Watchmen

Alpha Centauri

Originally posted by jalek moye
why exactly cant it be an excellent adaptation, they could do a fairly good one

You just answered your own question didn't you? "Why can't it be excellent? It could be good.".

Even that is arguable. If you're asking why it can't be an excellent adaptation, you either haven't read, nor understood, the book.

Originally posted by Scoobless
Doing what? adapting comics to film?

Adapting things to movie that were not meant to be adapted to movie. It's not like it was a book that would work well as a movie. One of the CREATOR'S aims was to make it impossible to reproduce in cinema, to make it appreciated as, and stay as, a book.

Basically, it's not ok for them to ignore a creator's wishes in aid of getting money.

Originally posted by tkitna
All she could determine was that there were a bunch of superhero type people running around.

She also asked me who the blue guy was and what can he do. I told her his name was Dr. Manhatten and he can pretty much do anything. She didnt get it.

Multiply that by however many the general public is.

Originally posted by Scoobless
Meh, I honestly think the books are overrated. They were probably great when they first came out but they don't live up to the hype for new readers.

You're projecting. I know a few people who have read it after hearing me rant about the movie, and they've immediately accepted the level of praise it has got, and why a movie is ridiculous.

You, in all seriousness, probably don't understand it. So like many who don't understand things, you brand it as "overrated".

It wasn't meant for certain people, that's not to say you aren't smart, you probably just don't understand it. It wasn't meant for you.

Originally posted by Scoobless
Nah, thought it was ok, not much more than that.

It's not hate it or love it, it's understand it fully or not at all. That's what determines how you feel about the book. If you're not into that kind of thing, you won't get it, and therefore, you won't like it that much.

-AC

Scoobless

I see your arrogance hasn't faded with your time away from the comic forums.

Not loving a thing isn't the same as not understanding it.

Then again it has been a while since I read it ... maybe I'm remembering it unfavourably.

Alpha Centauri

Ok, then let's examine the claim further.

Why is it overrated?

It was praised as revolutionary; it was and is.

It was praised as giving greater credibility to the medium of comics as serious literature; it did and has.

It was praised as being intelligent beyond that of any other comic book; it was and is. Both in subject matter, ideas, philosophy and execution.

So that means you have to name reasons why the "rating" is "over" what it deserves, thus overrating the book. You not liking it doesn't mean it's being overrated, since its rating isn't to do with the quality of the book, but the objective genius and impact of it.

-AC

Impediment

This will be just another "blah" Alan Moore adaptaton. There is no possible way to capture the spirit of the original graphic novel. The CGI, I must admit, is f*cking eye candy. But we all remember the Star Wars prequel trilogy, right? CGI is no substitute for a timeless story.

I don't have very high expectations.

Alpha Centauri

They showed a clip of the glass castle scene and it's insulting.

Alan Moore said it best when he said that it was written and conceived to only ever be a novel, like ALL his work. You can sit there and appreciate everything in your own time, you can't do that with a movie.

I don't even think I READ Watchmen in two and a half hours the first time around, and I didn't get everything out of it on first reading. So Hell knows what the movie will be like.

-AC

Impediment

Same here.

It took me about 3 days to fully read and absorb the entire graphic novel when I was around 15 or so. I re-read it again and again and I got something different from each reading.

I bet that the most focused upon character will be Rorschach. The same thing happened with the X-Men franchise focusing too much on Wolverine.

Alpha Centauri

That's the thing, people need a main character.

Watchmen doesn't have ONE.

-AC

SnakeEyes

Did you guys not see V for Vendetta? I thought that was an admirable adaption of an Alan Moore work.

I'm not saying that the Watchmen film will be amazing or that it will fully live up to the graphic novel, but I think it will be pretty good. Of course, that is based solely on the trailer/information that we know now.

Kazenji

As long as they don't get this hyped up as a big summer blockblaster that was one problem with V for vendetta.

Alpha Centauri

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Did you guys not see V for Vendetta? I thought that was an admirable adaption of an Alan Moore work.

I'm not saying that the Watchmen film will be amazing or that it will fully live up to the graphic novel, but I think it will be pretty good. Of course, that is based solely on the trailer/information that we know now.

Oh yeah, besides the fact that they completely changed the ending and parts of the story, yes, admirable.

If it's not good enough for Alan Moore, it's not good enough for me.

-AC

Kazenji

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

If it's not good enough for Alan Moore, it's not good enough for me.

-AC

And not to mention Alan moore keeps refusing to have anything to do with film adaptations of his comics

don't know what his deal is should be happy someone is taking notice of his work.

manorastroman

please explain what specifically about the original graphic novel cannot be adapted in to film. don't just rebuff with "if you don't know, you didn't get it." the only thing i see failing to translate is the deconstruction of silver age comics, which, frankly, is the element i found least interesting

comics are far easier to adapt in to film than novels, as both film and comics are inherently visual mediums. the framing, sequencing, script, and style of the movie are all basically pre-set. yes, they will have to cut some things. but that won't necessarily make it merely a good adaptation.

i for one am very excited. alan moore is a very good comics writer, but also an insufferable curmudgeon. the adaptation will do nothing but bring more readers to his work.

Kazenji

Originally posted by manorastroman

comics are far easier to adapt in to film than novels, as both film and comics are inherently visual mediums. the framing, sequencing, script, and style of the movie are all basically pre-set. yes, they will have to cut some things. but that won't necessarily make it merely a good adaptation.

I agree and also the the framing, sequencing side of the things is almost like how they do their story boards.

Impediment

Originally posted by manorastroman
please explain what specifically about the original graphic novel cannot be adapted in to film. don't just rebuff with "if you don't know, you didn't get it." the only thing i see failing to translate is the deconstruction of silver age comics, which, frankly, is the element i found least interesting.

Watchmen is such a complex story. It's symbolism and pacing is far too much for a 2 and a half hour movie. The premise of the story will be cut to pieces and recycled so much that the story will be loosely based, just like From Hell was.

Originally posted by manorastroman
comics are far easier to adapt in to film than novels, as both film and comics are inherently visual mediums. the framing, sequencing, script, and style of the movie are all basically pre-set. yes, they will have to cut some things. but that won't necessarily make it merely a good adaptation.

Cut anything from the Watchmen graphic novel, and you don't have the Watchmen's true vision. Read the trade paperback and you'll see.

Originally posted by manorastroman
i for one am very excited. alan moore is a very good comics writer, but also an insufferable curmudgeon. the adaptation will do nothing but bring more readers to his work.

By bastardizing his greatest work? Moore has every right in the world to distance himself away from the movie adaptations of his work. Just look at what was done to the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Probably one of the lamest movies ever made, IMO. From Hell? Not even close to the original. All they took was the flavor. V for Vendetta? They made V a superhero instead of the anarchist that Moore made him. This will be another typical Moore adaptation. I guarantee it. I also bet that Rorschach will be the "main" character, like Logan was in the X-Men trilogy.

Newjak

Originally posted by Impediment
Watchmen is such a complex story. It's symbolism and pacing is far too much for a 2 and a half hour movie. The premise of the story will be cut to pieces and recycled so much that the story will be loosely based, just like From Hell was.
Yup cause you know 2 and half hour movies can not be complex. Heaven knows they can not maintain symbolism and pacing.

Movies are just a busted medium for any deep thinker to use for their works. stick out tongue

Personally the movie hasn't even come out yet, and people are already billing it as impossible for a movie. No offense but most of the elements in the Watchmen are very movie oriented.

Starting off with a Murder Mystery and slowly coming to a person who kills a bunch of people with deep seated philosophical meanings. That's not impossible to pull off in a movie.

Now I'm not saying this movie is going to be awesome, but I will wait, watch it then come to a conclusion about whether I liked it or not.

Alpha Centauri

Newjak, no elements of Watchmen are movie orientated. Alan Moore has actually said that the book was written to be impossible to properly reproduce in terms of cinema, to show off what comics and novels could do that cinema could not do.

His whole point was that this could never be truly achieved by cinematic means.

It seems that 99% of people with an opinion about this movie are once who have no clue what they're on about. As evidenced by this:

Originally posted by Newjak
Starting off with a Murder Mystery and slowly coming to a person who kills a bunch of people with deep seated philosophical meanings. That's not impossible to pull off in a movie.

If that's all you interpret Watchmen as, then you'll enjoy the movie, since the book is clearly too far out of your range.

Originally posted by Kazenji
And not to mention Alan moore keeps refusing to have anything to do with film adaptations of his comics

don't know what his deal is should be happy someone is taking notice of his work.

What a completely ignorant statement. Why should he be happy people are doing things with his work that he doesn't want and never wanted?

He's an artist in the truest sense.

Originally posted by manorastroman
please explain what specifically about the original graphic novel cannot be adapted in to film. don't just rebuff with "if you don't know, you didn't get it." the only thing i see failing to translate is the deconstruction of silver age comics, which, frankly, is the element i found least interesting

You honestly think that Watchmen, with all its complexity and themes, is suitable to be crammed into a two and a half hour movie for the digestion of the general public? The same general public who'd prefer to pay to vote on Big Brother than freely vote in a political election?

If the answer is "Yes", then you're obviously not someone who the book was aimed at either.

If you feel that the general public can grasp the story, you're giving them too much credit, a point I'll address later.

The way the story portrays time, space and existence is not something that is suited to the general public, or even cinema.

Originally posted by manorastroman
comics are far easier to adapt in to film than novels, as both film and comics are inherently visual mediums. the framing, sequencing, script, and style of the movie are all basically pre-set. yes, they will have to cut some things. but that won't necessarily make it merely a good adaptation.

The fact that Alan Moore wrote everything in that book to be relevant, and designed it so that you can get more out of it each time is factual proof that being dragged through it in TWO and a half hours is not sufficient.

Then factor in the audience, the people who will go into this without a clue what it's about, without a shred of interest in its themes, and you have a book to movie adaptation that simply shouldn't be happening.

Originally posted by manorastroman
i for one am very excited. alan moore is a very good comics writer, but also an insufferable curmudgeon. the adaptation will do nothing but bring more readers to his work.

And why do you suppose this work needs more readers? It's fine with the readers it has, so is Alan Moore. It hasn't suffered because regular Joe Blow nobodies haven't bought it and have, instead, gone to see Disaster Movie. For you to suggest these people need to be enlightened to Watchmen is to suggest that you really do not appreciate this novel at all.

The unspoken rule is; the general public get their T.R.L., they get their Big Brother, they get their teen movies and their Dane Cook. Watchmen then goes to the people who will love it and support it, most importantly, appreciate it. We then support the creators and the creators are happy. Those are the rules, however unspoken. Watchmen does not "need" more readers.

Who benefits from it? You know as well as I do that the reason Watchmen is obscure, outside of people who give a shit about the book, is because most people are either too thick or don't give a shit about the themes or expressions inside it. So then, why would those people picking it up, as a result of the movie bastardising it, benefit anybody? Why is that a goal you wish to be achieved?

I'll tell you why; because you don't get the book either, and the more people who don't get it, the less alone and less outcasted you feel. We both know that's true, so save the nonsense.

-AC

Newjak

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Newjak, no elements of Watchmen are movie orientated. Alan Moore has actually said that the book was written to be impossible to properly reproduce in terms of cinema, to show off what comics and novels could do that cinema could not do.

His whole point was that this could never be truly achieved by cinematic means.

It seems that 99% of people with an opinion about this movie are once who have no clue what they're on about. As evidenced by this:

If that's all you interpret Watchmen as, then you'll enjoy the movie, since the book is clearly too far out of your range.

What a completely ignorant statement. Why should he be happy people are doing things with his work that he doesn't want and never wanted?

He's an artist in the truest sense.

You honestly think that Watchmen, with all its complexity and themes, is suitable to be crammed into a two and a half hour movie for the digestion of the general public? The same general public who'd prefer to pay to vote on Big Brother than freely vote in a political election?

If the answer is "Yes", then you're obviously not someone who the book was aimed at either.

If you feel that the general public can grasp the story, you're giving them too much credit, a point I'll address later.

The way the story portrays time, space and existence is not something that is suited to the general public, or even cinema.

The fact that Alan Moore wrote everything in that book to be relevant, and designed it so that you can get more out of it each time is factual proof that being dragged through it in TWO and a half hours is not sufficient.

Then factor in the audience, the people who will go into this without a clue what it's about, without a shred of interest in its themes, and you have a book to movie adaptation that simply shouldn't be happening.

And why do you suppose this work needs more readers? It's fine with the readers it has, so is Alan Moore. It hasn't suffered because regular Joe Blow nobodies haven't bought it and have, instead, gone to see Disaster Movie. For you to suggest these people need to be enlightened to Watchmen is to suggest that you really do not appreciate this novel at all.

The unspoken rule is; the general public get their T.R.L., they get their Big Brother, they get their teen movies and their Dane Cook. Watchmen then goes to the people who will love it and support it, most importantly, appreciate it. We then support the creators and the creators are happy. Those are the rules, however unspoken. Watchmen does not "need" more readers.

Who benefits from it? You know as well as I do that the reason Watchmen is obscure, outside of people who give a shit about the book, is because most people are either too thick or don't give a shit about the themes or expressions inside it. So then, why would those people picking it up, as a result of the movie bastardising it, benefit anybody? Why is that a goal you wish to be achieved?

I'll tell you why; because you don't get the book either, and the more people who don't get it, the less alone and less outcasted you feel. We both know that's true, so save the nonsense.

-AC Once again your brilliance astounds me AC. Why didn't I see it before this could never be made into a Movie. Alan Moore made it impossible to do so, that means no one could possibly pull it off.

Silly me smile

Alpha Centauri

Nobody can pull it off.

If by "Pull it off" you mean make it and put it out into the world, the anybody can pull anything off.

This movie simply will not live up the the book, it will not be faithful, it will not do it justice. The visuals will not be on par, nothing will, but that's what I expect. That's why you'll be one of the people who says it's great because you; A) Want to piss real fans off, and B) Need a movie to cram everything together for you, since the book was obviously too much.

If this movie is even slightly better than a complete failure, or perhaps even enjoyable at best, people like you will say "See? It can be made into a good movie.". Therein you miss the point real fans are making;

The point that a "good movie" is an eternity away from what Watchmen deserves, and what it deserves is to be left as it was intended, with the people it was intended to be with. That is why you fail in this topic, because you fail to understand that.

-AC

Newjak

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nobody can pull it off.

This movie simply will not live up the the book, it will not be faithful, it will not do it justice. The visuals will not be on par, nothing will, but that's what I expect. That's why you'll be one of the people who says it's great because you; A) Want to piss real fans off, and B) Need a movie to cram everything together for you, since the book was obviously too much.

If this movie is even slightly better than a complete failure, or perhaps even enjoyable at best, people like you will say "See? It can be made into a good movie.". Therein you miss the point real fans are making;

The point that a "good movie" is an eternity away from what Watchmen deserves, and what it deserves is to be left as it was intended, with the people it was intended to be with. That is why you fail in this topic, because you fail to understand that.

-AC Yup you caught me because I choose not to judge the movie before I see it, I'm not a true fan. smile

Alpha Centauri

Even my posts are obviously too hard for you to grasp, since that wasn't even what I was doing, really.

I don't know if the movie will be shit or enjoyable at best, but obviously you ignored that cos you're an idiot, and you don't actually understand my point, which was this, for the last time:

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If this movie is even slightly better than a complete failure, or perhaps even enjoyable at best, people like you will say "See? It can be made into a good movie.". Therein you miss the point real fans are making;

The point that a "good movie" is an eternity away from what Watchmen deserves, and what it deserves is to be left as it was intended, with the people it was intended to be with. That is why you fail in this topic, because you fail to understand that.

That's my point.

-AC

Newjak

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Even my posts are obviously too hard for you to grasp, since that wasn't even what I was doing, really.

I don't know if the movie will be shit or enjoyable at best, but obviously you ignored that cos you're an idiot, and you don't actually understand my point, which was this, for the last time:

That's my point.

-AC I understood your point. The fact it is stupid is why I chose ignore it. smile

Alpha Centauri

Why is it stupid?

Go on. You tell me why my point is stupid, and in your answer, we'll see if you actually did get my point.

If you're gonna ignore my point, ignore my post. Don't reply with childish sarcasm, just don't reply at all. Either reply with something constructive, or don't type a reply at all.

-AC

Newjak

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why is it stupid?

Go on. You tell me why my point is stupid, and in your answer, we'll see if you actually did get my point.

-AC Nice try.

I'm not the one who made the claim. Perhaps you should explain to me why your point isn't stupid. Seeing as your the one who made the claims to begin with. wink

I can reply in whatever thread I like. If you do not like it leave smile

Alpha Centauri

One last chance.

If you think my point is stupid, and claim to understand it, prove it. We can have a sensible discussion if you stop being silly.

You tell me why you think my point is stupid, I just quoted my point to you a few posts ago. Why is my point stupid? Unless, of course, you know you don't get what I'm saying, and you're afraid to reveal it.

Go on. If you continue to reply without constructive contribution, I'll take it as trolling and I'll report you.

-AC

Boy Blue

El oh el....

"You have one last chance Newjak!"

You've been ignored and batted away throughout the entire thread, and continue issuing insults and pseudo-ultimatums or declarations that you're finished.

Jamie, on the other hand (Scoob too, by the looks of it), doesn't really give a shit.

Newjak

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
One last chance.

If you think my point is stupid, and claim to understand it, prove it. We can have a sensible discussion if you stop being silly.

You tell me why you think my point is stupid, I just quoted my point to you a few posts ago. Why is my point stupid? Unless, of course, you know you don't get what I'm saying, and you're afraid to reveal it.

Go on. If you continue to reply without constructive contribution, I'll take it as trolling and I'll report you.

-AC Or it could be the fact I know it's pointless to try. You've made up your mind. You will do as you always do try and use you opinion as fact. Which is nothing more than circular argument.

Essentially it will go like this.

You'll say I'm wrong, then you will try and make some off referenced claim that the movie could never capture the essence of the comicbook. You will never say why it won't, other then vague points that actually prove nothing.

Then you will fall back on that line of false and unproven reasoning when confronted with the fact that it is only your opinion and not fact.

And go ahead and report me. The fact that you started to respond to me first and eventually call me an idiot should work wonders for your position that I'm the one trolling. smile

Alpha Centauri

Who are you, Blue? One of Newjak's support crew?

If you have nothing constructive to contribute, why show up?

Originally posted by Newjak
Or it could be the fact I know it's pointless to try. You've made up your mind. You will do as you always do try and use you opinion as fact. Which is nothing more than circular argument.

Essentially it will go like this.

You'll say I'm wrong, then you will try and make some off referenced claim that the movie could never capture the essence of the comicbook. You will never say why it won't, other then vague points that actually prove nothing.

Then you will fall back on that line of false and unproven reasoning when confronted with the fact that it is only your opinion and not fact.

Why can you not just tell me, in a simple post, why you feel my point is stupid, and we can continue a civil discussion from there? Why is that such an arduous task?

Here's the deal; if you know that you cannot successfully counter any argument I provide on Watchmen being adapted into a movie, then either admit it or just slide away. Please don't sit there replying to me with nothing that pertains to the movie, ok? That's a waste of my time AND yours.

You obviously do not wish to debate the movie with me, so then we can go our separate ways, for whatever reasons. Ok? If you can't give me a reply about why my point about Watchmen is stupid, don't say anything to me at all, and I will cease replying to you unless it's about the movie. That's fair, right? We can end it there.

Originally posted by Newjak
And go ahead and report me. The fact that you responded to me and eventually call me an idiot should work wonders for your position that I'm the one trolling. smile

Lovely.

-AC

Boy Blue

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Who are you? One of Newjak's support crew?

If you have nothing constructive to contribute, why show up?

-AC Just another poster with as much right to post here as you.

I've read Watchmen, which is why I clicked on the thread.

But then I saw the dire danger in which you were putting Newjak, and since I've been a lifelong member of the "Newjak's Support Crew" (I have a badge and everything), I jumped to enter the conversation.

Anyhow, I don't see how an entire page of you badgering Newjak into a pointless discussion based entirely around your views (when it's plenty clear he isn't going to discuss them with you) is any more constructive then what we're doing right now.

Alpha Centauri

Then stop, and talk about Watchmen.

Feel free to pick up; what do you feel about the movie? Let's continue the thread.

-AC

Newjak

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Who are you, Blue? One of Newjak's support crew?

If you have nothing constructive to contribute, why show up?

Why can you not just tell me, in a simple post, why you feel my point is stupid, and we can continue a civil discussion from there? Why is that such an arduous task?

Here's the deal; if you know that you cannot successfully counter any argument I provide on Watchmen being adapted into a movie, then either admit it or just slide away. Please don't sit there replying to me with nothing that pertains to the movie, ok? That's a waste of my time AND yours.

You obviously do not wish to debate the movie with me, so then we can go our separate ways, for whatever reasons. Ok? If you can't give me a reply about why my point about Watchmen is stupid, don't say anything to me at all, and I will cease replying to you unless it's about the movie. That's fair, right? We can end it there.

Lovely.

-AC I'll give you the short version.

I don't care what you say. You replied to me first. When I was very clearly stating that I think everyone should wait till the movie comes out before they decide it can never be anything more than failure compared to the comics.

I think a more than admiral position considering you can not see into the future, unless there is something you are not revealing. hmm

So then I think your point is stupid because it had nothing to do with what I was stating to begin with only you running with whatever point you wanted to make anyways.

By the way I love how in the previous post you were all I'm gonna report, and now that I called you out on it. Now it's let's just back off and not reply to each other. What's the matter AC don't want to hit th report button anymore stick out tongue

Alpha Centauri

Originally posted by Newjak
When I was very clearly stating that I think everyone should wait till the movie comes out before they decide it can never be anything more than failure compared to the comics.

I think a more than admiral position considering you can not see into the future, unless there is something you are not revealing. hmm

Ok, well now you can apologise for getting it wrong.

Because I've clearly stated a number of times that like any movie, it could be shit, or it could be enjoyable...as just another movie. The fact of the matter is, you simply cannot get what is in Watchmen into a two and a half hour movie, and fit everything in faithfully, that's not opinion, that's fact. You can't make a truly faithful movie about The Hulk in three hours, as Ang Lee discovered. So what makes you think it can be done with Watchmen? That is why, to me and many other fans, it will never be an excellent adaptation OR movie, because it's impossible to faithfully reproduce in terms of cinema, that's fact.

Nobody is saying it can't be a "good" or "enjoyable" adaptation, just that even if that's how it turns out, it's far less than the novel deserves, and that's why it will fail, because it should be left as a book.

I am not personally saying that, in spite of this, it cannot be "enjoyable". I am saying that even a very good movie would be less than it deserves, in my opinion, which is to be left as it was originally intended.

If you had bothered reading my posts, you would realise this. Now let us hope that you have understood my point, and can tell me why that is stupid.

Originally posted by Newjak
So then I think your point is stupid because it had nothing to do with what I was stating to begin with only you running with whatever point you wanted to make anyways.

You think the point is stupid? The point you thought I made, but didn't make? What point is stupid? You still haven't told me. My point is what I just said above, how is that stupid? Please tell.

Originally posted by Newjak
By the way I love how in the previous post you were all I'm gonna report, and now that I called you out on it. Now it's let's just back off and not reply to each other. What's the matter AC don't want to hit th report button anymore stick out tongue

I said I'd report you if you didn't give me what I want, and you have, so who REALLY got scared? Lovely.

-AC

Creshosk

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Adapting things to movie that were not meant to be adapted to movie. It's not like it was a book that would work well as a movie. One of the CREATOR'S aims was to make it impossible to reproduce in cinema, to make it appreciated as, and stay as, a book.

Basically, it's not ok for them to ignore a creator's wishes in aid of getting money. http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Alan-Moore-Doesn-t-Care-About-Watchmen-Movie-7376.html

Hmm... He doesn't seem to care.

Alpha Centauri

Originally posted by Creshosk
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Alan-Moore-Doesn-t-Care-About-Watchmen-Movie-7376.html

Hmm... He doesn't seem to care.

He cares, he just isn't fighting it. He cares that this is happening to his work, but because it's inevitable, he has chosen not to fight it. Instead, focusing on not being associated with such a project.

He's claiming no royalties, he's claiming no attachment, he has continually spoken out against adaptations of his movies and been ignored, so it's no surprise he has given up and separated himself.

He said specifically that Watchmen should not be made, but it is, so what else can he do besides distance himself?

What's your point?

-AC

Creshosk

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
obviously you ignored that cos you're an idiot, Reported

Newjak

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Ok, well now you can apologise for getting it wrong.

I said I'd report you if you didn't give me what I want, and you have, so who REALLY got scared? Lovely.

-AC Considering I wasn't even talking about your posts, and you were the one that replied to mine, perhaps you should be the one to apologize for getting it wrong.

And your last sentence is just laughing

I was scared. Heck man you can still push the button if you want. Seriously if you want I'll hit it and report myself just see how it would turn out for ya laughing

Alpha Centauri

Can you not just reply and tell me, now that it has been cleared up, why my point is stupid?

I've just clarified it all for you, again, civilly. Are you going to engage me in a civil debate, or not? We can move on from here productively, or we can end it here, what's it to be?

-AC

Endrict Nuul

Dunno if this was posted already

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSrgvJ2JyHs

Trailer.....with Smashing Pumpkins tunes woot!

Impediment

I agree. Why is AC's point stupid, Newjak?

Just answer and let's continue the debate, huh?

Creshosk

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He cares, he just isn't fighting it.

He's claiming no royalties, he's claiming no attachment, he has continually spoken out against adaptations of his movies and been ignored, so it's no surprise he has given up.

What's your point?

-AC You know how Moore feels better than himself? Nice.

Newjak

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Can you not just reply and tell me, now that it has been cleared up, why my point is stupid?

I've just clarified it all for you, again, civilly. Are you going to engage me in a civil debate, or not? We can move on from here productively, or we can end it here, what's it to be?

-AC I've already told you why it was stupid.

You took what I was saying to someone else, and decided to turn into your chance to get some point across that was irrelevant to what I was saying. That being it is best to wait and see how the movie turns out before condemning it.

Which is my general stance on all comic book movies anyways.

As to your point. If you accept it as opinion I have no problem talking about a future movie. What I will not do however is get into a "debate" with you about something that is not ground in concrete fact.

But just in case you can get over this often times need to prove yourself superior type approach you normally take. I will share my opinions on the matter.

I don't think you are stupid for having doubts about how well the movie can be adapted to film. I have my own concerns on the matter. Like I have no idea how they would replicate the Dr. Manhattan, "The Time is" scene. I think it will be hard to pull off on the Silver Screen.

What I won't do however is say that there is no chance for them to pull if off. Alan Moore is a genius but Hollywood is chuck full of them as well. I've also seen way to many sophisticated movies touching deep human thoughts on high levels, to not think there is someone who could pull it off.

Whether is does though remains to be seen. So I look forward to this, but I'm also hesitant on it. Cause you never know and if this Movie does turn out to be crap then well I will be deeply disappointed. Cause I thought the Watchmen is a very good story.

Boy Blue

I think it's going to be a decent movie. No, it won't have every little tidbit that Moore painstakingly included, but saying that "because it won't, therefore it shouldn't be made", isn't true.

It'll mean more people are drawn to the books and it'll (I predict) stand on its own as a movie just fine.

Alpha Centauri

Cresh,

A) That doesn't actually disprove what I just said.

B) Do I need to go grab the video interview and other text interviews in which he has said what I have about his movie adaptations and Watchmen?

Because I will, if you really want to go through this pointless action.

I never denied that he is apathetic now, which is what you are trying to prove. I simply said that it doesn't mean he doesn't "care", in the sense that he's ok with it.

So you're not really proving me wrong, but if you need proof of what I've claimed he has said, I'll be happy to provide it. It's just a waste of time, since neither of us are wrong. I just think you're misinterpreting his lack of "care" for him being ok with it.

Originally posted by Newjak
I've already told you why it was stupid.

You took what I was saying to someone else, and decided to turn into your chance to get some point across that was irrelevant to what I was saying. That being it is best to wait and see how the movie turns out before condemning it.

Which is my general stance on all comic book movies anyways.

And we've established that you got my condemnation wrong, and misinterpreted it, which you've yet to admit.

Originally posted by Newjak
As to your point. If you accept it as opinion I have no problem talking about a future movie. What I will not do however is get into a "debate" with you about something that is not ground in concrete fact.

Which is...what? The fact that you simply cannot make an accurate and totally faithful adaptation of Watchmen in a movie?

That's not opinion, that is fact. There are many pieces of concrete evidence that show why this is a fact.

That does not mean it cannot be enjoyable, which I feel you are suggesting that I mean. So stop it.

Originally posted by Newjak
But just in case you can get over this often times need to prove yourself superior type approach you normally take. I will share my opinions on the matter.

I don't think you are stupid for having doubts about how well the movie can be adapted to film. I have my own concerns on the matter. Like I have no idea how they would replicate the Dr. Manhattan, "The Time is" scene. I think it will be hard to pull off on the Silver Screen.

What I won't do however is say that there is no chance for them to pull if off. Alan Moore is a genius but Hollywood is chuck full of them as well. I've also seen way to many sophisticated movies touching deep human thoughts on high levels, to not think there is someone who could pull it off.

Fair enough, but that only highlights your inability to see why Watchmen factually cannot be replicated 100% faithfully as a movie, and that is no less than it deserves.

For one thing, Alan Moore wrote the book to be impossible to reproduce in that way. Secondly, if they can't do it with Hulk, in three hours, why do you believe they can make a 100% faithful adaptation of the Watchmen book, in two and a half? Given Watchmen is a billion times more complex than any Hulk story, for example.

That's what you're not grasping, Jak.

Originally posted by Newjak
Whether is does though remains to be seen. So I look forward to this, but I'm also hesitant on it. Cause you never know and if this Movie does turn out to be crap then well I will be deeply disappointed. Cause I thought the Watchmen is a very good story.

You still interpret me as saying "It won't be faithful, so it won't be good.". I never said that.

I won't be going to see it, but if people enjoy it, then great. If it turns out to be enjoyable, fantastic, wonderful for YOU. I don't deny that it cannot be "good" as a movie, but my POINT AGAIN (I have to keep explaining it to you), is that it will not be as faithful as it deserves to BE. What it DESERVES is to be LEFT as a comic book, Alan Moore believes so, its fans believe so.

-AC

Creshosk

It doesn't matter how good a movie is. If you go in thinking its going to suck, you're already jaded against it.

So it the movie is less than perfection, even if its a really good movie. The Fanboys of the movie will think that it totally sucked.

Any movie that's enjoyable is a good movie. Because movies are meant to be enjoyed.

Creshosk

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Cresh,

A) That doesn't actually disprove what I just said.
How does "I'm simply not interested." translate into "he does care"?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
B) Do I need to go grab the video interview and other text interviews in which he has said what I have about his movie adaptations and Watchmen? because obviously, since you think "I'm simply not interested" means that he cares its obviously going to be your mind putting extra emphasis that doesn't exist on those interveiws.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because I will, if you really want to go through this pointless action. No point really. Your mind has been made up. And your mind is like a steel trap, rusted shut.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I never denied that he is apathetic now, which is what you are trying to prove. I simply said that it doesn't mean he doesn't "care", in the sense that he's ok with it. So he's apathetic, but he cares... Do you know what "apathetic" even means?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So you're not really proving me wrong, but if you need proof of what I've claimed he has said, I'll be happy to provide it. It's just a waste of time, since neither of us are wrong. I just think you're misinterpreting his lack of "care" for him being ok with it. Where did I say that he was okay with it? I'm simply saying he doesn't care. Not that he didn't care, just that he doesn't.

Alpha Centauri

Originally posted by Creshosk
Any movie that's enjoyable is a good movie. Because movies are meant to be enjoyed.

"Good" is subjective. Faithful adaptation is not.

Originally posted by Creshosk
How does "I'm simply not interested." translate into "he does care"?

You got one instance of him being apathetic and somehow you're interpreting that, despite his well known stance on movie adaptations of his books, as him being fine with the movie.

So the question is; how does "I'm simply not interested." morph into "I don't care."? He's not interested in the fight anymore, because this time they've been kind enough to at least remove him completely without a huge fight. He does care in the sense that he dislikes what is being done and wishes it would stop, he has explicitly stated this. Whether or not he "cares" in a sense that he's not going to let it eat him up because it's gonna happen anyway, different matter.

Originally posted by Creshosk
because obviously, since you think "I'm simply not interested" means that he cares its obviously going to be your mind putting extra emphasis that doesn't exist on those interveiws.

Do you want me to present the interview where he has explicitly said that his novels were written to be impossible to reproduce in terms of cinema, that he wishes they would be left as a comic, as intended?

There isn't anything I can add to that, emphasis or whatever else. He said it, people KNOW he has said it, it is known amongst his fans that he has said it, that he cares. Caring does not mean that he's sitting there stewing about it, and I never said he is. I said he cares because he does, if you think he's fine with this being done to his books, when he has explicitly claimed the opposite, then you are a fool. Especially since your grounds for such a claim is apathy toward a Hollywood that won't listen, that he dislikes ANYWAY.

So in short; do I need to go and get the interview and embarass you, or is this the moment when you concede the point?

Originally posted by Creshosk
No point really. Your mind has been made up. And your mind is like a steel trap, rusted shut.

Made up on what? That he cares? I can get you the video interview and text quotes showing you that he is obviously negative toward these things happening to his works. Impediment has also cited it, so it's clearly not something I'm making up.

What part of this is an issue for you? You found him being apathetic because there's literally nothing to be gained from him fighting, that does not mean he doesn't care what is being done to his work, and me saying he does care is not myth. He has expressed such.

I'll ask you again, do you want me to go and get the interview and all the quotes where he vehemently expresses his care? Yes or no will do, Cresh.

Originally posted by Creshosk
So he's apathetic, but he cares... Do you know what "apathetic" even means?

Are we discussing Alan Moore in general, or the one quote you have picked out? Alan Moore in general does not like what is being done to his work, he is very against movies being made, he has said it, even of Watchmen. Alan Moore in the interview you presented was expressing apathy toward a fight with Hollywood. They've removed his name, so he isn't interested in a fight, it's not worth his time. Does that mean he doesn't care that it's being MADE? No, since the aformentioned interviews, visual or textual, have contained him expressing displeasure and anger at this happening to his work.

Going so far as to even say he has had his work travestied.

Now, do you wish to continue this path of insisting Alan Moore is ok with his work being made to movie? Concede the point, Cresh. You're wrong. If you deny it further I'll simply provide enough video and textual evidence that any further denial will make you look stupid. You can avoid that.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Where did I say that he was okay with it? I'm simply saying he doesn't care. Not that he didn't care, just that he doesn't.

Ok, so we've established that he's not ok with it. Then you say "I'm not saying he didn't care, just that he doesn't.".

I feel we have crossed wires. He doesn't care...but about what? He doesn't care enough to continue to fight a battle he SHOULD win, but CANNOT win. That is what he is not interested in, that OR the movie. He DOES care that this happens, it displeases him.

-AC

Creshosk

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"Good" is subjective. Faithful adaptation is not.

You got one instance of him being apathetic and somehow you're interpreting that, despite his well known stance on movie adaptations of his books, as him being fine with the movie. I seem to remember a certain posters distaste for someone twisting words.

Quote me where I said he was fine with the movie. smile

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So the question is; how does "I'm simply not interested." morph into "I don't care."?Umm.. duh.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He's not interested in the fight anymore, because this time they've been kind enough to at least remove him completely without a huge fight. He does care in the sense that he dislikes what is being done and wishes it would stop, he has explicitly stated this. So "I'm simply not interested" means "I do care and I don't like this?"

Nice. thumb up

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Whether or not he "cares" in a sense that he's not going to let it eat him up because it's gonna happen anyway, different matter. Hmm... Should I take the word of someone who's known to be arrogant that I've seen that first hand or the word of the person in question..

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do you want me to present the interview where he has explicitly said that his novels were written to be impossible to reproduce in terms of cinema, that he wishes they would be left as a comic, as intended? Are you going to keep asking me that?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There isn't anything I can add to that, emphasis or whatever else. He said it, people KNOW he has said it, it is known amongst his fans that he has said it, that he cares. Caring does not mean that he's sitting there stewing about it, and I never said he is. I said he cares because he does,/b] "I'm simply not interested."

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
if you think he's fine with this being done to his books, Quote me.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
when he has explicitly claimed the opposite, then you are a fool. Reported.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Especially since your grounds for such a claim is apathy toward a Hollywood that won't listen, that he dislikes ANYWAY. Where did I make the claim? smile

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So in short; do I need to go and get the interview and embarass you, or is this the moment when you concede the point? Should I concede a point I wasn't making.. Hmm...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Made up on what? That he cares? I can get you the video interview and text quotes showing you that he is obviously negative toward these things happening to his works. Impediment has also cited it, so it's clearly not something I'm making up.Clearly...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What part of this is an issue for you? You found him being apathetic because there's literally nothing to be gained from him fighting, that does not mean he doesn't care what is being done to his work, and me saying he does care is not myth. He has expressed such. "I'm simply not interested."

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'll ask you again, do you want me to go and get the interview and all the quotes where he vehemently expresses his care? Yes or no will do, Cresh. I'll take it that's a yes you are going to keep asking me.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Are we discussing Alan Moore in general, or the one quote you have picked out? Alan Moore in general does not like what is being done to his work, he is very against movies being made, he has said it, even of Watchmen. Alan Moore in the interview you presented was expressing apathy toward a fight with Hollywood. Oh, appeal to motive fallacy.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They've removed his name, so he isn't interested in a fight, it's not worth his time. Does that mean he doesn't care that it's being MADE? No, since the aformentioned interviews, visual or textual, have contained him expressing displeasure and anger at this happening to his work. Your point is...? smile

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Going so far as to even say he has had his work travestied.

Now, do you wish to continue this path of insisting Alan Moore is ok with his work being made to movie? Yo, Air Conditioner.. I'm over here... Quit attacking that scarecrow.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Concede the point, Cresh. You're wrong. If you deny it further I'll simply provide enough video and textual evidence that any further denial will make you look stupid. You can avoid that. You do I'll report you for spamming. smile

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Ok, so we've established that he's not ok with it. Then you say "I'm not saying he didn't care, just that he doesn't.". and?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I feel we have crossed wires. He doesn't care...but about what? He doesn't care enough to continue to fight a battle he SHOULD win, Appeal to motive fallacy.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
but CANNOT win. That is what he is not interested in, that OR the movie. He DOES care that this happens, it displeases him. "I'm simply not interested."

smile

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
-AC Does anybody know how to turn this Air Conditioner off? Its sucking up things that I have no part in and spitting them out at me...

Alpha Centauri

Ok, now you've changed your implied stance to "I didn't say he was fine with it.". So I don't need to keep proving that he's not, I can concentrate on the relevant parts, seeing as you've conceded that he isn't fine with it (If you are still in doubt, I can provide you with the evidence you seem to be afraid of).

Originally posted by Creshosk
So "I'm simply not interested" means "I do care and I don't like this?"

Nice. thumb up

How many times am I going to have to explain the difference to you? Is context one of your allergies? Is attention something you can't afford to pay?

He can be both. He's not interested in the movie because he isn't interested in becoming embroiled in a battle he can't win against Hollywood. He has been there and done that, and this time they have adhered to his request, so it's even more reason for him to just let the inevitable happen and know that he is supported in his negative views toward it.

YOU seem to be intent on insisting some kind of non-existent point.

You are misunderstanding the context in which he isn't interested. He does care, and I have evidence to prove that he cares about these matters. You don't want me to post it for some reason.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Hmm... Should I take the word of someone who's known to be arrogant that I've seen that first hand or the word of the person in question..

You should learn what context means and realise that you are misinterpreting the quote that you found. Before you argue that you are, again, I have evidence that proves you are misquoting.

He cares, just not enough to embroil his life in a battle he can't win, especially when those doing the movie have been "kind" enough to remove all association. He can't stop the movie, so what else can he do besides be disinterested?

How much longer am I going to have to walk you through this?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Are you going to keep asking me that?

If that's what it'll take to make you realise that the quote you have been humping like a dog in heat has been taken out of context by you, then yes.

Originally posted by Creshosk
"I'm simply not interested."

Really? Am I going to have to overwhelm you with videos and quotes, and links that prove he does care?

Is that something you want me to do, Cresh?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Reported.

This is funny, and I'll show why later.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Where did I make the claim? smile

Typical Cresh debate style. Blatantly imply something and then deny you ever meant it because you kept yourself safe by not actually saying it. I'll admit, that's a tricky little technique.

You, I and everyone reading the thread can clearly see you implying he doesn't care that this is being done. How? Because you said it! Oh! That's right, you made the fatal Cresh mistake of actually saying it.

You linked me to the article, in response to me saying "He doesn't like this being done to his works.", and you said "He doesn't seem to care.". He does, factually, and I have evidence to prove it.

You have ONE quote, taken massively out of context to suit yourself, which I keep correcting.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Should I concede a point I wasn't making.. Hmm...

No, just the point you know you were making, that I've since broken.

You claim he isn't interested, but you believe so for the wrong reasons. Previous interviews support my argument, supports the point that you are taking his "I'm not interested." comment out of context and too broadly. Nothing supports yours.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Clearly...

Look, either request the proof that would prove I'm not lying, or stop insisting I'm lying but pooping yourself whenever I bring proof into it.

Originally posted by Creshosk
"I'm simply not interested."

Again, you're factually wrong, and I have evidence to support it.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Oh, appeal to motive fallacy.

No counter? Thanks, I'll take that as point conceded.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Yo, Air Conditioner.. I'm over here... Quit attacking that scarecrow.

And you reported ME? Haha. Pot, kettle, water etc.

Originally posted by Creshosk
You do I'll report you for spamming. smile

Now that is a new low. Threatening to report me for posting lots of evidence that would undeniably crush your debate.

I might just get a mod to come see that, tell you that it's not spamming, and then I will provide all the evidence I desire.

Originally posted by Creshosk
and?

And that makes absolutely no sense.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Appeal to motive fallacy.

Another point conceded, then. Not doing too well, Cresh. One liners and no counters. I thought you'd have improved since we last met, giving people too much credit is a flaw of mine.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Does anybody know how to turn this Air Conditioner off? Its sucking up things that I have no part in and spitting them out at me...

Oooh, lucky I'm not one to run off and report you.

Now, I'll be gathering shitloads of evidence in anticipation for your next reply. It's going to be a very long reply, your obsession with having to reply will have a field day.

-AC

Impediment

Hey, A.C., what do you find intriguing about the trailer? Anything?

I stand by my original statement that my expectations are not high for this film, but I have to admit that I got a few goose pimples when I saw Osterman being disintegrated in the chamber.

Alpha Centauri

Zack Snyder made 300, so he obviously knows how to make a shot look pretty.

I didn't find anything intriguing about the trailer. Discussing it is as far as I'll go, cos it still pertains to the book. I won't be spending time nor money on this movie.

-AC

Prime#

In case anyone was curious, on itunes, you can download Watchmen motion comics. Basically, they just animated Dave Gibbons artwork. I think its actually pretty good

SnakeEyes

Whether or not the film adaption will be faithful to the source material or not, I don't think anyone can deny how cool it'll be actually seeing some of your favorite scenes from the graphic novel on film.

I won't go in expecting the same depth of the graphic novel, but I'll still line up to see how the movie turns out and until then I'm going to try to reserve judgement. Alan Moore has every right to not be involved and to be bitter about past adaptions of his work, but I don't think fans have to react the same way and shun the film completely. Just don't expect perfection. Take what you can from the movie and criticize the aspects you felt were poor.

Alpha Centauri

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Whether or not the film adaption will be faithful to the source material or not, I don't think anyone can deny how cool it'll be actually seeing some of your favorite scenes from the graphic novel on film.

It's fine as it is. I don't desire to see these scenes live. I never understood that notion of "Won't it be awesome to see them come to life on the big screen!". No, not really, I'm fine how they are.

I fully realise what the book does, what is was intended to do, so I've never thought "Wouldn't this be good as a film?".

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
I won't go in expecting the same depth of the graphic novel, but I'll still line up to see how the movie turns out and until then I'm going to try to reserve judgement. Alan Moore has every right to not be involved and to be bitter about past adaptions of his work, but I don't think fans have to react the same way and shun the film completely. Just don't expect perfection. Take what you can from the movie and criticize the aspects you felt were poor.

Fans don't have to, but they should, in MY opinion.

It's not even like I'm judging the quality of the movie as I've said, but I'm boycotting it on principle.

-AC

Creshosk

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Ok, now you've changed your implied stance to "I didn't say he was fine with it.". So I don't need to keep proving that he's not, I can concentrate on the relevant parts, seeing as you've conceded that he isn't fine with it (If you are still in doubt, I can provide you with the evidence you seem to be afraid of). Lol, changed... lol conceded....

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How many times am I going to have to explain the difference to you? Is context one of your allergies? Is attention something you can't afford to pay?Reported. smile

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He can be both. He's not interested in the movie because he isn't interested in becoming embroiled in a battle he can't win against Hollywood./bquote] You are though. smile

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He has been there and done that, and this time they have adhered to his request, so it's even more reason for him to just let the inevitable happen and know that he is supported in his negative views toward it. Unlike you, who seems to be spamming a perfectly good thread...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
YOU seem to be intent on insisting some kind of non-existent point.No, that'd be you.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You are misunderstanding the context in which he isn't interested. He does care, and I have evidence to prove that he cares about these matters. You don't want me to post it for some reason.Cause it'd be spamming? smile

Which I suppose you're already doing..

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You should learn what context means and realise that you are misinterpreting the quote that you found. Before you argue that you are, again, I have evidence that proves you are misquoting.You do I'll report you again.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He cares, just not enough to embroil his life in a battle he can't win, especially when those doing the movie have been "kind" enough to remove all association. He can't stop the movie, so what else can he do besides be disinterested? It seems you care more than he does.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How much longer am I going to have to walk you through this? heh... Now I know why you saying conceded is so funny to me.. Conceited!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If that's what it'll take to make you realise that the quote you have been humping like a dog in heat has been taken out of context by you, then yes. You want to be reported again? smile

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Really? Am I going to have to overwhelm you with videos and quotes, and links that prove he does care? You threaten to spam, I threaten to report.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Is that something you want me to do, Cresh? I'm simply not interested.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
This is funny, and I'll show why later.Or you'll fail miserably again.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Typical Cresh debate style. Blatantly imply something and then deny you ever meant it because you kept yourself safe by not actually saying it. I'll admit, that's a tricky little technique. I didn't imply, you infered. smile

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You, I and everyone reading the thread can clearly see you implying he doesn't care that this is being done. How? Because you said it! Oh! That's right, you made the fatal Cresh mistake of actually saying it. Quote it. smile

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You linked me to the article, in response to me saying "He doesn't like this being done to his works.", and you said "He doesn't seem to care.". He does, factually, and I have evidence to prove it.

You have ONE quote, taken massively out of context to suit yourself, which I keep correcting. *sniff sniff* Smells like hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, just the point you know you were making, that I've since broken. I say I wasn't making a point and you tell me I was making a point.. Want me to quote where you complained that I was doing that very thing?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You claim he isn't interested, Are you calling him a liar?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
but you believe so for the wrong reasons. He said it is the wrong reasons?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Previous interviews support my argument, supports the point that you are taking his "I'm not interested." comment out of context and too broadly. Nothing supports yours. Other than him saying it.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Look, either request the proof that would prove I'm not lying, or stop insisting I'm lying Haha! Quote where I called you a liar.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
but pooping yourself whenever I bring proof into it. Proof against a point I never made.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Again, you're factually wrong, and I have evidence to support it. I'm factually wrong am I? I love that AC quote of yours... heh.. conceited.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No counter? Thanks, I'll take that as point conceded.Argument from silence. Boy you suck at this.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And you reported ME? Haha. Pot, kettle, water etc. Water? That's a new one.

But yeah. I reported you for member bashing. which I haven't done. and No, I did not call you conceited, I just find it funny that you keep saying "conceded cause it sounds like conceited.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Now that is a new low. Threatening to report me for posting lots of evidence that would undeniably crush your debate.Threatening to report you for spamming/trolling. Your evidence has no real place in this thread other than to troll the people looking forward to the movie. Since you'd be crushing a non-existent point.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I might just get a mod to come see that, tell you that it's not spamming, and then I will provide all the evidence I desire. Want me to?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And that makes absolutely no sense.To you.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Another point conceded, then. HAHA! God you're a riot... I point out that your argument is logically flawed and you tell me I've conceded a point. You truly do suck at debate.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not doing too well, Cresh. One liners and no counters. Appeal to silence fallacy.. yup that means your argument is invalid.. just like that. smile

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I thought you'd have improved since we last met, giving people too much credit is a flaw of mine.It's not the only one. You think I'm actually trying to debate you.. That's rich.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Oooh, lucky I'm not one to run off and report you. For what?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Now, I'll be gathering shitloads of evidence in anticipation for your next reply. It's going to be a very long reply, your obsession with having to reply will have a field day. And I'll be waiting to report you with baited breath. smile

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
-AC Seriously... the panel's fallen off and it had the manual attached to it. none of the buttons are labeled and its getting really cold.

Alpha Centauri

Seeing as your last post was quite literally nothing to do with my argument regarding Watchmen, and was everything to do with you needing to continue to post, I think it's about time I close this off.

Your core argument is that his phrase: "I'm not interested.", means that he does not care. I say "How can you say he doesn't care about what's being done to his work?", you say "I never said that.". So what exactly doesn't he care about, Cresh? I've explained to you that you're misplacing the context, and rather than him simply not being interested because he doesn't care, it's because it's a fight he can't win, and considering they've removed his name, he has no reason to fight the aforementioned losing battle.

Now comes the evidence that he does, in fact, care, despite not being interested enough to wage a war against Hollywood;

Passage 1:

"Alan Moore adamantly opposed a film adaptation of his comic book, arguing, 'You get people saying, that Watchmen is very cinematic, when actually it's not. It's almost the exact opposite of cinematic." Moore said that Terry Gilliam, preparing to direct Watchmen for Warner Bros. at the time, had asked Moore how the writer would film it. Moore told Graydon about his response, 'I had to tell him that, frankly, I didn't think it was filmable. I didn't design it to show off the similarities between cinema and comics, which are there, but in my opinion are fairly unremarkable. It was designed to show off the things that comics could do that cinema and literature couldn't.".

Adamantly opposed? Specifying precisely why he doesn't want his movies adapted, and why he thinks they shouldn't be? Sounds like he cares.

Passage 2:

"Moore also told Entertainment Weekly in December 2001, 'With a comic, you can take as much time as you want in absorbing that background detail, noticing little things that we might have planted there. You can also flip back a few pages relatively easily to see where a certain image connects with a line of dialogue from a few pages ago. But in a film, by the nature of the medium, you're being dragged through it at 24 frames per second.'. Moore had opposed the adaptation of Watchmen from the beginning, intending to give any resulting film royalties to Watchmen artist Dave Gibbons. According to Moore, David Hayter's script was as close as he could imagine anyone getting to Watchmen. However, Moore added, 'I shan't be going to see it. My book is a comic book. Not a movie, not a novel. A comic book. It's been made in a certain way, and designed to be read a certain way: in an armchair, nice and cozy next to a fire, with a steaming cup of coffee.".

Well then. Specifying WHY his works do not work as a movie, specifically Watchmen. Opposed to it from the beginning? Sounds like he doesn't care, doesn't it?

Let's recap before I proceed further:

You said: He doesn't seem to care (That his work is being travestied in this way).

Yes, that is what you meant, because you posted that in reply to me saying he does. So obviously that is what you meant that he didn't care about, any denial is weaselling.

I said: He does care, he just isn't continuing to fight a losing battle after they've adhered to all his wishes, save for not making the movie.

You said: He's not interested.

Further misunderstanding the context of that quote, continually denying that he cares, whilst also claiming...that he does care. So it remains to be seen from you what exactly he doesn't care about, since he evidently cares that this is happening, and is opposed to it, if not actively.

On with le proof.

"In January 2008, Alan Moore revealed that he had negotiated to have his name removed from Zack Snyder's film and to have all royalties go to Dave Gibbons. He said that Gibbons had asked him if he was interested in being updated about the film, but the writer declined. Moore said, 'I won�t be watching it, obviously. I can at least remain neutral to it as long as they�re taking my name off of it and not playing these silly, ultimately futile games like they were doing last time, which worked out so well for them.".

Note that bolded part.

He said he can remain neutral, disinterested if you will, AS LONG as they adhere to his wishes. He is still opposed to it happening, his opinion has not changed, so again, the pendulum swings back your way, Cresh.

What doesn't he care about? You've continually said he doesn't care, about what? About the movie being made? I've proven he does. About his work being butchered? I've proven he does. So what doesn't he care about? Is this all stemming from your off interpretation of "I'm simply not interested.", which I have since also proven to be out of context?

You have questions to answer.

Next piece of proof, last piece of proof:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JSb_ZPliu3Q

Hmm, sounds like a man who definitely doesn't care about this.

"Eventually I decided to refuse to accept any money for the films, and to ask if my name could be taken off them, so as I can avoid the embarassment of seeing my work travestied in this manner.".

Sounds like a man who doesn't care...let's continue.

"The most recent film that they've made of mine is apparantly this V for Vendetta, which was the final straw between me and Hollywood.".

Clearly his emphasised that it was the final straw between him and any dealings with Hollywood, hence "I'm not interested.", which comes from them adhering to his wishes this time. Therefore he has nothing to be interested IN, it doesn't mean he doesn't care. He has proven many times, as I have, that he does. You now have video footage of him expressing his opinion and care.

More? Ok.

"They were written to be impossible to reproduce in terms of cinema, and so, why not leave them simply as a comic, in the way they were originally intended to be?". Are you still proposing that he doesn't care, or clinging to your "He's not interested." misquoted nonsense? There's more, we're not through.

"And, if you HAVE to make them into movies, please make them into better ones than the ones I have been cursed with thus far.".

1) Note the bolded part. He is accepting the inevitability of Hollywood doing this, that is why he's not interested anymore, because they've adhered to all his other wishes, so what else can he do? It doesn't emphasise a lack of care, in any way, it shows a presense of it, but an admission that acting upon it is futile.

2) He feels he has been cursed with his works being adapted into movies. It doesn't sound like he lacks care, it sounds like he's rather peeved.

If the next reply has nothing to do with my post and has no mature counters or relevance, I will report you for spamming and trolling. So where do we go from here? You've weaselled and dodged, lied and flip flopped your way to me having to comprehensively beat you down with undeniable facts and proof. What's the next step? Where do we go? Logically it should be you admitting you've been defeated, but there is more chance of Watchmen being great than there is of that happening, so what's going to happen now?

You've got nowhere to go in this debate, unless it's your aim to continue posting "I'm simply not interested.", despite the proof that Alan Moore has contradicted your use and application of his quote.

With that said, I anticipate your quote by quote reply of nothing relevant to this thread. I've put you in a point where you literally cannot counter my argument, all you can do now is reply with continued ignorance or petulance.

Away you go. If your next reply is anything like your last, I'll report you to enough mods that something will eventually be done about you. I'm already about to report you for admitting you're not trying to debate, and therefore you're trolling, so one more won't look good for you.

-AC

Creshosk

Reported for spamming and trolling. smile

Why are you in here? to give the people who want to see this movie a hard time?

And no, I didn't bother to actually look at or read anything you just posted.

Alpha Centauri

It's nice to win.

Anyway, continuing to thread discussion;

Don't expect to see The Black Freighter sub-plot involved, oh no. That's been cut. A very relevent and poignent piece of the plot has been cut, but yeah, it can totally still be a faithful adaptation.

-AC

Creshosk

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's nice to win. Ignorance is bliss eh?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Anyway, continuing to thread discussion;

Don't expect to see The Black Freighter sub-plot involved, oh no. That's been cut.

-AC Do you have anything positive to contribute.. ever?

Alpha Centauri

You backed down and bailed out, dude. That's a forfeit, sorry.

Reported, again. This thread isn't for "Positive contribution only.", it's for discussion of the movie. Deal with it. Let's see you contribute:

What are you most looking forward to, or not looking forward to about this movie?

-AC

Creshosk

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You backed down and bailed out, dude. That's a forfeit, sorry.If you say so. laughing out loud

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Reported, again. This thread isn't for "Positive contribution only.", it's for discussion of the movie. Deal with it. Let's see you contribute:

What are you most looking forward to, or not looking forward to about this movie?

-AC You realize that your troling, bashing AND spamming won't go over very well don't you?

and I'm still going to laugh at you because you thought this was some sort of debate. seriously. rolling on floor laughing

I'll reserve judgment til I see the movie. Oh yeah and reported again. doped

Alpha Centauri

Your reports will honestly get nowhere considering the posts you've made. A couple of mods have already expressed that they're tired of you, to me.

I wasn't asking you to judge the movie, I thought that was implicit when I said:

"What are you most LOOKING FORWARD to/not LOOKING FORWARD to about this movie?".

Stop looking for any reason to disrupt the thread and contribute.

What are you most LOOKING FORWARD to/not LOOKING FORWARD to about this movie?

-AC

Kazenji

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

What a completely ignorant statement. Why should he be happy people are doing things with his work that he doesn't want and never wanted?

Clearly you misread what i said roll eyes (sarcastic)

i never said anything about people doing stuff with his work only that people are taking notice of what he's done in the comic world................or would he rather have some cult following and have all his work very obscure ??

Alpha Centauri

Originally posted by Kazenji
or would he rather have some cult following and have all his work very obscure ??

Yes, that's exactly it.

He would much rather prefer a cult following who fully understand and appreciate his work, as evidence by his reclusiveness and lack of fame. He's happy with what he has.

-AC

Kazenji

Originally posted by Impediment

Just look at what was done to the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Probably one of the lamest movies ever made,

That adaptation had problems from day 1

That can be blamed more on joel silver

At least David Lloyd liked the film.

Ouallada

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's nice to win.

Anyway, continuing to thread discussion;

Don't expect to see The Black Freighter sub-plot involved, oh no. That's been cut. A very relevent and poignent piece of the plot has been cut, but yeah, it can totally still be a faithful adaptation.

-AC

That's a loss in my opinion. Firstly, it was to them what they are to us and secondly, it was a good, yet subtle parallel of the choices of Ozy. I would have expected the movie to at least allude to it somehow.

In any case, I don't see a reason to not watch a movie simply because it cannot fully represent its source material. The LOTR triology has been nitpicked to death by the Tolkien faithful, and iirc the Tolkien Estate does not endorse the movie renditions either. That doesn't mean that the movies aren't good movies per se. If anything, it opened a lot of eyes to Tolkien's work, and served as an easier medium to understand the less complex nuances of his mythos. The same applies to any future movies pertaining to the LOTR first age or narn i chin Hurin, and of course will be both a boon and a bane. That fact and them possibly (even probably) being good movies isn't mutually exclusive. The same applies to the Watchmen.

Alpha Centauri

Originally posted by Kazenji
That adaptation had problems from day 1

That can be blamed more on joel silver

At least David Lloyd liked the film.

So the conclusion is; stay away from Moore's books.

Every adaptation has been a failure, with regards to it being an adaptation. It's not even like Moore's works have a track record of being made into good movies.

Originally posted by Ouallada
That's a loss in my opinion. Firstly, it was to them what they are to us and secondly, it was a good, yet subtle parallel of the choices of Ozy. I would have expected the movie to at least allude to it somehow.

In any case, I don't see a reason to not watch a movie simply because it cannot fully represent its source material. The LOTR triology has been nitpicked to death by the Tolkien faithful, and iirc the Tolkien Estate does not endorse the movie renditions either. That doesn't mean that the movies aren't good movies per se. If anything, it opened a lot of eyes to Tolkien's work, and served as an easier medium to understand the less complex nuances of his mythos. The same applies to any future movies pertaining to the LOTR first age or narn i chin Hurin, and of course will be both a boon and a bane. That fact and them possibly (even probably) being good movies isn't mutually exclusive. The same applies to the Watchmen.

That's not good, though. Opening eyes and exposing him to millions who wouldn't have sought out his work ANYWAY isn't good, because there's a reason that never happened, do you not see?

Watchmen doesn't deserve to be watered down so people can absorb it easier. Those people should go watch something they can absorb. It's not like the general public are never catered to, so on that side I find it ridiculous that they see this adaptation as necessary.

Watchmen being a good movie isn't an impossibility, it's an impossibility that it will be a faithful adaptation, that's fact, and that's the least it deserves. Hence why a lot of us are bothered.

-AC

Kazenji

Meh......with this adaptation thats coming i'll wait until this product is done then i'll make my opinion. At the moment from what i've seen of it there seems to be a little hope for it.

Alpha Centauri

It depends what you're willing to accept.

If all you're happy with is a decent to good movie, then go for it, if that makes you happy. I'm not saying anyone's wrong for that.

-AC

Ouallada

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

That's not good, though. Opening eyes and exposing him to millions who wouldn't have sought out his work ANYWAY isn't good, because there's a reason that never happened, do you not see?

Watchmen doesn't deserve to be watered down so people can absorb it easier. Those people should go watch something they can absorb. It's not like the general public are never catered to, so on that side I find it ridiculous that they see this adaptation as necessary.

Watchmen being a good movie isn't an impossibility, it's an impossibility that it will be a faithful adaptation, that's fact, and that's the least it deserves. Hence why a lot of us are bothered.

-AC

Not everyone who seeks out Moore's work does so irrespective of circumstance. There will always be the people who have the propensity to go into his work in great detail, but whom have not made contact with his work for various reasons. That really isn't an arguable point, and while the movie's intention isn't to draw attention to Moore's work, it certainly is a useful, if unsolicited, synergy.

You're right. I would prefer if a movie dealt with the pertinent issues that the graphic novels did, and I would wager that the vast majority of posters here do as well. However, the constraints of it being a movie mean that compromises have to be made, but that the Watchmen movie should be judged on its merits as a movie, not simply as a screen translation of a graphic novel. Of course, none of this answers why a movie had to be made, but I honestly see it as a win-win situation if it is done well.

Yeah, it isn't impossible that it will be a good movie. I would vehemently argue that "no country for old men" was more powerful as a movie than as a novel, as is Kite Runner. I would much rather have the Watchmen movie stay faithful to the ethos of the novels, while expressing the flesh of the novels as a sight/sound medium. Simply put, I wouldn't impose the graphic novel MO upon a movie just for the sake of being faithful. Elements of both can be used. Whether or not they will be can only be found out next year.

Alpha Centauri

Originally posted by Ouallada
Not everyone who seeks out Moore's work does so irrespective of circumstance. There will always be the people who have the propensity to go into his work in great detail, but whom have not made contact with his work for various reasons. That really isn't an arguable point, and while the movie's intention isn't to draw attention to Moore's work, it certainly is a useful, if unsolicited, synergy.

As I asked before, what positive is being gained by attracting more people, mostly lazy and undeserving to the point that it took a watered down movie, to his work? What's being achieved?

I don't understand why people argue it. It's not helping me, nor Alan Moore. His works do not need more fans, and so the only argument can be "His work deserves more praise.". It deserves to be respected, not force into the faces of people who probably don't get it, nigh definitely.

Originally posted by Ouallada
You're right. I would prefer if a movie dealt with the pertinent issues that the graphic novels did, and I would wager that the vast majority of posters here do as well. However, the constraints of it being a movie mean that compromises have to be made, but that the Watchmen movie should be judged on its merits as a movie, not simply as a screen translation of a graphic novel. Of course, none of this answers why a movie had to be made, but I honestly see it as a win-win situation if it is done well.

That is precisely it, though. "Done well.", it doesn't deserve "Done well". It deserves to be absolutely perfect or nothing, that's my belief.

People say "They did the best they could with V for Vendetta, and that was alright.", yes exactly. The best they could do with an amazing graphic novel was an alright movie, which was changed.

Originally posted by Ouallada
Yeah, it isn't impossible that it will be a good movie. I would vehemently argue that "no country for old men" was more powerful as a movie than as a novel, as is Kite Runner. I would much rather have the Watchmen movie stay faithful to the ethos of the novels, while expressing the flesh of the novels as a sight/sound medium. Simply put, I wouldn't impose the graphic novel MO upon a movie just for the sake of being faithful. Elements of both can be used. Whether or not they will be can only be found out next year.

I mean, there are definitely movies that have greater elements than the books did, but even still, I've never read a book that was worse than it's movie adaptation.

Even Fight Club wasn't actually as good as the book, and that was a ****ing...great movie.

Watchmen is entirely different though.

-Ac

Ouallada

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As I asked before, what positive is being gained by attracting more people, mostly lazy and undeserving to the point that it took a watered down movie, to his work? What's being achieved?

I don't understand why people argue it. It's not helping me, nor Alan Moore. His works do not need more fans, and so the only argument can be "His work deserves more praise.". It deserves to be respected, not force into the faces of people who probably don't get it, nigh definitely.

Because some people, as I have mentioned, who intrinsically have to propensity to delve deeply into Moore's work may not have come into contact with his work as of now for various reasons, and it is unfair to exclude them for circumstantial reasons. It doesn't necessarily have to be a watered-down screen representation that draws people. All I am saying with regards to this is that a screen representation would draw more hardcore fans. Whether or not it is a perfect representation is another matter.

As for your second point, any form of public art and literature should be shared by any who wish to indulge in it. It isn't foremostly an issue of praise, recognition, money, fame etc. I would agree that the majority of viewers would not understand Moore's work, but as with LOTR, the cream rises to the top with time. Using BoB as an example, the series sparked a large interest in the actual happenings of that portion of WWII, even while markedly deviating from the novel.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That is precisely it, though. "Done well.", it doesn't deserve "Done well". It deserves to be absolutely perfect or nothing, that's my belief.

People say "They did the best they could with V for Vendetta, and that was alright.", yes exactly. The best they could do with an amazing graphic novel was an alright movie, which was changed.

That is the stickler in our discussion, is it not? My assertion has always been that when judged on its own, the Watchmen movie could be perfect as a movie (even though this looks unlikely), regardless of whether or not it is 100% faithful to certain portions of the novels, as long as the ethos is steadfastly adhered to. In my opinion, being a perfect movie and not being perfectly faithful are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I mean, there are definitely movies that have greater elements than the books did, but even still, I've never read a book that was worse than it's movie adaptation.

Even Fight Club wasn't actually as good as the book, and that was a ****ing...great movie.

Watchmen is entirely different though.

-Ac

That, once again, is down to the difference between the two mediums. One cannot be superimposed on the other. Simply, it is unfair to compare 1800pages of LOTR to a 10hour movie triology if you are looking for perfect depth and representation. 300 was for the most part faithful to its grapic novel, with the exception of the slow-mo, but has no depth next to a companion novel like "Gates of Fire". That isn't an intrinsic fault of the movie, and if anything, it is very arguable that the movie met or exceeded the visuals of the graphic novel.

A book is almost always never worse that a movie because it has more depth, and more time for absorption. Almost every marketer out there would understand that. Once we separate the Watchmen movie and judge it on its own right, only then would we be fair to the movie.

Alpha Centauri

Originally posted by Ouallada
Because some people, as I have mentioned, who intrinsically have to propensity to delve deeply into Moore's work may not have come into contact with his work as of now for various reasons, and it is unfair to exclude them for circumstantial reasons. It doesn't necessarily have to be a watered-down screen representation that draws people. All I am saying with regards to this is that a screen representation would draw more hardcore fans. Whether or not it is a perfect representation is another matter.

That's a fair point, but it's not like something you'd miss by chance. If you're into that sort of thing, then chances are you've read it.

It's not a book with massive appeal or reach, it just isn't.

It's not like the Hannibal trilogy, which obviously require a degree of intellect but aren't SO out there that you couldn't really recommend it to a lot of people.

Watchmen is.

If that's a side-product of this movie, people genuinely finding the book and inevitably liking it and appreciating it for real, then I suppose that's alright, but that shouldn't be the aim and most definitely not one's argument as to why the movie needs to be made. The movie shouldn't be made to get more fans.

Originally posted by Ouallada
As for your second point, any form of public art and literature should be shared by any who wish to indulge in it. It isn't foremostly an issue of praise, recognition, money, fame etc. I would agree that the majority of viewers would not understand Moore's work, but as with LOTR, the cream rises to the top with time. Using BoB as an example, the series sparked a large interest in the actual happenings of that portion of WWII, even while markedly deviating from the novel.

To reflect on my prior point, you're saying that there are people who could grasp and love Watchmen, but wouldn't have found out about it for various reasons. Most of us did because we're comic fans or whatever, right?

Point is, if you're not actively out looking for that kind of thing, to me that suggests that you're not interested in it. If you want/need that kind of thing, you'll search it out. I don't believe bastardisation is necessary or sensible just for the sake of getting people into Watchmen who MIGHT appreciate it.

That aside, I just can't stand the wave of people who will then dive onto Watchmen and pollute it, as if they're real fans.

Originally posted by Ouallada
That is the stickler in our discussion, is it not? My assertion has always been that when judged on its own, the Watchmen movie could be perfect as a movie (even though this looks unlikely), regardless of whether or not it is 100% faithful to certain portions of the novels, as long as the ethos is steadfastly adhered to. In my opinion, being a perfect movie and not being perfectly faithful are not mutually exclusive.

If the Watchmen book didn't exist, there would be more chance I could view this as a perfect movie, if it happened to be, which it won't.

However, like you said, that's where we differ. I feel that Watchmen could only be perfect if it exactly replicated and expanded on the book, expressing everything as it was intended. This is impossible.

Originally posted by Ouallada
That, once again, is down to the difference between the two mediums. One cannot be superimposed on the other. Simply, it is unfair to compare 1800pages of LOTR to a 10hour movie triology if you are looking for perfect depth and representation. 300 was for the most part faithful to its grapic novel, with the exception of the slow-mo, but has no depth next to a companion novel like "Gates of Fire". That isn't an intrinsic fault of the movie, and if anything, it is very arguable that the movie met or exceeded the visuals of the graphic novel.

300 was pretty much word for word and shot for shot, but that's cos it's about 10 pages long with minimum dialogue.

Originally posted by Ouallada
A book is almost always never worse that a movie because it has more depth, and more time for absorption. Almost every marketer out there would understand that. Once we separate the Watchmen movie and judge it on its own right, only then would we be fair to the movie.

I don't think it's fair or right to separate it, though.

It's trying to be connected to the book, if it wasn't, then it wouldn't be called Watchmen. They can't make this movie and say "But separate it from your opinions of the book.".

-AC

manorastroman

Originally posted by manorastroman
please explain what specifically about the original graphic novel cannot be adapted in to film. don't just rebuff with "if you don't know, you didn't get it." .

still waiting. you're just tossing around generalities like "The fact that Alan Moore wrote everything in that book to be relevant, and designed it so that you can get more out of it each time is factual proof that being dragged through it in TWO and a half hours is not sufficient." congratulations, you've read the interview where alan moore says this, and have the remarkable ability to parrot him. doesn't make it true. and i'm 100% positive you can't explain to me why it might be true.

gilliam said the to directly translate the watchmen, it would need to be a five hour miniseries. the current cut of this movie (which, unfortunately, will probably be taken down a half hour or so) is three hours long. with gilliam's predilection for longer, composed shots and snyder's tendency towards the opposite, i don't think much will be taken from the story. with the news that the black freighter will be cut from the main film and released as a separate animated short (something i'm none too pleased with, sadly), the cuts should be absolutely minimal.

Alpha Centauri

Originally posted by manorastroman
still waiting. you're just tossing around generalities like "The fact that Alan Moore wrote everything in that book to be relevant, and designed it so that you can get more out of it each time is factual proof that being dragged through it in TWO and a half hours is not sufficient." congratulations, you've read the interview where alan moore says this, and have the remarkable ability to parrot him. doesn't make it true. and i'm 100% positive you can't explain to me why it might be true.

You're the one with the outlandish and incorrect claim that Watchmen wouldn't be a problem to faithfully adapt, if anybody has the burden of proof it's you.

Because a lot of Watchmen's power comes from the visual element expressed in comics. Frames next to frames, still moments, certain things that you can't replicate in cinema because IT IS cinema. The way everything is displayed as one time stream with everything happening at once, and expressed through panals, is not expressable via cinema.

A lot of Watchmen's moments were created as still moments, that's not going to happen in the movie. You can show off moments in time that you can't do with a rolling movie.

The expression came from how the pages are arranged, the intricate in-between articles and stories. None of this is going to be in the movie.

So, parrotting Moore or not, if he says it's impossible to truly reproduce, why would you disagree? His movie adaptations have not yet been reproduced faithfully, or well. Why would his complex masterpiece be any better?

Originally posted by manorastroman
gilliam said the to directly translate the watchmen, it would need to be a five hour miniseries. the current cut of this movie (which, unfortunately, will probably be taken down a half hour or so) is three hours long. with gilliam's predilection for longer, composed shots and snyder's tendency towards the opposite, i don't think much will be taken from the story. with the news that the black freighter will be cut from the main film and released as a separate animated short (something i'm none too pleased with, sadly), the cuts should be absolutely minimal.

Considering The Black Freighter is a crucial element, obviously a lot will be missing from the story.

If you can't make a faithful adaptation of Hulk in three hours, what makes you think Watchmen will do it in two and a half? Zack Snyder himself has said that things have to be compromised and left out when adapting a book to movie. So, considering how everything in Watchmen is relevant, a lot is going to be left out of this movie.

-AC

manorastroman

i agree with the still frames in principle, but as in 300, i'm sure that there will be a replication of each still frame, though with motion around it. and as for the newspaper clippings and such between chapters, it definitely helped flesh and define the watchmen world, but i wouldn't call it crucial. same thing with the black freighter (incidentally, one of my favorite pieces of the novel); the arc of the black freighter mirrors many of the other character arcs (most notably veidts), but it doesn't tell you anything you don't already know if you've been paying close attention.

i guess we'll agree to disagree then. i have a different interpretation of the word "faithful."

Kazenji

Heres an interview with Alan Moore

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20213004,00.html

Alpha Centauri

Once again, the man proves to be a paragon of integrity and artistic intelligence.

Also proves my previous points.

-AC

Juntai

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're the one with the outlandish and incorrect claim that Watchmen wouldn't be a problem to faithfully adapt, if anybody has the burden of proof it's you.

Because a lot of Watchmen's power comes from the visual element expressed in comics. Frames next to frames, still moments, certain things that you can't replicate in cinema because IT IS cinema. The way everything is displayed as one time stream with everything happening at once, and expressed through panals, is not expressable via cinema.

A lot of Watchmen's moments were created as still moments, that's not going to happen in the movie. You can show off moments in time that you can't do with a rolling movie.

The expression came from how the pages are arranged, the intricate in-between articles and stories. None of this is going to be in the movie.

So, parrotting Moore or not, if he says it's impossible to truly reproduce, why would you disagree? His movie adaptations have not yet been reproduced faithfully, or well. Why would his complex masterpiece be any better?

Considering The Black Freighter is a crucial element, obviously a lot will be missing from the story.

If you can't make a faithful adaptation of Hulk in three hours, what makes you think Watchmen will do it in two and a half? Zack Snyder himself has said that things have to be compromised and left out when adapting a book to movie. So, considering how everything in Watchmen is relevant, a lot is going to be left out of this movie.

-AC It won't be as good as Moore's work or be 100% faithful, just as movies are never as good as books, however, that doesn't mean it won't be an otherwise great movie and great experience. And the closer Snyder gets, the better. I welcome the attempt.