Originally posted by Juntai
Don'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.
If you can't be bothered reading all I've wrote, don't reply to a post in a way that, if you'd read what I've wrote, you'd know is irrelevant.
-AC
There is simply too much relevant material in the books to translate well into a movie. It will be another watered down generic adaptation.
All of Moore's works have been bastardized by story crunching. Especially LXG. The story wasn't even close to being like the issues. The only similarity was the title.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Kazenji, I'll just ask politely; do you even understand why people have a problem with this?Have you even read the book?
It's called "Watchmen" by the way. Not "The Watchman".
-AC
I second that. Change the thread title.
V For Vendetta was boiled down to a very effective 2-plus hour movie. So not everything from the series got in? Some characters & stories are just not as important as others to the central plot.
Watchmen will have a 3-hour running time; that should cover what is most relevant to the story. If they have to eliminate minor back stories like the lesbian cab driver or Rorsharch's psychiatrist, that's fine with me.
The 'Tales Of The Black Friegter' will come out separately, and I hear be put back in for the DVD, pushing the running time to over four hours. That also works for me.
Originally posted by roughrider
I second that. Change the thread title.V For Vendetta was boiled down to a very effective 2-plus hour movie. So not everything from the series got in? Some characters & stories are just not as important as others to the central plot.
Watchmen will have a 3-hour running time; that should cover what is most relevant to the story. If they have to eliminate minor back stories like the lesbian cab driver or Rorsharch's psychiatrist, that's fine with me.
The 'Tales Of The Black Friegter' will come out separately, and I hear be put back in for the DVD, pushing the running time to over four hours. That also works for me.
I don't care what's fine with you, that doesn't change what is factually necessary to be faithful.
Watchman is two and a half hours. If Hulk couldn't be faithfully adapted in three hours, Watchmen can't.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's called "Watchmen" by the way. Not "The Watchman".-AC
I'm sorry but i don't have the power to change the title.
Originally posted by roughrider
V For Vendetta was boiled down to a very effective 2-plus hour movie. So not everything from the series got in? Some characters & stories are just not as important as others to the central plot.
Watchmen will have a 3-hour running time; that should cover what is most relevant to the story. If they have to eliminate minor back stories like the lesbian cab driver or Rorsharch's psychiatrist, that's fine with me.
It worked for the Bond movies they concetrated on the more relevant stuff to the stories from the books.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
The trailer looks amazing. Snyder has managed to get the look of the comic book down perfectly. Dr. Manhatten looks fdashjfiojhgdsf, and the creation of his palace on Mars looks sdfjhhsdajhfdsjf, too. I always thought Nite Owl was a bit of a twit-ta-woo in the comic book, but he looks Batman-esque in the trailer. GHJhfdjfhdsjfhdskjffh.Watch the trailer here, though:
It's much better quality.
PS. What's the tune? Sounds like The Smashing Pumpkins...
Yep. That's The Smashing Pumpkins. I think the track is a slowed down version of "The End is the Beginning of the End" from the Batman and Robin soundtrack. I knew I recognized it from somewhere.
Edit: The Beginning is the End of the Beginning. LSDKJFjslkdf. Confusion.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't care what's fine with you, that doesn't change what is factually necessary to be faithful.Watchman is two and a half hours. If Hulk couldn't be faithfully adapted in three hours, Watchmen can't.
-AC
Hulk wasn't three hours. And was actually longer than it needed to be.
I didn't sit through V For Vendetta and get hung up on things like "Oh! They cut out the backstory of Mr. Hayer & his unfaithful power-hungry wife & that low-class hood from Scotland! That was so important! Or the wife of the brutal police officer who turns to stripping and eventually assassinates the Leader! Or how Prothero is driven insane by the destruction of his doll collection!"
Well, I wasn't. They represented enough of the regime through the detectives Eric Finch & his partner, and seeing the quiet power struggle between the Chancellor, Creedy & Dascomb. Prothero's doll fixation was silly, and his fate was more plausible in the film. Plus change the fact that television is more effective than radio for propaganda in the future, and so on.
David Lloyd has said Alan Moore wouldn't be satisfied unless his work is adapted word for word to the big screen, so that's why he staying away from films now - he used to be more interested.
Then again, I'm sure there were people who sat through The Lord Of The Rings and bemoaned how Tom Bombodil & the Scouring Of The Shire were cut at the script stage, among other things. I wasn't one of them.
Originally posted by roughrider
Hulk wasn't three hours. And was actually longer than it needed to be.
Ang Lee's Hulk was about three hours.
Originally posted by roughrider
I didn't sit through V For Vendetta and get hung up on things like "Oh! They cut out the backstory of Mr. Hayer & his unfaithful power-hungry wife & that low-class hood from Scotland! That was so important! Or the wife of the brutal police officer who turns to stripping and eventually assassinates the Leader! Or how Prothero is driven insane by the destruction of his doll collection!"
Well, I wasn't.
I see you skipped the part where I said I don't care what you find to be necessary for your own enjoyment. You didn't care enough to want everything to be faithful, great. I do, and in Watchmen, everything is relevant.
A passive approach to not caring what gets cut out suggests a low appreciation of all the little details that mean big things.
You saying "I'm ok with shit getting cut out." doesn't mean anything besides that, you're ok with it.
Originally posted by roughrider
They represented enough of the regime through the detectives Eric Finch & his partner, and seeing the quiet power struggle between the Chancellor, Creedy & Dascomb. Prothero's doll fixation was silly, and his fate was more plausible in the film. Plus change the fact that television is more effective than radio for propaganda in the future, and so on.
It doesn't matter to me, it wasn't faithful and too much was changed. That's my point, V for Vendetta is 10 times less complex than Watchmen, and even that book got compromised for a movie.
Watchmen is going to get torn apart, and that's a fact.
I don't care that you don't care, the issue was never "Who is ok with it?".
Originally posted by roughrider
David Lloyd has said Alan Moore wouldn't be satisfied unless his work is adapted word for word to the big screen, so that's why he staying away from films now - he used to be more interested.
No, he said he was content to just take the money, he was never interested in any positive way. He has always been at odds with Hollywood and their desire to massacre his work.
He doesn't care if Watchmen is adapted word for word, words are not the only thing IN Watchmen.
Originally posted by roughrider
Then again, I'm sure there were people who sat through The Lord Of The Rings and bemoaned how Tom Bombodil & the Scouring Of The Shire were cut at the script stage, among other things. I wasn't one of them.
So? What part of me suggests that I care how satisfied you are with movies? When did that ever become relevant?
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Ang Lee's Hulk was about three hours.I see you skipped the part where I said I don't care what you find to be necessary for your own enjoyment. You didn't care enough to want everything to be faithful, great. I do, and in Watchmen, everything is relevant.
A passive approach to not caring what gets cut out suggests a low appreciation of all the little details that mean big things.
It doesn't matter to me, it wasn't faithful and too much was changed. That's my point, V for Vendetta is 10 times less complex than Watchmen, and even that book got compromised for a movie.
Watchmen is going to get torn apart, and that's a fact.
I don't care that you don't care, the issue was never "Who is ok with it?".
No, he said he was content to just take the money, he was never interested in any positive way. He has always been at odds with Hollywood and their desire to massacre his work.
He doesn't care if Watchmen is adapted word for word, words are not the only thing IN Watchmen.
So? What part of me suggests that I care how satisfied you are with movies? When did that ever become relevant?
-AC
And check back in time. Twenty years ago, he was interested in what Hollywood was doing when Terry Gilliam was attached to direct Watchmen. He was even interested in the second Swamp Thing movie that was getting made because of his work. I have the interviews in Comics Scene magazine, and I read what he said. He was complimentary towards Sam Hamm's script adaption of Watchmen (Hamm would write the first Batman film.) Fast forward a couple of decades, and Moore has burned many bridges due to his campaign for creator rights & profits, and now he's standing against adaptions of his work. While some of his artistic collaborators think he should get over it already.
And my feeling towards adaptations is not passive. I just believe the word is real - ADAPT. Moving from one artistic medium to another means some change. So long as they honour the core concept and keep as much as they can, that's fine with me. I loved the SIN CITY graphic novels, but I was bored by the movie - it's just a virtual panel-for-panel, word-for-word translation. I'm not surprised by anything, and have nothing new to chew on; the actors were stuck in a box for each character. I could just stay at home & read it if the movie is going to be THIS EXACT.
You don't have to care about what I like. I just believe you're allowed license in adapting something. We have a difference of opinion.
Originally posted by roughrider
And check back in time. Twenty years ago, he was interested in what Hollywood was doing when Terry Gilliam was attached to direct Watchmen.
What, you mean when Terry Gilliam approached HIM and HE told Terry Gilliam that he shouldn't make it, to which Terry Gilliam eventually agreed?
That?
Originally posted by roughrider
He was even interested in the second Swamp Thing movie that was getting made because of his work. I have the interviews in Comics Scene magazine, and I read what he said. He was complimentary towards Sam Hamm's script adaption of Watchmen (Hamm would write the first Batman film.) Fast forward a couple of decades, and Moore has burned many bridges due to his campaign for creator rights & profits, and now he's standing against adaptions of his work. While some of his artistic collaborators think he should get over it already.
He also said David Hayter (I think) wrote a screenplay that was as close to getting Watchman right as anybody could, but it was still a way off and shouldn't have come to fruition.
I don't think he should "get over it", I think he has every right to be bothered.
Originally posted by roughrider
And my feeling towards adaptations is not passive. I just believe the word is real - ADAPT. Moving from one artistic medium to another means some change. So long as they honour the core concept and keep as much as they can, that's fine with me. I loved the SIN CITY graphic novels, but I was bored by the movie - it's just a virtual panel-for-panel, word-for-word translation. I'm not surprised by anything, and have nothing new to chew on; the actors were stuck in a box for each character. I could just stay at home & read it if the movie is going to be THIS EXACT.
Well here's a big, immense shocker of a suggestion. You better be prepared...
See where you said...no really, ready? See where you said "I could just stay at home and read it if the movie were going to be this exact."? Get this, stay with me....STAY...at home...and read it, then.
I know, shocking idea to actually leave something as it was intended and then have people even more shockingly experience it as intended, but I think that's something Hollywood need look into.
Granted, book to movie adaptations are pulled off with varying success; The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen being the bottom rung, Sin City or Fight Club being the height, but they are exceptions. Even lesser complexed books have suffered massive alteration, this will not change with Watchmen.
We can all sit here and go on about how Watchmen might be very good if not faithful, but we all know that it's going to end up as a superhero movie that, at most, carries some in-your-face political overtones. It's not going to be anything close to the book, and the fact that this has been accepted is the most worrying part, because this really isn't ok.
Originally posted by roughrider
You don't have to care about what I like. I just believe you're allowed license in adapting something. We have a difference of opinion.
I'm not arguing against changes in adaptation, I'm arguing against a Watchmen movie.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What, you mean when Terry Gilliam approached HIM and HE told Terry Gilliam that he shouldn't make it, to which Terry Gilliam eventually agreed?That?
I don't think he should "get over it", I think he has every right to be bothered.
-AC
Terry Gilliam was on & off this project for a couple of years. Joel Silver was trying to produce it at that time, and said he wouldn't make the film without Gilliam. Alan Moore was not opposed to a Watchmen film at that time, but he would eventually change his mind about anyone adapting work he was a part of. I know Gilliam eventually dropped out, saying he thought it could only work as a five hour miniseries.
And Dave Gibbons was the other half of that creative team. Half of Watchmen is him. He's supporting the film and is involved in it, while Moore prefers to stew and not "get over it."
If the movie is half as good as the graphic novel, I'll be a very happy person.
And the trailer does look promising ! It could be so much worse.
The movie just can't be as bad as V for Vendetta, or From Hell, or even The League (probably the most unfaithful movie adaptation from a book ever).
Go Snyder go, make us happy, I know you can do it.
Just don't f*** up Rorschach.
Originally posted by roughrider
Terry Gilliam was on & off this project for a couple of years. Joel Silver was trying to produce it at that time, and said he wouldn't make the film without Gilliam. Alan Moore was not opposed to a Watchmen film at that time, but he would eventually change his mind about anyone adapting work he was a part of. I know Gilliam eventually dropped out, saying he thought it could only work as a five hour miniseries.And Dave Gibbons was the other half of that creative team. Half of Watchmen is him. He's supporting the film and is involved in it, while Moore prefers to stew and not "get over it."
He wasn't for it, either.
Gibbons did the art, which is a huge part of Watchmen, sure, but it was always going to be easier to adapt art than adapt story.
Moore is doing the right thing.
-AC