Who Won’t Be Watching The Watchmen
Art & Chris explain to Zack Snyder why they won’t be watching the Watchmen:
“Remember when Gus Van Sant remade Psycho? It was slavishly faithful to the original; a shot-by-shot remake. It was also absolutely terrible. It’s clear you’ve read the book and are trying to recreate the iconic visuals but there’s so much depth in the book that your movie seems entirely devoid of. Just because you can translate something visually to the screen doesn’t mean you’ve adapted it. No one here will argue against the merits of pornography but it’s fucking on film. It in no way approximates the sensuality of lovemaking. I imagine in your Watchmen there are a lot of bleached anuses.”
Is “remaking” an iconic comic book in another medium like Gus Van Sant’s shot-by-shot remake/homage to Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho?” Should some things be better left alone? Or will the “Watchmen” movie bring out things that the graphic novel just couldn’t do, based on the different medium used?
I think it’s an interesting experiment, if only because it was called unfilmable for 20 years.
However, I do think that a proper adaptation wouldn’t worry so much about being shot-for-shot and instead would focus on using the film medium to its maximum potential, just like Alan Moore did with the comic.
I think for many comic book movies, though, it’s just about getting your foot in the door. You try to make the best movie you can, sure, but a lot of it just showing that a movie CAN be made in the first place, and then if it doesn’t turn out so well, someone can always come back later and make a better version. They did it with Hulk, and I imagine that X-Men will be more faithfully adapted one day, if not all Marvel movies pre-Iron Man.
So even if Watchmen turns out to be bad or even just ok (though I don’t think that’ll be the case), it’s no longer an “unfilmable” project anymore, so people will be more willing to try to adapt it and will be able to have a better idea about what works and what doesn’t.
This comment seems to be at odds with itself. The writers use the Psycho film as an example, a film they have seen. So one assumes. Without seeing Watchmen, they have no case. They can’t prove one single thing they said without seeing the movie. The should have just said ” We aren’t going to see Watchmen.” Also, these guys are absolutely going to see Watchmen.
I don’t really see the Watchmen movie as a cinema/theatrical movie. It’s a DVD movie that’s getting a cinema preview. It will be denser than can be handled in one viewing.
It’ll be “neat-o” to see all the comics images translated into film language. Just as it’s neat to go to a museum and see the original miniatures from Star Wars. Or to visit the Owlship in San Diego Comic Con Intl. Different medium, entertaining for completely different reasons.
I’m sure Zack Snyder can make an entertaining movie. I’m curious if the story will make sense and have any emotional and philosophical depth. He obviously can’t include all the depth of the 12 issue series.
I will see definitely see Watchmen! It doesn’t have to be ‘better than’ or even a ‘replacement’ for the comics. No one is complaining ‘The 10 Commandments’ is a suitable replacement for the book of Genesis are they? As for the Psycho analogy, those that were interested, went to see it. Some things should be taken as just entertainment. Would I have like to see the X-Men in their late 70’s eary 80’s costumes? Heck yeah! But I know that the costumes I so enjoyed were not the real interest but the characters that the writers brought to life. So just take it easy and just suspend belief. It’s just a movie.
I don’t see anything wrong with what as far as I can see is the director of a film essentially using the art of a comic book as a storyboard for the film, particularly when the art is iconic. It’s still an adaptation of a story from one medium to another. By its very nature, it’s not a frame by frame remake. How successful an adaptation it will be is another question, one I’ll have to see the movie to decide. You can’t always judge the depth of a movie by its trailer (unless it’s a trailer for something like Dude, Where’s My Car? or Confessions of a Shopaholic, where depth has no place to begin with).
I’m not all that hyped to see it, especially after seeing the misery that is “300,” but I really think these guys should wait until after they see the movie to judge whether or not it’s a successful adaptation. I think they have a legitimate concern, but only seeing the movie itself will bear that out.
i saw watchmen earlier tonight at the i max in london….visually its magnificent at points….okay it a condensing of the twelve comics so stuff had to go but i dont think anyone could have done a better job with the time and limits placed upon them…….it is not by any means a masterpiece (i reserve such accolades to films like The Fall and Lars and the Real Girl) but it is a very good film
It is incredibly arrogant to tell the world you won’t be seeing a movie because you’ve already made up your mind it can’t possibly live up to the source material - you don’t know and you won’t know until you’ve actually seen the flick whether or not your criticism is justified. And don’t we all get our panties in a bunch when someone criticizes one of our favorite movies and then we find out they haven’t even seen it? We’re all, “Well how the hell do YOU know ‘Smokey and the Bandit 3′ sucked? You didn’t even see it?” How is this any different? In that regard, how is this any different from your garden-variety troll writing something inflammatory yet immaterial to the argument just for the sake of stirring up some controversy?
There is no possible defensible argument for criticizing a movie you haven’t even seen. Say you don’t plan to see the movie because the source material is so great you don’t want to besmirch the memory, but don’t try to justify such a narrow view by claiming said movie has no chance but to be a disappointment -unless you’re psychic, you have no way of knowing.