Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

'Bourne' Director to take on Watchmen 346

Posted by CmdrTaco from the can-you-fail-a-rorschach-test dept.
Here's one of those mixed blessing stories: Paul Greengrass, the director of the Bourne Supremacy has been tapped to direct a film based on The Watchmen, one of the greatest comics ever made. No word on if Paul plans to add Tom Sawyer to the cast.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Bourne' Director to take on Watchmen More

'Bourne' Director to take on Watchmen

Comments Filter:

  • Analysis (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Klar ( 522420 ) * <curchin@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @11:12AM (#10898186) Homepage Journal
    I first heard about The Watchmen through my g/f this year as it is on the required readings list for one of her English courses at Queen's University [queensu.ca] in Ontario. I'm looking to reading it during the Christmas break this year, as she really enjoys the book. Thought it was kinda cool to be doing literary analysis of a comic in a university English course. Also great seeing more comic books come to life on screen.. lets hope this one will be better than some of the latest ones that have come out--I won't mention any names as to hold back the flames.
    • I first heard about it from by GF also. We were in college in '86-'87 and were getting Watchmen right off the shelf month by month as it was originally published.
      We're married now and we still have our two original sets of twelve(?) issues, comic book style in individual slip cases. I wonder what those sets are worth now?

      I also have the original "V for Vendetta" issues set. That set is almost as good as Watchmen. Some Miracle Man, a few series of "Swamp Thing", a Batman book. Go find them if you haven't a

    • Re:Analysis (Score:5, Informative)

      by fahrvergnugen ( 228539 ) <fahrvNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @11:55AM (#10898661) Homepage

      There are several sites dedicated to critical readings of Watchmen, because it is so dense.

      These are all dripping spoilers, so care should be taken in following these links. Having Watchmen spoiled is something I wouldn't wish on anyone.

      Watching the detectives [ubalt.edu], a Hypertext guide to Watchmen.

      Watchmen observations [berkeley.edu].

      Watchmen annotations [tu-bs.de].

      Taking Off the Mask [ig.com.br], a bacheolor's thesis by Samuel Asher Effron, class 1996.

  • hrm.. I've never heard of it.

    perhaps "greatest" is subjective...
    • Perhaps you are not a comic geek. The Watchmen, by Alan Moore, set the standard that comic creators today are still trying to meet. It's praise throughouht the industry is universal.
      • set the standard that comic creators today are still trying to meet.

        To clarify this declaration: Watchmen is absolutely positively one of best comics ever made ... IN THE SUPERHERO GENRE. Along with Dark Knight Returns, it spawned the "grim-n-gritty" style of comics noir, and allowed some to break free of the four-color spandex world.

        But superhero != comics. Don't ignore Maus, Cerebus, Sandman, quite a few worthy manga series, etc, most of whom owe very little to the influence of Watchmen.

    • I am not particularly a comic book fan, and never have been. I've read the Watchmen. It's excellent. Pick up a copy and give it a try.

    • Informative? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by platypibri ( 762478 )
      As I write this, the parent has a +3 "Informative Mod, when all he "informed" us of is his ignorance of the medium. Insightful I could see, if he broadened you horizons with his doubt, but "Informative?"
    • Greatest is indeed subjective, but Watchmen was a seminal work. Perhaps you should pick up a copy and you will see why it is one of the greatest graphic novels of all time, insanely great.
    • greatest is subjective... and if you don't agree that Watchmen is one of the greatest, then you're a stupid subject.

      There are generally agreed to be a handful of comics of any literarry import in the comic world, beyond the pop stuff. The Watchmen stands on top of them all.

      This is a book that Rhodes Scholars use to teach english students about the Cold War.

    • Re:one of the greatest comics? (Score:4, Funny)

      by squaretorus ( 459130 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @11:28AM (#10898377) Homepage Journal
      Greatest is always subjective in that sense - however the fact that you are poorly read in the genre in no way effects the greatness of the work.

      I've seen very few chick flicks, but some of them might be considered great by those that enjoy.

      UNless your name is 'comic book guy' I frankly dont give a fuck if you think the watchmen was a great comic or not. And even then - I probably wouldn't give a fuck as you'd be claiming pokemon 12 with the foil back cover and the accidental nipple on panel 4, page 12 was the greatest comic ever.

      Damn - ranting and swearing again! Why am I here?
    • Despite the major labels use of the word "greatest" in place of the term "best known," they are not synonymous. It is actually sadly rare that the greatest of anything (at least, anything artistic) is remotely well-known. I'm sure that many copies will eventually be sold of "Britney Spears' Greatest Hits," but none of those hits will be great - unlike much of Guided by Voices' ouvre, none of which is a hit.
      On a different note, I suggest you read The Watchmen.

    • Yes. Second greatest, in fact... (Score:5, Informative)

      by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @12:17PM (#10898941) Journal
      1. V for Vendetta
      2. Watchmen

      I can't think of anything that I'd put anywhere close to those two.

      I've said it previously on Slashdot (in someone's journal, if I remember correctly) but V for Vendetta would make a great movie. The only problem is that movies that have a terrorist attacking the machinery of a fascist state aren't exactly easy to sell in today's political climate.

      Seriously, if you haven't read V for Vendetta (or Watchmen) then do whatever you have to to do so. I found copies of both at my library recently, together with a whole bunch of great graphic novels. which totally blew me away. Even the librarian who checked out my books remarked at how much she'd enjoyed them.
      • I can think of one other that you should add to the list you have:

        3. Maus

        Damn good stuff.
      • Pogo [pogopossum.com]

        "We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us"
      • I can't think of anything that I'd put anywhere close to those two.

        I like V but I think it falls apart some where around chapter 5. It has some brilliant moments but I'd place it well behind W with it's amazing repetition of imagery, long character arcs and sustained, circular story line.

        Co-incidentally I just finished the second collected volume of The Invisibles last night and it's very, very good.
        I think it hasn't gotten the recognition it deserved because it's a hard read next to other more linear

  • Watchmen: Study in Ties (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LaCosaNostradamus ( 630659 ) <`moc.liam' `ta' `sumadartsoNasoCaL'> on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @11:13AM (#10898204) Journal
    One of Watchmen's great strengths is its interconnections. How is Hollywood NOT going to screw that up? I mean, movies like Memento are a rarity.
    • THINK of the great [rottentomatoes.com] pieces of cinematic [rottentomatoes.com] perfection [rottentomatoes.com] based on comic books!

      Insipid and trite, yet full of rubust low quality acting and flat dialog, Hollywood again and again gives us.... Well, crap.

      At least they're consistent.
      • Punisher - sucked, but I was fairly and pleasingly surprised with how closely they at least TRIED to capture Frank Castle

        Superman movies - REALLY sucked, very insipid.

        Batman movies - UNGODLY SUCKAGE. My view on Batman was forever reset by Frank Miller's Dark Knight. The casting for Batman/Bruce in each of the modern Batman movies was simply appalling (Keaton? Aaagh!). Hey, Hollywood: Robin was a CHILD, you freakin' dumbasses!

        (Oh well. So much for superhero movies. At least Lord of the Rings
    • Memento...sounds vaguely familiar but I can't recall...oops time for another insulin shot!

  • X-men (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kc0re ( 739168 )
    Even since X-men came out, all the movie makers have been running around snatching up all the comics for "movies" I guess. What happened to reading a comic?

    • Re:X-men (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mblase ( 200735 )
      What happened to reading a comic?

      Special effects technology caught up with it. As the LotR movies effectively proved, computer-generated F/X are now at the point where absolutely anything you can draw on a page can now be animated realistically on the big screen.

      That, and the entire comics industry is still recovering from the pro-artist anti-writer obsession that overwhelmed it in the 1990s. I still regard New Mutants #98 (the issue Rob Liefeld took over) as the point when Marvel Comics began its creati

  • Alan Moore movies (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @11:14AM (#10898214)
    Have you noticed how Alan Moore's comics tend to be a little skruffy in movie form?

    The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen and From Hell weren't exactly the greatest movies every made.

    • Re:Alan Moore movies (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cgreuter ( 82182 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @11:51AM (#10898621)

      Have you noticed how Alan Moore's comics tend to be a little skruffy in movie form?

      Yup. It's because of how Alan Moore works. He usually takes something that is normally considered "low" art--Victorian pulp fiction, superhero comics, and so on--and gives it depth and realism. The Watchmen, for example, takes the idea of the superhero and thrusts it into the real world and the resulting slow-motion trainwreck is fascinating.

      Hollywood does depth really badly. Even if they manage to fit all of The Watchmen into two hours while still keeping its shape, they're going to end up turning it into just another superhero team movie.

  • Jude Law wants to play Ozymandius (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SamSeaborn ( 724276 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @11:14AM (#10898216)
    And Jude Law wants to play Ozymandius. [empireonline.co.uk]

    "Darren Aronofsky? I'm on the phone NOW!" said Law, clearly excited. "Adrian Veidt, King of Kings!" And then, as if to show off his Watchmen fanboy credentials, he whispered conspiratorially. "I'm tattooed with Rorschach, did you know that?"

  • Why is it mixed? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xTown ( 94562 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @11:15AM (#10898225)
    Why is this a "mixed blessing"? "The Bourne Supremacy" was pretty good. I don't remember seeing Tom Sawyer in it--and I don't see that Greengrass was involved at all in the LXG movie, to which the Sawyer jab is obviously a reference.
    • Ohhh, of course. Duh, they're both Alan Moore works. Sorry, my brain needs an fsck.
    • Depends on your point of view I guess. I personally thought the Bourne Identity (Director: Doug Liman) was a brilliant movie while the Bourne Supremacy only kept me mildly entertained.

      So yea from my point of view seeing his name next to it doesn't fill me with hope.
    • It's more of a jab at Hollywood's tendency to take Allen Moore's work and skullfuck it raw.

      The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (the movie) is shit. It bears very little resemblance to the book. Biggest difference between The League and Watchmen is that a quality film adaptation of The League is feasable.

      Why they don't shoot for more screen-adaptable Moore is beyond me- Tom Strong or Top Ten would actually work in theaters.

      What next? The director of Peewee's Big Adventure doing a film adaptation of P

    • Re:Why is it mixed? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DaHat ( 247651 )
      It's a decent movie on its own... but the moment you compare it to the books, everything goes to hell IMO.

      As an example... at no time during the book The Bourne Supremacy, is Marie killed, nor does anything occur in India or Russia. Hell, I rather enjoyed the ploy from the book used to kidnap Marie and convince David Web to revert in order to track down who he was told took her.

      The principal driving force of books 1 and 3 is the assassin Carlos, and Bourne/Web's attempts to stay safe from him. Oh how I wi

    • Re:Why is it mixed? (Score:2, Informative)

      by modecx ( 130548 )
      Bah, I thought "Supremacy" was teh major suck. It was about a tenth as good as the first one, which was quite entertaining and well done--and the cinematography was among the worst I've ever seen. It's like the whole thing was shot with a handicam resting on one of those vibrating hotel beds. I'm not one prone to nausea (thanks FPSs!) but this movie brought me close.

      The first movie had soul, this one had none. It's a revenge flick, and I just didn't feel it. Totally disappointed.

  • Well, there's a big "if" here (Score:5, Funny)

    by Clay Mitchell ( 43630 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @11:15AM (#10898228) Homepage
    If Greengrass finds a camera man who doesn't suffer from non-stop epileptic seizures, I'm cool with it.

  • ...follows the costumed hero Rorschach...

    If it stays reasonably true to the comic, I'll be taking bets on protest sizes and the first 5 countries to ban the film.

    • For the article proves that (at the very least) whoever was writing it has no fucking idea what makes the story good, or (at the very, very worst) the director and studio are equally clueless.

      I'm betting on both, and I'm betting this is going to make the recent Punisher movie look like Shakespear.

    • Re:Taking Bets (Score:3, Funny)

      by ronfar ( 52216 )
      ...follows the costumed hero Rorschach...
      It seems like they already made that movie and called it Taxi Driver....

  • Oh for the love of $god... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by solios ( 53048 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @11:18AM (#10898254) Homepage
    There's a reason Terry Guilliam opted out of working on a film adaptation of Watchmen. The man stated in a book dedicated to Moore's fiftieth birthday that he drew comfort from the fact that he wouldnt' be the one to fuck over the work.

    This is Watchmen. This ain't spiderman, this ain't X-men, this ain't dime-store fluff. This is one of the greatest works in the genre and an absolute masterpiece of the superhero medium.

    And Guilliam is on the record as being happy he won't be the one to fuck it over. Paul Greengrass has stepped up to the plate, proving he has some sort of perverse urge to alienate pretty much everyone who's ever read the book.

    Watchmen can't be done in 90-120 minutes with Big Name Actors. Leastwise, it can't be done right, and if it can't be done right, it shouldn't be done at all. :(
    • Watchmen can't be done in 90-120 minutes with Big Name Actors. Leastwise, it can't be done right, and if it can't be done right, it shouldn't be done at all. :(
      You know what? This is exactly what a lot of fans said when they first heard about the little-known director Peter Jackson taking on Lord of the Rings.

      As far as I'm concerned those movies were pretty good, so I wouldn't write of a Watchmen movie yet. Who knows? It might be good!
      • And a lot of fans were pissed that Jackson left out some bits, like the Scouring of the Shire, and amped up shit that just wasn't in the book (like the role the elf woman played in the story).

        Combine the complicated ties between all of the sub plots with the visual style of the book and you already have your script and your storyboards for a film adaptation- all the hard work has been done except for the inconvenient fact that Watchmen is so vast that it works better in the medium it was delivered in.

        Jack

        • Re:Oh for the love of $god... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @01:31PM (#10899914) Homepage
          I would have to say that LOTR is an easier project than Watchmen, given the time and budget to do LOTR properly (which Jackson had). The problem is that Hollywood can't do subtlety. This is quite obvious in Jackson's changes to LOTR - he took all the subtlety out. Gandalf's battles aren't about inspiring fire in the hearts of his compatriots anymore, they're about fireballs and mind control. The confusing reinforcements of the novel are replaced with the inexplicable but cool Big Elven Army (that was the only change I really despised). Honestly, I couldn't care less about Arwen's expanded role - most of that stuff was Tolkien canon taken from the Silmarillion anyways, so its not like Jackson pulled it from his ass.

          Anyhow, the point is that LOTR isn't very subtle. Its high fantasy - its about epic battles and heroic characters and a beautiful, detailed setting. All a director needed to do it right was a huge budget, willingness to do it in a superlong form (trilogy of long films), and solid, generic talent. The fact is that Hollywood is so barren of those gifts that we didn't expect to see that kind of product. LOTR has most of the elements of a popcorn war movie - Hollywood can do those. Jackson made it right by keeping much of the story, rather than fucking around with it like directors are quick to do. This is why we like Jackson - not just that he's a very talented director, but that he kept the fucking around to a minimum.

          Watchmen is a whole other matter. This isn't a case of "Hollywood won't adapt it right because Hollywood likes to shit on our dreams" like LOTR. A Watchmen would be really, really _hard_ to do. This book is full of very twisted subtleties and undercurrents. If you just did a slavish reproduction of the comic like the first two Harry Potter films or the Dune miniseries - which is the best we can hope for - it would be a failure, because you'd miss many of the underlying themes and meanings of the comic. Terry Gilliam admitted this himself.

          LOTR needs a good action director who cares about the source material to be done properly. Watchmen needs more than that - Watchmen demands genius.
      • I think far more people are familiar with LOTR than The Watchmen (at least, judging by the responses here in slashdot), and if so, it's going to be a hard sell to convince people to sit through another 8(9?) hour trilogy.
      • Watchmen can't be done in 90-120 minutes with Big Name Actors. Leastwise, it can't be done right, and if it can't be done right, it shouldn't be done at all. :(

        You know what? This is exactly what a lot of fans said when they first heard about the little-known director Peter Jackson taking on Lord of the Rings.

        Peter Jackson wasn't stupid enough to try to squeeze LotR into 90-120 minutes, so I don't see what your statement has to do with the subject at hand.

    • Re:Oh for the love of $god... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Ubergrendle ( 531719 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @12:08PM (#10898821) Journal
      I always thought an HBO series, 12 episodes, staring middle-weight actors ~might~ be able to pull it off.

      No way the depth of the comic is ever conveyed to the screen, even if done shot-for-shot.


  • "Based on" - DANGER WILL ROBINSON (Score:5, Informative)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @11:20AM (#10898280) Homepage Journal
    The thing that worries me is the "based on" bit - just as "StarShip Troopers" was "based on" the book by Robert Heinlein - in that some of the character names were used, but that's about it.

    If Watchmen the movie is "based on" Watchmen the graphic novel in the same way, I suggest installing seat belts in all the theaters to prevent the audience from being pulled from their seats by the suction of the movie.

    If, on the other hand, this movie is a reasonably faithful rendition of the graphic novel... then count me in.

  • Hollywood ending (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SamSim ( 630795 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @11:21AM (#10898290) Homepage Journal

    Though I hope Greengrass has the sense to keep it unchanged, I don't think the masses are going to like the ending. It's not standard Hollywood fare.

    • I have been hanging out for a Watchmen movie for almost twenty years. Here's hoping this incarnation finally gets the project out of development hell.

      That said, I don't think the story can work without the ending. Except in this post-9/11 world I'm not sure if any studio would be willing to take the chance of portraying...

      **** SPOILER ****

      .... half of New York wiped out in an act of terrorism designed to change the world.

      **** SPOILER END ***

      The Sam Hamm ending (pre-9/11 I believe?) didn't work f

  • No car chases please. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cerebis ( 560975 )
    Well going on the Bourne Supremacy, I certainly hope there are no extended car chases in a movie based on Watchmen. That was an absolutely terrible scene, where frantic cutting and shaking cameras replaced actual rapidly moving cars.
  • The Bourne Identity was a great story, and a great movie. The Bourne Supremacy was a great story, and perhaps the worst movie I ever saw.

    Nearly everyone I talked to had the same experience I did: got dizzy and a headache from all the flash photography and quick cut scenes.

    You couldn't even tell what was going on in the action sequences and car chases.

    This director shouldn't be given another film, he should be flogged. That wasn't artistic, it was annoying and counterproductive.
    • while not "worst movie ever", I agree that the camera/editing are big steaming piles of poo...

      And I used to think Guy Ritchie was a bit overboard with the tv-commercial-like fast cuts... sheesh!

      (my wife and I say "We too" re: the dizzy spells during the actions sequences)

      • I figure it's worth noting that comic books often consist largely of fast cuts. Roger Ebert's commentary track on the Dark City DVD mentions the use of fast cuts early in the movie to be very reminiscent of a comic book.

        Unless you're talking about fast pans, or unless I'm thinking entirely of the wrong terms.
        • Well, yes. For comic book reenactment is should be great.

          But the level of jittery camera work and fast cuts (and fast pans too, now that you mention it) in "Bourne Supremacy" is so high as to cause dizziness and headache. Not even playing UT2k3 on a small arena with 32 players FFA deathmatch was so bad!

    • I agree completely. Even though I loved the books, I could accept the re-written plot-lines. The Bourne Identity was a great movie, but Supremacy bored me to tears. I was expecting some of the cool actions sequences like the first movie, but you couldn't see what was going on. On top of the bad camera work, the plot was pretty weak. I never go into a book-based movie expecting a great adaption**, but even on it's own the Bourne Supremacy didn't come close to the first one.

      **I think Peter Jackson has

  • When will it end? (Score:4, Funny)

    by yetanothermike ( 824215 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @11:27AM (#10898356)
    Hellblazer starring Keanu isn't bad enough? Now they have to poison the well further with Watchmen?

    What's next??? V For Vendetta starring Vin Diesel?? The Rock IS The Sandman... *gag* *wretch* *puke*

    For those of you who haven't heard of Watchmen before, or haven't read it - you should. This is one of the works that really showed just how well comics could tell adult stories and be more than spandex and capes.

    • It burns us! (Score:5, Funny)

      by mcmonkey ( 96054 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @12:10PM (#10898846) Homepage
      The Rock IS The Sandman

      When this happens, please do the right thing and save us the trouble of having to hunting you down.

    • I'd love to see a V for Vendetta, although it would probably be done better as a TV mini-series, by British actors and in England.

      I was a big watchman fan ages ago. I even have the limited edition Hardback [ebay.com] (mine isn't for sale).

      At the time everyone was for Arnie to play Dr Manhatten. TBH I can't see this movie being as good as the book.

  • Really, there is no reason to be panicky and down on this guy, any more than there is a reason to be excited about him. He's a no name up and comer, who made a crappy Keneath Branaugh movie a few years ago (not really in the same genre as Watchmen), is known mostly for making violent made for TV movies.

    I haven't seen Bourne Supremecy, it seems to have been pretty much a wash. Greengrass's Bloody Sunday is pretty well regarded. He's got a thing for gritty realism, and his camerawork is adventurous, but not
  • Does the timing of this announcement have anything to do with the success of the Incredibles, which explores the same theme of superheros being discouraged to show themselves and their powers?
  • Rorshach: Johnny Depp
    Dr. Manhatten: George Clooney (alt: Hugh Jackman)
    The Comedian: Tom Sellack
    Ozymandius: Ralph Feinnes
    Nite Owl: Stephen Root (alt: Tom Hanks)
    Silk Spectre 1: Lucy Lawless
    Silk Spectre 2: Natalie Portman? Too young. Probably need someone more muscular, true brunette, can actually act. Michelle Forbes is probably a little too old. Maybe Maggie Gyllenhaal.
    Psychiatristic: James Earl Jones

    • Please tell me you're joking. Please, I beg you.

      I loves me some Johnny Depp, but Rorshach? Are you kidding? You must be looking forward to that Elektra movie. First of all, he has to be explosively cruel. Depp does a lot of things well, but that's not one of them. Second of all, when the mask comes off, he's supposed to look like a runty little pug. Not a disheveld pretty boy. I'd say Christian Bale for the violence, but he's too pretty as well.

      Max Perlich [imdb.com] would be kind of perfect since you wouldn't e
    • I don't want to get into a casting arguement, but the one thing I would be adament about is that Rorshach can't be played by a known actor. If that is the case, the entire plot of him being the crazy doom crier has to be thrown out. As soon as people see Johnny Depp (or someone else famous) in that role, they're going to figure out he's rorshach.
    • Rorschach should instead be cast with William H. Macy. I've always been impressed with Macy, and I think that with appropriate study he could bring the role to striking life. Rorschach was a man under intense self control, which in my opinion Macy has striven for in several of his prior roles.

  • Rorschach's Journal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Darth23 ( 720385 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @11:50AM (#10898601) Journal
    Rorschach's Journal
    November 23,2004

    This city fears me, because I have seen its true face. The Hollywood people want to tell my story. They think they can tell my story? No one can tell my story. No one except me.

    In the past there were men who could tell my story. Men like my father or President Eisenhower. But that was before the lawyers and the pornographers and the bleeding heart teachers took over.

    Now the smell of their corruption is in the air, polluting everything with their filth and their pornography and their so-called civil liberties.

    But their reign will not last. There will be war soon. A Great War sewwping over everything like a storm. And it will wash away the stench and corruption of Hollywood, Las Vegas, New York and all the other cesspools of this country.

    And, in their desperation, the people will look up to me an beg me for their help.

    And I will look down and I will say

    "No."

  • Theoretically a movie could work (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sielwolf ( 246764 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @11:50AM (#10898602) Homepage Journal
    just like in theory Communism works. Movies have been doing the juxtaposed images and narrative structure for a while. Rules of Attraction and Timecode are both recent examples of crossing split-screen narrative that reintersect with each other (and you can get some pretty off the wall stuff such as Last Year at Marienbad). Leitmotivs have existed in movies forever and so has repeated symbolism. But because cinema velocity is artist-determined, not audience-determined (i.e. the director controls the pacing. In literature the reader can stop, reread and thus control the pace of the story) often such levels of interpretation are usually missed unless one is willing to invest the time rewatching a movie critically.

    This will always be the problem between much literature and film, even for short written works. This is why movies are either of short stories or of novels that are completely gutted of everything but the highlight reel. Rarely are people going to sit through three movies that aren't epic drama. You might get a fan to sit down for the 312 minute Swedish TV version of Fanny and Alexander but no way is it going to survive a theatrical release.

    So... if a studio can be convinced to release a 5 hour movie and if a select group carefully translated the symbols to film equivilents (playing into part of the bane and boon of movies being the temporal element) and if a budget can be collected to accurately reproduce everything from Vietnam to Mars to Veidt's Antarctic base to the annihilation of NYC... theoretically this could be the greatest movie ever made.

    Of course, that's said by every Producer/Director/Studio Head before every movie they release...

    Yeah, this is probably going to suck.
  • I'm pretty worn out from these Comic Book based movies..

    Wake me when they're making Preacher into a movie and I'll see it 5 times and buy 2 copies of the DVD.

  • Yes, but it doesn't answer the question... (Score:4, Funny)

    by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @11:59AM (#10898713) Journal
    Who will watch the watchmen?
  • A number of things in Watchmen one does not expect to see in a Hollywood movie. So, I ask myself:
    1. Will the movie portray the riots leading to the passage of the Keane Act?
    2. Will Rorschach escape a prison riot by cleverly (and improbably) electrocuting the people who are using an arc welder to break into his cell?
    3. Will Rorschach call his neighbor a whore in front of her children?
    4. Will he then recall his own mother's brutality as he gazes into the tear-streaked face of one of her boys?
    5. Will the Comedian have

  • Three Movies Hopefully (Score:3, Insightful)

    by buckhead_buddy ( 186384 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @12:13PM (#10898896)
    It's not going to happen, but I think the only way to do Watchmen is as a trilogy. There's just too much information to fit into a traditional Hollywood three act structure.

    The first movie deals with romance between Laurie and Dan
    Sets up Rorsharch's serial killer conspiracy.
    Ends with Dr. Manhattan leaving earth and Rorscharch's arrest.

    The second deals with Rorsharch's psychosis
    Shows Laurie's appeal to Dr. Manhattan on Mars
    Ends with the realization Ozymandias is behind things

    The third focuses on the complex resolution of Ozy's plan
    Resolves with Dan and Laurie's happy relationship
    Has a scene post-credits that portrays the cliff-hanger of Rorscharch's diary.

  • Why? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jglazer75 ( 645716 )
    I recently read the book (recently, like two weeks ago) and I was unimpressed. I understand that it was the FIRST of its kind but I was baffled as to why it was the BEST. I will admit that I do not read much into that genre so, but I picked it up because I'd like to read MORE of the genre and I wanted to see where the bar was set. I'll admit that I guess that I expected too much.

    The comic-within-a-comic was a nice flourish of parellelism, but why was it there? The link made in one of the later 'pre-chapter
    • The point of the comic-within-a-comic was twofold: It carried the thesis that humanity's ambivelance to real, live superheros in its midst would have allowed comics to explore a lot of other areas that get crowded out by superhero comix (so it's a comment on comics in general); and it's a carrier wave for the overall thesis of The Watchmen about being careful when fighting monsters, lest ye become a monster yourself. In the pirate comic, the hero becomes a monster while trying to get back to civilization

  • In the current political climate... Dark Knight (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dusabre ( 176445 ) on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @12:27PM (#10899086) Homepage
    Strikes Back on the big screen seems more appropriate.

    Think about it.
  • As long as they don't use a freakin' handheld camera for the Watchmen like they did in The Bourne Supermacy, everything will be ok.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close