Dave Gibbons sure seems thrilled by what he sees in the movie.
http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20080725/121703652000.html
Of course, he's on the inside with the creative team. Not bunging bricks at it from the outside, as obsessive fans seem to do.
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
Moore is a literary genius, and, yes, there are many film geniuses in the world.
However, I don't care if you combined the creative talents of a dozen Hollywood directors/producers and assigned them to make Watchmen.
It wont. Work.
This movie will be a watered down adaptation, at best. Watchmen is too layered and intricate to be made into a movie. Moore even took this into consideration when he wrote the story.
And AC is right about boycotting the film. I'll go see it, sure. But not in the theater. I'll just rent the dvd.
Originally posted by Impediment
Biased because it's true? Have you even read Watchmen? Explain to me how you can turn this into a 2 and a half hour movie and still retain the essence of the most treasured graphic novel of all time?
You didn't answer my question. How is this movie going to be a "good adaptation" when it will be watered down and condensed, thus, losing the spirit of the book?
Ask Alan Moore, when the movie debuts, if he thinks that it's a good adaptation when all of his other stories have been bastardized and skewered for the Silver Screen.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Your statement is biased because there's no way to make you think it's wrong. It's not falsifiable. If someone says "It was a great adaptation" you'll say "You just didn't understand it then." If people love it you'll still be pissed off because it wasn't true to the book. If people think it was true to the book then you'll convince yourself that they're wrong.
If you've read it, you'd understand where we are all coming from, and you would completely agree.
Originally posted by Selphie
If you've read it, you'd understand where we are all coming from, and you would completely agree.
Let me guess: Your next post will be "Then you must not have understood it." No matter how the movie turns out you will insist that it's inferior to the comic because your opinion is biased and non-falsifiable.
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.
Oh my god.
Ell-Oh-Ell.
Zack Snyder surpassing Alan Moore's writing by making a movie?
Dude, just go to a comic shop, spend about $19.99 on the trade paperback, read it again, and then come back and talk to me when you actually have a valid point.
Originally posted by Impediment
Spoken like a person who has actually read the story.
Originally posted by Impediment
Oh my god.Ell-Oh-Ell.
Zack Snyder surpassing Alan Moore's writing by making a movie?
Dude, just go to a comic shop, spend about $19.99 on the trade paperback, read it again, and then come back and talk to me when you actually have a valid point.
Originally posted by Impediment
You really, truly believe that the movie can be even close to being like the book?If so, then I believe that you have no appreciation for what is a legendary story.
Well then, I guess this conversation is over. No comments of mine will illicit any replies from you other then questioning my knowledge of the book. I'm hoping you see the bias in believing that all contrary opinions can only be the product of ignorance.