Watchmen

Originally posted by King Kandy
Alan Moore isn't going to see the movie, so there's no point asking him about it. It can be a good movie thusly: It will condense the original material and yet expand on it with new themes that surpass those of Alan Moore.

I've never denied it could be a good movie, it just won't be a great adaptation, because it's not even going to be faithful.

My opinion has always been that Watchmen deserves to be left as it is, or if it has to be a movie, an excellent one that is entirely true to the book. This won't happen.

-AC

So what you're saying is you don't believe there is a single human on Earth who can produce stories superior to those of Alan Moore? That his work is the best possible fiction that can be produced by the human race?

Because if you DON'T believe that then it's entirely possible that someone can create an adaptation that need not be 100% true to the book because it will be better and more insightful than the book.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So what you're saying is you don't believe there is a single human on Earth who can produce stories superior to those of Alan Moore? That his work is the best possible fiction that can be produced by the human race?

Who said that? Just you.

His work simply cannot ever be reproduced or bettered in terms of cinema, especially since that's why he makes it impossible to do so, to one degree or another.

I think he's the best comics writer of all time, I never said anything like what you suggested.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Because if you DON'T believe that then it's entirely possible that someone can create an adaptation that need not be 100% true to the book because it will be better and more insightful than the book.

It's not, at all. For one, Zack Snyder isn't as smart as Alan Moore.

Two, he has had to cut a lot of important things out that even he wanted to be in it, and still there would have been a lot left out.

You're wrong.

-AC

Originally posted by King Kandy
So what you're saying is you don't believe there is a single human on Earth who can produce stories superior to those of Alan Moore? That his work is the best possible fiction that can be produced by the human race?

Because if you DON'T believe that then it's entirely possible that someone can create an adaptation that need not be 100% true to the book because it will be better and more insightful than the book.

That's not what I'm saying. How can you take a twelve issue storyline and condense it into a movie without altering the significance of the story? You can't. It's be like assembling 900 pieces of a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle and then quitting to save time. You either have all of the pieces, or none at all. That's what makes it complete.

Let me get this straight: You believe that Alan Moore is not the best writer ever. If that's so, i'm not sure why a different writer couldn't write a different, superior Watchmen.

Originally posted by Impediment
That's not what I'm saying. How can you take a twelve issue storyline and condense it into a movie without altering the significance of the story? You can't. It's be like assembling 900 pieces of a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle and then quitting to save time. You either have all of the pieces, or none at all. That's what makes it complete.

A) Alan Moore is one of the most celebrated writers on the planet. The man is good. He's even better than your precious Zack Snyder.

B) Watchmen is Moore's brainchild. He won dozens of awards for his work. Name one writer who could "do it better".

Originally posted by King Kandy
I never said it wouldn't be altered. I'm saying it doesn't need to be the same as the comic because it can SURPASS the comic. Alteration for the better was infact a key point in my argument.

How can the movie surpass the comic? CGI? Acting?

Yeah. Okay.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Let me get this straight: You believe that Alan Moore is not the best writer ever. If that's so, i'm not sure why a different writer couldn't write a different, superior Watchmen.

What relevance does that have? We're not discussing who could write better things than Watchmen, we're discussing why this adaptation, or any adaptaton, isn't going to be good.

If you change it, it's not Watchmen. So why would you say someone is AS good or BETTER if they CAN'T work with the original, and instead, have to write it to change it?

You defeat your own argument.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do you have any idea how much money he's going to make? How much they probably paid him to have approval of someone who worked on the book?

Besides, he's an artist, not a writer. He's satisfied by what he sees, so what?

I'm not an obsessive fan, I'm not gonna go see it just to diss it, I'm not even going to watch it. It won't work, I'm not happy it's being made and currently, there are no strong arguments for it.

-AC

You know, I'm a really big fan of Alan Moore's work, but you do give him too much credit. Working on original concept stories like Watchmen or V For Vendetta, his artists have a lot of input in shaping the story - look at the special features on the VFV DVD to see what David Lloyd brought to that work. It's not a dictatorial relationship, where his artists do exactly everything he says according to his vision. Dave Gibbons is a writer too and had some input, just as Moore had ideas on how to draw the art. It's called collaboration.

Unless you just think Gibbons - like David Lloyd before him - is easily corruptible by money and has just been paid off to be a Yes man for the production, while Moore lives up in his high castle of morality. 🙄

David Lloyd's reaction to Moore's stance upon the release for VFV:

In the New York Times article, Joel Silver stated that about 20 years prior to the film's release, he met with Moore and Dave Gibbons when Silver acquired the film rights to V For Vendetta and Watchmen. Silver stated, "Alan was odd, but he was enthusiastic and encouraging us to do this. I had foolishly thought that he would continue feeling that way today, not realizing that he wouldn't." Moore did not deny this meeting or Silver's characterization of Moore at that meeting, nor did Moore state that he advised Silver of his change of opinion in those approximately 20 years. The New York Times article also interviewed David Lloyd about Moore's reaction to the film's production, stating, "Mr. Lloyd, the illustrator of V for Vendetta, also found it difficult to sympathize with Mr. Moore's protests. When he and Mr. Moore sold their film rights to the graphic novel, Mr. Lloyd said: "We didn't do it innocently. Neither myself nor Alan thought we were signing it over to a board of trustees who would look after it like it was the Dead Sea Scrolls."

Alan Moore may have his so-called stance, but at least he's doing it quietly now, realizing it won't change things one way or another. Unfortunately, a lot of fans are carrying on where he left off.

Originally posted by Impediment
A) Alan Moore is one of the most celebrated writers on the planet. The man is good. He's even better than your precious Zack Snyder.

Not true, the title of most celebrated comic book storyteller/writer/creator goes to Jack Kirby.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Not true, the title of most celebrated comic book storyteller/writer/creator goes to Jack Kirby.

I said "one of" not "the most". 😛

Kirby was legend, too.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What relevance does that have? We're not discussing who could write better things than Watchmen, we're discussing why this adaptation, or any adaptaton, isn't going to be good.

If you change it, it's not Watchmen. So why would you say someone is AS good or BETTER if they CAN'T work with the original, and instead, have to write it to change it?

You defeat your own argument.

-AC

Originally posted by King Kandy
EVERY movie has things changed from the book. Alan Moore is not some kind of holy man. There is no reason for you to be giving his comic such absurd special treatment when this is regular procedure for the entire movie industry.

There is, and you'd know this if you had read the book. Watchmen is not your average book, and by the way, I apply it to Moore because he has explicitly tried to make his books impossible to cinematically adapt. He has said he doesn't want people doing it.

Chuck Palahnuik didn't say "Don't adapt Fight Club.", Bret Easton Ellis didn't request that American Psycho not be adapted.

Alan Moore has not only written books more complex, but he has specified he doesn't want them to be adapted. That his why people defend him so much more.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Hell, you have most likely seen dozens of movies that differed from their books. Perhaps you may have even preferred the movie. Watchmen is not exempt.

It is, for the reasons above.

1) It's too complex to work or be faithful.

2) It was written, as all Moore's books were, to be impossible to truly adapt into movies, and that has proven true. Name one Moore movie that has worked well as an ADAPTATION.

3) He has said he doesn't want this to happen, that's why he is defended.

Fight Club? Great movie. Great adaptation? No. American Psycho? Great movie. Great adaptation? Not in the slightest.

But when have I ever denied that Watchmen could be a good movie? Never, I've simply said it won't be a good adaptation, because it won't.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Fight Club? Great movie. Great adaptation? No. American Psycho? Great movie. Great adaptation? Not in the slightest.

Do you even read my posts?

I saw them because they, essentially, are just really good books. The authors had no issue with them being adapted, so why should I? They weren't great adaptations, but were good movies.

I never denied Watchmen could be good, I just won't see it because I am very much against the travesty of making Alan Moore's work into movies. He doesn't want it, he's said he doesn't want it, and they are made to be IMPOSSIBLE to make into movies.

I have never been to see any of them for this reason.

It's a different situation.

Have you even read Watchmen?

-AC

Okay, I think i'm understanding your point. One quick question though.

If Alan Moore hadn't said he didn't want it adapted, would you see this movie?

No, you answer me first.

Have you read Watchmen? You've dodged that from multiple people.

-AC

No I haven't. Read my posts. I have said that i've read it multiple times.

Now your turn.

Then you should understand why we believe what we do. Nobody who has read and understood the book would be making claims as ridiculous as you are.

Now, I realise you would probably swallow a live snake before admitting that you don't actually understand something, but that's what this is. You won't admit to not understanding it, that's human nature, but you obviously don't.

Your question: no, I still wouldn't have seen it. It's not an adaptation I feel will work, or even one I will enjoy. I have too much respect for the book to do so.

-AC