Are fans right or wrong to criticise the direction of this movie?

[Sandman138]

Actually, you could probably do all of those easily in movies, except instead of static pictures, people would be moving in each individual little box. You could do the first example in a movie, it would just require special effects, and you'd actually show the cat jumping into each panel instead of standing there.

The second example has already been done, just watch Ang Lee's Hulk, or if you want to go older then that Andromeda Strain. Both those movies have scenes where the main action is overlayed with many small boxes that contain people doing other things. Like I said, it would look just like those examples, except the people would actually be moving in the pictures.

Now, granted, it's much easier on the eyes and much less busy in comics because the images aren't moving, but you could still do it in a movie.

No it can't. Because the movement through those pictures dictates a linear reading that is not inherent in any of those layouts save the first. In the second layout, while the the dog and his panels move forward horizontally, all those moments that happen vertically are happening at the same moment instantaneously. By the time we get to the cat, it the linear movement of the soldiers is quickly torn asunder by a myriad of panels all happening at once in a bloody cluster****. Movies could potentially imitate this but because cinema's primary mover is time (frames per second) instead of space (panel to panel) these moments would go by much too fast to be read the way they are in comics.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Not it can't. Because the movement through those pictures dictates a linear reading that is not inherent in any of those layouts save the first. In the second layout, while the the dog and his panels move forward horizontally, all those moments that happen vertically are happening at the same moment instantaneously. By the time we get to the cat, it the linear movement of the soldiers is quickly torn asunder by a myriad of panels all happening at once in a bloody cluster****. Movies could potentially imitate this but because cinema's primary mover is time (frames per second) instead of space (panel to panel) these moments would go by much too fast to be read the way they are in comics.

Actually, yes it could work in a movie. It wouldn't be that hard really. You'd have the wide shot of the dog in the van, and at the same time all the overlayed boxes with action happening in them. Just like what they did in the Hulk movie. In that they had one big background picture where something was happening, while at the same time overlaying that picture with many small boxes that each had action happening in them at the same time. It was the same thing that's happening in that comic, except instead of static pictures, there was movement going on. They also did it in the movie The Andromeda strain.

Now, like I said before, I wouldn't recommend doing this in a movie since it comes off very cluttered, and as you said in action sequences like the one where the cat is shooting off all the projectiles it would move by very fast and hard to take it. So it certainly works better in the comics, but you could still do it in a movie if you wanted to.

 

[Sandman138]

Actually, yes it could work in a movie. It wouldn't be that hard really. You'd have the wide shot of the dog in the van, and at the same time all the overlayed boxes with action happening in them. Just like what they did in the Hulk movie. In that they had one big background picture where something was happening, while at the same time overlaying that picture with many small boxes that each had action happening in them at the same time. It was the same thing that's happening in that comic, except instead of static pictures, there was movement going on. They also did it in the movie The Andromeda strain.

Now, like I said before, I wouldn't recommend doing this in a movie since it comes off very cluttered, and as you said in action sequences like the one where the cat is shooting off all the projectiles it would move by very fast and hard to take it. So it certainly works better in the comics, but you could still do it in a movie if you wanted to.

It doesn't work the same way because we code time differently for the two different mediums. In movies, one frame equals one moment in time, but in comics a panel occupies it's own space in time and their physical properties -- size, shape, orientation -- determine the temporal relationships and/or their relative importance to the larger schema of the scene. This is why when the hulk jumps from panel to panel in a film it looks idiotic but it reads like natural movement through space and time on a comic book page.

 

[The Guard]

Different mediums. Isn't that half the attraction of WATCHMEN becoming a movie? Because a movie can do what the book did not in some ways?

 

[Infinity9999x]

It doesn't work the same way because we code time differently for the two different mediums. In movies, one frame equals one moment in time, but in comics a panel occupies it's own space in time and their physical properties -- size, shape, orientation -- determine the temporal relationships and/or their relative importance to the larger schema of the scene. This is why when the hulk jumps from panel to panel in a film it looks idiotic but it reads like natural movement through space and time on a comic book page.

I agree, I was just saying that you could recreate the example you posted, I never was saying that it would look good. I really didn't like the way they incorporated it into Hulk, it was too distracting, and as you said, it just looked dumb.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

I agree that it would be at the very least a challenge for movies to pull something like those examples off effectively, even though similar things have been done, as mentioned above. It is true that movie versions of such arrangements are iffy, but truth be told, those pages are confusing as hell--one might even argue that comics don't even always pull them off effectively.

But the point is, comic books' use of complex arrangements of panels is just one thing. And it is a rare thing. 95% of comic book pages consist more or less of a series of panels in chronological order. Watchmen, to my recollection, doesn't do anything approaching the level of complexity found in the examples you posted, and if it does on maybe a handful of occasions, there are other ways to convey the same information. You could, y'know, "adapt" the story to the new medium. It won't be the same obviously, but it will certainly be interesting, and (in my opinion) worthwhile.

 

[Sandman138]

Hey Guard,I was reading back through this thread, and I really liked where our debate was going so I'd like to resurrect it if you don't mind.

But the journals are all exclusively voice over going on while screen time is already being taken up by action. Hayter understood that and was able to keep much of Rorschach's journal entries intact.

Hayter included some of it. He cut a lot of it, too.

I don't mind trimming the fat. What I mind is changing it and what I mind especially is getting rid of Rorschach's progressive syntactic regression. I would point you to Christopher McCandless, whose journal entries became little more than one word statements during the final stretch of his fatal journey into the Alaskan wilderness. How does Rorschach see the world, and how does he adapt to this vision of reality? A big clue to that is his voice and his journals.

It does when the man who dies and the man who kills him are wearing super suits. Hell, in every script I read the confrontation goes something like this:

Veidt: Why would you sacrifice utopia?
Dan: Because it's the right thing to do.
Veidt: I'd like to say you're making a mistake, but the truth is I was just going to kill all of you in the morning.

That is so morally ambiguous.

Not when Veidt's reason for killing them is to cover up what he did, and maintain world peace. How is it any worse than when Veidt kills his assistants, or his "assassin", or any of the people who worked on his "monster" project?
It's not.

Oh come on! We are not talking about the ending to Breathless or Apocalypse Now. This is not a death to contemplate over a strong cup of British tea in your study. It's a nice Superhero show-down, complete with heroic one-liners, mustache twirling, and a blockbuster death where the inglorious bastard dies in a gruesome enough manner that we all feel comfortable that he got his just dessert. That is all Veidt's death could ever be because if they change it, it will have been to fit a formula. We all know this. It is the way producers operate. The kind of money they are throwing around does not come without some assurance that it can at the very least be paid back to the film's financiers, and going with what has historically put people in seats always seems like the safest option. Here though, that ruins everything about Watchmen because Watchmen is, in part, a commentary on that formula.

I'm only 21 and I know it. All my friends who took American History and Civics know it too. None of us were alive for his presidency.

With all due respect, you are not "everyone".

Well, thank you. However, I believe that there are enough people that will be able to understand these political significances. Be they critics, college professors, college students, or the rare kid who either payed attention in high school history and civics or just read up on her own. I know this because I have frequently found intelligent and informed historical and political discussions in venues ranging from friends I grew up with, to UMass keg parties, to internet forums.

You're the one that is missing the point. The point is not that Dr. Manhattan and The Comedian are America's secret weapon, the point is how that fact effects America.

I kind of thought that was implied. Again, to see how the "secret weapons" affect America, you don't have to have Nixon as President in the 80's.

That's exactly what you should be doing. Noticing how the emergence of superheroes has changed this world from the one that we know. In the real world the 22nd Amendment was never repealed, but here it was? Why? Because, in large part, we won Vietnam. But I guess since this isn't he real world, Vietnam isn't essential to the story. It could have been an East Asian Hydra that we fought on a lunar base... so long as the themes were the same.

To a point. I'm not saying that real world elements shouldn't be cited, I'm just saying the same themes and relevance could exist without doing so.
As for the main theme, yes, the politics are extremely important. But that is not the overarching theme of WATCHMEN. It's more a background element, a way to make the heroes relevant.

But you can't because Moore makes such a point of intertwining the politics with superheores. Indeed, superheroes have always been paragons of the state.

And Moore is examining this relationship every step of the way. The Comedian fights in the Pacific during WWII, and as a result he is the only hero who survives public scrutiny during the beginning of the McCarthy era. Meanwhile, the Silhouette is exposed as a lesbian and murdered along with her lover. Hooded Justice is dissapeared, most likely by the Comedian who has been groomed into America's hero while he has also become a political assassin. This saves Captain Metropolis from scandal should anybody find out about his sexual relationship with the deceased and he is able to slide on his own record as a Marine. The rest of them either retire with some semblance of grace or destroy themselves.

Already, we have a model of the superhero's relationship to political and military institutions. With the discovery of the atomic bomb there is the birth of a foreign policy that is expansionist, we also see a Republican controlled congress institute the twenty-second amendment. The Korean War is a costly stalemate and Truman is no longer favored in a world where the communists have the atomic bomb. But what if we had a better bomb?

Flash forward to November, 1959. The Kennedy/Nixon race is only a few months away, and on a military research base Dr. Manhattan comes into the world. Bold new frontier indeed. In 1961 Stan Lee and Jack Kirby solidified the silver age by creating a new universe of superheroes spawned by atomic energy. Paragons for the nuclear state. Manhattan is completely out of touch with reality, evidenced by the fact that he lets Kennedy get assassinated. However, Nixon has the balls to try and wield the "American God".

Because we have the better weapon and it gets in the hands of the self-proclaimed "mad bomber" we not only contain the soviets, we push them to a standstill. The Comedian assassinates Woodward and Bernstein so Watergate never happens and the 22nd Amendment gets repealed. And then that brings us back to this:

Dr. Manhattan lets the US win Vietnam and empowers the hawks to continue fighting the USSR in a series of proxy wars that end up pushing us closer to a nuclear holocaust than ever, but they do it anyways because that same moral myth makes the policy legitimate and the people that perpetuate that myth make the policy.

All of it is so intertwined. This is the characters world and it influences them as much as they influence it. Now this is a layer to the story, just like your layer of interpretive nature of meaning arises from the competing points of view ending in a stalemate. Now you don't need the politics to appreciate it at your layer, but that doesn't make the politics insignificant. At a very superficial layer Watchmen is a whodunnit and I think we can both agree that at that layer it is dull and hardly challenging at all. Watchmen is a layered story and all those layers are of consequence to the meaning of the whole. It is possible for films, even films about comics, to be layered. I point in the direction of A History of Violence.

It is easy to dismiss a story about a completely fictional world. What makes divergent history such a great form of science-fiction is that it allows for a commentary on the present by forcing us to face assumptions we have about how we got here. By comparing the world of Watchmen to our own world, a critique emerges not only of superhero comics as a cultural artifact but of American foreign policy that drives that culture. Which brings me to a point that you didn't address last time.

The politics are extremely important. Because we still haven't learned the lessons we should have from the Cold War, and now we are fighting an enemy born out of the Cold War by the same rules. Remember when President Bush met Captain America and Spider-Man at a rally? That is why I am so concerned about this movie. In an age when superhero movies are the newest culture shaping myth, I think it's incredibly important to examine that myth.

And on a final note, what makes you think Tse can write anything close to that sophisticated of a critique? The draft I read was banal and pedestrian even without comparison to the source material. If you have a more recent draft, I would love to see it.

One final note: The only way Rorschach can deal with the reality of the situation at the end of the book is to remove his face, the black and white, right vs. wrong lens through which he views the world.

That's debatable, as he never abandons his black and white view.

Surely you would not deny the power of visual symbolism in Watchmen; to say nothing of the semantic power of a man, his "face" in his trembling hands and tears in his eyes accepting his death.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

Surely you would not deny the power of visual symbolism in Watchmen; to say nothing of the semantic power of a man, his "face" in his trembling hands and tears in his eyes accepting his death.

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents about why he takes off his mask. I've always felt like he removed the face, and chose to die as weak, flawed Walter Kovacs so that the idealized identity of Rorschach could remain immortal, untainted by living in the world created by Veidt. Not an acceptance of death per se, but more like making it happen in a way more acceptable to him.

Thoughts?

 

[Sun_Down]

Some of the "criticisms" I've read here make me realize that many of you not only have no idea how movies are made, but you also have no idea what Watchmen was even about. If you honestly think that updating some of the costumes bastardizes the source material, then you're simply an ignorant, immature little child who's just looking for an excuse to whine and feel like a victim.

 

[EdRyder]

I remember reading back in the 90's of Terry Gilliam's fear of making Watchmen into a film.
In one sense,thats just the way Gilliam is(hes afraid of everything)
But back in the day the project was in his lap and Joel Silver was on-board to produce.The quote was something akin to he secretly hoped Silver couldn't come up with the money because he didn't want to do it.He didn't think you could condense Watchmen into a two hour film because when you did then all the characters lose their personalities(foibles and flaws etc)

Edit:I found The actual article from Starlog Magazine

If Gilliam had gone on to direct the movie for producer Joel Silver, he speculates that it would have been a very expensive failure. " I didn't think we were capable of solving the problems of how you reduce Watchmen to two hours," he says. "As you reduce it, the characters suddenly become like normal superheroes,and lose all of their foibles and frailties.That was bothering me.I was actually relieved that we didn't have to do it.If Joel had come up with the money,we would have had to do it, and then we would have been in really deep.I think we would have gotten ourselves out of it somehow,but thats why these things kind of happen.It isn't just one even that keeps them from happening.I think it was my worries that we weren't going to be able to do it well enough that added to the overall karma."

 

[The Guard]

I don't mind trimming the fat. What I mind is changing it and what I mind especially is getting rid of Rorschach's progressive syntactic regression. I would point you to Christopher McCandless, whose journal entries became little more than one word statements during the final stretch of his fatal journey into the Alaskan wilderness. How does Rorschach see the world, and how does he adapt to this vision of reality? A big clue to that is his voice and his journals.

Agreed. More recent drafts featured a return to his stilted syntax. For the most part.

Oh come on! We are not talking about the ending to Breathless or Apocalypse Now. This is not a death to contemplate over a strong cup of British tea in your study. It's a nice Superhero show-down, complete with heroic one-liners, mustache twirling, and a blockbuster death where the inglorious bastard dies in a gruesome enough manner that we all feel comfortable that he got his just dessert. That is all Veidt's death could ever be because if they change it, it will have been to fit a formula. We all know this. It is the way producers operate. The kind of money they are throwing around does not come without some assurance that it can at the very least be paid back to the film's financiers, and going with what has historically put people in seats always seems like the safest option. Here though, that ruins everything about Watchmen because Watchmen is, in part, a commentary on that formula.

I get where you're coming from. Yes, it's a "showdown". So was Dr. Manhattan bursting in on Veidt. What it began as is irrelevant. That's hardly all it has to be. It doesn't ruin everything about the work. If anything, it opens it up for more discussion. Again, Veidt is painted as a villain pretty clearly. Either you believe his actions were right or wrong, or gray, or you don't care. But simply having no one take revenge on him won't change what people think.

Well, thank you. However, I believe that there are enough people that will be able to understand these political significances. Be they critics, college professors, college students, or the rare kid who either payed attention in high school history and civics or just read up on her own. I know this because I have frequently found intelligent and informed historical and political discussions in venues ranging from friends I grew up with, to UMass keg parties, to internet forums.

That may well be the case...I can't remember the point of discourse over this...
I'm not going to pretend the real world examples of politics and world history aligning with the superhero myth aren't better than making up some random "historical figure", but the story and it's significance could very much exist without the president The Comedian guns down being John F. Kennedy. Kennedy need never have taken office in this world. Still not quite sure how to explain this so that it makes sense.

It is easy to dismiss a story about a completely fictional world. What makes divergent history such a great form of science-fiction is that it allows for a commentary on the present by forcing us to face assumptions we have about how we got here. By comparing the world of Watchmen to our own world, a critique emerges not only of superhero comics as a cultural artifact but of American foreign policy that drives that culture. Which brings me to a point that you didn't address last time.

I won't argue that.

And on a final note, what makes you think Tse can write anything close to that sophisticated of a critique? The draft I read was banal and pedestrian even without comparison to the source material. If you have a more recent draft, I would love to see it.

I don't know that it has to be "sophisticated" as much as it has to be socially and historically relevant. What makes th euse of Nixon work so well in WATCHMEN is not how brilliantly it's carried out, but what it's inclusion and placement in the story says about the foreign policy of a superpower.

Surely you would not deny the power of visual symbolism in Watchmen; to say nothing of the semantic power of a man, his "face" in his trembling hands and tears in his eyes accepting his death.

I'm not debating the power of visual symbolism in WATCHMEN. What I will debate is whether or not Rorschach ever abandons his black and white view. I fully believe that he takes off the mask because he no longer needs it. If he had abandoned his black and white worldview, he would have relented, and compromised. He does not. Dr. Manhattan gives him the opportunity to, and he still does not.
When he removes that mask, it is not because there is no longer any black and white, it's because he simply doesn't need the mask to be who he was all along. Rorschach, and Rorschach's point of view, is who Walter Kovacs is. He's not crying because he's about to die. He's crying because of how out of step the world, indeed, his "world" has become with his most treasured worldviews. Because there is no room in that world for someone who will not compromise his morality and his beliefs. Because the beliefs he held throughout his life are clearly no longer valued as heroic ideals. And because heroes have become the evildoers in his mind.

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents about why he takes off his mask. I've always felt like he removed the face, and chose to die as weak, flawed Walter Kovacs so that the idealized identity of Rorschach could remain immortal, untainted by living in the world created by Veidt. Not an acceptance of death per se, but more like making it happen in a way more acceptable to him.

Thoughts?

Could be, but I don't think he was even thinking on that level.

Some of the "criticisms" I've read here make me realize that many of you not only have no idea how movies are made, but you also have no idea what Watchmen was even about. If you honestly think that updating some of the costumes bastardizes the source material, then you're simply an ignorant, immature little child who's just looking for an excuse to whine and feel like a victim.

Heh.

As much as I respect his work, I never bought Gilliam's words. And I never will. I think he just couldn't figure out how to make it work in the context of a 1980's or 90's movie.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

Some of the "criticisms" I've read here make me realize that many of you not only have no idea how movies are made, but you also have no idea what Watchmen was even about. If you honestly think that updating some of the costumes bastardizes the source material, then you're simply an ignorant, immature little child who's just looking for an excuse to whine and feel like a victim.

I gotta say I agree with you.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

I keep seeing Batman being brought up in rebuttals against those who criticize Watchmen. The Batman argument holds no water because Batman has seen countless story adaptations and countess visual interpretation. Batman is a character with no one clear defining source.

However Watchmen is one story, with this movie being the only interpretation. Therefore the stakes are extremely high to get the film adaptation spot on. People have very high expectations for what Watchmen should be, and those expectations are also not unrealistic nor should they be ignored.

To be honest, I haven't read any of the Watchmen scripts, so straight up I have no idea what this thing is about the ending being changed (if someone could clue me in though, I'd very much appreciate it). Whatever the change is, it's obviously a strain on the expectations of those who would want the absolute best for the story. Can you really blame them? Changing something around for something like Batman is perfectly fine, again as he's had 69 years of consistently released material that constantly varies in story and image. But Watchmen is still only one story, and people just don't want it to be plundered of just what is instantly gratifying about it. It might not be, but try and understand where that viewpoint is coming from. V for Vendetta was a great movie, but honestly it is a watered-down interpretation of its source. That cannot be denied, and for some people who really really love that story, that's kind of a drag.

I never read a Watchmen comic book in my life,but I do know this,if there was only one interpretation of The Watchmen,then this movie wouldn't have been made. So IMO you are wrong on the count by stating there is only one interpretation of The Watchmen. The making of the movie has been crafted with precision and filmed accordingly to the people who were involved in making it.

 

[Sandman138]

^ you are wrong. in every sense of the word: W-R-O-N-G.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

^ you are wrong. in every sense of the word: W-R-O-N-G.

Hmm,well if you ignore the concept of The Watchmen movie,then I agree that there is only one interpretation of The Watchmen.
The keyword is if!!!

 

[Sandman138]

Watchmen is a self contained work. Any interpretations to be made arise from the story as it is. There is no continuity to pick and choose from. It is a layered work, to be sure. However, the work stands on its own.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

I think S.A.A.D. is trying to get at the idea that if Watchmen was a completely rigid, set-in-stone thing as far as interpretations go, then it couldn't possibly be altered in any way, let alone interpreted in another medium. The fact that someone is in fact reinterpreting it means that, by definition, there is some wiggle room to work with (if only because Snyder's putting it there).

Sounds a bit tautological maybe, but I see where S.A.A.D. is coming from (I think).