Watchmen

Because it's Alan Moore's work, and if he doesn't like an adaptation of his work, I feel that his word is to be taken with greater weight than Kevin Smith.

Kevin Smith hasn't done anything half as good as Moore, at his best, even though I like him. Bearing in mind, this is the same Kevin Smith who said Watchmen is triple what Sin City is, regarding being true to the comic. Not only is that an obvious exaggeration due to over-excitement, but it's also false, because if he saw what we all know to be included (Or not), then it's not true to the comics in any way close to what Sin City was.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because it's Alan Moore's work, and if he doesn't like an adaptation of his work, I feel that his word is to be taken with greater weight than Kevin Smith.

I disagree. It is based on Alan Moore's work, but whether it is enjoyable in it's own right, to me, is neither based on Kevin Smiths view, nor Alan Moore's. Though, I think Kevin Smith at least saw some of it, so he can at least make an educated guess. Not that it matters, he might still be totally off.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Kevin Smith hasn't done anything half as good as Moore, at his best, even though I like him. Bearing in mind, this is the same Kevin Smith who said Watchmen is triple what Sin City is, regarding being true to the comic. Not only is that an obvious exaggeration due to over-excitement, but it's also false, because if he saw what we all know to be included (Or not), then it's not true to the comics in any way close to what Sin City was.

-AC

I agree with both those parts. I just don't think that it matters.

I suppose your point might be that an adaptation can not be great if it is not an exact one, or that it can not be great if the maker didn't want the adaptation to be made, but I disagree with either. The "Watchmen" movie might be good, it might even be great...or, it might be utter shit, but I don't think we can call that from the little we have seen, and the changes that were made, might still make a great movie.

Originally posted by Bardock42

I suppose your point might be that an adaptation can not be great if it is not an exact one, or that it can not be great if the maker didn't want the adaptation to be made, but I disagree with either. The "Watchmen" movie might be good, it might even be great...or, it might be utter shit, but I don't think we can call that from the little we have seen, and the changes that were made, might still make a great movie.

Seriously. The way I see it, if you don't agree with this "bible" being made into a movie, don't watch it, and remain in the dark. Listen to reviews, don't listen to reviews, who cares? I intend to watch it and form my own opinion... as should other open-minded people.

Let me ask this: If this movie is indeed utter shit, does it lessen the greatness of the novel? Had Lord of the Rings been crap, would the literary works of J.R.R. Tolkien be considered crap as well? I tdon't think so. These works should be kept separate.

It doesn't lessen the greatness, but it's also letting the directors off easy to say "Judge it without comparison.".

Why the Hell should we? It's...an adaptation of the books. If Zack Snyder came out and said "Don't judge this compared to the books.", I'd say, "Don't make it then.". To me, that's just a ridiculous idea.

I've always said that Watchmen could turn out to be a "great" movie in "its own merit". As in "It's great, but not as good as the book.". However, this book was made with the purpose of not being able to reproduce in cinema, it will not be as good as the book. We can actually agree on that now, more or less. So, to me, that means there's honestly no point. To you, it doesn't, because you're content with Watchmen just having a "great" movie on its own merit, I'm not.

Other adaptations are different because other BOOKS are different. For example, whilst books will almost always be superior, great adaptations can happen. Chuck Palahnuik never really said "I'm writing Fight Club so that you can never reproduce it.", Alan Moore has said that.

Although, my main gripe is that if you have to cut so much out of a book for the sake of making it into a two and a half hour movie, for no other reason, then simply don't do it. Fight Club didn't lose much, if anything it ADDED a lot. Hannibal lost entire characters, Watchmen is losing sub-plots and an ending.

Not to mention that it's a comic and along with the story being written a certain way, it was created, visually, to be enjoyed a certain way that won't happen with cinema. I've said all this, though, so I'm treading old ground.

-AC

I agree with your points. And you can view it compared to the book (as you can view anything compared to something else), but, if Watchmen is, for example, better than X-Men 2 (imo), then I will enjoy the movie and think it was a good movie, even if I think that compared to the comic it is worse. And, i don't speak for you, so if you think Watchmen just having a good movie, is not enough, and therefore refuse to watch it, that's fair enough, I, on the other hand, might be sad that it wasn't better, but I will also be happy that there is another good movie, I can watch and enjoy.

I just honestly feel it's a bit of a slap in the face of Alan Moore.

Zack Snyder, from what I hear, spoke to Alan Moore and respected Moore's wishes to be left off the credits and the payroll. If he respected him enough to do that, I don't see why he chose to shit on his one wish that the movie not get made.

Then, of course, there's the bs premise of "It'll open Watchmen up to new fans!". It doesn't need new fans. We all know Watchmen, why is it of benefit to us who else knows? Moore wrote it to be embraced by whomever would turn out to embrace it. Not the kind of people who will, inevitably, go to see this movie (Aside from fans of the book), and have it watered down for them.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I just honestly feel it's a bit of a slap in the face of Alan Moore.

Zack Snyder, from what I hear, spoke to Alan Moore and respected Moore's wishes to be left off the credits and the payroll. If he respected him enough to do that, I don't see why he chose to shit on his one wish that the movie not get made.

Then, of course, there's the bs premise of "It'll open Watchmen up to new fans!". It doesn't need new fans. We all know Watchmen, why is it of benefit to us who else knows? Moore wrote it to be embraced by whomever would turn out to embrace it. Not the kind of people who will, inevitably, go to see this movie (Aside from fans of the book), and have it watered down for them.

-AC

Obviously, it was more just...the phrase.

"I don't see why..." etc. I do see why. Despite what I just said earlier.

-AC

I have another question... are the Watchmen rights being stolen from Moore or did he sell them?

Originally posted by SpaceMonkey
I have another question... are the Watchmen rights being stolen from Moore or did he sell them?

Disagreements about the ownership of the story ultimately led Alan Moore to sever ties with DC Comics.[64] Not wanting to work under a work for hire arrangement, Moore and Gibbons had a reversion clause in their contract for Watchmen. Speaking at the 1985 San Diego Comicon, Moore said "The way it works, if I understand it, is that DC owns it for the time they're publishing it, and then it reverts to Dave and me, so we can make all the money from the Slurpee cups."[10] For Watchmen, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons received eight percent of the series' earnings.[8] Moore explained in 1986 that his understanding was that when "DC have not used the characters for a year, they're ours."[3] Both Moore and Gibbons said DC paid them "a substantial amount of money" to retain the rights. Moore added, "So basically they're not ours, but if DC is working with the characters in our interests then they might as well be. On the other hand, if the characters have outlived their natural life span and DC doesn't want to do anything with them, then after a year we've got them and we can do what we want with them, which I'm perfectly happy with."[3] Moore says he left DC in 1989 due to the language in his contracts for Watchmen and his V for Vendetta series with artist David Lloyd. Moore felt the reversion clauses were ultimately meaningless, because DC did not intend to let the publications go out of print. He told The New York Times in 2006, "I said, 'Fair enough,' [...] 'You have managed to successfully swindle me, and so I will never work for you again.'"[64] In 2000, Moore publicly distanced himself from DC's plans for a fifteenth anniversary Watchmen hardcover release as well as a proposed line of action figures. While DC wanted to mend its relationship with the writer, Moore felt the company was not treating him fairly in regards to his America's Best Comics imprint (launched under the Wildstorm comic imprint, which was bought by DC in 1998; Moore was promised no direct interference by DC as part of the arrangement). Moore added, "As far as I'm concerned, the 15th anniversary of Watchmen is purely a 15th Anniversary of when DC managed to take the Watchmen property from me and Dave [Gibbons]."[65]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen#Publication_and_reception

Hmmmm, so they were pretty much stolen. So this movie would not be coming out, the way it is now at least, if the rights were still Alan Moore's?

Originally posted by SpaceMonkey
Hmmmm, so they were pretty much stolen. So this movie would not be coming out, the way it is now at least, if the rights were still Alan Moore's?

Looks like Fox has won that court case

http://www.superherohype.com/news/watchmennews.php?id=7936

Originally posted by Bardock42
Disagreements about the ownership of the story ultimately led Alan Moore to sever ties with DC Comics.[64] Not wanting to work under a work for hire arrangement, Moore and Gibbons had a reversion clause in their contract for Watchmen. Speaking at the 1985 San Diego Comicon, Moore said "The way it works, if I understand it, is that DC owns it for the time they're publishing it, and then it reverts to Dave and me, so we can make all the money from the Slurpee cups."[10] For Watchmen, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons received eight percent of the series' earnings.[8] Moore explained in 1986 that his understanding was that when "DC have not used the characters for a year, they're ours."[3] Both Moore and Gibbons said DC paid them "a substantial amount of money" to retain the rights. Moore added, "So basically they're not ours, but if DC is working with the characters in our interests then they might as well be. On the other hand, if the characters have outlived their natural life span and DC doesn't want to do anything with them, then after a year we've got them and we can do what we want with them, which I'm perfectly happy with."[3] Moore says he left DC in 1989 due to the language in his contracts for Watchmen and his V for Vendetta series with artist David Lloyd. Moore felt the reversion clauses were ultimately meaningless, because DC did not intend to let the publications go out of print. He told The New York Times in 2006, "I said, 'Fair enough,' [...] 'You have managed to successfully swindle me, and so I will never work for you again.'"[64] In 2000, Moore publicly distanced himself from DC's plans for a fifteenth anniversary Watchmen hardcover release as well as a proposed line of action figures. While DC wanted to mend its relationship with the writer, Moore felt the company was not treating him fairly in regards to his America's Best Comics imprint (launched under the Wildstorm comic imprint, which was bought by DC in 1998; Moore was promised no direct interference by DC as part of the arrangement). Moore added, "As far as I'm concerned, the 15th anniversary of Watchmen is purely a 15th Anniversary of when DC managed to take the Watchmen property from me and Dave [Gibbons]."[65]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen#Publication_and_reception

Wait, he's pissed because they... won't stop reprinting Watchmen?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Wait, he's pissed because they... won't stop reprinting Watchmen?

On a different note, the trailer just looks so damn beautiful.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Looks like Fox has won that court case

http://www.superherohype.com/news/watchmennews.php?id=7936

I love the Superherohype crowd.

*joins the chorus*

"FU 20th Century Fox"

But it also says in that article its possible warner bro's and Fox can sort something out lets hope that happens.

I hope someone at WB gets fired for this. Who thought it would be a good idea to make a movie without owning the rights to it? Idiots.

Honestly though I don't have high hopes for the Watchmen from the trailers. I expect style over substance with minutes of needless slow down thrown into the fight scenes.

"FU 20th Century Fox"

What the ****, so we might not even get to see this movie