Slashdot Mirror


Dave Gibbons On the Forthcoming Watchmen Movie

An anonymous reader writes "Den Of Geek has been talking to comics legend Dave Gibbons about the upcoming transition of the Watchmen from the comic book to the silver screen. 'There are hardcore fans out there who'll be satisfied with nothing less than a word-for-word, line-for-line, scene-for-scene recreation of the comic book. I didn't believe that was ever going to happen.'" It's a rather short interview, but Gibbons addresses some interesting elements of both the movie and comic-book worlds.

23 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. Conversions by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It will probably have as much to do with the comic book as Starship Troopers had to do with the Sci-Fi classic.

    Keep in mind, there wasn't a whole, whole lot of action in Watchmen, & a lot of the intricacies of the "superheroes" relationships will probably be glossed over.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
    1. Re:Conversions by kithrup · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't see how I, Robot is "garbage." Other than a large action scene that Asimov wouldn't've written in his books, the plot is entirely an Asimovian robotic mystery: the three laws (or four laws, as Asimov had in his later books) are completely integral to the plot; the clues are related to robotics and are visible to the viewer, instead of being hidden and revealed after the fact; and the societal impact of the technology is examined.

      Even the actress they had playing Susan Calvin was the right age, and there was no romance between her and the main character.

      It was a shockingly good science fiction movie.

    2. Re:Conversions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      the three laws (or four laws, as Asimov had in his later books) are completely integral to the plot HOW can you say that with a straight face? The robot IGNORES THE FIRST LAW due to the second law - a complete contradiction of Asimov's novels. A HUGE ROBOT ARMY does exactly what Asimov detested in scifi, and prevented in his stories with the three laws.
    3. Re:Conversions by sesshomaru · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The main problem with it is that it was "With Folded Hands" (with a Hollywood ending). Which is a good robot story, but it's by Jack Williamson not Isaac Asimov.

      I therefore judge it a pretty good movie by Hollywood blockbuster standards. I wonder if Hollywood will ever make a movie that is actually based on I, Robot.

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    4. Re:Conversions by roystgnr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the plot is entirely an Asimovian robotic mystery

      No, the plot is "Frankenstein". Asimov's whole motivation for inventing "The Three Laws" was to avoid falling into that literary rut, which was well-traversed back when he started writing and which is a bottomless canyon today.

      I don't think the movie was garbage (hey, there's a reason Frankenstein was such a classic), but calling it "I, Robot" was just false advertising, even if the script subverted an Asimov idea while borrowing a couple character names.

    5. Re:Conversions by Arccot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The ST movie was supposed to be an insult to Heinlein, parodying the fascist leanings of his work, not an "accurate" adaptation Indeed -- when I saw that movie I kinda liked it, for the in your face irony and criticism of medias, action movies, propaganda -- remember the blatant propaganda shown on tv, the SS uniforms, etc. It was absolutely _obvious_ this was a parody and critical of all it was showing. I was astounded to read reviews on the web (on /. itself iirc) that actually took the movie as if it was a straight action flick... I think if it is a parody, it should have been a little thicker or less generic. Seeing it again (I originally read the book after the first movie), it still came off as either a kinda bad action movie, or a kinda bad parody. Army hate, media hate, and Nazi-like troops is a common theme in many films, so the bar for parody is very high on those topics.

      There's plenty of Heinlein to parody, from his need to put spanking in virtually every single story (including this one), to his literary lust for girls (not women) and multiple partners sex. Both would have pandered well to the movie watching audience, while giving Heinlein readers something to laugh at if it's done in an over-the-top manner.
    6. Re:Conversions by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the first Starship Troopers was one of Verhoeven's best films. But then again, I despise Heinlen and think that hack DESERVED to be parodied. Verhoeven just sized the material up for exactly what it was.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. Movie Adaptations by majorgoodvibes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    are almost never 100% faithful - the closest I've seen lately is "No Country for Old Men."

    It's not that it's impossible but it's just not necessary or preferable. If a movie gets the spirit of its source material, captures something of its style, and brings something new to it that could only be accomplished cinematically then it's probably a successful adaptation.

  4. Re:Alan Moore doesn't do well on screen by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Appparently, he agrees.

    How do you feel about Alan Moore's excision from the credits of Watchmen?

    Uh oh.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  5. Re:Alan Moore doesn't do well on screen by berashith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Add to this the fact that Alan Moore isnt lending his name to the movie and I am even more skeptical. A dark story with a non-happy ending doesn't sit very well with focus groups. I will save my cash a read the book again.

  6. hear hear. by apodyopsis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that as long as it's true to the spirit of the comic book, and as long as - in broad strokes - it follows the plot and the characterisations...I don't think you can ask for every individual detail to be replicated.

    hear hear.

    Watchmen is a classic. It is my favorite classic. I still get it down and read it every now and then and it still makes me shiver.

    My instinctive reaction to the film is "Noooooo!", but on reflection I then think of the "V for Vendetta" movie and I remember that it is possible to make a damn good film out of a graphic novel without following it exactly. I know "Sin City" is more or less a scene for scene clone of the book, likewise "300" - but it does not have to be like that. Vendetta showed us that.

    1. Re:hear hear. by MythoBeast · · Score: 2, Insightful

      on reflection I then think of the "V for Vendetta" movie and I remember that it is possible to make a damn good film out of a graphic novel without following it exactly. I know "Sin City" is more or less a scene for scene clone of the book, likewise "300" - but it does not have to be like that. Vendetta showed us that. I'm fine with both of these, but I think that many of us will agree that Watchmen is something special beyond any other graphic novel. Just like the greatest of songs out there aren't generally improved by interpretation, I can't help but feel that too much interpretation can only lessen the result.

      I'm glad to see that the first re-creation of the novel is attempting to recreate it as close to the intention as possible. I would also be happy if, in the future, someone took it as inspiration to create interpretations, but I really want to see the graphic novel itself on screen first.

      --
      Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
    2. Re:hear hear. by DMadCat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And on the other end of the spectrum we have the X-Men trilogy which showed just how bad a Hollywood interpretation of a comic can be...

  7. Re:I predict this will bomb. by JeTmAn81 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, 300, the director's last film, was released in March and made north of $400 million. It was widely acclaimed and considered an excellent translation of Frank Miller's graphic novel. Watchmen definitely has a chance to turn out well.

    --
    "Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare -- a pumpkin with a gun."
  8. Re:Alan Moore doesn't do well on screen by ttrafford · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree mostly (V wasn't really an anarchist, he just wanted to destroy the current system so that a new, better one could be built instead). Really, the major difference with "V" can be illustrated by this one key line change:

    Original: "There is no flesh beneath this mask, there is only an idea"
    Movie : "There is more than flesh beneath this mask, there is an idea"

  9. Yup. Expect it. by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hollywood will glitz up the story, and gloss over the personal details. IMHO, it's the personal relationships that make the Watchmen such a good story. At its core it is a story about people, not action.

    It'll be a shame to watch that take a back seat to special effects.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  10. Re:Alan Moore doesn't do well on screen by falcon5768 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No uh oh, Moore is a asshole and its been well documented for years hes a egotistical asshole. His input has been sought for YEARS when it comes to movies of his works and he flat out refuses to help, then trashes what eventually is made under a misplaced idea that by denying his input it wont be made.

    Granted he has good reason in the past to not want to be associated with big companies as hes been screwed more than once, but the same can be said about a lot of other talented comic writers out there and they have had no issues with playing the game even after being burned in the past. I highly doubt that without Frank Millers help, Sin City or 300 would have been half as impressive as they where.

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  11. Can't Fit in 90 Minutes by ewhac · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The Watchmen sprawls all over the place, and there's no way it would fit in three hours' running time, much less the Hollywood-standard 90 minutes. Something's going to get chopped.

    Personally, I nominate for deletion the entire novel-within-the-novel of the shipwrecked castaway. Every time that came up, I found myself flipping forward, looking for the main story to pick up again. In fact, it seemed all the extra characters who we saw passing by the newsstand in New York were just "whales" (q.v. Douglas Adams).

    I would be very disappointed if Rorschach's backstory as told to the psychologist were cut. Some amazingly powerful and resonant stuff in there. "Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later."

    Really, really good.

    Schwab

  12. Are you kidding? by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Hollywood can't even handle a Phillip K. Dick story without slapping on a happy ending. Do you think for a second that they are going to spend tens of millions of $ on a movie and include ANYTHING that makes even one test screening audience the *slightest* bit uncomfortable?

    The only way to do include any of this sort of material be to do it on the cheap and raise independent funding. If you accept Hollywood's fat cash, you accept that they're going to make your movie as inoffensive and audience-pleasing as possible. Those are the strings attached.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  13. Re:I predict this will bomb. by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I own the Dragons of Autumn Twilight movie. I can watch anything.

  14. Re:Alan Moore doesn't do well on screen by hkmarks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought V for Vendetta was a very good movie. It wasn't much like the original, but it was a good movie. It needed to change to suit the times, and it did. And it looked good. And it discarded some bullshit that didn't make sense.

    The Justice League Unlimited episode based on his Superman story "For the Man Who Has Everything," was also excellent, partly because it excised a sort of pointless subplot.

    Alan Moore is a good writer, but he also uses other people's characters and ideas, and tosses anything that doesn't suit what he's trying to tell. He's as guilty as anyone of screwing with originals to adapt them to his own taste.

    Watchmen was based on old Charlton characters (Blue Beetle = Nite-Owl, the Question = Rorschach, etc.); V for Vendetta was strongly influenced by 1984; Supreme was based on Superman -- and he tossed the character's history to make his own version); Tom Strong is based on various pulp heroes; League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was based on various literary characters, and is not the first such pastiche by far (and it was an awful book); and Lost Girls was a pervy take on fairy tales. Even Top 10, probably my favourite thing he's done, makes innumerable references to other works, and I'm not sure how much it was influenced by Astro City.

    Moore really is good, and Watchmen is his most important work, so I hope it's adapted well. (It really came along at the right moment; the world was ready in the 1980s for a serious deconstruction of superheroes.) I've only seen stills so far but they really seem to capture the right mood and look. But his work is not flawless, and it's practically as derivative as the movies it inspired.

  15. Re:Alan Moore doesn't do well on screen by Viceroy+Potatohead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a possible exception, I'd mention A Clockwork Orange. In the movie, Alex ends up being rewarded and pampered by the state. There's no sense of justice or of Alex actually learning anything. Sure the old writer makes him suffer, but that's revenge and doesn't feel like justice (to me at least).

    In the book, he ends up forming another gang, but grows tired of it, as he's growing up and wants a better life. It leaves me with a sense of the redeem-ability of even the worst humans.

    In neither book or film does he really learn anything up to the deconditioning. Only in the book does he understand that he ultimately wants life to be different. Granted, that movie was made a while ago. If someone tried to make it today, they'd probably turn it into a romantic comedy with Tom Cruise, Kristin Dunst, and Eugene Levy.