WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum


Talk about the Watchmen comic book mini-series and film
It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:31 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:31 pm 
Offline
…a puppet who can see the strings.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:42 pm
Posts: 8542
Location: A stronger world
actually I think Moore has used quite a lot of cinematic techniques, even if he isnt a fan of the medium, and I read somewhere that a few old British directors were major influences...
But just look at Watchmen and all the zoom-ins and zoom-outs...that's pure cinema!

Speaking of Sin City, I think the reason that was so good is because it was really original....
in what way original? it was very faithful to the source!
sounds like the watchmen angle...

_________________
Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
it was tying it into the rape-revenge stories and making light of a verys erious sub-genre that kind of offended me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:34 am 
Offline
Thermodynamic Miracle
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:03 pm
Posts: 250
Quote:
actually I think Moore has used quite a lot of cinematic techniques, even if he isnt a fan of the medium, and I read somewhere that a few old British directors were major influences...
But just look at Watchmen and all the zoom-ins and zoom-outs...that's pure cinema!

As much as it pains me to have to resort to Wikipedia (but I have seen this provenanced elsewhere so, whilst not readily accessible, the information is at least corroborated):

In an interview with Variety's Danny Graydon during Warner Bros.'s first possession of feature film rights for Watchmen, the graphic novel's writer Alan Moore adamantly opposed a film adaptation of his comic book, arguing, "You get people saying, 'Oh, yes, Watchmen is very cinematic,' when actually it's not. It's almost the exact opposite of cinematic." Moore said that Terry Gilliam, preparing to direct Watchmen for Warner Bros. at the time, had asked Moore how the writer would film it. Moore told Graydon about his response, "I had to tell him that, frankly, I didn't think it was filmable. I didn't design it to show off the similarities between cinema and comics, which are there, but in my opinion are fairly unremarkable. It was designed to show off the things that comics could do that cinema and literature couldn't."



And he loves the medium, incidentally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:48 am 
Offline
...look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:58 am
Posts: 2158
Location: Stockholm
Moore's intuitive mastery of the medium is amply evident in From Hell. The guy is an absolute genius.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:00 am 
Offline
Thermodynamic Miracle
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:03 pm
Posts: 250
Couldn't agree more Soup, but I was actually referring to film in my preceding post, in direct response to AYBG's sweeping proclamation that Moore isn't a fan of the cinematic medium.

CGI makes me spit vitriol and bile and venom. When it comes to films, give me someone like [surrealist filmmaker] Jean Cocteau. When he wants to have somebody reaching into a mirror, he spends all of about five dollars on the special effect: He gets a tray, fills it with mercury and then turns the camera on its side. That is poetry. That is magic. ~ Alan Moore


Film doesn't begin and end with the product pumped outta La-La Land.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:11 am 
Offline
…a puppet who can see the strings.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:42 pm
Posts: 8542
Location: A stronger world
My comment was less sweeping than you make it out to be
From the same article you just quoted:
Quote:
the audience for a film is being dragged through the experience at the speed of 24 frames per second.

i don't think that sounds like he enjoys watching films...
of course it appears he has his favourite film-makers, fine, but surely we can agree that he sees comics as far superior?

_________________
Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
it was tying it into the rape-revenge stories and making light of a verys erious sub-genre that kind of offended me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:27 am 
Offline
Thermodynamic Miracle
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:03 pm
Posts: 250
And again from the very same interview:
Quote:
My favorite films are those that were made on a shoestring. And they weren't adaptations of some other work, they were original pieces of cinema. All right, [Cocteau's] "La Belle Et La Bête" is an adaptation of "Beauty and the Beast" — but it was made into something very different. And I mean, John Waters, his early films, they're terrific! Because he was making them with some friends of his from Baltimore, with whatever cheap film stock he could borrow or steal. George Romero, in "Dawn of the Dead," "Day of the Dead," all the rest of them, he ingeniously used the fact that he had almost no budget to his advantage — claustrophobic sets, everyone's trapped in the cellar and the zombies are trying to dig their way in. Very inexpensive, incredibly powerful. That is where cinema really works for me.

Sounds to me like he enjoys films immensely.

The "...dragged through the experience at the speed of 24 frames per second" quote, taken in the actual context of the interview, was a specific comment upon the filming of Watchmen alone and not the entire cinematic medium as a whole, casting doubts upon any film maker's ability to be able to physically replicate the deliberate structure of the Watchmen comics in a moving media for which they were not crafted nor intended.

I don't see any hard evidence to conclusively prove that he sees comics as being far superior to films per se; it all boils down to personal interpretation. Certainly, as far as the films of his own work are concerned, he's unquestionably right, no doubt about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:34 am 
Offline
…a puppet who can see the strings.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:42 pm
Posts: 8542
Location: A stronger world
There was a Channel 4 (UK) doc on Alan Moore about a decade ago in which he claims comics to be the best art form because "any kid with 40p can go buy a piece of art which the creators put a lot of decent, hard work into"

_________________
Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
it was tying it into the rape-revenge stories and making light of a verys erious sub-genre that kind of offended me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:47 am 
Offline
Thermodynamic Miracle
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:03 pm
Posts: 250
How times change. Good luck getting Lost Girls and TLOEG:Black Dossier for "40p".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:03 pm 
Offline
…a puppet who can see the strings.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:42 pm
Posts: 8542
Location: A stronger world
Yeah I remember when I was 5 or 6 i used to get 42p pocket money so i could get the beano! rofl

_________________
Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
it was tying it into the rape-revenge stories and making light of a verys erious sub-genre that kind of offended me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:39 pm 
Offline
The Watcher
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 3650
Location: New York
AYBGerrardo wrote:
There was a Channel 4 (UK) doc on Alan Moore about a decade ago in which he claims comics to be the best art form because "any kid with 40p can go buy a piece of art which the creators put a lot of decent, hard work into"

And you can watch the whole show entitled Monsters, Maniacs and Moore right here on this site: http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/1987-monsters-maniacs-moore-01.php. Enjoy.

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:13 pm 
Offline
…a puppet who can see the strings.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:42 pm
Posts: 8542
Location: A stronger world
haha D-Clock is always on the case!

_________________
Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
it was tying it into the rape-revenge stories and making light of a verys erious sub-genre that kind of offended me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:43 pm 
Offline
A brother to dragons.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:36 pm
Posts: 1470
AYBGerrardo wrote:
haha D-Clock is always on the case!


Yeah, apparently there's a "main site" that has all kinds of Watchmen related videos and shit. Doomsday's always pimpin' it here on the message board.

Whatever.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:32 am 
Offline
…a puppet who can see the strings.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:42 pm
Posts: 8542
Location: A stronger world
there's a main site?!! oh my goodness!
lol just kidding it's a really good site, the best, in fact, for the buildup to the film...

_________________
Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
it was tying it into the rape-revenge stories and making light of a verys erious sub-genre that kind of offended me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:06 am 
Offline
Tired of Earth.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:01 am
Posts: 8041
Location: Clackamas, OR
Bump.

I just bought my own copy of V for Vendetta with some Christmas cash and read it during my vacation. Here are my thoughts on the movie, now that I finally have an informed opinion on the graphic novel.

First of all, I think that the movie's greatest improvement over the graphic novel was Evey. In the graphic novel, she was just a lonely wannabe prostitute. No friends, no family, no self-esteem. She was nothing more than a V groupie. But in the movie, she has self-esteem and friends and a stable job. She is V's moral and intellectual foil, and as such, she is a very good sounding board for V's ideals and a solid avatar for the audience.

That said, the movie's most irredeemable failure was V himself. Movie V was focused entirely and completely on revenge, with anarchy as an added bonus. The Graphic Novel V had it the other way around. The V of the graphic novel was more than just an anarchist, he was an amoral bastard. He truly enjoyed the manipulation and murder. The V of the movie, however, took steps to make V more sympathetic, such as dressing him in that flowery pink apron, the ridiculous play-fencing scene and the infamous cry-in-front-of-the-mirror scene.

Put simply, it was almost like the Wachowskis took the Joker (of Batman fame) and turned him into the Phantom of the Opera. It didn't work.

For the in-between stuff, I very much like what the movie did with the Leader. The movie Leader was a man who saw himself as invincible, all-seeing and all-knowing as long as he was a face on a screen. But when removed from his bunker and confronted with his own death, he becomes a blubbering, incoherent, idiot coward. That appeals to me much more than a man who goes insane for his love of a supercomputer. I'm not sure the name change was necessary, though.

I also like what the movie did with the other top government officials. Maybe it was just the comics' godawful inking job, but I had a hard time telling one of the Leader's cabinet members from another. In the movie, they were all clear and distinct characters. Still, the movie didn't mention anything about the cabinet members conspiring against each other to take the Leader's position, and the film sorely missed it.

The movie had far, far too much new material about Larkhill. I honestly think that the movie should've devoted less screentime to Finch's Larkhill investigation and replaced it with footage of the cabinet members conspiring and stabbing each other in the back.

Then there's the side story about the lesbian couple. I notice that in the graphic novel, we never see the captive's face until we see V's shrine. A shame the movie didn't do likewise. Also, the movie dragged out the side story for way too long and highlighted the homosexual angle with the subtlety of a jackhammer. The graphic novel handled it far better.

And finally, the ending. I don't think that Evey taking up the mask would've worked onscreen. But then, I don't think that thousands of people in Guy Fawkes masks was the right way to go, either. Both endings seem to glorify V himself as a symbol against the current government and in favor of anarchy. To that end, I think the movie would've been far better if the rioters were armed and fighting the police, rather than peacefully gathering in costume.

Aside from these gripes, I do enjoy the movie. Reading the graphic novel, I saw passages and scenes that were quoted verbatim in the movie and I appreciate that. It seems like the Wachowskis tried, though they didn't exactly succeed in places.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:02 pm 
Offline
A brother to dragons.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:05 pm
Posts: 1434
Location: Sarasota, FL
The reason the movie adaptation is 'so hated' is because it destroys the ideas of the graphic novel. This may seem a bit heavy-handed, but after reading the original a few times, it's pretty damn evident.

Most obviously, V's message. His message isn't that 'everyone wants freedom, blah blah blah, etc.' He set out to do two things: first and foremost, destabilize the government into a position of anarchy from which the people would establish a new government. V didn't need the support of the people. He wasn't staging some stupid protest. He set out to blow up the key centers of operation and leave the people with a blank slate, whether they liked it or not. And that reminds me, the order of explosions was entirely wrong - what about his monologue to Lady Liberty? What about blowing up the radio tower? They cut out the whole thing where he differentiates between anarchy and chaos (ironically, the scene where the guy shouts "Anarchy in the UK!" is exactly what V defines as not anarchy). Also, the focus on weapons...? They cut out pretty much the only part where he actually used them (bomb hand, anyone...?), and injected them into that prolonged, horribly tacky scene at the end. The V of the graphic novel is much, much more reserved, and hesitant to clue Evey in. He's more mysterious, to the point of giving Evey a riddle instead of instructions when he's dying. He doesn't spell everything out for her like he does in the movie. The movie, of course, focused on V being an emotional, justified hero out for revenge.

Evey. Evey was supposed to essentially be a product of this system that happened upon V. The attempt at prostitution was symbolic of this notion. Instead, she's shown as mature and rebellious from the beginning. No. She grows into this, and at the end, her taking up V's mask was one of the most powerful moments of the book. Of course, everyone else in the city put on a mask in the movie, but they couldn't put one on Evey. I mean, "Reports of my death have been... greatly exaggerated" is one of the best lines in the whole thing.

Finch. Finch was done fairly well, but they delved way too far into Larkhill. Most of that was left up to the reader in V for Vendetta, and the whole 'antidote, disease, epidemic, testing' thing was completely added in. They were concentration camps, nothing else. Also, Finch was supposed to kill V - he's almost like Rorschach in this way, he has to abide by his personal moral code (in this case, protecting the government), regardless of whether or not it's the best thing for society. He doesn't do it out of corruption, but rather out of duty, which is what makes it more powerful when he is set to become the next V after Evey - he would become the dutiful enforcer of an anarchy, as the society he sought to protect crumbled anyway (all for the better, of course).

Adam Susan/Sutler. Come on. What the hell? He was a decadent, creepy geek huddled over his supercomputer, not a lean Hitler wannabe. He wasn't killed by his own government, he was killed by the wife of a middle-tier government official who had died. The way V drove him crazy by hacking into the supercomputer was very poetic and eerie, as was the instance where he thinks 'Hey, maybe I should relate to the people' and then gets shot on his first attempt.

I'm not even going to delve into the numerous subplots that they completely left out, because that was bound to happen - it's a long graphic novel.

Still, changing the entire ending? Necessary? I don't think so. Having hundreds of Vs march up was just stupid, and it defied V's M.O. and the strength of the ending entirely. Yes, it may be hailed as a good movie, whoopie, it was fun, but it wasn't great, and it was a terrible adaptation. V's monologue at the beginning...? Really? He wasn't a fun, lovable, cuddly guy wearing a mask that just used lots of words starting with V.

Of course, the Wachowskis seemed set on making a box office hit, rather than any kind of decent adaptation.

_________________
.
.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:46 am 
Offline
New Frontiersman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:39 am
Posts: 396
Location: North of 49, West of 100
Great reviews Curi & Mr Method.

Just a couple of comments...

The Veidt Method wrote:
what about his monologue to Lady Liberty?


That was his address to Justice, where he accuses her of sleeping with the enemy - so to speak - and blows up the Old Bailey.

I disagree that Larkhill was overdone. It is V's defining experience, what made him what he was. The major difference was that the film concentrated that arc almost into an entire scene, whereas Moore (omniscient observer that he plays during this exposé) gives it to us in more measured doses.

One of the major (informed) criticisms of V the Movie was the omission of the whole anarchy thing. I think the Watchowskis deliberately avoided it altogether because they were afraid the filmgoing public (or more likely the current political administration) would be unable to tell the difference between anarchy (the land of do what thou wilt) and chaos (the land of take as you want). Admittedly, Moore's realistic portrayal of the fall of the Susan regime seems to indicate many see that line blurred as well. I suspect Moore's characteristically ambiguous ending with Finch walking off into the darkness also was a hard sell to Hollyweird's tradition of well defined happy endings.

Evey of the novel was manipulated as much as anyone, though with a much lighter and nuanced touch. V grooms her into a successor of sorts, to supposedly guide the populace (an anarchist leading the country, now there's irony for you) to a kinder gentler world.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: V for voda
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:23 pm 
Offline
Intrinsic Field Subtractor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 1023
Good post, VM. I like most of it, but disagree with a few points.

The Veidt Method wrote:
He set out to do two things: first and foremost, destabilize the government into a position of anarchy from which the people would establish a new government.


No. Anarchists do not want to "establish a new government." The point is for society to continue on without needing to be governed.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Finch was done fairly well, but they delved way too far into Larkhill. Most of that was left up to the reader in V for Vendetta, and the whole 'antidote, disease, epidemic, testing' thing was completely added in. They were concentration camps, nothing else.


No. Larkhill was not just a concentration camp. Delia was conducting experiments which is why Valerie and the rest died and why the man in room five became V.

For the most part, I disliked the movie for the reasons you discussed (among others). I eventually came to enjoy it when taken apart from the novel because, as you say, as an adaptation, it is an utter failure. To use a metaphor. I don't mind instant pudding so much, but when I've been offered tiramasu and instant pudding is being palmed off in it's place, I'm gonna have to whine about it.

dandreiberg wrote:
Evey of the novel was manipulated as much as anyone, though with a much lighter and nuanced touch. V grooms her into a successor of sorts, to supposedly guide the populace (an anarchist leading the country, now there's irony for you) to a kinder gentler world.


Well put, Daniel. I would point out, though, that anarchism does not mean "without leaders," but "without rulers." While rare, it is possible to lead voluntary followers through inspiration and respect without force.

The movie castrated the story. We all knew that when we first saw Evey. Instead of a teen on the streets trying to whore herself so she could eat, we see a mature woman casually breaking curfew (which tells me she doesn't take the rule of this regime seriously) so that she can visit her boss in the hopes of positioning herself for a better job.

Watered down.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:45 pm 
Offline
New Frontiersman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:39 am
Posts: 396
Location: North of 49, West of 100
Vynson wrote:
anarchism does not mean "without leaders," but "without rulers"


...bad choice of words on my part. Evey isn't meant to rule (or even lead for that matter), but to be a symbol of transformation, much as she has been transformed by her experience.

On reflection, what stikes me most is V's willingness to let go after he feels his work his done. Most succesful revolutionaries and war time leaders, in no small part due to their tenacity, are often ill suited for the reconstruction business because it requires an element of compromise (Churchill comes to mind).

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:49 pm 
Offline
A brother to dragons.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:05 pm
Posts: 1434
Location: Sarasota, FL
dandreiberg wrote:
Great reviews Curi & Mr Method.

Just a couple of comments...

The Veidt Method wrote:
what about his monologue to Lady Liberty?


That was his address to Justice, where he accuses her of sleeping with the enemy - so to speak - and blows up the Old Bailey.

My bad - slip of the mind there.

dandreiberg wrote:
I disagree that Larkhill was overdone. It is V's defining experience, what made him what he was. The major difference was that the film concentrated that arc almost into an entire scene, whereas Moore (omniscient observer that he plays during this exposé) gives it to us in more measured doses.

I'm talking more of the sickness conspiracy and everything like that. All the stuff added in to make the concentration camps more "interesting." Yes, they were running experiments, but so did Mengele - still wasn't the point of the camps, as the Wachowskis made it out to be.

_________________
.
.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:02 pm 
Offline
…a puppet who can see the strings.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:42 pm
Posts: 8542
Location: A stronger world
yes, in the film, Larkhill is made out to be where they took the homosexuals, muslims, etc. the experimentation is merely the use of the "spare people" for medical research, i think. CMIIW.

_________________
Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
it was tying it into the rape-revenge stories and making light of a verys erious sub-genre that kind of offended me.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.148s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]