Julian is excited at the prospect of a Watchmen movie. Why?
Terry Gilliam had the right idea – a Watchmen movie needs to be 12 hours long. There’s no way to fit it into two or three hours without entirely slashing the plot, nor would it be possible to develop all the characters in any satisfying way.
Furthermore, the plot of Watchmen is stuck in the cold war; without a Soviet threat, it’s hard to know what the story is about. And how does the story end? It’s not like we can just cross out “Soviet” and write in “Bin Laden”; if an (apparent) alien crash-landed in New York City and killed a million people, Bin Laden wouldn’t offer peace terms, he’d give a prayer of thanks and offer the aliens a road map to L.A..
Even if that problem is solved, I can’t imagine U.S. movie audiences – especially post-9/11 – accepting an ending in which a main character commits a hideous act of terrorism, murdering thousands of New Yorkers, and (bad dreams aside) gets away with it. Even worse, in the comic Adrian comes off as a morally ambiguous figure – is there any way mainstream movie audiences would accept someone who makes Bin Laden look like an amateur as morally ambiguous? On the other hand, if Adrian Viedt is just killed off in the end, like an ordinary movie villain (maybe Rorsharch could impale him with a gigantic piece of the set! Ooooh, that would be original!), that would feel dumb and cheap compared to the comic book’s more sedate ending..
Not to mention that the style of the book would not translate well to film in much the same way that Maus could never be done justice with either live action or animation. The specific, carefully repeated images, the rather significant panel regularity, the implication associated with a change in panel size, the style of artwork and colouring: these things cannot be translated to film.
What’s with the (chiefly) American obsession with making a movie version of absolutely everything? There are some works that are designed for a specific medium and do not translate well into others; why can’t people understand that?
Y’know, “sedate” is an odd word for the ending of Watchmen. I’m not saying it’s wrong–just, y’know. Odd.
I have to agree with your assesment. As much as I’d love to see a film version of Watchmen, it would be a bastard from the get go. The censors wouldn’t let Atom’s little blue penis be seen for even an instant, and that’s just one of the least obvious details that would be omitted. The only way this fil would work would be if it were A. 12 hours long. and B. made in Europe, with no infringement by the MPAA. Since the shere scale and budget necesary to accomoadate everything in the story would be on the scale of LOTR, B. is unlikely.
There’s also the fact, as mentioned by PinkDreamPoppies above, that the book is a work of art. Why mess with a good thing just to achieve some fanboyish wet dream?
Dammit, Amp, when you write a post like this a disclaimer like “I’m assuming if your interested enough to read this you’ve read the whole thing of the Watchmen, as there where will be spoilers.” I’ve only read the first book of it, and intend to read the rest. I’d be happier to not know the ending yet.
I thought of putting in a spoiler warning, but decided there was something a bit silly about a spoiler warning on a book that came out nearly twenty years ago and is an acknowleged classic.
I’m sorry I’ve given the ending away (don’t worry, it’s the details that make the ending good, not the broad outline), but really: exactly how long after a book comes out am I supposed to be posting spoiler warnings when discussing it? There must be some sort of statute of limitations on this spoiler warning thing.
“There must be some sort of statute of limitations on this spoiler warning thing.”
Not very many years ago, while joking about spoilers with a friend, I said something like “you know Rosebud is his sled, right?” and got a blank look. “Citizen Kane?” I said. She was planning to see it for the first time that weekend and didn’t know about Rosebud. Ooops! (I still haven’t seen it, myself…)
Touche, Amp.
It’s not too big a deal. I was just halfway through your post when I realized “Hmmm, he’s assuming that I’ve read this. Damn.” I’m sure I’ll find the rest enjoyable still.
Hm . . . you can’t cross out the Commies and put in Arabs to make an updated film version of The Manchurian Candidate either, but I’ve heard that it’s being done.
Yes, that’s exactly what they’re doing with The Manchurian Candidate.
Preview page here. Trailer here.
what depressing news – the Watchmen is an extraordinary piece of comix art – why fuck with it? more importantly, as PDP points out, it’s a work of art that is completely (& beautifully) interwoven with its medium – how, for instance, are they ever going to convey the mirroring of panels in “Fearful Symmetry”?
i fear that it’ll be just like the movie version of “From Hell”: an incredible & multi-leveled work of art reduced to a piece of cheap schlock – i suppose one can just shrug it off, but when a book is turned into a bad movie it can cause people to avoid the book, even if only a tenuous relationship exists between the two – i work in a bookstore & i’ve seen it happen – had it happen with “From Hell” just recently as a matter of fact
i’m curious… does anyone know if Alan Moore is involved in this at all?
Nothing up at IMDB about watchmen yet, so I don’t know if Alan Moore’s involved.
And, oh my god, I cannot believe they’re doing that to the Manchurian Candidate. What the fuck? The preview looks better than the preview for I, Robot, but that’s like saying that John Kerry would be a better president than George W Bush, the bar’s not that high.
Yup. I had Citizen Kane spoiled for me by Charles Shultz as a child (before I even knew what the ending meant) and then in my ignorance accidentally spoiled it for somebody else back in college.
As far as a statute of limitations is concerned, funny but I just blogged about that this morning myself.
IMO, as far as the “innocent” is concerned, there’s certainly a matter of knowing what environment you’re getting into. I expect that an LOTR discussion board will have spoilers for everything published to date; same thing for a Star Trek or Harry Potter or Star Wars board. I’m more likely to expect spoilers in, frex, a Batman forum, where the story is building upon older elements, and an old dramatic plot turn (Jason Todd’s fate) is necessary understanding to current events, than related to something that was relatively standalone (as Watchment was).
But if it’s not a place someone might expect to be spoiled, I don’t think it hurts to act with some caution. There are always new audiences for Romeo & Juliet and Hamlet, too. [I remember seeing a fanfic described as “like Romeo and Juliet but with an unhappy ending” — clearly, someone who wasn’t exposed to the original yet.]
On the other hand, just this weekend I picked up a 19th century novel by Trollope and discovered that the introduction wasn’t a by-the-author intro to the story, but rather some scholarly BS that completely gave away most of the story. And I still remember my disappointment at remaining as unspoiled as possible towards Gone With the Wind, because I knew I wanted to see that film for the first time on the big screen, and having a newspaper article on technical aspects of the restoration ruin a major plot point. [See my entry for details.]
FWIW, count me among those who doesn’t really want to see a Watchmen film adaptation, because the storytelling was so closely intertwined with the nature and conventions of the media that I don’t know that it can be told any other way.
BTW, for more insight into Watchmen, I do recommend finding the Watchmen supplement to the old 1980s DC roleplaying game. They wrote the supplement in the style of the GN, using fake newsclippings and such. Don’t know how closely Moore & Gibbons worked with the RPG creators, but really neat.
Well, like most people here, I have a bad feeling about a movie version of Watchmen, but maybe we should be more optimistic; If a good movie version of “The lord of the rings” was achieved, all hope is not lost.
I agree with those who say that, even though it’s no longer a new work, don’t give away the ending of “Watchmen”. Formally, “Watchmen” is a murder mystery – it opens with the question, “Who killed Edward Blake, and why?” and part of the ending is to answer that question. The fact that by that time much more interesting questions have come up is not unusual for murder mysteries. You don’t give away unmarked spoilers to murder mysteries, even if they’re not direct answers to “Whodunnit?” You just don’t.
I am also with those who say, don’t make a movie of “Watchmen”. Not because it’s not suitable for filming – “The Lord of the Rings” isn’t suitable for filming, and they went ahead anyway – but because the ending of “Watchmen”, and more importantly its moral and political implications, just don’t wash in a post-9/11 world.
Mind you, too, “The Lord of the Rings” was three films and 10 hours of screen time, probably close to 12 hours if you count the add-ons in the extended versions (which I do). And there’s a trilogy that ensures Peter Jackson’s place in film history as one of the greatest directors of all time, so it’s definitely the exception and not the rule.
But then Aronofsky showed us with Pi and Requiem for a Dream that he is a brilliant filmmaker, who is quite adept at including intense imagery in his films. We’ll see with Lone Wolf and Cub just how adept he is at comic adaptations. Of course so much depends on the script. And casting.
As far as I know, Alan Moore isn’t involved at all in this or any other possible adaptations of his comics into movies. After a rather nasty flap surrounding the League of Extraordinary Gentlement, Mr. Moore swore off all involvement with any movies made from his works to the point that he doesn’t even accept royalties. If he’s working on Watchmen, I’d be surprised.
As to the comment that they made a good movie version of the Lord of the Rings so Watchmen is possible… There’s a quantitative difference in that the Lord of the Rings wasn’t a novel that was dependent on the technical structure of the written word, or particularly the novel, to the degree that Watchmen is dependent on the technical structure of the comic for its meaning and themes to be properly conveyed. Watchmen is more akin to something like, say, Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury or a poem by e.e. cummings in that the physical, technical construction of the elements (the indentations, the spaces, the non-letter symbols, etc.) would destroy the story if removed. The story of Watchmen may be faithfully recreated with superb acting and impeccable direction, but the depth of the piece wouldn’t stand up to the translation. There’s more to that comic than the events it relates.
By the way, is poliblog the new official site for this blog, or will it be moving back to amptoons.com eventually?
Just wondering whether I should update my bookmarks & blogroll permanently, since it’s now been several months since the “temporary” change.
Since I’m a regular participant of Alas comments, and have seen that question posited many times, I’ll answer for Amp, Lis.
poliblog is not permanent, it’s just that switching to a new server turned out to be difficult for Amp (possibly et. al, I’m not sure how involved in the technical aspects of the blog are Bean, PDP or Lucia, but it seems that Amp does most of it) so it’s taking a while. But the change will come eventually.
Is that good? If Amp or others have more updated info, feel free to chime in. ;-P
As for the discussion, PDP has a good point, but sometimes there is the great adaptation that significantly alters the work, to the extent that it is given a new life in its new medium, without impacting the power of the original. I’m thinking specifically with Fight Club. But then, once again, that’s exceptional.
another example could be Blade Runner, which quite sucessfully expanded upon & transformed the original short story by PK Dick – then again, every other attempt to adapt PK Dick into movie form have been painful embarassing messes at best (as with Total Recall), or complete betrayals of the works original intent (as with Minority Report)
i think PDP’s original point remains true – it’s not so much the act of adaptation as the structure of the original work that determines the outcome – if the original work is one which is inextricably bound to its medium then the attempt at adaption is most likely doomed – most traditional textual narratives (like both Fight Club & PK Dick’s work) don’t do much with the medium per se, & so are able to make the transition with less difficulty…
i just jaunted in for a spell and have to say that watchmen would make an incredible trilogy; that’s right, trilogy. and if david hayter, darren aronofsky, or terry gilliam don’t have the balls or insight to push for this, they are all insane. think about it, split all the chapters into thirds, hence the trilogy, and go at it. just looking at my copy now, i get chills just thinking of the sheer possibilty and beauty of it. no, not a from hell (wonderful movie which only touched the tip of a very large iceberg) or extraordinary league(popcorn butter puke cousin of the fantastic work alan moore and kevin oneill originally published) but a masterpiece alan moore himself would bow to in replacement of his snake god and peter jackson would commit harakiri to in a hobbit’s wig. night all.
Hey, so while we’re discussing great comic books becoming horrendous films, is anyone else as upset about the upcoming “Constantine” as I am?
Keanu Reeves as John Constantine? KEANU REEVES!?!?
Oh god, that’s just so depressing.
—Myca
Yeah, I agree w/Pink Dream. Now, Tales From the Heart or Stuck Rubber Baby would make great movies, or mini-series, or whatever. Hell, if they were on HBO, I’d probably have to finally knuckle under and get cable. Even though I’m a cheap so-and-so who hates cable.
Sorry, but they already made crappy movie versions of From Hell and Leage of Extrordinary Gentlemen, so I’d be coming into this one wary and hopeful. Anyway below is what I think would go down in the movie.
And if no one read the rest of this page there’s a spoiler coming up. I’m guessing an american movie version would have toned down violence, the comedian would be a cardbard character, Jon would wear pants, News vendor and kid, Joey, the knot tops and the other bit characters would probably be flushed out of the story, Adrian would die in the end, Rorscarch’s life in prison would barely be touched upon and that fat guy would do something with Rorsarch’s journal. Not to mention what the hell anyone would do with the giant squid thing.
And what’s this about Keanu Reeves playing John Constintine? Man, what a bitch. If he’s gonna do any comic movies, he should be here playing Doctor Manhattan, where his wooden acting wouldn’t be out of place.
I disagree that the structure of Watchmen would preclude it from adaptation to film. It’s always struck me as an exceptionally cinematic story, even by the standards of comics.
The way the action flows during each scene and from one scene to the next, it’s practically storyboarded. The chapter interludes could be adapted to things like a commercial for Veidt action figures, a talk show appearance by the Silk Spectre, the opening montage could be a scan across the pages and photos of “Under the Hood”, with a few direct references to it in the movie (like on the talk show), and so on. “Tales of the Black Freighter” could be especially cool, you swoop down over the kid’s shoulder into the page, and pan across drawn images (NOT animated) with voice overs and sound effects, like Creepshow but updated. Eventually you get to where the audience is used to idea and you could have some direct fades into the panels from the live action, keeping with Moore and Gibbons’ whole sense of clockwork syncronicity, which was absolutely vital to the book and should be to the film as well.
The only sticking points I see are the length and the time period.
A few sacrifices may have to be made, but on the whole I still thinks it’s possible to get the bulk of the story into two and a half hours, with a sharply paced, detailed script.
As for the setting, post 9/11 WILL NOT work. This is cold war all the way. Can a filmmaker commit to setting it in the Eighties? Probably not, but they should.
Keanu as Constantine? Another one bites the dust. Jesus, I can’t believe they couldn’t get “League” right! How simple would it have been?
putos yankees
no hagais la pelicula
Watchmen should be made into a movie– nay, MUST be made into a movie in post 9/11 times. The book takes place in an alternate universe, and 9/11/01 it felt like that’s where we were headed (not to get political, but the last 4 years have been literally unbelievable). The ending of Watchmen should be kept intact because people need to remember the value of human life and respect each other. Movies aren’t made to fulfill any moral goal other than to entertain, but here Hollywood has a chance to get it right for once, and I wish they would only have the balls to believe that people will pay to see a good movie (and pay even more for a controversial movie).
joe
On a lighter note, are there any watchmen action figures?
Some were designed but never released due to squabbles over rights. There’s an issue of Toyfare from a few years ago that has an article and features them on the cover. They looked pretty good.
Okay, found it, Toyfare #40, Dec 2000 (cover 1).
Toys were designed for a 15th anniversary celebration, but all plans for it were dropped when Moore and Gibbons dropped out, over thier famous disagreements with the company. A press release from DC essentially blames the two, but what- they can’t release a line of toys they know will sell without Alan Moore’s pcture on the box? Maybe someday.
hi! the watchmen a hollywood movie? key word being ‘hollywood’. the censors will cut key stuff, theyll tone down the terrorism, who the hell will be the threat if it aint the soviets? y dnt they jus set the thing wen it is supposed to b set? also to direct a movie adaption of the watchmen u would hav to b a damn good director. it would b hard to capture the tone, and atmosphere of the watchmen on screen. the art work, and its layout is crucial to the wathmen. and sum of the written sections wil not translate well to screen. plus to fit it into a 2 an a half hr film the plot will hav to b majorly slashed. an the characters will not hav time to b seen in full detail. if it has to b made a movie it will hav to be set in the 80s (as its supposed to be), made by people who reeeli care bout the plot an will respect the book, made in europe instead of america?
I think the only way to do justice to The Watchmen is to do a big budget “Band of Brothers” style mini-series. It wouldn’t even work as a three-part feature trilogy, because it is a mystery, and you can’t wait six months or a year between story segments. I would much rather that no one attempt it unless they’re going to do it right.
As much as I would love to see this series adapted into film, I am still waiting for someone to finally make Frank Miller’s “Return of the Dark Knight.”
As I recall, The Watchmen was set in a parallel Earth, which seemed to have split off from our history sometime in the 30s. Given that, having the Soviet Union still around isn’t much of a stretch.
One thing that bothered me about The Watchmen a little bit, was the way the conservative vs. liberal conflict was portrayed. (Leaving the radical left completely out of the picture, for one thing.) Most of The Watchmen chose to align themselves with the right, attacking anti-war protesters as vigilantes — though some of them seemed to come to regret that. However, the only characters portrayed as liberals were a journalist, and Adrian Veldt.
In the current political climate, I’d be a wee bit uncomfortable with the way a movie would handle “the nice, smart liberal” who kills millions of people in order to set himself up as world dictator. I’d be quite surprised if they posed it in terms of a critique from the left. If we’re lucky, it’ll just portray Veldt as a false liberal (which I think may have been close to the author’s intention).
In the current political climate, I’d be a wee bit uncomfortable with the way a movie would handle “the nice, smart liberal” who kills millions of people in order to set himself up as world dictator.
Arrgh! Left Behind Flashbacks {gibbers uncontrollably in the middle of the floor}
Couldn’t ‘The Soviets’ be easily replaced with ‘China’?
Of course this suggestion may or may not show off the fact that I’ve heard great things of Watchmen but never actually read it…
They could probably replace the Soviet Union with China, for narrative purposes. IIRC, there was an escalating superpower conflict going on in the background, but the details were very vague — just occasional references to summit meetings going sour and so on.
If you haven’t read “The Watchmen,” you should. It’s very good.
I’d leave it in the 70s. there’s just something so thuroughly sinister about the flavor of “third term Nixon.”
the single panel discussion about Woodword and Bernstien found dead in a parking garage conveys more about the story for me than whole pages of story.
and I wouldn’t call Ozymandias as “nice, smart liberal.” he seems almost truly apolitical. any support he would carry for liberal policies would be more the product of some arrogant Nobelesse Oblige than any heartfelt liberalism.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear: I meant that Veldt *posed* as a “nice, smart liberal.” He certainly wasn’t nice, and I don’t think he’s what I’d call a liberal, either.
I’ve always been of the opinion that the BBC should make 12 one hour episodes of Watchmen, if only they had the money for the high production values. Now *that* would be worth watching!
Liam Neeson for NightOwl!
Now, I’m all too aware that this comment is by all means, a few years late, heh, but I’m just that cool.
I believe that making a movie of Moore’s masterpeice comic series would be sinfull. A 2 hour film version would absolutely SLAUGHTER the incredible story, characters, depth, and beauty that is Watchmen. A 12 hour mini-series however, I believe would be by all means, the best choice. At an hour an issue, we could give real credibility to the series, and I’m sure anyone who we WANT to appreciate it (IE- Moore fans) already would, so we have no worry of the “Cold War Threat” pulling out consumers. I mean, I’d buy it, and I personally know dozens of others that would as well. And really, what else matters?
Plus, I just think John Cusack would make a freakin’ amazing Nite Owl.