell, I rather enjoyed the ploy from the book used to kidnap Marie and convince David Web to revert in order to track down who he was told took her.
The principal driving force of books 1 and 3 is the assassin Carlos, and Bourne/Web's attempts to stay safe from him. Oh how I wish Carlos the Jackal was in the movies with his old men of Paris... obsessing about the mythical David Web who had established quite the reputation for himself as an assassin in the east... instead of this "nyeh, my government keeps trying to kill me" crap.
I guess I'd find it entertaining to see Matt Damon mumbling "Cain if for Carlos and Delta is for Cain" throughout each movie.
I know, I know, one shouldn't compare movies to their source books... but the Bourne series is one of those area's that just drives me nuts, the books are pretty good, and as said above the movies are good... when viewed alone, but for the literate who've read the material and then seen the flicks... *shuddering*.
With this said... I still fear the impending theatrical versions of Enders Game and Atlas Shrugged... oh how two of the most important books in my life will be butchered!
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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
Despite the major labels use of the word "greatest" in place of the term "best known," they are not synonymous. It is actually sadly rare that the greatest of anything (at least, anything artistic) is remotely well-known. I'm sure that many copies will eventually be sold of "Britney Spears' Greatest Hits," but none of those hits will be great - unlike much of Guided by Voices' ouvre, none of which is a hit.
On a different note, I suggest you read The Watchmen.
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?
Have you noticed how Alan Moore's comics tend to be a little skruffy in movie form?
Yup. It's because of how Alan Moore works. He usually takes something that is normally considered "low" art--Victorian pulp fiction, superhero comics, and so on--and gives it depth and realism. The Watchmen, for example, takes the idea of the superhero and thrusts it into the real world and the resulting slow-motion trainwreck is fascinating.
Hollywood does depth really badly. Even if they manage to fit all of The Watchmen into two hours while still keeping its shape, they're going to end up turning it into just another superhero team movie.
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.
Strikes Back on the big screen seems more appropriate.
Think about it.
Apparently people are incapable of imagining what it was like during the collapse of the Roman Empire, Cuban Missile Crisis or [insert historical period/event of your choice here].
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Depth, maturity, characterization, you name it. It has an epic storyline that isn't just padded out for the sake of making the series longer. It has believable, interesting, flawed, and layered characters. It might be the best job ever of creating a world with superheroes and villains that still seems like it could be happening right around us. Seriously - go read it. And while you're at it, pick up the X-Men graphic novel "God Loves, Man Kills." I still read that once or twice a year.
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
There's no need to adapt. The timeline itself was a modern alternate. Nixon was the current President, the US won the Vietnam War, and the soviets were under repression from fear like a fucking spring. This could easily be put into a movie form with no reference to terrorists whatsoever. Now, pass dos' katies before I guts ya!
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Macy is a great actor. I will never ever say anything bad about Macy.
However, Rorshach is a seething ball of righteous anger and disgust. I need an actor that I know can be intimidating while icy cool, yet potentially snap at any moment. A scenery-chewer like Gary Oldman or Tim Roth (someone else's suggestion- wish I thought of it -think General Thade from Burton's Planet of the Apes)
Macy can be powerful, but still deflate easily into Dan Dreiberg's Night Owl.
For anyone who hasn't yet read the book, you would do well for yourself not to read the posting of fuckhead_buddy above.