Dave Gibbons On the Forthcoming Watchmen Movie 181
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.
The End Is Nigh... (Score:5, Funny)
Conversions (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Conversions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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:2)
As I commented elsewhere: The Zeroeth Law.
Yes, it was very much inspired by Williamson... but, as with Asimov, in the movie it was a direct consequence of thinking through the three laws. In the case of With Folded Hands, it was more directly built into their programming.
That's why I say it was Asimovian: the character followed the laws thorugh, exactly as Asimov and Daneel did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:2)
On the contrary, the basic plot twist for "I, Robot" came right out of two of Asimov's robot stories: "That Thou Art Mindful of Him" and especially "The Evitable Conflict", which was part of Asimov's "I, Robot" anthology. You can find summaries for both on Wikipedia. Also look
You're partly right (Score:2)
Because of Asimov's foreword (Score:2)
I don't understand how people can claim that the movie had nothing to do with the book titled "I, Robot". The book was an anthology, not a novel.
Because the author explained the reason behind the 3 law in the anthology's foreword : he was fed up with "Frankenstein"-like plot of most sci-fi story, were inevitably the robot(s) end up forming an uprising against their human creators. That was he main reason of writing most of the novels in the anthology, in a way which is more detective stories and/or debugging sessions than "save the world against the mad bots !". And them, BAM, the whole I Robot movie turns around a robot uprising, which Will Smith
Re: (Score:2)
Two words: Zeroeth Law.
If that doesn't mean anything to you, then you haven't read enough Asimov. If they do, then your criticisms don't hold water. Either way... the movie covered it, and covered it in almost exactly the same way that Daneel did, admittedly in a far more condensed way.
(I do have a problem with the big action scene at the end, because even with the Zeroeth Law, robots would have subdued, not injured or killed, human beings. The scene in Susan Calvin's apartment was dead on, however.)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the robots in the movie interpreted "The Zeroth Law" to mean that humanity's survival depended on omnipresent robotic enforcement of a benevolent dictatorship, and Daneel interpreted it to mean that humanity's survival depended on developing a new culture that didn't even have robots.
So if by "almost exactly" you mean "almost exactly the opposite of", then sure, I'l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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"
Re: (Score:2)
There was a "Total Recall" TV series; which was NOTHING like the movie. It was a LOT like the Asimov Robot books.
Really enjoyable series that was on a too small of a network to get picked up. Way ahead of it's time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect you haven't spoken with any highly-visible corporate women officers. Regardless of their personalities or original appearance... they get make-overs. They get expensive haircuts. They get extremely expensive clothes. And so forth.
Asimov did not foresee this; when he created Susan Calvin, the only way a woman would be in her mid-thirties, unmarried, and having a professional job is if she were unattractive, physically and emotionally. And Calvin fit that.
It does not match what really happen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
"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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And the basis for this is...what? Is the director actively hostile to the source material, as there was with film "adaptation" of Starship Troopers?
Re: (Score:2)
RE:The Starship Troopers people: the movie originally was vaguely about some space bugs and the Starship Troopers stuff was added in later. The themes about the Federation and whatnot are an afterthought.
There is a vast divergence between the original book and film. A report in an American Cinematographer article around the same time of film's release states the Heinlein novel was optioned well into the pre-production period of the film, which had a working title of Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine; most of the writing team reportedly were unaware of the novel at the time. According to the DVD commentary, Paul Verhoeven never finished reading the novel, claiming he read through the first few chapters and became both "bored and depressed".
Comparison b/n the movie and novel [wikipedia.org]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Story, yes. But like good literature, Watchmen is about its themes just as much as its story. I read Watchmen recently, and those two things were big deals to me. They made me uncomfortable, and consequently, I thought about them a lot.
I don't want to add to the silly geek speculati
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right... so what you want is a realistic explanation for a freakin' flying blue guy who can do anything?
Are you kidding? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Departed had a happy ending (Score:3, Funny)
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
I disagree about PKD movies (Score:2)
Then again, A Scanner Darkly wasn't a typical movie, and not intended to be a blockbuster.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, I think it will be the first with much of the explanation for the characters actions being left on the cutting room
Re: (Score:2)
Rorschach's rampant homophobia, for example...
For me what Moore accomplished with Rorschach is the single most brilliant aspect of the story. He is an unpleasant, right wing, sadistic, conspiracy theorist believing, murdering psychopath - the kind of person you would want to see behind bars in real life, and yet, he is the person that the reader tends to have the most sympathy for and identifies with the most.
If they can get that right the movie will be brilliant, but I doubt they will.
Another thing: The story is in a large part driven by the Cold War
Movie Adaptations (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 agree with you, but will take it a step further. Books, comics, television, plays, and movies are all fundamentally different methods of storytelling, so an adaptation MUST tell the story in a different way. An adaptation that doesn't try something new will fail. For example, movies are inherently visual, while books can pop inside peoples heads and even take an omniscient perspective. I never appreciated this fully until I tried writing a screenplay after mostly writing prose.
A true adaptation from on
Alan Moore doesn't do well on screen (Score:2)
Re:Alan Moore doesn't do well on screen (Score:4, Insightful)
Appparently, he agrees.
Uh oh.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Did he have any to begin with? (Score:2)
Re:Alan Moore doesn't do well on screen (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Alan Moore doesn't do well on screen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Alan Moore doesn't do well on screen (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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"
Re:Alan Moore doesn't do well on screen (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Liberal != Socialist (Score:2)
So to use another metaphor, their scale didn't
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:Alan Moore doesn't do well on screen (Score:5, Informative)
So Alan Moore not having his name on the credits means nothing at all about the quality of the film.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not expecting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I *loved* the fact that the central chapter was a visual palindrome (the sequence and size of light and dark panels is reflected exactly in the middle two pages, and fairly closely througout the entire chapter). Of course, a genius filmaker could translate this to film, but what are the odds here?
It's a Setup (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I dunno, it seems like it's a valid dismissal, as the opinions of comic book fans have about zero correlation with the quality of a motion picture. The last thing the world needs is a bunch of costumed vigilantes deciding what interpretation of "Watchmen" is permissible. Who watches the watchmen of "The Watchmen"? Alan Moore's disassociation with the project is more interesting, but that isn't what you were talking about.
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 fundamental ways.
You and my girlfriend and my parents; silly movie.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm accusing Gibbons of preparing to dismiss any criticism of the movie's faithfulness to the original story--no matter how legitimate--as unrealistic. Gibbons is talking about the movie's faithfulness. So am I. So
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Screw the hard-core fans (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem like when the movies are fairly
hear hear. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:2, Informative)
Re:hear hear. (Score:4, Interesting)
http://boredomfestival.wordpress.com/2007/12/11/tales-of-the-black-freighter/ [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I predict this will bomb. (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Re:I predict this will bomb. (Score:4, Funny)
Who watches the watchmen?
In Hollywood... nobody!
Re: (Score:2)
No, this movie is destined to either be a cult classic or a total transdimensional bomb.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess nobody, unless we get shipped off to Soviet Russia where, alas, we watch The Watchmen.
Re: (Score:2)
*Synapses crossfire* Ow.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Know what's funny? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish they'd change the title (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't Fit in 90 Minutes (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Can't Fit in 90 Minutes (Score:5, Informative)
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....
Too bad but likely this is going to be a stinker (Score:2)
I respect Alan Moore's opinion personally.
I'm not sure if this could have been made into anything less than a hard "R" movie anyway. Very adult content.
Including the pirate comic subtext in the movie would be very hard.
It probably deserves a trilogy or mini-series to be done right any way.
Re:Too bad but likely this is going to be a stinke (Score:2, Informative)
other difficult things (Score:2)
The paranoid right-wing rag subplot.
The role of the Comedian in present events.
Rorschach's unyielding, twisted sense of justice, which leads to his death. Is Rorschach's misanthropic voice the ultimate soul of the book?
The more I think about it, the more the Watchmen seems bound to its time. It was kind of thrilling to see a comic book deal with social issues. But because that was such a novel thing for a comic book to do, it could just sort of gesture at them. (As,
Re: (Score:2)
Why not an HBO series? (Score:2)
Can someone give me the 5 second summary? (Score:2)
Superman: Jesus Christ in a cape.
Watchmen: ???
Re: (Score:2)