Alan Moore Still Not Interested

[CaptainGenerica]

I doubt much. Maybe filmmakers have pulled those out, but unsuccessfuly. I myself can't remember anything so hugely busy being made decently into movie.

I could rattle off the Godfather, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and the Lord of the Rings movies off the top of my head. One could argue those are less "busy" than Watchmen, but one could also easily argue the opposite. It's subjective I suppose.

Watchmen is indeed almost impossible to translate: every little detail plays a part in the whole scheme, and it has a meaning in the story being told (mostly because of Doc Manhattan).

I disagree, basically. I just spent the last several posts explaining why I think it's actually quite possible, so I don't feel like repeating it.

Not to mention the important quotations from philosophy, physics, history, art, etc. that embody the tight-told tale.

Why "not to mention"? Those things are cool and all, but they're really just chapter-framing devices. No big loss. I mean, movies can and have done that kind of thing (Kill Bill), but I actually hope they're not included.

 

[cerealkiller182]

This isnt a translation like Sin City (although it sounds pretty close). Its an adaptation like what would be done with any piece of literature. It will be made to fit the medium.

 

[Mercurius]

I could rattle off the Godfather, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and the Lord of the Rings movies off the top of my head. One could argue those are less "busy" than Watchmen, but one could also easily argue the opposite. It's subjective I suppose.


I disagree, basically. I just spent the last several posts explaining why I think it's actually quite possible, so I don't feel like repeating it.


Why "not to mention"? Those things are cool and all, but they're really just chapter-framing devices. No big loss. I mean, movies can and have done that kind of thing (Kill Bill), but I actually hope they're not included.

1) They're not busy like Watchmen. Not even close.

And, mind you: two of those you mentioned are in the realm of the trilogy, LOTR being 4 hour long each. We're getting, in the best scenario, a 3 hour long feature. No comparison possible.

2) It's possible, indeed. But it would demand a lot of different things from what I'm seeing. I think Snyder is really doing his best with what he has, but it seems, now, miles away from what would be necessary.

3) I said "not to mention" because they're FAR from mere "chapter-framing devices", and call for a singular and long discussion themselves: almost everything Doc Manhattan does or says is both philosophy AND science.

Extreme, agreed, but that's it. Same thing with Ozymandias and history, the two Nite Owls with literature and ornithology, etc. etc. etc.

It is the very FABRIC of the text and the story, with implications FAR BEYOND technical cheap tricks.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

1) They're not busy like Watchmen. Not even close.

And, mind you: two of those you mentioned are in the realm of the trilogy, LOTR being 4 hour long each. We're getting, in the best scenario, a 3 hour long feature. No comparison possible.

You really think so? Agree to disagree. Even just taking The Fellowship of the Ring, personally, I think there's way more material, detail, and nuance in that book than in Watchmen. Not in terms of density, but in sheer volume. Likewise, even just taking Godfather I, (that's what I meant, not the trilogy) I think the storyline is somewhat more complex and subtle than Watchmen's is. And much like Watchmen, it's filled with all kinds of tidbits, allusions, etc.. Neither of these films is as complicated in presentation as Watchmen (they're fairly linear), but if I'm understanding you correctly that's not what we're discussing.

(BTW the LOTR movies were 3 hours, except ROTK was 3.5.)

2) It's possible, indeed. But it would demand a lot of different things from what I'm seeing. I think Snyder is really doing his best with what he has, but it seems, now, miles away from what would be necessary.

That's a valid opinion, no need to debate it. Personally I think what we're seeing is reassuring, but you're obviously entitled to your opinion.

3) I said "not to mention" because they're FAR from mere "chapter-framing devices", and call for a singular and long discussion themselves: almost everything Doc Manhattan does or says is both philosophy AND science.

I thought you were trying to argue that the quotes would be too difficult to implement in the movie, not that you were saying how important they were.

Of course they have great thematic significance; I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But so does everything else in Watchmen. Personally, if I had to choose between all the chapter-end quotes, and the one line "Nothing ends", I'd take the one line. They're kinda like the Black Freighter (which we're actually getting; props to Snyder), in that their main purpose is to give a little more philosophical comparison to the main plot. But the main plot is thematically rich enough by itself that it can survive without them, without the whole work being much diminished. My opinion of course. See where I'm coming from?

About Doc... as far as any of us know, the vast majority of his lines and actions will be intact, so I'm not quite sure what you mean.

 

[Shoemeister]

Hopefully the movie will be awesome enough to at least catch Moore's eye.

 

[Agentsands77]

The problem with WATCHMEN is that if you sacrifice most of the subtleties and nuances of WATCHMEN, you're left with a core story that's merely good. What makes WATCHMEN one of the greatest graphic novels is the amount of complexity with which it handles its subject. It's what Alan Moore does on top of that core story - how he expands upon it, building layer upon layer, adding detour to detour - that makes it great.

It's like NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. The Coen brothers adapted that film pretty much straight from the book, and so it's faithful to the story. But the problem is that Cormac McCarthy's novel was very meditative. All the weight was in the non-plot passages. So when the Coen brothers put the film on the screen, what we were left with was very technically impressive, but rather empty.

That is one of my concerns for WATCHMEN. There's an automatic loss in the translation of the comic to film. It's a difference of medium - you can be more complex and free with a graphic novel. So what Snyder has to do is make it truly cinematic, so that it does what the graphic novel couldn't. It's not enough to just create the Cliff's Notes version of Moore's novel. The film has to do something of its own thing, capture its story in a fashion that is truly brilliant. Snyder needs to ask, "How can I make a great film in its own right, not just a great adaptation?"

And I'm not sure Snyder is up to the job. I'm just not sure he's enough of a cinematic artist to really produce something that's going to stand the ages as one of the great pieces of film. DAWN OF THE DEAD and 300 doesn't exactly point to Snyder being the next Stanley Kubrick.

 

[Mercurius]

You really think so? Agree to disagree. Even just taking The Fellowship of the Ring, personally, I think there's way more material, detail, and nuance in that book than in Watchmen. Not in terms of density, but in sheer volume. Likewise, even just taking Godfather I, (that's what I meant, not the trilogy) I think the storyline is somewhat more complex and subtle than Watchmen's is. And much like Watchmen, it's filled with all kinds of tidbits, allusions, etc.. Neither of these films is as complicated in presentation as Watchmen (they're fairly linear), but if I'm understanding you correctly that's not what we're discussing.

(BTW the LOTR movies were 3 hours, except ROTK was 3.5.)



That's a valid opinion, no need to debate it. Personally I think what we're seeing is reassuring, but you're obviously entitled to your opinion.


I thought you were trying to argue that the quotes would be too difficult to implement in the movie, not that you were saying how important they were.

Of course they have great thematic significance; I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But so does everything else in Watchmen. Personally, if I had to choose between all the chapter-end quotes, and the one line "Nothing ends", I'd take the one line. They're kinda like the Black Freighter (which we're actually getting; props to Snyder), in that their main purpose is to give a little more philosophical comparison to the main plot. But the main plot is thematically rich enough by itself that it can survive without them, without the whole work being much diminished. My opinion of course. See where I'm coming from?

About Doc... as far as any of us know, the vast majority of his lines and actions will be intact, so I'm not quite sure what you mean.

About the movies: we agree to disagree, surely, because I don't see in a book like The Fellowship of the Ring or in Puzo's account of the Corleone saga anything so purposedly entangled like Watchmen.

I see it more like Agentsands over here in his post, the same concerns.

But I see your point and, although we disagree, it's fine.

 

[The Guard]

And I'm not sure Snyder is up to the job. I'm just not sure he's enough of a cinematic artist to really produce something that's going to stand the ages as one of the great pieces of film.

He may not have to be, if he can get the visuals right, and we've seen that he understands the nature of the visuals in the graphic novel and their relation to the text. The script contains all the story, thematic, and relevant elements...and the script has them intact. Just watching this production unfold has made it very clear to me that Snyder and his crew understand the nature of WATCHMEN. They may not bring it "all" to screen, but they're damn sure going to try.

 

[Agentsands77]

He may not have to be, if he can get the visuals right, and we've seen that he understands the nature of the visuals in the graphic novel and their relation to the text.

Sure. He understands them. But can he adapt them in a brilliant way? I'm not sure he can. His last two films were hardly works of mature visual poetry, and what I've seen of the film so far (which is admittedly not much) doesn't fill me with confidence.

The script contains all the story, thematic, and relevant elements...and the script has them intact.

Which version of the script are we talking about here?

Just watching this production unfold has made it very clear to me that Snyder and his crew understand the nature of WATCHMEN.

Oh, if it fails it's not because of a lack of effort, respect, or understanding. It will be because Snyder and his cast just doesn't have what it takes to make a true artistic masterpiece.

 

[The Guard]

Sure. He understands them. But can he adapt them in a brilliant way?

What does that even mean?

I'm not sure he can. His last two films were hardly works of mature visual poetry, and what I've seen of the film so far (which is admittedly not much) doesn't fill me with confidence.

I guess the question would be "What are you looking for visually"?

Which version of the script are we talking about here?

Well, I can't speak for Snyder's on set revisions...

Oh, if it fails it's not because of a lack of effort, respect, or understanding. It will be because Snyder and his cast just doesn't have what it takes to make a true artistic masterpiece.

And what does it take, in the context of WATCHMEN, to make a true artistic masterpiece?

Let's make this easy. You tell me what you would like to see in WATCHMEN. The brilliant elements that must exist.

 

[Agentsands77]

What does that even mean?

It's one thing to replicate an image. It's another to replicate it well. For example, I think Robert Rodriguez' SIN CITY was really spotty in how it handled adapting the visuals of Frank Miller. And I wasn't too enthralled with the take Snyder had on 300's visuals, either.

I guess the question would be "What are you looking for visually"?

I guess something like a cross between BLADE RUNNER, ALIEN, and 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. A really careful, meticulous directorial style that's never flashy or overly sentimental, but is always impressive visually.

I also don't think it will do to transfer Gibbon's art to the screen. I have thought for some time that to work on screen, the look of WATCHMEN would have to be entirely reimagined to give it a sense of reality. I was happier with what Greengrass was described as doing with the visual look of the film (not that I was happy with all aspects of the Greengrass incarnation of WATCHMEN, mind you).

Well, I can't speak for Snyder's on set revisions...

That close, huh? Lucky you. How big an improvement over the really mediocre Tse draft #1 (the last one I read) are we looking at?

Some of the stuff I really missed in the first Tse draft was actually seeing Blake's conversation with Moloch, Rorschach's unique take on language and his "Coke in green glass bottles" speech, and a more faithful take on the "Watchmaker" chapter. And, in general, I thought Tse's dialogue was awkward.

You tell me what you would like to see in WATCHMEN.

Well, beyond what I've already mentioned, I'd like a great cast that will give really natural performances.

 

[The Guard]

I guess something like a cross between BLADE RUNNER, ALIEN, and 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. A really careful, meticulous directorial style that's never flashy or overly sentimental, but is always impressive visually.

Wouldn't something like this be informed by the source material itself? This looks like a movie where Snyder will slow down a bit.

I also don't think it will do to transfer Gibbon's art to the screen. I have thought for some time that to work on screen, the look of WATCHMEN would have to be entirely reimagined to give it a sense of reality. I was happier with what Greengrass was described as doing with the visual look of the film (not that I was happy with all aspects of the Greengrass incarnation of WATCHMEN, mind you).

It would appear Snyder has taken a similar approach to what Greengrass was. Adapting each scene, but not neccessarily panel by panel, or with the exact same visuals. However, certain moments of key visual symmetry apparently still exist.

That close, huh? Lucky you. How big an improvement over the really mediocre Tse draft #1 (the last one I read) are we looking at?

It depends on what you disliked about Tse's original draft. His later ones were better. What they've done to "transform" the story is go back to Sam Hamm's basic draft and build from there.

No, not really. They've taken David Hayter's basic draft and made it more faithful in general. A lot of the "additional" elements Hayter incorporated originally are there, but they feel a lot less forced and awkward now. There's more kinetic action, but less action overall, if that makes sense. Much of the "gratuitous action" has been cut. It's generally a lot more faithful in every category.

Some of the stuff I really missed in the first Tse draft was actually seeing Blake's conversation with Moloch, Rorschach's unique take on language and his "Coke in green glass bottles" speech, and a more faithful take on the "Watchmaker" chapter. And, in general, I thought Tse's dialogue was awkward.

Blake's conversation with Moloch is back, albeit shortened and toned down from Hayter's "religious psychopath" angle. Depending on the execution, it could work well, as it feels less like a "random flashback" and more like Moloch's memory of it.

What did you miss most about "Watchmaker"? I would say that its elements are much more faithful now. They've also added more of Wallace Weaver, which works well.

There are more of Rorschach's journal entries. Coke bottles is there, as is heroin and child pornography, albeit in a different manner. Rorschach's syntax...comes and goes, as it does in the graphic novel, but not in the same places. I think it's been done for dramatic effect, not just to do it. I would say that where it needs to be "his", it is. And I'd wager Snyder will have addressed that on set. Rorschach in general feels more interesting and relevant to the story again.

What did you find awkward about Tse's dialogue, exactly?

Well, beyond what I've already mentioned, I'd like a great cast that will give really natural performances.

I can't complain on that front. The actors he's assembled are pretty capable.

 

[Agentsands77]

Wouldn't something like this be informed by the source material itself?

Maybe, maybe not.

It would appear Snyder has taken a similar approach to what Greengrass was. Adapting each scene, but not neccessarily panel by panel, or with the exact same visuals. However, certain moments of key visual symmetry apparently still exist.

What I meant is that Greengrass was turning WATCHMEN into something hyper-real. He was kind of doing what Nolan did to Batman: Karnak was going to be a kind of military bunker, for example.

Blake's conversation with Moloch is back, albeit shortened and toned down from Hayter's "religious psychopath" angle. Depending on the execution, it could work well, as it feels less like a "random flashback" and more like Moloch's memory of it.

Hmm. Can't tell without reading it, but it sounds like an improvement.

What did you miss most about "Watchmaker"?

Well, this was Tse draft #1. Dr. Manhattan's narration was gone (which was a huge loss, given that it was his narration that communicated a lot of the philosophical questions behind it), the flashbacks were put in chronological order and didn't communicate the way Dr. Manhattan experiences time all at once, the flashbacks to his father weren't there, so forth and so on.

There are more of Rorschach's journal entries. Coke bottles is there, as is heroin and child pornography, albeit in a different manner. Rorschach's syntax...comes and goes, as it does in the graphic novel, but not in the same places. I think it's been done for dramatic effect, not just to do it. I would say that where it needs to be "his", it is. And I'd wager Snyder will have addressed that on set. Rorschach in general feels more interesting and relevant to the story again.

Well, that's all good.

What did you find awkward about Tse's dialogue, exactly?

In different places, it felt like stuff that wouldn't actually be said by normal people - "movie dialogue." That's not make-or-break (a good actor can deliver awkward lines and make them sound great), but it was there in the Tse draft I read.

I can't complain on that front. The actors he's assembled are pretty capable.

A lot of them are. I don't so much have a problem with the cast, but I do wonder how Snyder will guide them in their performances. Snyder's handle on drama in his past two movies hasn't been stellar (though his past two films were very different from WATCHMEN, which is what makes it so hard to assess his suitability for this project).

 

[CaptainGenerica]

About the movies: we agree to disagree, surely, because I don't see in a book like The Fellowship of the Ring or in Puzo's account of the Corleone saga anything so purposedly entangled like Watchmen.

I see it more like Agentsands over here in his post, the same concerns.

But I see your point and, although we disagree, it's fine.

I think we just might be emphasizing different things when we're talking about how complicated or entangled something is, quite frankly. But that's okay.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

The problem with WATCHMEN is that if you sacrifice most of the subtleties and nuances of WATCHMEN, you're left with a core story that's merely good. What makes WATCHMEN one of the greatest graphic novels is the amount of complexity with which it handles its subject. It's what Alan Moore does on top of that core story - how he expands upon it, building layer upon layer, adding detour to detour - that makes it great.

I guess my feeling is that I don't think as much of the greatness will end up being lost as some of the more pessimistic people do. This probably just comes from my own personal opinion of Watchmen, that is, which parts I think are great, and which parts I think are just good. For example, most of the strictly comic-book elements of Watchmen are things I just don't put that much weight on. The parts that are more easily adaptable, as it happens, are the parts I like.

That is one of my concerns for WATCHMEN. There's an automatic loss in the translation of the comic to film. It's a difference of medium - you can be more complex and free with a graphic novel. So what Snyder has to do is make it truly cinematic, so that it does what the graphic novel couldn't. It's not enough to just create the Cliff's Notes version of Moore's novel. The film has to do something of its own thing, capture its story in a fashion that is truly brilliant. Snyder needs to ask, "How can I make a great film in its own right, not just a great adaptation?"

Right on. No argument.

And I'm not sure Snyder is up to the job. I'm just not sure he's enough of a cinematic artist to really produce something that's going to stand the ages as one of the great pieces of film. DAWN OF THE DEAD and 300 doesn't exactly point to Snyder being the next Stanley Kubrick.

Quite frankly, I'm not so sure either. But it's been all good news so far (in my opinion), plus I'm just a benefit-of-the-doubt kinda guy.

 

[8blades]

The Creator has distanced and washed his hands off the project which means that it is pointless and meaningless and I can't care about it.

Stick with the graphic novel

 

[Axtech]

The Creator has distanced and washed his hands off the project which means that it is pointless and meaningless and I can't care about it.

Stick with the graphic novel

Seriously? You refuse to give it a chance because Moore, who doesn't like anything, doesn't like it? Before it's finished? Despite the fact that all signs are pointing to this being an extremely accurate adaptation in keeping with the major themes and philosophical standings of the original?

That seems to me like an unfoundedly pessimistic point of view. Why not see the movie and judge for yourself, instead of jumping on board with Moore's premature dismissal?

 

[CaptainGenerica]

The Creator has distanced and washed his hands off the project which means that it is pointless and meaningless and I can't care about it.

Stick with the graphic novel

Alan Moore did.
Dave Gibbons didn't though. So that's something.

 

[8blades]

Sorry, but the greatness of Watchmen is in the story...not the art. Most guys who are not into comics never talk about the artwork but only the story. So Dave Gibbons visiting the set ain't much...it's all about the brains behind that genius of a wheel.

 

[The Battousai]

Sorry, but the greatness of Watchmen is in the story...not the art. Most guys who are not into comics never talk about the artwork but only the story. So Dave Gibbons visiting the set ain't much...it's all about the brains behind that genius of a wheel.

Do you hear that ringing? Wait a second...

Hello?

Yes - he's right here.



What?

Look, don't yell at me!

*sigh*


Here - it's for you (he sounds mad)

 

[Axtech]

Sorry, but the greatness of Watchmen is in the story...not the art. Most guys who are not into comics never talk about the artwork but only the story. So Dave Gibbons visiting the set ain't much...it's all about the brains behind that genius of a wheel.

Even so, the fact that Moore would rather preemptively sulk than give anyone else a chance with his work doesn't mean they didn't get the story and Moore's messages right.

 

[8blades]

Basically, this project is BS. No Moore Watchmen Snyder Movie

 

[I Am The Knight]

Wow. He didn't even try.

 

[Axtech]

Basically, this project is BS. No Moore Watchmen Snyder Movie

How so? I'm really curious about your reasoning for being so entirely pessimistic about it (besides the fact that Moore doesn't approve, since his preemptive disapproval has absolutely nothing to do with the potential or actual quality of the movie).

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

How so? I'm really curious about your reasoning for being so entirely pessimistic about it (besides the fact that Moore doesn't approve, since his preemptive disapproval has absolutely nothing to do with the potential or actual quality of the movie).

That's a preemptive approval of Moore's preemptive disapproval.