Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Dave Gibbons On the Forthcoming Watchmen Movie

Posted by timothy on Thu May 29, 2008 12:47 PM
from the alternate-title-the-winders dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Den Of Geek has been talking to comics legend Dave Gibbons about the upcoming transition of the Watchmen from the comic book to the silver screen. 'There are hardcore fans out there who'll be satisfied with nothing less than a word-for-word, line-for-line, scene-for-scene recreation of the comic book. I didn't believe that was ever going to happen.'" It's a rather short interview, but Gibbons addresses some interesting elements of both the movie and comic-book worlds.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Games: Two-Episode Watchmen Series Set as a Prequel 65 comments
We were a bit disappointed when we heard the recent two-episode Watchmen series announcement since it was to be set as a brawler. However, it seems that these two games will be set as a prequel with the ability to play either Nite Owl or Rorschach in the days before superheroes were outlawed. "If you're wondering who could possibly replace the much-revered Alan Moore in the scripting department -- as the story is the linchpin upon which the whole Watchmen experience pivots -- comic fans will be glad to know that respected comic veteran Len Wein (co-creator of DC's Swamp Thing and Marvel's Wolverine characters) is on board to provide the dialogue, and original Watchmen illustrator Dave Gibbons is lending his insights as the game's adviser. Due out around the same time as the film's theatrical release, the game will be released in multiple parts designed to lead the player up to the graphic novel/film's events."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by berashith (222128) on Thursday May 29 2008, @12:54PM (#23589295)
    See ya tomorrow
  • Conversions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jaysyn (203771) <jaysyn+slashdotNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday May 29 2008, @01:00PM (#23589391) Homepage Journal
    It will probably have as much to do with the comic book as Starship Troopers had to do with the Sci-Fi classic.

    Keep in mind, there wasn't a whole, whole lot of action in Watchmen, & a lot of the intricacies of the "superheroes" relationships will probably be glossed over.
    • just saw a trailer for starship troopers 3 yesterday. the people responsible for it should be killed. slowly and painfully.
            • Re:Conversions (Score:5, Insightful)

              by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday May 29 2008, @02:40PM (#23590833)
              I think the first Starship Troopers was one of Verhoeven's best films. But then again, I despise Heinlen and think that hack DESERVED to be parodied. Verhoeven just sized the material up for exactly what it was.
    • Amen!

      I've railed against the Starship Troopers film(s) since day one. An absolute travesty, topped only by the garbage that is "I, Robot".

      How Hollywood could ignore the brilliant script by Harlan Ellison and put out a Will Smith action vehicle instead is beyond me. Of course, $$$ are paramount (no pun intended) to the studios and art gets lost in the noise.

      I hope Snyder understands the material well enough to capture some of the themes in the novel. I will see the film, but I don't have high hopes.
      • Re:Conversions (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kithrup (778358) on Thursday May 29 2008, @01:33PM (#23589885)

        I don't see how I, Robot is "garbage." Other than a large action scene that Asimov wouldn't've written in his books, the plot is entirely an Asimovian robotic mystery: the three laws (or four laws, as Asimov had in his later books) are completely integral to the plot; the clues are related to robotics and are visible to the viewer, instead of being hidden and revealed after the fact; and the societal impact of the technology is examined.

        Even the actress they had playing Susan Calvin was the right age, and there was no romance between her and the main character.

        It was a shockingly good science fiction movie.

        • Re:Conversions (Score:4, Insightful)

          by sesshomaru (173381) on Thursday May 29 2008, @01:54PM (#23590235) Journal
          The main problem with it is that it was "With Folded Hands" [wikipedia.org] (with a Hollywood ending). Which is a good robot story, but it's by Jack Williamson not Isaac Asimov.

          I therefore judge it a pretty good movie by Hollywood blockbuster standards. I wonder if Hollywood will ever make a movie that is actually based on I, Robot.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          the plot is entirely an Asimovian robotic mystery

          No, the plot is "Frankenstein". Asimov's whole motivation for inventing "The Three Laws" was to avoid falling into that literary rut, which was well-traversed back when he started writing and which is a bottomless canyon today.

          I don't think the movie was garbage (hey, there's a reason Frankenstein was such a classic), but calling it "I, Robot" was just false advertising, even if the script subverted an Asimov idea while borrowing a couple character names.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          I have the original, serialized script by Ellison as published in Asimov's magazine. It's available in book form from Amazon.

          If you read the Asimov stories and the script, there's no way on Earth you could construe the train wreck movie to anything the Good Doctor had created.

          Susan Calvin's character was the one of the more horrible missteps in the movie. The character in the movie and in the books/stories share name only. Completely different characters. Susan Calvin NEVER WORE MAKEUP as was told in "Liar"
      • I don't know about the other Starship Trooper films, but I thought the first one was pretty successful as an ironic satire of a militaristic and fascist "utopia". Watching it was a bit like reading Norman Spinrad book The Iron Dream [wikipedia.org]. You laugh and cringe at the same time.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            The ST movie was supposed to be an insult to Heinlein, parodying the fascist leanings of his work, not an "accurate" adaptation Indeed -- when I saw that movie I kinda liked it, for the in your face irony and criticism of medias, action movies, propaganda -- remember the blatant propaganda shown on tv, the SS uniforms, etc. It was absolutely _obvious_ this was a parody and critical of all it was showing. I was astounded to read reviews on the web (on /. itself iirc) that actually took the movie as if it was a straight action flick...

            I think if it is a parody, it should have been a little thicker or less generic. Seeing it again (I originally read the book after the first movie), it still came off as either a kinda bad action movie, or a kinda bad parody. Army hate, media hate, and Nazi-like troops is a common theme in many films, so the bar for parody is very high on those topics.

            There's plenty of Heinlein to parody, from his need to put spanking in virtually every single story (including this one), to his literary lust for girls (

            • Re:Conversions (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Björn (4836) on Thursday May 29 2008, @03:09PM (#23591283)
              Straight from the horses mouth. [suicidegirls.com]

              "That's very nice. I always thought the movie was badly understood. There was an article in The Washington Post when it came out that was not written by a movie critic. One of the editors wrote it saying that this was a neo-Nazi movie and I was promoting Fascism. That same article was published in all the European newspapers. When I went to do the publicity tour in Europe, everybody was already looking through that lens. The Washington Post is not a reliable newspaper anyway but they said the film was written by a neo-Nazi or a Fascist and directed by one. I strongly disagree with that. I saw it as a critique of American society. It is done in an ironic way but not pushing it very hard, which I hate because then it becomes dogmatic and becomes something else other than filmmaking. It was more that the novel by Robert Heinlein is very militaristic and has a tendency to be pro-Fascist a bit. We took a lot of cues out of American society at that time, which was [President Bill] Clinton, not realizing that a couple years later this whole situation would be much more acute and now you can put the film as a blueprint over Iraq or Afghanistan. But of course, I didn't know of bin Laden at that time." -- Paul Verhoeven

              So the satire of some future militaristic state is realy a satire about our own present.

    • Yup. Expect it. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Weaselmancer (533834) on Thursday May 29 2008, @02:23PM (#23590617)

      Hollywood will glitz up the story, and gloss over the personal details. IMHO, it's the personal relationships that make the Watchmen such a good story. At its core it is a story about people, not action.

      It'll be a shame to watch that take a back seat to special effects.

  • by Alaren (682568) on Thursday May 29 2008, @01:00PM (#23589397) Homepage

    While I'm hopeful that the movie will carry the same burning question as the book--do the ends justify the means?--I wonder how well the smaller themes can really be carried through.

    Rorschach's rampant homophobia, for example, or the original Miss Jupiter's deep and abiding love for her would-be rapist, are uncomfortable but central topics in the book. Jon's gradual shedding of his costume down to full-frontal nudity, as he gradually distances himself from humanity, is also an important progression.

    Obviously they can't include every side-trip in the entire graphic novel, but I suspect (with much disappoitment) that "controversy" is high on the list of criteria for making "obvious" cuts. Even watered-down, I suspect Watchmen will remain more powerful than your average Hollywood disaster, but... we'll see. For now I'm going with "cautiously optimistic."

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      "Rorschach's rampant homophobia, for example, or the original Miss Jupiter's deep and abiding love for her would-be rapist, are uncomfortable but central topics in the book."

      Seeing as I barely noticed these things, I have to disagree that they are "central topics". It would be exceedingly easy to tell the important parts of the story while leaving most of that out, especially Rorschach's homophobia.

      "Jon's gradual shedding of his costume down to full-frontal nudity, as he gradually distances himself from hu
    • Are you kidding? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday May 29 2008, @02:36PM (#23590771)
      Hollywood can't even handle a Phillip K. Dick story without slapping on a happy ending. Do you think for a second that they are going to spend tens of millions of $ on a movie and include ANYTHING that makes even one test screening audience the *slightest* bit uncomfortable?

      The only way to do include any of this sort of material be to do it on the cheap and raise independent funding. If you accept Hollywood's fat cash, you accept that they're going to make your movie as inoffensive and audience-pleasing as possible. Those are the strings attached.

        • They killed Matt Damon and Leonardo de Caprio. Its the happiest ending I've seen since Titanic, which only killed one of the two, but sort of poisoned the festive mood with thousands of people (who weren't Leonardo di Caprio) dying in the background.

          Now how is Hollywood going to top that... I have an idea: Oceans 14. We put in Matt Damon, Leonardo de Caprio, George Clooney, and any many who has ever even considered being in an "Oceans #{i += 1}" movie, and then at the end of the daring casino caper we ki
  • Movie Adaptations (Score:4, Insightful)

    by majorgoodvibes (1228026) on Thursday May 29 2008, @01:10PM (#23589523)
    are almost never 100% faithful - the closest I've seen lately is "No Country for Old Men."

    It's not that it's impossible but it's just not necessary or preferable. If a movie gets the spirit of its source material, captures something of its style, and brings something new to it that could only be accomplished cinematically then it's probably a successful adaptation.
  • I doubt that Watchmen will get the treatment its due by Hollywood. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen didn't, and neither did V for Vendetta. Why should Watchmen?
    • by Rogerborg (306625) on Thursday May 29 2008, @01:16PM (#23589641) Homepage

      Appparently, he agrees.

      How do you feel about Alan Moore's excision from the credits of Watchmen?

      Uh oh.

      • No uh oh, Moore is a asshole and its been well documented for years hes a egotistical asshole. His input has been sought for YEARS when it comes to movies of his works and he flat out refuses to help, then trashes what eventually is made under a misplaced idea that by denying his input it wont be made.

        Granted he has good reason in the past to not want to be associated with big companies as hes been screwed more than once, but the same can be said about a lot of other talented comic writers out there and they have had no issues with playing the game even after being burned in the past. I highly doubt that without Frank Millers help, Sin City or 300 would have been half as impressive as they where.

            • by hkmarks (1080097) on Thursday May 29 2008, @07:33PM (#23594465)
              I thought V for Vendetta was a very good movie. It wasn't much like the original, but it was a good movie. It needed to change to suit the times, and it did. And it looked good. And it discarded some bullshit that didn't make sense.

              The Justice League Unlimited episode based on his Superman story "For the Man Who Has Everything," was also excellent, partly because it excised a sort of pointless subplot.

              Alan Moore is a good writer, but he also uses other people's characters and ideas, and tosses anything that doesn't suit what he's trying to tell. He's as guilty as anyone of screwing with originals to adapt them to his own taste.

              Watchmen was based on old Charlton characters (Blue Beetle = Nite-Owl, the Question = Rorschach, etc.); V for Vendetta was strongly influenced by 1984; Supreme was based on Superman -- and he tossed the character's history to make his own version); Tom Strong is based on various pulp heroes; League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was based on various literary characters, and is not the first such pastiche by far (and it was an awful book); and Lost Girls was a pervy take on fairy tales. Even Top 10, probably my favourite thing he's done, makes innumerable references to other works, and I'm not sure how much it was influenced by Astro City.

              Moore really is good, and Watchmen is his most important work, so I hope it's adapted well. (It really came along at the right moment; the world was ready in the 1980s for a serious deconstruction of superheroes.) I've only seen stills so far but they really seem to capture the right mood and look. But his work is not flawless, and it's practically as derivative as the movies it inspired.
    • by berashith (222128) on Thursday May 29 2008, @01:17PM (#23589667)
      Add to this the fact that Alan Moore isnt lending his name to the movie and I am even more skeptical. A dark story with a non-happy ending doesn't sit very well with focus groups. I will save my cash a read the book again.
      • by Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) on Thursday May 29 2008, @01:22PM (#23589737)

        A dark story with a non-happy ending doesn't sit very well with focus groups.
        No kidding. Just look at what happened with I Am Legend. In the book, the hero dies at the end knowing that, to the vampires, he was the monster. And then there's V for Vendetta. How the hell did the Wachowskis take a character that was a bomb-making anarchist and make a liberal out of him?
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          I agree mostly (V wasn't really an anarchist, he just wanted to destroy the current system so that a new, better one could be built instead). Really, the major difference with "V" can be illustrated by this one key line change:

          Original: "There is no flesh beneath this mask, there is only an idea"
          Movie : "There is more than flesh beneath this mask, there is an idea"
          • by Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) on Thursday May 29 2008, @02:31PM (#23590713)

            I agree mostly (V wasn't really an anarchist, he just wanted to destroy the current system so that a new, better one could be built instead). Really, the major difference with "V" can be illustrated by this one key line change:

            I disagree. Read the novel again, especially his little "speech" to the statue of Lady Justice atop the Old Bailey where he said that he had once loved Justice, but had found a new love: Anarchy.

            Also, remember what he said to Evey about what would happen after the Norsefire regime finally fell, how the people would have the chance to create for themselves a society of voluntary order, or to build another government and let history repeat itself.

        • As a possible exception, I'd mention A Clockwork Orange. In the movie, Alex ends up being rewarded and pampered by the state. There's no sense of justice or of Alex actually learning anything. Sure the old writer makes him suffer, but that's revenge and doesn't feel like justice (to me at least).

          In the book, he ends up forming another gang, but grows tired of it, as he's growing up and wants a better life. It leaves me with a sense of the redeem-ability of even the worst humans.

          In neither book or fi
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        Moore stated years ago he didn't want his name on any movies based on his creations. Whether this particular movie is good or not had no bearing on his decision.
      • by Dunx (23729) on Thursday May 29 2008, @02:26PM (#23590649) Homepage
        You're missing the point - Alan has distanced himself from every recent film made of his work, he doesn't take the fees offered even. He talked about this quite extensively in an interview on Radio Four a few years ago in the Chain Reaction series.

        So Alan Moore not having his name on the credits means nothing at all about the quality of the film.
  • I'm not expecting a direct, panel-for-panel adaptation. While I love Watchmen, I feel there's a few chunks that won't translate well into film, specifically some of the backstory snippets that are told through newspaper clippings and the like. I want the movie to be loyal to the original material, but not bound by it.
  • 'There are hardcore fans out there who'll be satisfied with nothing less than a word-for-word, line-for-line, scene-for-scene recreation of the comic book. I didn't believe that was ever going to happen.'

    Gibbons is clearly setting up a strawman dismissal of anybody who complains that the movie is insufficiently true to the book. Don't think it captured the original story faithfully enough, or skillfully enough? You're obviously a "hardcore" fan with unrealistic expectations.

    • Don't think it captured the original story faithfully enough, or skillfully enough? You're obviously a "hardcore" fan with unrealistic expectations.

      Well, yeah, but LXG and V for Vendetta didn't fail on account of being unfaithful to the book on a scene-by-scene basis; nor did Superman or Batman or Ironman or X-Men succeed on the basis of their adherence to the books --- in some cases, quite the opposite. LXG and V were just bad movies.

      • Indeed there are other reasons to object to a movie. The fact that it is a badly-made movie is an obvious reason. But if you re-read my post, I'm sure you will realize that I am referring to a specific reason for objecting to Watchmen for which Gibbons has already crafted a straman dismissal--objecting on the grounds of lack of fidelity to the original story.

        Ironically, I thought that V for Vendetta was a fine movie in its own right, but significantly unfaithful to the original story in a few very fundament
  • There are hardcore fans out there who'll be satisfied with nothing less than a word-for-word, line-for-line, scene-for-scene recreation of the comic book.

    Right, so screw 'em, they'll never be happy with anything that doesn't match what they've built up in their heads. They can exercise their freedom of choice and not go. I didn't like the new Star Wars flicks, but I chose to see them for myself and formed my opinion afterwords.

  • hear hear. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by apodyopsis (1048476) on Thursday May 29 2008, @01:20PM (#23589703)

    I think that as long as it's true to the spirit of the comic book, and as long as - in broad strokes - it follows the plot and the characterisations...I don't think you can ask for every individual detail to be replicated.


    hear hear.

    Watchmen is a classic. It is my favorite classic. I still get it down and read it every now and then and it still makes me shiver.

    My instinctive reaction to the film is "Noooooo!", but on reflection I then think of the "V for Vendetta" movie and I remember that it is possible to make a damn good film out of a graphic novel without following it exactly. I know "Sin City" is more or less a scene for scene clone of the book, likewise "300" - but it does not have to be like that. Vendetta showed us that.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      on reflection I then think of the "V for Vendetta" movie and I remember that it is possible to make a damn good film out of a graphic novel without following it exactly. I know "Sin City" is more or less a scene for scene clone of the book, likewise "300" - but it does not have to be like that. Vendetta showed us that.

      I'm fine with both of these, but I think that many of us will agree that Watchmen is something special beyond any other graphic novel. Just like the greatest of songs out there aren't generally improved by interpretation, I can't help but feel that too much interpretation can only lessen the result.

      I'm glad to see that the first re-creation of the novel is attempting to recreate it as close to the intention as possible. I would also be happy if, in the future, someone took it as inspiration to create int

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      And on the other end of the spectrum we have the X-Men trilogy which showed just how bad a Hollywood interpretation of a comic can be...
  • by arkham6 (24514) on Thursday May 29 2008, @01:22PM (#23589735)

    Looks like its going to suck. Bad actors, the director is a dweeb, the special effects are going to be laughable.

    With production values this bad, who will watch The Watchmen?
    • by berashith (222128) on Thursday May 29 2008, @01:25PM (#23589759)
      I have no mod points, but this is great.

      Who watches the watchmen?

      In Hollywood... nobody!
    • The true telling opinion about the movie is the release date. March. If Hollywood believed it was going to be a smash they would release it in May. Or around July 4th (for the U.S.). Or at Christmas.

      No, this movie is destined to either be a cult classic or a total transdimensional bomb.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Actually, 300, the director's last film, was released in March and made north of $400 million. It was widely acclaimed and considered an excellent translation of Frank Miller's graphic novel. Watchmen definitely has a chance to turn out well.
    • With production values this bad, who will watch The Watchmen?
       
      I guess nobody, unless we get shipped off to Soviet Russia where, alas, we watch The Watchmen.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I own the Dragons of Autumn Twilight movie. I can watch anything.
  • Know what's funny? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by liquiddark (719647) on Thursday May 29 2008, @01:45PM (#23590107)
    Every normal person I know seems to believe V for Vendetta was a great movie. Maybe adapting a good book into a good movie, even at the expense of diverging from the original work, isn't all bad.
    • by attemptedgoalie (634133) on Thursday May 29 2008, @02:14PM (#23590525)
      As I understand it, in I Robot's case, the reason the story diverged so badly is because it wasn't based on the book at all.

      The studio owned the name "I Robot" and used it on a similar story. The movie that came out under that title would have been called something else if they hadn't already owned that particular name.

  • by ewhac (5844) on Thursday May 29 2008, @02:28PM (#23590685) Homepage Journal
    The Watchmen sprawls all over the place, and there's no way it would fit in three hours' running time, much less the Hollywood-standard 90 minutes. Something's going to get chopped.

    Personally, I nominate for deletion the entire novel-within-the-novel of the shipwrecked castaway. Every time that came up, I found myself flipping forward, looking for the main story to pick up again. In fact, it seemed all the extra characters who we saw passing by the newsstand in New York were just "whales" (q.v. Douglas Adams).

    I would be very disappointed if Rorschach's backstory as told to the psychologist were cut. Some amazingly powerful and resonant stuff in there. "Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later."

    Really, really good.

    Schwab

    • by Remus Shepherd (32833) <remus@panix.com> on Thursday May 29 2008, @02:54PM (#23591047) Homepage
      The director has already said that it's a three-hour movie, although he's in a fight with the studio to keep it that long.

      As for the story of the Black Freighter, it will be released in its entirety as a separate DVD-only animated film, released along with the Watchmen's theatrical release. More on that here. [io9.com]

      I think they are taking extreme steps to make this movie faithful to the comic, and I'm heartened that it will be entertaining and true to the original. But we'll see....