Is it as important as the comic?

[Catman]

Watchmen is one of the most important and influential comic books of all time. So...what about the movie?

1. Is the movie also important in the genre or was it released too late?
2. Did another movie already accomplish the task?
3. Where does the movie rank in the genre?

Discuss.

 

[StorminNorman]

How can you rate the importance of this film the day after it was released?

As far as how it ranks in the genre, IMO it blows The Dark Knight out of the water. The Dark Knight was a good adaptation, and a great film. Watchmen is not only a great film, but a perfect adaptation.

 

[Temple Fugate]

1. not really. it just fills the slot of "watchmen movie"

2. yes. TDK has changed lives and cured cancer

3. in the genre? ehh top %65?

 

[[A]]

no one says please anymore..?

 

[DACrowe]

Who knows what effect it will have on mainstream culture, if any. Time will tell. It was a good movie, I thought TDK was better and maybe a few other superhero movies, I'm going to have to watch Watchmen again before I can rank it. But it is the first superhero movie to be so unconventional and so blatantly deal with philosophical topics. Albeit, TDK was a fairly dense movie as well, but it was more of a crowd pleaser (it was also better paced and directed). Time will tell if Watchmen changes the way viewers watch superhero movies. I suspect it won't, but we'll see.

 

[Drizzle]

1. I think it is extremely important. It's a testament to show how far comic book movies have come. It's also important because it accomplished the task of filming the "unfilmable" and succeeding as a faithful adaptation.

2. No. No other comic movie has accomplished what "Watchmen" did. Sure, "Sin City" and "300" were extremely faithful to the material, but those were walks in the park compared to the task that was adapting "Watchmen" into a film and making it work.

3. I loved "Watchmen" and "The Dark Knight" equally. I think they're the best of what the genre has to offer. Personally, I'd put them in two categories. "Watchmen" is the best comic book film and "The Dark Knight" is the best superhero film, if that makes any sense. To me, superhero movies and comic book movies can be extremely different. For example, "The Dark Knight" is a superhero film, but it isn't based on any particular Batman comic. Sure, it draws inspiration from stuff like "The Long Halloween", but I still regard TDK as a superhero movie first and a comic book movie second. Then you have comic films that have nothing to do with superheroes, like the aforementioned "300" and "Sin City". So there's a difference right there. However, since "Watchmen" is a movie based on a comic book about superheroes, it falls into both categories. In my opinion, I see "Watchmen" as a well-done adaptation of a comic book first and a superhero movie second. It's strange, but that's how I feel. It's also my way of chickening out of choosing which is better between TDK and Watchmen.

 

[Gamma Ray]

I don't think Marvel will be able to get away with a lot of the BS they've been doing recently as a result of DCs latest stuff, which I guess is good for the genre.

 

[redfirebird2008]

How can you rate the importance of this film the day after it was released?

As far as how it ranks in the genre, IMO it blows The Dark Knight out of the water. The Dark Knight was a good adaptation, and a great film. Watchmen is not only a great film, but a perfect adaptation.

Not a perfect adaptation. A perfect adaptation would have featured better acting for Ozy and Laurie. And the God-awful music choices by Snyder wouldn't have been in there. Don't even me started on that.

 

[Rac]

1. Is the movie also important in the genre or was it released too late?
Nah

2. Did another movie already accomplish the task?
Nolan's Bat flicks? Blade?

3. Where does the movie rank in the genre?
Somewhat above medicore.

 

[Drizzle]

2. Did another movie already accomplish the task?
Nolan's Bat flicks? Blade?

You're actually comparing "Watchmen" to "Blade"?

 

[Anita18]

Since the comic was ground-breaking in its original portrayal of superheroes, the movie can't live up to that since it's as close a literal translation as one could imagine.

It's ground-breaking for superhero movies in that regard, but not nearly as much as the comic was. In terms of film, it's a lot more violent and ambiguous than most superhero movies, although its box office performance will be a more important factor in its influence on the genre, rather than the fact it exists at all. I mean sure, you can put in as much violence as you want, but if it doesn't equal more business, it won't catch on.

Also, even though the plot of the Watchmen comic is fairly simple, the world it portrays and the structure of the storytelling are the things that made it timeless. Snyder succeeded in the first point, but only a virtuoso structure-based storyteller could have handled the second. I felt the genius of the comic's structure was lost in the movie, and I don't know if simply inserting Tales of the Black Freighter will make it up.

Ironically, I think Nolan would have been the most appropriate writer/director to give more oomph to the structure, even though I expect he would have stripped the story down to its bones and then built it back up, like they did for The Prestige.

I guess it's all comes down to which part of Watchmen you want to emphasize. In terms of look, it really couldn't have been done better. In terms of story, it's a lesson that following a compelling comic panel-for-panel doesn't mean a film will be as equally compelling.

 

[CelticPredator]

Blade? No.

 

[Rac]

You're actually comparing "Watchmen" to "Blade"?

I don't actually know what the task was to accomplish, so I assumed "Make people take comic book movies seriously and adultish".

 

[Paradoxium]

Since the comic was ground-breaking in its original portrayal of superheroes, the movie can't live up to that since it's as close a literal translation as one could imagine.

It's ground-breaking for superhero movies in that regard, but not nearly as much as the comic was. In terms of film, it's a lot more violent and ambiguous than most superhero movies, although its box office performance will be a more important factor in its influence on the genre, rather than the fact it exists at all. I mean sure, you can put in as much violence as you want, but if it doesn't equal more business, it won't catch on.

Also, even though the plot of the Watchmen comic is fairly simple, the world it portrays and the structure of the storytelling are the things that made it timeless. Snyder succeeded in the first point, but only a virtuoso structure-based storyteller could have handled the second. I felt the genius of the comic's structure was lost in the movie, and I don't know if simply inserting Tales of the Black Freighter will make it up.

Ironically, I think Nolan would have been the most appropriate writer/director to give more oomph to the structure, even though I expect he would have stripped the story down to its bones and then built it back up, like they did for The Prestige.

I guess it's all comes down to which part of Watchmen you want to emphasize. In terms of look, it really couldn't have been done better. In terms of story, it's a lesson that following a compelling comic panel-for-panel doesn't mean a film will be as equally compelling.

I think you are giving Nolan a weee too much credit. Guy is very cerebral and all, but he doesn't have much of a visual flare, that's why he compensates by doing the realistic things. Not that there is anything wrong with that, he is playing on his strengths. It is very likely the film he would make would be too long, boring and bland... I can't imagine a Watchmen movie retaining the qualities and structure of its original medium. Granted I haven't seen the film, in fact I dunno if I am going to. Not cause I am hating on Synder, but because of this very point.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Ironically, I think Nolan would have been the most appropriate writer/director to give more oomph to the structure, even though I expect he would have stripped the story down to its bones and then built it back up, like they did for The Prestige.

I guess it's all comes down to which part of Watchmen you want to emphasize. In terms of look, it really couldn't have been done better. In terms of story, it's a lesson that following a compelling comic panel-for-panel doesn't mean a film will be as equally compelling.

Bingo.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I think you are giving Nolan a weee too much credit. Guy is very cerebral and all, but he doesn't have much of a visual flare, that's why he compensates by doing the realistic things. Not that there is anything wrong with that, he is playing on his strengths. It is very likely the film he would make would be too long, boring and bland...

Visual flair? You mean like this?

Yeah, that's boring and ugly.

 

[Paradoxium]

Sexy shots doesn't mean he has the flair down. He has a certain style that he excels at, but he is somewhat limited for the lack of better words. Nolan would not be the type of guy I want for an example, filming Lord of the Rings, Aliens or Hellboy. But the balance of plot and character he is good at. Often I find some comic book movies overwhelm on character and forget about plot.

The style of Watchmen is just as important of a layer on top of the structure and pacing.

 

[Drizzle]

I don't actually know what the task was to accomplish, so I assumed "Make people take comic book movies seriously and adultish".

I still credit "X-Men" with that, because most people still don't even know that Blade was based on a comic book.

 

[Rac]

I still credit "X-Men" with that, because most people still don't even know that Blade was based on a comic book.

Yeah, I was thinking about that.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Sexy shots doesn't mean he has the flair down. He has a certain style that he excels at, but he is somewhat limited for the lack of better words. Nolan would not be the type of guy I want for an example, filming Lord of the Rings, Aliens or Hellboy. But the balance of plot and character he is good at. Often I find some comic book movies overwhelm on character and forget about plot.

The style of Watchmen is just as important of a layer on top of the structure and pacing.

CGI is what it boils down to then. Nolan tries to avoid it. This bothers you. I find that amusing. t:

 

[Anita18]

I think you are giving Nolan a weee too much credit. Guy is very cerebral and all, but he doesn't have much of a visual flare, that's why he compensates by doing the realistic things. Not that there is anything wrong with that, he is playing on his strengths. It is very likely the film he would make would be too long, boring and bland... I can't imagine a Watchmen movie retaining the qualities and structure of its original medium. Granted I haven't seen the film, in fact I dunno if I am going to. Not cause I am hating on Synder, but because of this very point.

That's what I meant. I'm pegging Nolan as a structure-based storyteller, not a visual one. TDK is a gorgeously-shot film, but it doesn't have the visual flair of a Snyder or Burton.

If we wanted the most compelling version of Watchmen on screen, I'm saying the holy grail would be would be Nolan for story/structure, and Snyder for the look. But that's a what-if sort of nitpick. I'm amazed the Watchmen we got was as good as it was.

 

[inflames]

and it may get better, with under the hood and BF and the director's cut

 

[Anita18]

and it may get better, with under the hood and BF and the director's cut

Hard to say if it would help the pacing. I'm thinking more along the lines of Adrian, Dan, and Jon's flashbacks of the Comedian at his funeral. It flows beautifully on the page, but on screen, it feels episodic and the movie's flow grinds to a halt.

And I'm really not sure if a Watchmen newbie would understand the parallels of the movie's story to Tales of the Black Freighter if he didn't see them both on the page interacting directly with each other.

 

[inflames]

Hard to say if it would help the pacing. I'm thinking more along the lines of Adrian, Dan, and Jon's flashbacks of the Comedian at his funeral. It flows beautifully on the page, but on screen, it feels episodic and the movie's flow grinds to a halt.

And I'm really not sure if a Watchmen newbie would understand the parallels of the movie's story to Tales of the Black Freighter if he didn't see them both on the page interacting directly with each other.

well I did say may haha. To me this movie was almost completely fan service.

 

[Paradoxium]

That's what I meant. I'm pegging Nolan as a structure-based storyteller, not a visual one. TDK is a gorgeously-shot film, but it doesn't have the visual flair of a Snyder or Burton.

If we wanted the most compelling version of Watchmen on screen, I'm saying the holy grail would be would be Nolan for story/structure, and Snyder for the look. But that's a what-if sort of nitpick. I'm amazed the Watchmen we got was as good as it was.

To clarify (my fault) I think the two are intertwined (for a story like Watchmen). The flair keeps the audience interested and paced to the story. Though I admit you could separate eye candy flairs to plot only in the bad way. But I see your point.

This actually makes his upcoming film Inception interesting, it doesn't sound like another grounded cerebral film, the whole scifi element sounds good.