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.]
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.
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.
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
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.
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]
Because it's a jealously guarded secret. If it were to slip into popular culture and everyone knew about it then it would become a UPN television series starring beautiful twenty-somethings portraying beautiful teenage versions of the characters in the comic book. To transcend it's own genre it would have to be cheapened and it's just not worth the risk.
The Guild has noted your Slashdot ID number and your silence on this matter is expected.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
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.
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?
Memento...sounds vaguely familiar but I can't recall...oops time for another insulin shot!
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Who will watch the watchmen?
When this happens, please do the right thing and save us the trouble of having to hunting you down.
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
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
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?
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.
And the number 1 question:
Rorschach should instead be cast with William H. Macy. I've always been impressed with Macy, and I think that with appropriate study he could bring the role to striking life. Rorschach was a man under intense self control, which in my opinion Macy has striven for in several of his prior roles.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
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.]
It sounds like picking up "The Watchmen" as a way to start/renew reading comics(1) may be a bad thing.(2) If it is indeed "the greatest" comicbook,(3) then anything else in the genre won't be as good(4) and you'll probably tire of the genre pretty fast, having sampled its best.(5)
(1)I did.
(2)It was.
(3)It is.
(4)It wasn't.
(5)I did.
The Watchmen is the only comic book story I've ever seen which had to be told in a comic book, because no other medium could do the work justice. It wasn't just a great story which was told through comics, it was a complete work of art which would not be nearly as compelling in any other form.
For example, the comic-within-the-comic that wove through the story. The panels of the kid's pirate comic were juxtaposed agaist the scenes on the street where he was reading it, describing the emotional context of both images as if it could have been the narration box for either scene. Even Terry Gilliam, who briefly considered making a Watchmen film, understood that you could never make something like that work in a motion picture.
The clippings of fictional periodicals which provided much of the depth of the world were also something which could only be done in a comic-book format.
Furthermore, the writers of some of those periodicals, as well as the writer of the pirate comic, were extremely important characters to the narrative, who we got to know almost exclusively through "their" writings. Genius!
The Watchmen will probably continue to stand alone as the most ground-breaking and important work in an art-form which is usually very crass and disposable.
The film however... Let's face it: It probably won't get made, and if it does it will probably suck.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Gee, thanks!
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
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.
At the surface level, it shows what comics might be in a world where superheroes are real.
At a thematic level, it tells a story smaller than yet similar to Veidt's. Consider what the narrator of the pirate comic realizes at the end; at the end of Watchmen, Veidt has done the same sort of thing for the same reason. However, Veidt doesn't show that insight.
how to invest, a novice's guide
For anyone who hasn't yet read the book, you would do well for yourself not to read the posting of fuckhead_buddy above.