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
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
V for Vendetta? They made V a superhero instead of the anarchist that Moore made him.
That can be blamed more on joel silver
The film changes the original message by arguably having changed "V" into a freedom fighter instead of an anarchist. An interview with producer Joel Silver suggests that the change may not have been conscious; he identifies the V of the graphic novel as a clear-cut "superhero… a masked avenger who pretty much saves the world," a simplification that goes against Moore's own statements about V's role in the story.
At least David Lloyd liked the film.
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.
Originally posted by Kazenji
That adaptation had problems from day 1That 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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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."
Heres an interview with Alan Moore
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriIt 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.
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
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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.
I get the point that most comic fans who are into intellectual comics and graphic novels would have read the Watchmen. However, it is entirely possible, and even probable that there are many latent fans whose only fault has been a lack of a point of contact. I would wager that political science followers would enjoy the Machiavellian facets, the need for checks and balances, as well as the look into the Social Contract. I would wager that intellectual moviegoers would be interested in the novels for the same reason many other novel adaptations have been closely perused after the movies -- any pre-conceptions about the validity of graphic novels as literary instruments could be challenged by a critically-acclaimed Watchmen movie. I would wager that many other viewer types could be interested in learning more about Moore's novels.
I agree that the above isn't a reason that a movie should be made. The reason I want to see it made is that I want to see a movie push the political/moral/philosophical envelope in ways that arguably no other movie has done before, in a visual/audio medium. As far as literature and art is concerned, that is as good a reason as any. Any given application may only have a low chance of success, but that is still an infinite increase over the chances of success when no application is submitted.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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.
Yes, I am saying that there are certainly people who could grasp and cherish the novels, but who have not found out for various reasons. Using a simple example, if a person likes a certain Italian dessert but lives in a location in which it cannot be obtained outside of the person being a "foodie", that doesn't mean that the person lacks the propensity to savour the dessert, and certainly should not penalise the person for not being a "foodie".
I have to disagree that people actively search only for things that they are interested in. Many people only understand the paths they truly want to take after 40. Many never discover this.
Why would a larger interest in a literary work pollute it? I probably know Tolkien's work pretty well, but to borrow and paraphrase a quote from the movies, I may have learned the majority there is to know after a year of perusal, but I'm still learning more about them years after I picked them up as a child. Any increased exchange of ideas is good, as I am sure a person who searches for deeper meaning of Moore's novels would understand.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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.
That is a point that I can't argue against, because the foundations on which we base our takes on the movie are different. I'm just going to accept and respect them.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
300 was pretty much word for word and shot for shot, but that's cos it's about 10 pages long with minimum dialogue.
And was also a perfect example that a faithful translation of a graphic novel does not automatically equal to a good movie. Hell, I would argue that the take on Beowulf last year, which bastardised the poem, was a stronger movie than 300.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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
Absolutely. It isn't fair to entirely separate the two, but the inherent differences between the graphic novel medium and the movie/tv medium mean that the two cannot be entirely connected either. I would say that TDK is a great adaptation even though it was a compressed and differing take on the Batman mythos (especially two-face). The Iron Giant is another fantastic, but different, take on a written work. Contrast them to movies like I am Legend or Starship Troopers, which did not encapsulate the ethos of the novels they were based on, and it should paint a better picture of what I am saying.
All it needs to be connected to is the spirit of the book. I would give Snyder artistic freedom to give us the DotD of graphic novel adaptations.
Ouallada, we must agree to disagree, even though I'm not entirely sure we disagree on too much.
I respect your opinion on why it's good to branch out, I disagree heavily though. I don't give people the credit, generally, nor do I feel the people deserve Watchmen on average. That's just me, I think Watchmen is how it is for a reason, and it should be left that way. I've said pretty much all I can on the subject in our discussion, and I understand your points, I just disagree.
Both in terms of appeal and it being a book.
Originally posted by Juntai
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.
Every reply seems to miss the point I'm making, or things I've said.
This one isn't an exception.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriDon't attempt to get condescending, I didn't bother reading all you've written. It would be a waste of my time to read several pages of wall-of-text, just to throw my two cents in. If you have a point you'd like me to consider, address it to me directly or just move along.
Every reply seems to miss the point I'm making, or things I've said.This one isn't an exception.
-AC