WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

I don't think this will appeal to anyone who isn't already a fan. As a fan, I can't understand why someone would spend their time watching this, except as a cheap novelty distraction.

Ultimately, I think it is a worthless, though harmless, waste of time.

The thing is, I wouldn't even call it a redo. It is the equivalent of an audiobook, like I said.


I watched it, I sort of liked it, I don't see what the problem is. Also, industry...?


This, to me, is indicative of the problem. Audiobooks and - I suppose - motion comics are lightweight versions of the "real deal." I like that these formats are available while simultaneously recognizing the artistic superiority of the originals. While this motion comic may not have been necessary, it's light, easy on the mind - good thing to relax and watch or let run in the background - not something that the graphic novel is conducive to.

_________________
.
.

Heh, that's pretty close to what a certain hairy northamptoner feels towards the actual movie adaptation, i guess

I haven't seen the motion comic but I'm not opposed to the idea...
Exposing more people to the comic can only be good. That was the idea behind my own vids and that's what they're trying to do here.
Rather than crap animation (like some of you describe) or bad/limited voice work, the real issue is why are they going to charge money for the future issues?
I mean, when they're free someone can watch the trailer, look up watchmen and find out they can watch it really easily via itunes.
But when they charge money, even if its just $2, then Broken Finger's opinion is fully valid. Only fans that actually enjoyed the first one would get the following ones, and maybe a few of the people that happened to see the first that weren't already fans of the book.
Utterly pointless to charge money, regardless of the quality, if the target audience is people who've barely heard of Watchmen.

_________________

I think they did a decent job animating the artwork, but my two biggest complaints are the single narrator doing all the voices, since he basically ends up giving everyone a different dialect and makes Laurie sound like a man in drag, and the glacial pacing. When I read the comic, I don't draw out the dialogue in my head to such lengths. It makes the experience rather arduous.

Actually, I was wondering about that. After I hooked up my iPod to my TV to watch Chapter One, I freezeframed it in certain spots to compare it to the printed artwork in my dogeared copy of the TPB. Some of the artwork actually looks clearer in the motion comic, so I'm curious about where they sourced it from for the animation. I haven't compared it to the art in the Absolute edition yet, but I'm guessing that they might have had access to the touched-up Absolute art.

_________________
"The light is taking me to pieces, and I'm afraid I just blue myself."

I'm not quite getting the hate for audiobooks here. If you think about the history of literature, everything started in oral forms and was only later put into written form; as such, it should be easy to see that audiobooks have just as much of a right to exist as printed literature, and are no less a literary form.

There's all sorts of books of prose and poetry that are just as good -- if not better -- when read aloud. Robert Frost's poetry, for instance, has a completely different feel on the page than when spoken -- preferably in a rustic New England accent. I own four different versions of Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart" on audio, each of which have subtly different shades of meaning from teller to teller.

Sure, there's a ton of lazy folk who use audiobooks in lieu of engaging a text on paper (like schoolkids trying to get out of having to read "War & Peace" by spending five times as long listening to it, to my great amusement...), and there's also plenty of, er, popular literature that doesn't benefit from having its clunky verbiage committed to voice (Dan Brown and James Patterson, I'm looking at you), but there's also lots of busy folk (like me), who use audiobooks on long carbound trips and commutes to maintain a good diet of literature even when they don't always have the leisure time to merely sit with a book.

I didn't mean to get on my soapbox there, but with the short shrift that high-toned literary snobs have given to comics/graphic novels in the past, I would've figured that Watchmen fans (as well as graphic novel enthusiasts in general) wouldn't be so quick to take potshots at other media.

_________________
"The light is taking me to pieces, and I'm afraid I just blue myself."

That is an excellent, logical question. The only real reason for this oxymoronic "motion comic" to insult humanity with its existence is as an attempt to create buzz and possibly expose more people to the book, which in turn will put more asses in seats come March, I guess.

Charging even a nominal fee like two bucks to, I'm assuming, cover the outrageous production costs in conjunction with the overwhelming salary of the infamous Tom Stechschulte, would in point of fact kill that plan before it was even hatched.

When did Alan Moore sign up here? And with multiple accounts?

Flatterer.



And you, too.

Seriously. The way some people are reacting to the Motion Comics, it's as though somebody (to paraphrase Neil Gaiman) just came along and tossed their baby onto the barbeque.

But let's take a clear look at what we're criticizing, shall we? The first episode of the Motion Comic was basically just Watchmen #1 with added narration. Gibbons' and Higgins' art was used mostly unaltered, and the script was taken verbatim from Moore's script for the original comic. This may very well be the first Alan Moore adaptation that didn't deviate in any significant way from what the man wrote. Of course, there are differences between the media being used, but under any other circumstances, this would be considered a great thing.

I had a few reservations regarding the limited voice acting, but it's hardly an abomination. Save for a few details, it's practically the original comic served up whole. If you want to pony up $1.99 every few weeks to watch them you can, but if you don't want to nobody's going to force you, and the original comic still exists for you to read.

_________________
"The light is taking me to pieces, and I'm afraid I just blue myself."

Before I start, allow me to say that I also enjoy Arrested Development, therefore we have something in common, and shouldn't let any possible harsh words between us affect our common bond, which is that of the analrapist.



Part of the storytelling magic of the comic book is the leap your mind must make from one panel to another, filling in the action or drama. To have that leap erased is to destroy the medium's strengths as well as take away much of the enjoyment. To erase that leap is to insult generations of comics fans as well as scores of talented men and women who toil in the medium of comics for our entertainment, and perhaps a meager living. That, sir, is what I am criticizing: a veritable open-handed slap to comics creator's faces by the burgeoning "motion comic" industry.



I'm committed, man. It's too late to back down now.



I don't hate audiobooks, I simply don't care to listen to one. However, I can certainly imagine several scenarios where one could be handy; if I were freshly blinded, say, and had not had sufficient time to learn Braille. The same cannot be said, though, of the filthy whore known as the "motion comic".

I've listened to a few audiobooks. I listen when I'm on roadtrips. It's not the same as reading because you have tone of voice and other nuances spoonfed to you based on the narrator's take of the book. An audiobook is inferior to an actual book.

But a "motion comic" (we used to call this a "cartoon" when I was a kid) does not serve such purpose. It does not enable you to read a comic while driving cross country.

This particular "motion comic" was especially bad. The fill-in art... that is, the art that was done to transtion the panels for motion... was horrendous. Watch that piece of crap again and then tell me the art was consistent throughout. No, when we had a still Gibbons shot, it was what we all know and love. Then, when someone or something just had to move... it wasn't. Look at this dog turd... whoever did the filler art should be ashamed. They clearly didn't take enough pride in their work to soak up snake sweat.

And really, just the idea of a "motion comic" for Watchmen is like the powers that be at WB shouting to the world, "We have no fucking idea what the fuck we're fucking with. give us a little minute and you'll be dealing with Dr. Manhattan's special blueberry blast at your local Dairy Queen."

The Watchmen Motion Comic is a shitty 'toon. Do we really have to pretend there was any artistic talent involved in the infliction of this piece of crap?

Okay, I have a feeling that this may simply be a topic of debate that is a bit more contentious than I had initially understood. As a relative newcomer to the boards who was inspired to start posting here by the appearance of the brand new Watchmen movie trailer (I should point out that I'm a long-time aficionado of the original novel and graphic fiction in general), I realize that I may not have quite grasped the personal creative politics of some of the regulars here. If I'm ruffling some feathers in ways that are uncomfortable, I apologize. We may have to, in the greatest cliche of the Internet, agree to disagree. But in the spirit of lively debate...



I'm guessing that you're also a fan of Scott McCloud? The "gutter"-space between panels is a fantastic device for telling comics stories, but for all intents and purposes the gutter is analogous to the edits and cutaways in a motion picture frame, and much of the same logic applies. Modifications may have to be made to take something from one medium to another, but it's by no means impossible or necessarily harmful to the intent of the original idea. Making a movie (animated or otherwise) out of a comic doesn't destroy the comic, it makes a movie that may or may not feel like the comic. Adaptation isn't a subtractive process, only additive.

Moreover, whether the act of making a limited-animation cartoon out of a comic book is an insult to the original creators or not is in the eyes of the creators. I have a feeling that Alan Moore's feelings on this very subject would probably have less to do with the actual quality of the cartoon and more to do with being screwed over by DC years and years ago. Conversely, if Dave Gibbons minds his art being reused in this way, he's kept mum about it thus far and that's good enough for me. Meanwhile, we can each make up our minds about whether we liked or disliked the final product. I liked it okay, thought the narration was good if a bit uneven and samey, but liked it enough to want to see what they do with the future installments. You clearly didn't. To each their own.

On a related note, many years ago I was led to read and collect one of my favorite comics of all time, Sam Keith's The Maxx, by seeing a "motion comic" animated series based on the same; you might call the Maxx cartoon an abomination because it removed Keith's images and words from their comics context and grafted them onto a series of limited-animation shorts with occasionally dodgy voice acting. However, it inspired myself and probably a whole bunch of other MTV-watching mallrats to go and check out the brilliant comics series, which I might not have done otherwise. The same will no doubt apply to some who chance upon these Watchmen shorts (and also the eventual film that we're all excited about), so I don't see the specific harm.



This is totally dismissive towards both types of media. I didn't specifically come here to mount a full-bore defense (read that any way you want to, kids) of spoken word on record, and I realize that it's somewhat tangential to the topic at hand, but I think there might be a few unfair cultural preconceptions in play here about people who use audiobooks.

I sell books for a part of my living; in truth, many of the people who buy audiobooks from me may be buying them as substitutes for "real" books, but I also sell a lot of them to bright folks who spend much of their time in ways that limit their ability to have a book in front of them -- on-the-road business travellers or commercial drivers for instance. Do reading and listening use different linguistic and cogitative skills? Yes. Is one skill "better" than another? I say no.

Once again, as comics fans we love a medium that has been unjustly dragged through the mud as much as any emerging artform throughout history. Before we start painting other media (audiobooks/animation) with a broad brush, I think we need to take a step back and realize where we stand ourselves.

Anyway, I don't expect to change anybody's minds, but I just want to get the ideas out there for people to at least think about. Nothing personal is meant, react or don't react however you will. I look forward to seeing what everyone thinks about the merchandising and associated media tie-ins as the film's release nears. No hard feelings?

_________________
"The light is taking me to pieces, and I'm afraid I just blue myself."

I have to agree here. I have not purchased an audio book, but the only person I know who has is a voracious reader. In fact, he let me borrow an audio book version of Moby Dick (my favorite book and his) that he enjoyed. Keep in mind he actually read Moby Dick several times in it's quaint paged form before ever listening to the audio version. It was just another way for him to enjoy the prose while he was driving because he just couldn't be without his Melville for too long.

I honestly doubt the majority of audio books are sold to ignorant dullards who hate to read. Why spend 6 hours listening to Gary Sinise reading Catcher in the Rye when that new Puffy CD just hit? Know what I mean?

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

I had a long, hilarious yet intelligent reply to the analrapist there, but somehow managed to fuck it up before hitting the "Submit" button.

Damn it all to hell.

These were the "finer" points:

I don't care about audio books. I don't think badly of them or anyone who listens to them. My sister, who is a frequent traveler, listens to and enjoys them immensely. My problem is not even with a Watchmen "motion comic", specifically. The source of my incredulity with the ignominious "motion comic" is on a conceptual level. It fails as a comic book, and it fails as animation. Tom Stechschulte fails as a female voice actor. Its existence is an assault on even the basest form of common sense.

And no, there will never be hard feelings for expressing your opinion in an intelligent way, Dr. Funkemanhattan.

I wish the motion comic was Batman: The Animated Series style with moving mouths and no word bubbles. Like an ACTUAL cartoon.

_________________
"It would be a stronger world, a stronger loving world, to die in."

-John Cale

Why do you have it out so bad for Tom Stechschulte? You really are a cold bastard.

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

I'm too depressed from screwing up my fucking masterpiece of a post to make any more jokes at Big Tom's expense.

I thought about trying to recreate it, but how often can you capture lightning in a bottle?

I need a drink.



Fucking Tom Sterchschulte, man. Fuck him.

I personally got a kick out of watching the first installment of the Watchmen motion comic. I think that the technique they used to "animate" Gibbons' artwork did the job, even if it was a bit crude, because this isn't supposed to be an animated series a la the Bruce Timm Batman cartoon. If they went that far, then Gibbons' artwork wouldn't have a place and it wouldn't be an effective "visual audiobook." To me this is an interesting way to present a story — part cartoon, part audiobook, part comic. Comic books — the so-called "bastard medium" — have a long tradition of pulling in literary and narrative devices from other artforms. Yes, the comic book is an infinitely better way to experience the story of Watchmen, and no motion comic or movie can touch it. But that doesn't make them any less worthwhile. So this mashup doesn't really bother me because:

1) It's incredibly faithful to the source, from dialogue to art style
2) The animation does the job of translating the exact artwork without turning it into something else that isn't faithful — and I was impressed with the simulation of depth of field and other lighting effects
3) Since it'll probably take a while between installments, it will probably inspire people to buy the book so they can get the whole story in one shot
4) Both copies of the novel are sitting on my shelf, and no "motion comic" will be able to replace/erase them
5) Tom Stechschulte does a good job, even if he doesn't sound convincing as a woman. But he gets Laurie's inflection down, I suppose. The voiceover reminded me of a radio play, which is kind of cool. It might have been better to get the film actors to do the lines, but then it'll be encroaching on the territory of the upcoming film.

However, at $1.99 a chapter, I think I'll sit out the rest of the installments. I already know how it ends and everything.