The Watchmen

[Carlo Borromeo]

Even if they did it for 10 hours, it still wouldn't work as an "accurate" adaptation. Watchmen, although it had a great story, it wasn't the GREATEST comic book story ever told (take note, Spiegelman's comic book Maus won a Pulitzer, which is the greatest prize in all of literature). Other contenders for greatest comic book story ever would definitely be Neil Gaiman's Sandman, Brian K. Vaughan's Y: The Last Man, Chris Claremont's run on X-men, and the other stuff Alan Moore did, such as From Hell, V for Vendetta and of course MIRACLEMAN.

Watchmen is considered the CITIZEN KANE of comics because it utilized all of available storytelling techniques unique to comic books - things only comics could do that movies couldn't, that graphic art couldn't, that prose couldn't. ONLY COMIC BOOKS could do something like WATCHMEN ISSUE # 5 - Fearful Symmetry - where you can start at the middle, and move backwards and forwards and realize that one page was a reflection of the opposite page. Hence the title of the book.

Also, he put a lot of details and connections and patterns so that you could literally flip the book backwards and forwards, playing with the visuals and the text. You could literally tear out all the pages, put them side to side and see a pattern. Or different pages organized in different ways. Or, flip the book back to see a detail you missed, and forth again, to see the current page and compare. When Rorschach was unmasked by the cops, I flipped back and was shocked to reveal that he was the guy carrying the END IS NIGH sign from issue 1, and that he was at Comedian's funeral, and that he passed by the newsstand and all that.

Moore wanted to tell us that comic pages were in a way similar to how Dr. Manhattan view time and events - they were all happening simultaneously but we as mortals choose to experience it chronologically.

You couldn't enjoy moments like Dr. Manhattan saying something to Laurie while they are about to enter Ozymandias's lair, then have Dr. Manhattan saying the exact same thing a couple of pages later to Ozymandias, Nite Owl and Rorschach, which you can then flip back to and say "oh, so that's why he said it."

Those were the things that couldn't be shown in the film. All the filmmakers could do was to take what they could adapt - the plot, the themes, the ideas - while good, were not great.

[Carlo Borromeo]

That being said, what made me really happy with the movie was that people I know, really smart people, who've never read comic books, liked the ideas and themes and found the story thought-provoking.

I'd then tell them, "but Alan Moore was only getting started" (Watchmen was only his 2nd American series). He had yet to make FROM HELL. And wait'll you read MIRACLEMAN. If you thought Ozymandias was something, wait'll you get a load of this dude.

Then there's SANDMAN. If you thought the ideas and concept in Watchmen were amazing, wait'll you get a load of SANDMAN. It's a story about story, and about belief, and faith, and so many other great ideas. Sandman didn't need any fancy visual tricks to tell its story. It just let story tell story.

[rodsky]

But then you're comparing apples to oranges. There should be a general acceptance that, once a "literary" work gets into film, it changes medium, thus there is a necessary change in how a message is conveyed. When I said 10 hours, I meant the very superficial, very eye-candy level things that can be seen in the graphic novel, and I wasn't referring to such literary devices as the scene with "Fearful Symmetry", but then once it's in film, the cinematographer now has the liberty to use devices within the scope of cinematography, to convey an idea that once existed in print format, into a more dynamic one as allowed by the medium of cinema.

Example.

Hemingway describes a cafe or diner in a short story. If we were to translate this into film, it wouldn't be as effective as in print if we did it literally, because everything he narrates in print, will only happen in about 10 seconds, whilst when we were reading about it, it took us about 5 minutes to totally grasp the scene in our minds. Faced with this dilemma, what does the screenwriter and cinematographer do about it? Well, for starters, camera angles and movement, coloring/lighting, and the careful positioning of various elements can stretch the scene from a 10 second swish to a 5 minute mellow tableau.

-RODION

[Carlo Borromeo]

You're seeing from the point of view of a filmmaker adapting a comic book. You have missed the point completely. I didn't say the a 10 hour mini-series wouldn't work. It could be actually even be a GREAT mini-series. Maybe the best ever...

I'm just saying it would still miss the point of Watchmen completely. It is considered the greatest comic book ever because it is using techniques that only comics can do. By transferring it to another medium you take away the reason WATCHMEN is still in print today.

Read the message boards about Watchmen. People aren't dissecting how "awesome" the fight scene was, or how "cool" Ozymandias is as a villain. It's little things in the background, it's references to THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, it's the fact that you reading a comic book, which is actually a journal, which is then discovered and read at the end of the story, that then makes everything go around in circles again.

Think of it like ***. The "adaptation" is like using your hand. You cum, but it sure as hell wasn't ****ing.

[rodsky]

You're seeing from the point of view of a filmmaker adapting a comic book. You have missed the point completely. I didn't say the a 10 hour mini-series wouldn't work. It could be actually even be a GREAT mini-series. Maybe the best ever...

I'm just saying it would still miss the point of Watchmen completely. It is considered the greatest comic book ever because it is using techniques that only comics can do. By transferring it to another medium you take away the reason WATCHMEN is still in print today.

Read the message boards about Watchmen. People aren't dissecting how "awesome" the fight scene was, or how "cool" Ozymandias is as a villain. It's little things in the background, it's references to THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, it's the fact that you reading a comic book, which is actually a journal, which is then discovered and read at the end of the story, that then makes everything go around in circles again.

Think of it like ***. The "adaptation" is like using your hand. You cum, but it sure as hell wasn't ****ing.

All points taken And that was a brilliant analogy in the end there

-RODION

[crinkle]

hahaha... amazing analogy.

[Carlo Borromeo]

That being said, I was surprised at how good the movie was in some parts.

I loved every scene with Rorschach.

I loved the funeral, where they used SOUND OF SILENCE as the background music. When I got home, I downloaded the song, the lyrics, and learned to play it. It is now one of my favorite songs ever. And it was because of the movie.

[yawnard]

nahan kau ko didto ni Rorschach ky brutal kau unya small but terrible kau.

[rodsky]

I loved the funeral, where they used SOUND OF SILENCE as the background music. When I got home, I downloaded the song, the lyrics, and learned to play it. It is now one of my favorite songs ever. And it was because of the movie.

Simon and Garfunkel are slated to do a reunion concert (their nth reunion) soon, possibly fueled by recent revivals of interest in their songs, possibly triggered by the movie (who knows).

-RODION

[shee]

ok sad ni nga movie...