digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at bamkapow.com

The Comic Book Movie Double Standard

bamkapow.com — So, I'm looking at this Minutemen photograph, just now released to the public to promote Zack Snyder's Watchmen. It looks pretty much like it should. And yet, I don't really care. I'm still pissed that Watchmen is being made at all. But why?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • LegendaryHitman, on 05/30/2008, -4/+28Watchmen's one of those movies that will either be really good or really bad...the director's got a 50/50 chance of making this work...
    • MookiBlaylock, on 05/30/2008, -2/+1Profound. :)
      I am excited for it, finally some of the good comics are being made into movies.
    • iamronburgundy, on 05/30/2008, -3/+1Yeah I've got to admit, comic book movies have come a long way since the days of the Batman nipple suit.
      • mywhitenoise, on 05/30/2008, -6/+4How so? Batman Begins and the Spider-man movies are the only good ones. All the other comic book movies are a joke.
        • drunkirish, on 05/30/2008, -8/+3Spiderman movies? Really?

        • mywhitenoise, on 05/30/2008, -1/+14So because you didn't like 3, you're going to act like you didn't enjoy 2?
        • cesclaveria, on 05/30/2008, -0/+12Spider-Man 1 and 2 were great, you could make a kickass 1 hour movie editing some scenes from Spider-Man 3 (specially the dance sequence)

          Also Iron Man and the first couple of X-Men movies were pretty good.
        • sugarazor, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5X-Men 2, Sin City, 300, Blade, The Crow, Ghost World, Superman, Iron Man, Road to Perdition, and V for Vendetta, I thought were all fantastic comic book movies.
    • YME1280, on 05/30/2008, -1/+17Val Kilmer and George Clooney almost ***** it up for everyone. Thank you Batman Begins, Dark Night and Ironman for reinvigorating the genre.
      • Snokage, on 05/30/2008, -3/+12wtf you forgot spider man.
        • RobotKeaton, on 05/30/2008, -1/+15Or X-men, which was the first blockbuster comic movie of the "New Age"
        • fissionignition, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3What about Blade? It beat X-Men by about 2 years.
        • Tiak, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Well, that'd be because Blade (and the sequels, oh dear God! The Sequels!) sucked.

          I mean, it's entertaining in a campy sort of way, but it definitely wouldn't be what I would consider a good comic book movie.
        • Snokage, on 05/31/2008, -1/+1@tiak. blade sequels were ***** sweet. or at least the one with Ms Biel in it.....

          /melts
      • hipnerd, on 05/30/2008, -4/+8Kilmer and Clooney? They were both better choices for Batman than Keaton. The difference was that they were saddled with campy scripts and Joel Schumacher directing. It wasn't like Clooney' acting was what made Batman and Robin atrocious. That thing sucked top to bottom.
        • kingmanic, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4Kilmer maybe, but Clooney is just way to light hearted to play a psychopathic vigilante.
        • H0tKarl, on 05/30/2008, -1/+5No way. Keaton was actually convincing as somebody freaky enough to try to fight crime dressed in a bat costume.
    • asherp, on 05/30/2008, -2/+3That's not really how probability works, but I get the point.
      • Myonosken, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Your name should be less 'asherp' and more 'asperg'
    • bitterbug, on 05/30/2008, -0/+16I would rather have seen HBO make it as a 12 episode miniseries, as Rome was intended to be originally.
      If anyone could pull it off properly, they could.
      • shrinePL, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1An idea here.
      • bitterbug, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Actually, now that I've brought it up.

        Dear HBO,
        I will give you money up front for the DVD set if you can procure the rights to make a cable tv version of The Watchmen. Please let us know the budget and we'll start recruiting fans to help fund it. :)

      • beggersfunk, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Couldn't agree more, it would be nice if its a 12 ep on HBO!
    • ZenMojo, on 05/30/2008, -1/+14The difference between Iron Man and Watchmen is the difference between Batman and Sin City.

      One is a self-contained story with a tight, focused continuity written by one person and should not be screwed with. The other is a character from decades ago constantly revamped to keep up with changing times who has been screwed up over and over again.

      The sooner studios figure this ***** out, the better.
    • pigducksheep, on 05/30/2008, -1/+9I hate the idea of people seeing a Watchmen movie without reading the comic. They're probably going to miss out on some greatness and end up thinking the story isn't any good.
    • joshuagor44, on 05/30/2008, -0/+0or it can be somewhere in between.
    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/30/2008, -0/+15OK.
      I am a big, big fan of Moore's "Watchmen" (and of "V for Vendetta" and of "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", which admittedly was turned into one of the worst movies *ever*), and I am very suspicious of every new comic-based movie - Hollywood has done too much damage already.
      But this sentence here:
      "I will never be able to enjoy Snyder's Watchmen, no matter how good it is."
      translates into English like this:
      "I am a pretentious *****. I will not enjoy a work of art based on another work of art, because I have Alan Moore's dick in my mouth."
      Pathetic.
    • igm07, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3@hitman

      you're an idiot. This will be good. I saw 300 to check whether Zack Snyder knew what he was doing. His faithful adaptation deviated in ways that only improved on the source material.

      In this case, the source material--Moore's Watchmen--is far superior, with more depth and complexity than 300. But I trust Snyder to make the right judgments within the limitation of the medium.

      It will not be a panel-for-panel adaptation like 300, but it will be good, that's for damn sure.
  • bixby1, on 05/30/2008, -1/+10One of my favorite comics. Big shoes to fill here. It better be cared for by the director or it'll be a hot messuva' movie.
    • ausfahrt, on 05/30/2008, -5/+1I must have missed something when i read it. Wasn't overly engulfed in it and didn't fall in love. I still don't get all the fuss over it. Did you read it when it first came out? Is it just dated to me now? I am really interested in why i don't love this story as much as others. Has it been done a thousand times so was nothing special to me now. These are all possibilities.
      • ausfahrt, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Well i did miss a lot. Did some reading about the book and can't believe i missed all the hidden imagery and embedded puzzle like story telling. I didn't get too much into it so as to ruin it for my repeat readings.
  • sysoprock, on 05/30/2008, -24/+119From the article:

    "I still can't forget how bad 300 was."

    Article over. GTFO.
    • RedReplicant, on 05/30/2008, -7/+40Yeah, really. How can you complain about one long insane shot of pure testosterone goodness? This guy has to be at least a little grinchy.
    • taosd, on 05/30/2008, -30/+16He's right, 300 was terrible.
      • sysoprock, on 05/30/2008, -6/+44Yeah, 300 wasn't very well received... IN PANSYLAND.
        • tjmb9, on 05/30/2008, -3/+18it IS true that Sin City was a lot better than 300. Unless, of course, you are the type of person who thinks its the coolest thing ever to draw on one of those wet floor signs so it looks like a scene from 300.
        • Myonosken, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Who mentioned Sin City?
      • wolfofwar, on 05/30/2008, -0/+11Your comments are insanity! This is madness!
      • darthdusty, on 05/30/2008, -1/+5He says 300 was bad. He's pissed about Watchmen being made.

        In other news his favorite tv shows are Beauty and the Geek, The Hills, and every families favorite edgy crime drama Without a Trace.

        And one more thing: he bitches about ***** that doesn't even matter. IMO, when a movie is made based on a book, there are automatically two versions of the story. For example, V for Vendetta in my mind has two versions now: the comic and the movie. Sin City, same way. Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, another example.
      • BerenTW, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1i agree 300 was poor. Or at least all the of the wife's story line was extremely poor and directly ported from Days of Our Lives. If the wife section was nuked the movie would be 3 times as good.

        oh wait, that would mean that it was the same as the source material... shock.
    • OpaqueMurdock, on 05/30/2008, -1/+5Well, there is a lot of subtly in Watchmen that a self proclaimed "action" director may not quite capture. I loved 300 and I have high hopes for the movie adaptation of watchmen... but hearing that Alan Moore wants his name taken off it gives me a bed feeling.

      Watchmen was a very interesting piece of work, I think it really shook things up in the comic industry. If this movie is done right. It could have the same effect again. Done poorly, it will be just nostalgic and pointless.

      Later I will shed a tear for the Terry Gilliam version that never saw the light of day...
    • sgtpppr, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Well, this writer is one of 'those guys'. You know, the ones that hate everything that everyone they know likes.
      • Defuser, on 05/30/2008, -3/+1Yeah, because how dare he form his own opinion? If Digg has taught me anything, it's that we all need to like the same things. Otherwise, how could we possibly know what's popular? Heaven forbid that we become the kind of people that don't need the validation of a thousand other lemmings marching lockstep to the same fads and trends.
    • mman426, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5Why would someone think 300 was terrible, it followed the comic almost exactly, yeah they added some stuff to make the movie longer and to add some more story too it but that didn't take away from it at all. Tell me what was so horrible about 300 and I will consider your opinion.
      • allisonaxe, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4300 was exactly like the comic, and the comic was pretty simplistic to begin with: bad guys appear, good guys stand up, kick as much ass as they possibly can while being as manly as possible.

        but then, I'm not a testosterone-fueled meat-head, so what do I know?
        • BerenTW, on 05/31/2008, -3/+1er.. have you seen the movie or read the book. There is about 20 min of days o our lives footage in the film that is not in the book. The wife is nothing like the character in the book. it ruins the film.
        • allisonaxe, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1yes, I saw the movie, and borrowed a friends copy of the book in advance out of excitement for it, and yeah, I saw that bit you refer to, and frankly, found it to be the most compelling part of the movie. at the showing of the movie I saw, the audience - men and women alike - cheered when the queen stabbed the dude. nobody cheered at any other point, though there were a couple meat-heads whooping and hollaring in the lobby of the theater on their way out.

          and, ok, you get a cookie: you proved me wrong, there was a bit that wasn't in the book. the rest of it? shot-by-shot exact replica of the book....

          I forgot to mention in my prior post that this part of it actually excites me: the idea that the director got the movie to look and feel the same way as the book, has me excited that maybe he can branch out of the action field a bit, and manage to make Watchmen look and feel as close to the book as possible.
      • 4d669, on 05/31/2008, -0/+2It's funny how some people say that Spider Man 2 which took the comic story lane and shuved it up it's ass was a great comic movie and 300 in which the comic WAS the script sucked. Comic fans don't even know what they want, but I do. All they want is to feel special for knowing about the comics before regular people who learn what the comic is when the movie is made.
    • solid12345, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5The problem with 300 was it was a glorious visual trip that was awesome the first time around but I tried to watch it a second, just didn't work. Kind of like most comics, read them once and put them away never to read again.
      • Di0genes, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1You could say that about most films that don't ham-fist their own complexity. It really isn't a mark against 300 that its appeal spent on the first viewing.
  • AshamedAmerican, on 05/30/2008, -5/+26Would've been much much better if this had just been an HBO mini series.
    • frelk, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1That's an excellent point. It could also be done Peter Jackson style, where the source material is so deep it really makes the most sense in multiple installments. It was a 12 book miniseries so, say, 4 books per movie at maybe 2.5 - 3 hours per movie. Eventually somebody had to remake Dune as a miniseries because trying to cram it all into 3 hours made no sense unless you were familiar with the book.
  • HSlipwiffle, on 05/30/2008, -2/+52I need to write a blog post on this at some point.

    The more famous super heros have so much back story that has been rewritten, reimagined and contradicted so many times that it's not only forgivable to take some liberties with the details, it would be impossible to have a coherent story without doing so.

    Watchmen is different. It's a perfectly crafted, insanely detailed self contained narrative. Little changes here and there could have huge ramifications in how crucial elements are perceived.
    • Zopwx2, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Truth, its literally a comicbook-novel with a start and finish. Not like other open ended ongoing characters and storylines in other comics.
    • gymbrall, on 05/30/2008, -0/+6I was going to write almost the exact same comment. Kudos to you for saying what I'm sure many of us feel. Watchmen is not like other comics, it's more like that perfect novel that you don't want to see anyone mess with.

  • SoopaflySAM, on 05/30/2008, -2/+19I want Marvel VS Capcom the movie!
    • cesclaveria, on 05/30/2008, -1/+5would you take DC vs Mortal Kombat?


      /you they are going to make it...
    • mman426, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2I want Civil War the movie, but it would have to be in parts.
      • Memitim, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1I dunno. Despite the huge number of comics tied into the Civil War storyline, the majority of them were more side stories that could be completely discarded without making the main storyline confusing in any way. Admittedly, it would be a hell of a lot better in serial form.
  • Zopwx2, on 05/30/2008, -2/+15Watchmen was specially made and structured to exist in the comic book medium. The movie no matter how good or faithful will never catch the spirit the comic itself.
    • Angostura, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Except, except... much of the framing of the drawing is remarkably cinematographic. I reads almost like a story-board in places.
      • Swarms, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1I feel like an idiot for sitting here trying to figure out the right way to say cinematographic. Now I'm depressed.
        • Angostura, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Cheer up, the Internet came to your aid.

          Glad to be of service.
    • jax9999, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1You know, tahts something I hadn't thought of . Like Wanted. Wanted was originally wrapped in the loving embrace of comics, and a post crisis mentality of DC. It was fun playing spot the character. the movie seems to have stripped all of that out.

      Watchmen was created as a love letter inside the comic industry, they didnt' have super hero comics in the book, they had pirate comics. it was part of the point. I hope the movie doesn't lose the meta context.
  • boxlight, on 05/30/2008, -3/+10WATCHMEN was easily the most ambitious comic book ever, and easily the most ambitious comic-to-film project ever.

    I'm still convinced that it's unfilmable and will turn out to be a box office bomb of mythical proportions, up there with CATWOMAN, ISHTAR, and THE ADVENTURES OF BARON MUNCHAUSEN .

    And I can't wait to see it.
    • floppyparty, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4Very ambitious. It would be like trying to make a movie adaptation of Neuromancer. And we all know how Johnny Neumonic turned out...
      • EvilJelloMan, on 05/30/2008, -3/+1I... WANT... ROOM SERVICE!!!
      • Tiak, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Both of you make me want to cry from memories of horrible films I thought I suppressed forever.
    • cleverhanz, on 05/30/2008, -1/+9Baron Munchausen was great! Even if you don't agree, you must admit that it does not belong in the same class as Catwoman and Ishtar.
      • ZenMojo, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4One of the greatest flops ever made. I defy someone to insult its awesomeness (and provide your home address so I can kick you in the balls).
    • mandarin, on 05/30/2008, -0/+7Screw you Baron Munchausen was good!
    • BevansDesign, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Nothing can be as horrible as Catwoman.
  • Albear89, on 05/30/2008, -0/+7Bring on the Secret Wars Movie. Who woud play the Beyonder?
    • ZenMojo, on 05/30/2008, -0/+8David Bowie. And Tricky. At the same damn time.
      • xkingADROCKx, on 05/30/2008, -2/+4I just got an erection.
      • blokeski, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1It has to be The Hoff. He actually looks like him!
    • jax9999, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4BTW, for secret wars. Read Marvel 1985 its so far interesting.
  • sovietninja, on 05/30/2008, -5/+38"If I'm supposed to just forgive weird little changes to the story because of the way Batman Begins deals with its source, does that mean I should be okay with a Jane Eyre movie adaptation that finds the protagonist fighting alien dinosaurs in a robotic suit? Probably not."

    Wow, what kind of argument is this guy trying to make. This is a huge false comparison. I should have stopped reading when he ripped on 300.

    • juniorb, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1HUGE false comparison. Comic book movies are wildly different from the source because there are usually decades of confusing, often self-contradictory, storylines to mine.

      Anyway, what’s so great about this that it warrants front page coverage? His entire article is nothing more than the age-old adaptation argument. Fans of the book want EVERYTHING up on the screen or nothing at all. People who make that argument usually have very little familiarity with the process of writing, or how narratives differ depending on the medium in which they're told.

      It’s no big revelation that WATCHMEN is different than normal comic books either. It’s a self-contained novel told in graphic form. There is no “double-standard” in comic book movies. Movies based on novels or comic books are different than their source material. Big surprise. It’s part and parcel of adaptation.
      • mman426, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Yeah, everyone knows that movie's based on anything are going to be different than the source. I am fine with some changes as long as they don't do really stupid things like the x-men series did or the third spiderman movie (Some stuff in that movie could have been fixed with just scripting, and i say thats just lazy)
  • floppyparty, on 05/30/2008, -2/+19Does it really take a whole page to say, "I won't like it because it won't live up to the comic."?

    It's not just comics, but also movie adaptations of novels as well. It's just a fact that some source material doesn't lend itself well to a movie adaptation. Stephen King's work usually does. Watchmen probably won't.
  • najamaya, on 05/30/2008, -5/+1Lets just be real, movies aren't original anymore and it's official, nothing is sacred - What for a moment, made you think that Watchmen would be any different. There's a whole queue of things Hollywood is going to throw on the screen...
    • ryrocker, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1what do u mean?

      i can name like a billion movies off the top of my head that r original

      nacho libre
      anchorman
      tenacious d
      finding nemo
      toy story
      40 year old virgin
      knocked up
      superbad


      dude
      the list goes on.

  • Niteowl, on 05/30/2008, -1/+5I really, really, really, really REALLY hope the movie is good. For obvious reasons.
  • buba1243, on 05/30/2008, -2/+7All I can say is thank god i have firebug and the knowledge to turn that yellow background to solid white so that the article becomes readable.
    • buba1243, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1wow thanks digg double post for the win
  • buba1243, on 05/30/2008, -8/+3All I can say is thank god i have firebug and the knowledge to turn that yellow background to solid white so that the article becomes readable.
  • Doomshot, on 05/30/2008, -0/+9When the day arrives that Hollywood makes a movie out of Alan Moore's "Lost Girls," that is when you will know they have simply gone too far.
  • najamaya, on 05/30/2008, -3/+0Doomshot, I'm sure it's only a writer's strike away from showing up as pre-production on IMDB
  • kgsullivan, on 05/30/2008, -3/+4watchmen was written to be unadaptable. better directors (gilliam, for one) have tried and realized it's impossible. sure, you can just jack the story and the look but the excellence of watchmen is in text-image interplay and other features that are exclusive to comics and thus impossible to film. also I can't imagine adapting a book into a film against the creators wishes, just a douche move.
    • igm07, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2What if the creator is a hermit-like wingnut with agoraphobia and delusions of grandeur? I *love* Moore's writing. But he's more than passing strange. DC/Warner owns the story. They can adapt it. This is not some made for TV tripe with no budget. This is not gonna be f-ed up by Tim Burton. They're doing it well, and I'm glad it's taken so long cause the tech won't cheese it up.
  • Mouse13, on 05/30/2008, -1/+5While I somewhat agree with what he's saying, he comparing two different things. Spiderman, Batman, et al. are comic book series with long histories impossible to fit in a single movie. Alan Moore stories are different in that they are only one graphic novel, so the details are crucial to include. Its not a double standard its two different mediums.
  • drunkjack, on 05/30/2008, -5/+24There is no double standard, this is a specious argument.

    Moore and Gibbon's work was created entirely apart from any other known 'universe' (though originally meant to feature existing properties), it is unto it's own.

    There have been NUMEROUS interpretations of Iron Man, Spider-Man, Hulk, Batman, Superman. Hundreds. Dozens and dozens of writers and artists working on those properties. They have already been rejiggered. You can't unring the bell.

    There is ONE Watchmen. ONE. By adapting it to a medium it was NEVER INTENDED FOR, you diminish it's quality. Read Watchmen again, tell me how the depth of character and world building detail can be conveyed in 2 or even 3 hours?

    It CANNOT BE DONE.
    • sugarazor, on 05/30/2008, -2/+8That's like saying "Gone With the Wind" or "The Wizard of Oz" can't be done because they were adapted into a medium they were never intended for. I'm sure some writers strive for their book to be adapted into a movie, but I doubt it's a majority.
    • Defuser, on 05/30/2008, -5/+1Oh, stop being a Drama Queen. If you don't want to see the movie, then don't. If you honestly believe that the mere EXISTENCE of a movie version will somehow make the original comics "diminish in quality", then you need to have a Fanboy-ectomy. What I've found is that people who scream "Watchmen must NOT BE MADE INTO A MOVIE" are invariably tubby losers who think Moore is some kind of Deity, and thus echo his senile, drug-addled rantings about how is work is "being raped". It's a friggin' comic book. A good comic book, to be sure, but what I find interesting is that so many people don't seem to even realize that it actually WAS a comic book series. Most Watchmen Fanboys actually believe that it was written as a "graphic novel". My guess is that their heads would explode if they knew that Moore only added the "Black Freighter" horsecrap because he'd ran out of material, but still needed to meet his contractually obligated number of issues. Yes, that's right: The Black Freighter segments that everyone are crying over are nothing more than padding.
  • wexmajor, on 05/30/2008, -4/+12This guy's a stupid douchebag. I'm conflicted between digging it so everyone can see what a douchebag he is and burying it so I don't have to look at it.
  • citizen782, on 05/30/2008, -1/+71950's push-up bras FTW.
  • cfoster100, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5The big difference that this guy is after between making a movie like Spider-man vs. a movie like Watchmen is that the former is a character that's been written and drawn by leagues of people over many, many decades. The movie version of same is just yet another interpretation of a character that's been interpreted many times over already.

    Something like Watchmen, on the other hand, is a single book that's the result of the singular vision of one individual writer (Alan Moore).

    That's why people (like the writer of this author) are often more sensitive to changes in something like Watchmen (or LOTR, or whatever) than the source material for something like Spider-man.
  • danmarek, on 05/30/2008, -1/+8When you sit down and really think about it, there's the possibility that even if Watchmen is ripped to shreds by the likes of Zack Snyder, it still has the possibility of having a huge impact on the general public.

    It's the likes of Goldeneye on the 64. The FPS genre was well developed on the PC and covering all sorts of new ground when Goldeneye was released, but, because it was on a console gaming system, suddenly every frat hole on the planet was talking like he was the first person to discover the FPS. Goldeneye had a way of introducing the general public to something new that only a small group of hardcore gamers knew anything about.

    We're in the middle of this whole super-hero-movies-are-awesome phase right now. Watchmen has the potential of reordering people's thoughts about the superhero genre.
    • makeminemanda, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3I wholeheartedly agree. This movie could do for the superhero movie genre exactly what the Watchmen GN did for the superhero comic book genre. And hipster film critics will be writing about it for decades to come, just like comic book critics and college kids used the GN as essay fodder for decades after it was released (and still do).

      But maybe not. Just have to wait and see.
    • 4d669, on 05/31/2008, -1/+1That wouldn't have happened if Goldeneye sucked and The Watchmen will.
      DOUBLE WIELDING THE FOR THE ***** WIN! ***** Crysis
  • porkdanish, on 05/30/2008, -6/+1He expressed, perfectly, my problem with a movie of Lord of the Rings being made.
    • xkingADROCKx, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Lord of the rings worked fairly well though, as they made it into three films, not one. I think the problem with The Watchmen will be trying to condense such an intense, deep story into the space of a few hours.
    • wacomwacoff, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5Lord of the Rings, as a trilogy, was one of the most critically and financially successful movies ever made, as well as one of the most award-winning and fan-loved.

      If you have a problem with it being made, it's a little late to complain.
  • 1888franklin, on 05/30/2008, -0/+11I think the reason that Watchmen The Film will probably be terrible or at least very disappointing, while Iron Man The Film was enjoyable is simple: Watchmen the Graphic Novel is a complicated, cohesive drama, heavy on psychodrama and light on action, using the superhero trappings in order to make points about the nature of power and morality in spite of superhero conventions. Any (non-graphic) novel of that sort of character would be difficult to film, especially given the temptation to play up the superhero aspects in more conventional (marketable) ways.

    In contrast, Iron Man (or the X-men, or any of the other long-running staple super heroes) has been through years and years of episodic plots. These characters have gone through so many shocking twists and epic sagas (and also quirky, uninteresting ones) that it's easy to take license with character and plot in a film adaptation. The comics themselves have reinvented the characters a number of times, emphasizing some aspects or elements of plot backgrounds over others, so it makes sense for a film to do the same.

    Watchmen has not gone through that sort of evolution. The enjoyment of it hinges much more on a particular plot and set of characterizations than does the enjoyment of reading X-men comics. If the director doesn't get those elements right, then fans of the comic will be disappointed, myself included. I don't blame Moore from taking his name off the film.

    BTW if you are interested in Moore's work but want to check out some less serious stuff, his Top 10 series is fantastic.
    • mandarin, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Yeah I liked Top 10 too.
    • Tokyosexwhale, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1I remember the first time I picked up Watchmen, I thumbed through it thinking, "Where the hell is the action?" Fortunately, I decided to just read through it. I don't think movie audiences will have the patience to appreciate it. Shame, really.
  • shitheadcgp, on 05/30/2008, -10/+1At the end, the dude fakes an alien invasion to unify the world. This was all just a rip off from that Ronald Reagan speech, which was a rip off of the Eisenhower/MacArthur speeches. A big squid appears in a city and all the sudden earthly conflict is put aside? That's a load of *****. ***** joked and didn't take 9/11 seriously while it was happening. If you want the real deal, read Robert Anton Wilson's books. If you want the self admitted rip off, go with Moore. Suck a fart out of my ass.
    • xkingADROCKx, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Ummm, spoiler? Oh yeah, and you're completely retarded.
    • tobor0, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Well, at least this commenter's appropriately named.
  • papipablo, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4Which Watchmen Baby is your favorite?
  • tehknotte, on 05/30/2008, -2/+1Nite Owl FTW!
  • Izzardo, on 05/30/2008, -1/+0Some projects are as much made by as made for a certain media.

    Northern Lights as a novel is one example - 'The Golden Compass' movie was doomed to failure from the outset, creating it was idiocy.

    Watchmen, and Alan Moore's graphic novels, are another.
  • GoMegaMan426, on 05/30/2008, -3/+2For the Video game nerds: David Hayter is the voice of Solid Snake from the Metal Gear Solid Series.

    Dugg for Hayter and Watchmen
  • ergobliss, on 05/30/2008, -9/+1dugg for dissing 300, that movie was a piece of *****.
  • HQAS, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1FTA: "Who cares if Peter Parker was supposed to meet Gwen Stacy before Mary Jane? It works in the context of the Spidey movies, so we forgive it."

    I'm not sure which "we" he's referring to here, but I and everyone I know who was actually into the Spidey comic books certainly did not forgive that or any of the other horrible things done to the Spider-Man storyline in the Spidey movies.

    Nice of him not to bring up the travesty that the X-Men movies were though.
    • FallenTurtles, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Really? Because I loved the comics and I'm pretty sure Gwen Stacy didn't need to be included in the films. I would, of course, have done anything to get rid of Kirsten Dunst, but Mary Jane was the character those movies needed.

      I forgave and embraced.
  • kylere, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2At least Uwe Boll is not directing it!
  • Tokyosexwhale, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Wouldn't it be nice if, as danmarek commented, Watchmen reordered people's thoughts about the superhero genre? The way I see it, there are essentially two groups of people that are going to heavily criticise this movie: people who have read the comic and know the story, and people who just know it's another superhero movie. Average Joe Moviegoer is probably going to hate it since it's not like any other superhero movie, and those of us who know and love the story will probably hate it since it won't do justice to the original. I really want it to be good, but I feel that the character dynamics of individuals like Ozymandias and Rorschach will be lost in movie format, where you don't have to think about what's happening in front of you.
  • mandarin, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2It they can make this believable, Im hoping the next would be Astro City.
    • jax9999, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1oh god, they would screw astro city up beyond belief. Make some sort of dysney sky high out of it.
  • aceakm, on 05/30/2008, -3/+10All this guy is doing is whining like a little bitch.
  • ultraJesus, on 05/30/2008, -3/+19translation : BITCH BITCH BITCH
  • slodojo, on 05/30/2008, -0/+8If you're upset about the movie, here's an idea: don't see it. To you, it will be like the movie was never made!

    I love the comic (I just reread it again last week) and I'll be seeing the movie. There are thousands of mediocre movies that have come from better books. The only difference here is that you already know what the characters are supposed to look like. That, and Alan Moore gets all upset any time someone makes one of his comics into a movie.
  • scarletspidah, on 05/30/2008, -3/+5what a little bitch.
  • xkingADROCKx, on 05/30/2008, -3/+5WHO WILL WATCH THE WATCHMEN??





    ........apparently not the fans
  • SSCrow, on 05/30/2008, -0/+7Interesting how after seeing 300, I went and read the Comic, and I had this distinct memory of thinking: "How the hell did they make such a great movie from this ***** boring ass comic?"

    And with that said, I disagree with the Author of this article. Double Standards are simply perceived. He comments on how its not okay for changes to be made in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, well I really didn't mind. But I did mind the changes they made to spiderman that totally ***** the story.

    So like I said, the Double Standard is a personal perception and it usually is about characters that are more important to us.
  • zeitgueist, on 05/30/2008, -3/+1Watchmen is going to be a huge failure, because it will not appeal to the average movie-goer, and and it will not appeal to the comic-book geeks. It's far too specific and niche.

    It's perfect in it's original medium.
  • Swarms, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3I never read comics, and I had no idea what The Watchmen is, but I for one can't wait until the movie comes out to find out. For all the people out there like me, and I'm sure there's more than you think, I doubt we'll be let down since we don't have expectations that can't possibly be matched. And 300 was awesome, ***** this article.
  • digitalarcanum, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Welcome to Hollywood, butchering the stories you've grown up with, the animated series you watched on a lazy sunday morning, and the video game you've played throughout your life all for some smidgen of a profit.

    To the comic book nerd: comic book stories aren't the only stories that get violently raped and sewn back together wrong, watch any video game movie directed by Uwe Boll, or hell, watch any video game movie period, and you'll see what I'm saying.

    To the general populace on digg: If you don't agree with how the movie is being handled or whether or not the story is "cannon" wait for someone to review the movie, or one of your friends to see it, if it's good, go see, and if it sucks, treat it like Devil May Cry fans treated Devil May Cry 2: as though it never existed.
  • TheWebSwinger, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1Another reason the movie really can't be much good is because the graphic novel focused on subtle narrative, quiet emotion, and definitely the thoughts of the character. I don't see how a movie can bring this across. Especially not a zack snyder movie, who's films have the subtlety of a shovel to the groin.
  • cloud4197, on 05/30/2008, -3/+5The trouble with Alan Moore is that unlike Frank Miller who takes a personal involvment in any movies adapted from one of his graphic novels', Alan just takes the money and runs. Leaving the movie studios to run riot and totally mess them up, as they did with League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
    • simplicityiskey, on 05/30/2008, -0/+6I may be mistaken about this, but I don't think Moore takes any money from the movies of his films. He expressly asks that his name not be put anywhere near it and usually asks that his share or whatever be given to the artist (if the artist choses to be a part of the project) as opposed to taking the cash for himself. There are numerous quotes of him complaining that he will not allow any of his work, no matter how much the director / writer likes his work and makes a great screenplay out of it, to be put to film. Moore's philosophy is that he didn't write his stories to be told as anything else but in graphic novel form. Imagine "The Stand" being turned into an anime series or a musical. It's not the same medium as the book and therefore, in Moore's eyes, can't convey the same message.
    • timfitz99, on 05/30/2008, -0/+6Actually, you're wrong... Alan Moore famously DOES NOT take the money for film adaptations of his work. He was SO disgusted with League and "From Hell" that for "V for Vendetta" and, I believe, "Watchmen", he gave his share of the cash to the artists on those graphic novels. He won't accept money for what he perceives as the desecration of his work.

      I believe DC had the rights to sell them to the movie studios, so he wasn't even able to prevent the sale.
      • cloud4197, on 05/31/2008, -1/+1In that case why did he let what happened to those films happen? Whether for money or because of naivety during contract negotiations, he let the movie companies totally ruin brilliant stories. So either way the result is the same. He needs to take better care of his creations.
  • cadmiumpaint, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2The problem with making these "niche" comics into movies is that the diehard fans will never be satisfied with anything. It will never and can never live up to what the original comic was in their eyes, and for that reason they will be bitter and pissed off that the movie was even made.

    Something like Spiderman which has been realised by different comic artists, animators over the years is more accessible and forgiving because there isn't one specific way of telling that story.
  • Spankov, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4"Alan just takes the money and runs."

    This comment shows just how little you know. If he did just "take the money and run" then the Watchmen film would have been made years ago when Terry Gilliam wanted to do it. The reason it wasn't made was that Alan spent considerable time explaining to him just why it couldn't be filmed. Alan has actually turned down money rather than have his name associated with some of the films based on his work.

  • kaosethema, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1not just comic books... sci-fi in general has been butchered by hollywood and hollywood-wanna-be's. for example: Dune. a story that is understandably hard to translate unto the screen. i have yet to see a satisfactory adaption. however, for every one person that has read Dune, there are thousands who would not make it past the first chapter because of the complexities inherent therein. it these mindless minions that hollywood is targeting. if a director only targets the loyal readers, they wouldn't make much on opening day. and opening day revenue is all hollywood is worried about anymore.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.