Watchmen…
If there’s one thing watching the Watchmen taught me, it’s: “A movie shouldn’t stay true to the book.” Truthfully, I never read it. I’ve always wanted to. Parodies of comic characters in a world where such freelance vigilantes are outlawed. Sounds interesting, like a romping fun, hilarious, dark investigation of the superhero concept. But I found the movie, which allegedly stayed very true to the comics, to be extremely boring.
I enjoyed it, but I wondered while watching it if it would be as enjoyable had I not read the comic. It’s impossible to guess(the curse of knowledge and all) but i guess your vote would be “it isn’t”.
I think the big problem is that the majority of the story is told in flashbacks, which work fine in a book(comic or novel) but are a weak form of storytelling for a film. The flashback is supposed to set up what’s happening, not be the happening.
I still recommend you read the original comic, the story fits the format and it’s large enough they have time to play with some ideas the film barely glanced at. For example, the whole “It’s March 1950 and I’m kissing an 18 year old hottie” scene was a whole book in the series that had the room to explore how Dr. Manhattan really experiences time. It was fascinating.
Austin Powers is parody, “Watchmen” is satire. Parody is played for laughs, often making fun of the chosen subject matter. Satire CAN be funny, but not at the expense of the chosen subject matter; rather the opposite. Satire is meant to expose societies’ issues in a different context. The updated Battlestar Galactica series (as well as most science fiction in general) is a prime example of satire – the whole show is about what makes us human, exploring religion, warfare, politics, etc.
“Watchmen” was written during the Cold War, it uses the concept of super heroes to satirize the state of the world at that time. The movie, while very close to the heart of the source material, updates the story a bit to reflect our current world. People walking into the film expecting a blockbuster can expect to be disappointed, it’s just not that type of movie. It’s a mirror of society disguised as entertainment – the very essence of satire.
By the way, whether you actually liked “Watchmen” or not is beside the point, however; your statement “A movie shouldn’t stay true to the book.” borders on the moronic. EVERY movie based on an outside source should stay true to the original material. Whether it should be a carbon copy is debatable, but it better be a true representation. That’s like saying a bio-pic about Abraham Lincoln should be more like a super-hero movie. Ludicrous. That movie NEEDS to be about the life and times of Lincoln, and it should be as accurate a representation as it CAN be. Now, does that mean we need to see every time he decided to empty his bowels? No – but that movie still needs to be as true to the source as it can be, otherwise it wouldn’t really be ABOUT Lincoln, right?
@ Whaledawg: actually, I went to see “Watchmen” with a woman who’d never read the book before, and she thought it was pretty great. And your analysis about flashbacks is lacking – the flashbacks in the film DID set up what was happening in the present, they were used to EXPLAIN what was happening in the present. “Watchmen” is basically a detective yarn, and most detective stories are BUILT on flashbacks, for example;
Detective – “So, when was the last time you saw the victim?”
Witness – “Well, let’s see…” Cue flashback showing the last time the character saw the victim.
Cut back to present.
Witness – “And that’s all I can recall. Any other questions?”
End scene.
Without the flashback, there would only be a conversation about the past, which is fine if you really don’t care about the victim, in which case the victim is usually just a McGuffin, and not a particularly important part of the story. Suggesting the flashback is a weak cinematic device is an ignorant generalization. Many of the greatest films ever made rely on the flashback as a device (“Citizen Cane” comes to mind). That said, Zack Snyder could’ve made his use of flashbacks a little less confusing. A visual cue like a slight sepia would’ve done wonders. I know he wanted to stay true to the color palette of the book, but it would’ve worked better with his chunky editing style. As it is, his use of flashbacks was weak, not the fact that he used them at all.
RE: Flashbacks
I don’t have a problem with them. They can be useful. They should also be succinct. There were a few flashbacks that went on several minutes and could have been 20-30 seconds.
RE: Staying true to the book
I’m basically stating that you shouldn’t stay directly true to the book. Comics are a completely different pace and delivery method than movies. Staying accurate to the overall story and major points = good. Delivering a movie the same way a comic book did = bleh.
I went with a group of 10 and about half of us had read the book and the other half hadn’t, and almost everyone thought it was great, I believe it was the 3 girls who hadn’t read the book didn’t like it. The movie is definitely a very different experience between people that have read the book and those who haven’t but can be enjoyable still for those who haven’t depending on expectations.
I think the root of my dislike is failed expectations. I had built up Watchmen as one thing in my mind over the years, and it was very different. I was expecting it to be action-packed, dark, and funny. It was dark, but the other two it was not.
If you’ve even heard of Watchmen before, let alone “over the years” and have never read it that is just inexcusable. It’s not like it’s obscure or expensive or out-of-print. Never heard of it before and didn’t like it? Ok. But heard all about it for years and never bothered to read it and don’t like it because of what you imagined it might be like? WTF?
@Shwayder – I truly believe that “Watchmen”, the graphic novel, is one of the most important pieces of literature of our time. So much so that I actually own more than one copy – one is a beautiful, hard-cover, large-format edition that I pull out once a year to reread (and no other person – aside from my wife – is allowed to touch); another is the original trade-paperback that I first bought and read over twenty years ago – a copy so beat up that the cover finally fell of it last year. The reason for the poor condition, even tho’ it’s a 1st edition? Because I’ve let practically everyone I’ve ever known borrow it over those many years. I mean it – every time I’ve found out that someone I’ve gotten to know hasn’t read it, I’ve lent them my copy. And EVERY time, no matter how young or old the reader, I’ve gotten a whole-heartedly “Thank you!” from every one of them – it transformed their lives almost as much as it did mine. And a few years back, I was able to get a hold of a near-mint condition collection of the original twelve issues released by DC comics – they’re the 1st (and only) books I’ve ever purchased whose spines have never been broken. I have them framed in UV-proof glass boxes, which I’ve hung as pieces of art throughout my house as a satire of the 12 stations of the cross. I also have every intention to buy the latest trade-paperback edition – y’know, to reread while I’m on the toilet. That, and I really like the glossy new cover they’ve put on it…
So, yeah, I’ve been a really big fan of this story for a looooooong time. In that time, I’ve always been simultaneously excited and repulsed at the thought of Hollywood ever making a movie from this material – after all, they’ve had a pretty piss-poor record involving any of Alan Moore’s OTHER properties (“From Hell”, “V for Vendetta”, “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”, “Swamp Thing”). This movie had EVERY opportunity to suck… but it didn’t. Was it the greatest movie ever made? Not by a long shot. But it was still pretty great. I’ve seen it twice, now, and I intend to see it several more times before it leaves the theaters. I’m also equally sure that I will be investing heavily in the several DVD releases that are inevitable. The first time I saw it was fraught with tension based on all sorts of expectations, and I came out the theater really liking it. The second time I LOVED it – like the novel, there are lots of hidden depths and subtleties I didn’t notice before.
It saddens me that you’ve not read the novel, because I truly believe that it should be required reading for every person on this planet, something high-school reading classes should include in their syllabuses along with “Lord of the Flies” and “To Kill a Mockingbird”. Seriously. While the movie stays true to the book, it’s really only scratching its surface. There are depths and subtleties that I’m still finding myself just coming to grips with, even tho’ I’ve read it hundreds of times. No matter the state of the current global climate at any given time, this novel has managed to remain relevant. The older and (questionably) wiser I get, the more I find this book has to teach me. It’s truly extraordinary…
You NEED to read this book, I’m confident it’ll blow your mind. And don’t write off the film completely – now that you know what to expect, I’m sure you’ll find you’ll enjoy it more. After reading the book, you’ll find that the film is true to the SPIRIT of the original story, but it’s far from an exact adaptation – such a thing would require about 6 more hours.
As to failed expectations; well, we all know what assumptions can lead to…
I enjoy the Watchmen comic books and I enjoyed the movie, but it’s unlikely that it’ll be something I get on Blu-ray when it hits the store shelves. It was enjoyable, but it’s not something I’d watch many times after the first and I do prefer the graphic novel.
Watchmen isn’t your typical comic book movie in that it forgoes the expected action and adventure for what you’d normally find in an oftentimes boring Oscar-worthy movie about the political issues in some far away land.
I’m planning to see it tonight. I don’t really know if I’ll like it or not — word of mouth seems only so-so. I’ll find out tonight, I suppose.
I found the film to be extremely faithful to the source material (as best can be expected anyway). I wonder though, if Zach Snyder will ever give it a go with an original story? So far, he’s remade Dawn of the Dead (Romero), adapted 300 (Miller), and now Watchmen (Moore). I wonder if he has any talent beyond channeling the work of others?
Ryan, you’re right, it has a lot to do with your expectations. I had read the series 6 or 7 years before, and intentionally did not re-read just before the movie. I remembered (and forgot) just enough, that I enjoyed going through the story again. I got what I expected: a highly visual movie with a simple plot but a complex story that was told through several perspectives and intense character development. There were a handful of slow spots, but the length felt about right for the complexity of the story.
As for remaining faithful to an original work, that should vary with the work and the medium. Shakespeare remains strong because of the new interpretations. A work like 300 was true to Miller’s graphic novel, but took grossly blatant liberties with historical fact. As a consumer of both the book and the movie, I was willing to accept (yet acknowledge) the deviation from history, so that I could appreciate the visual elements, drama, and story flow.
Keep in mind that most directors already channel the work of others: they’re called screenwriters and the director just puts up on screen what someone else wrote. So adapting a book or other movie isn’t exactly a huge departure from what a director normally does.
I think cart00nstrip is really wrong about V for Vendetta, which was better than Watchmen as a movie, though Watchmen was the better graphic novel.
( http://www.moviesmackdown.com/2009/03/watchmen-vendetta.html )
But Watchmen wasn’t that bad either. The main error of the movie I think was to lose the point of the book by giving Owl, Silk, Rorsch, Comedian and Ozy physical superpowers. They weren’t supposed to be inhumanly superfast/supertough… that was part of the point (and lost given the special effects in the movie)…