Advertisement
Many smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox.
The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here.
1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant
Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen.
But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!”
So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium?
2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist
Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor.
Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern.
3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance
A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.”
Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder).
The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works.
4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous
Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s.
5. There was only ever room for disappointment
As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have.
Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.”
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
Nice linkbait.
In regards to #4:
Now, I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I think the “garishness of the costumes” is an intended commentary on the very Schumacher films you mentioned. I believe Snyder mentioned this in an interview.
TheLegacy, just because it’s also linkbait doesn’t mean it’s not genuine. I honestly will not see the movie for these reasons.
Wade, what is the commentary? because my point is still valid, that it doesn’t capture the realism that the book was meant to.
Wow! I can’t believe you found that quote, much less that I wrote it. Quite amazing to go back to that review of The Incredibles from 2004 and see that I was talking about the film in relation to The Watchmen.
When I just re-read that four/five year old comment I thought what rubbish, then I started thinking about The Incredibles plot and actually the core is all there. It is Watchmen.
Man, it’s a good feeling to look back on that comment with glee!
I’ll find out what Watchmen is really like in just over two hours…
Christopher,
I think Snyder is trying to get at the ridiculousness of being a masked vigilante. I believe the graphic novel touches on this issue (Hollis talks about how the costumes made the adventurers a joke.) Snyder is using the over-the-top costumes (that bring to mind the worst comic book movies) to bring this notion forward. I don’t think it’s a necessarily valid or clear commentary, but it’s more thought out than Snyder just making the costumes look “cool.”
Snyder is using the over-the-top costumes (that bring to mind the worst comic book movies) to bring this notion forward.
There is nothing that makes me believe this is true. If it is then he’s done it poorly, which is probably even worse.
you can watch the leaked movie at http://userset.com it’s pretty high quality
(shrugs)
Most movies are pointless and unnecessary, even the ones that are supposedly so “important” to our culture such as Citizen Kane & Casablanca. No matter how relevant the films try to be or how much research any of the documentaries (a different beast, but still a film all the same) do, the main purpose of a film is to entertain.
So why hate on something so much? If you don’t like it, then that’s fine- you are entitled to your opinion. I don’t like the _____ Movie series that keeps coming out, but I don’t spend my time trying to convince people not to watch it or keep spouting off why I think they never should have been made. If Hollywood wants to make movies, then let them. What harm is there in allowing people to watch a film & enjoy themselves? Not everyone will be entertained by the same movie, nor should they be. You don’t have to keep your opinions to yourself, but a little respect for the opinions of the ones who *did* want to see this film made & for those of us that *did* enjoy the film is in order.
By the way… if you really insist on continuously talking about the film, then I suggest that you should at least watch it. I’m not saying that you have to go see it in the theaters today or pay full evening price, but you should at least watch it (or download it) before you start criticizing it.
And before you start saying I’m one of those “do no wrong” fans-I will say that while I enjoyed the film, but there were some definite flaws to the film. It’s not an A+++ movie by any means. I’d rate it about a B overall. Not a B+. Not a B-. Just a B. It was good, but not great. So I’m saying this from the perspective of a person who saw the film’s warts- chill out.
So, Campbell, this is probably one of the dumbest things I’ve read online. And that includes advertisements. Do yourself a favor and stick to things you actually understand.
Watchmen vs Zack Snyder
I had tried to read watchmen back in the 90’s, and I’ll be honest I never really got into it… But when I heard that they were making a movie I read it, and reread it over the last few years and I can truly appreciate it.
The comic itself was a turning point, and it wasn’t that it was unique - but instead that it both critiqued and analysed everything that came before it.
- what would it actually take in a real world for someone to dress up in a costume. If they did wouldn’t that person literally become a sociopath?
- If someone was super powered - how would that impact their love-life and connections with humanity?
- How would the rest of humanity truly look at heroes?
- What is the connection between violence/power/control and sex?
- What is the role of homosexuality and fetishism in comics
- As we age and mature - how do we pass that on to our children and avoid damaging or controlling them?
- How do we deal with a world that is changing so fast, and that uses us up, spits us out and in the end will destroy us.. How do we find hope and joy in this world.. or even a sense of purpose or meaning?
- And despite however amazing the world is - we will always have a need and desire for escapism. You see this in the black freighter comic
- How politicians and people of power will always seek to control and win and dominate - they are reactionary and respond only to fear. Fear of losingtheir power.. fear.. fear.. and more fear. and in the end it wasn’t hope or a sense of higher purpose or ideals that saved us… but a very very delicate balance based on a greater fear.
This comic is praised so much, and over the past few weeks critics just say that it is a great comic universally - but never actually say why it is great. The comic is over 20 years old and the themes of Watchmen have been used and reused from Heroes, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and in some degree I will say that there is a part of me.. somewhere.. that says that this truly is the best Watchmen film that could possibly ever be made - but then there are also so many other things that absolutely made me shake my head. Now I will say that I feelSnyder did a decent job, and in a way I almost don’t feel that it is even fair to critique or judge this movie at all. This movie cannot be made. Its as if you tried to make Six Feet Under, The Wire or the Sopranos into a 2hr movie. Its too broad. its too epic.. and I know that they wanted to do it on HBO, but HBO said no. When the 3.5-4hr extended cut is released I will rewatch it, but even then I feel that you cant fix a bad recipe by making more of it.
Snyder seems to have largely traded the subtext, nuance and social exploration aspects of the work for an excuse to just make the most brutal and dark superhero movie he could. Thisisn’t a terrible film… its amazingly reverent and loyal to the book - but it does so in a way that has actually misrepresented the original.
Imagine if you went to a art gallery and it had posters and lithographs of Michelangelo, Degas and Picasso all over the walls… you may take 4-5 minutes and walk around and look at them, and comment that they are nice… However, you can never call them art.. they have no soul, they reflect the light completely differently and they will miss all of the texture, nuance and history that the original have that make it a true work of art. Most importantly, you should never miss the opportunity toactually see an original in Paris - and if you did, you would say, without any doubt - “Wow, I had no idea, it does look completely different”.. the complexity of thecolors and the entire experience of seeing it would be completely different.
Snyder’s film in dozens of ways has actually misrepresented the classic, and had traded substance for style, and is in a way satiring itself - which unfortunately becomes confusing and sloppy.
For instance, just to take a single aspect - Violence in the original work was the exact opposite of every other comic book. Violence was a poor sad desperate result of fear or desperation. It was a central pillar of every character.
Ozymandias killed the comedian because he was afraid his plan would get out. He was the Smartest man in the world… but like a Pharaoh, or King.. he was completely alone. Like a machine.. a reflection of Dr Manhattan - he will do what is logical in order to save the world but his plan, and the violence was pure logic. It was not out of love or ethics… but just amathematical desperate decision.
Dr Manhattan was the mirror to Ozymandias in the fact that he was a central representation of love all thru the book. He truly loved Janey Slater. - but by being transformed into Dr Manhattan.. by actually being the representation of wish fulfillment an having all of the power in the world, he lost/chose to stop loving her. He abandoned his role as a husband and chose the love of another woman, Laurie - who ironically did the same to him with Dan. It is only on Mars when Dr Manhattan see’s the true complex beauty in Laurie that he begins to love again and becomes almost human again. Manhattan does several amazing things at the end of the book, all related to violence.
1. He chooses to not stop or condemn Veidt. He literally chooses pacifism. Just moments after reconnecting with his humanity, this is not his apathy or ambivalence - but he absolutely chooses to stop the violence, both on Earth and in Antartica.
2. He murders Rorschach, or more accurately commits Euthanasia to end his tragic life. He could have left him out in the snow, of course he would have died and would have no opportunity to tell anyone. But he kills him to ease his pain. Again mirroring the sacrifice of millions in NYC
3. He doesn’t attempt to reunite or reconcile with Laurie, he steps aside and literally disappears. He leaves to allow her and Dan to mature into fully functional adults. All 3 of them have now left their twisted violent/heroic ways and are now true mature adults and can have a relationship thatisn’t based on violence, S&M or approval of their mother/Hollis.
The comedian was a weak sociopath who used violencece to control, dominate others - to the point of it becoming his career - in the end he realizes what a joke he is. He is mirrored by Rorschach whom shows how a life or repeated violence is literally so tragic and meaningless that he literally begs to be killed at the end of the story. Both men tried to find meaning in their life by dominating violencethru violence - ultimately both men were destroyed by it.
Violence is literally a replacement for love or spiritual connection for both Nite Owl and the Silk Spectre. Hollis has actually moved on and found fulfillment in restoring old cars, mentoring Dan, and with the neighborhood kids. Hollis literally tells Dan to move on and he doesn’t need to keep coming around, and Dan blows him off… not to be polite… but because Dan NEEDS Hollis.. Dan is so empty and is missing something in his life. All of his money has been given to him, he has no one to share his life with - and is so desperate for companionship he has named his ship, and is in twisteddysfunctional relationships with both Rorschach and Sally (which eventually mature into more meaningful relationships).
I could write about this for hours but the violence in the book is a conscious tragic substitute for life and meaning. As the characters mature they either chose to change, or be destroyed by it. Unfortunately the movie doesn’t truly illustrate this arc, but instead it celebrates the violence, amps it up and doesn’t add to or make the connections.. but instead it blurs them and this can be said about several aspects of the film such as the music, sex, and dialogue.
Name a film that’s necessary.
Not much to say, but after seeing it, it was a very enjoyable film and overall a good treatment of the material.
You’re welcome to thumb your nose at it and rally with the purists all you want; Alan Moore stands with you. Myself, I’ll opt to enjoy a great story in another form. Operative word being “enjoy”- the film is enjoyable. But I’m free to do that, as I don’t regard the book as scripture sent from on high. Important, influential, unique, lots of the other positive adjectives? Sure. But somehow sacred and untouchable, too pure and holy to be tainted by the serpents of Hollywood? Eh. Sorry. I just don’t buy into that kind of thinking.
Virtually no movie is necessary. And I’m sure others will have mentioned this, but providing reasons the movie is flawed without having seen it, even if only to ensure the various remarks you print secondhand are valid, is poor journalism. Granted, this is the internet, but why should anyone take what you have to say seriously if you haven’t bothered to do the minimum amount of research?
But it’s no use having the argument, because you’re looking for reasons not to like it, and searching for negative opinions to validate your own preconceived notions. I can’t say I haven’t done it myself on occasion- find an album I hated, and read the minority negative reviews with savage glee. But then, I didn’t go and post an article afterward. Doing that would just seem a little excessive and… I don’t know… unnecessary?
I find the film adaption quite amazing really
Name a film that’s necessary.
Annie Hall. Now you go.
BLUE PENIS!
Hollywood isn’t really in the business of making movies. Hollywood is in the business of making money. Making movies is just the vehicle to get there. Their god is their belly/BMW…which really just mirrors much of society. All but gone are the days of wholesome entertainment. Caveat emtor.
No one needed to make Annie Hall, just like no one needed to make Watchmen.
Hmmz saw watchmen ystrday, n in my opinion, tdk is way ahead watchmen. i mean jt imagine, if tdk were to have relase in theathers der same time with wathmen instead of last year, tdk will surely be the clear winner in terms of al aspects. Watchmen’s sountrack was awesome though, which i think shld be improved in the sequel for batman.
I couldn’t disagree more.
I don’t think I would want to get any movie recommendations from you.
It was very faithful to the comic, and an amazing experience.
“TheLegacy, just because it’s also linkbait doesn’t mean it’s not genuine. I honestly will not see the movie for these reasons.
Wade, what is the commentary? because my point is still valid, that it doesn’t capture the realism that the book was meant to.”
This is what i hate about hack critics… they wax philosophical about things they haven’t seen, promoting themselves as experts or in-the-know and obviously a higher mind for having their opinions. They claim dysfunction in mode or incongruity to plot or original writer intention, and follow that up by saying that they haven’t even seen it… Defiantly making some morale stand that they WON”T SEE IT even.
Regardless of the possible accuracy of any of your completely unfounded conjecture, you are a hack blow hard who misjudges your own relevance and accomplishes nothing but to further the opinion that opinions matter even when drawn from no facts or experience at all.
You just a breathing bag of BullSh!t.
i hope they will not make sequel for this movie. Use your money for JUSTICE LEAGUE THE MOVIE.
- people remember this movie because of the blue penis.
-all comments in the internet there was a blue penis.
-I will be happy if they show the real penis of Dr. Manhatan.Not that lame penis.
you can watch the leaked movie free at http://userset.com it’s pretty high quality. they make you fill out a survey in the beginning but WORTH IT!!
this movie sucked balls
noo…noo…
this movie sucked soooo bad im commenting twice!
i was fucking pissed.i paid two extra dollars at the movies for it and on top of that it was three fuckin hours long! lol
p.s. if you gotta choice,see street fighter lol
All the critics have by now jumped on the bandwagon and professed how awful they think watchmen is. I dont agree. Im a filmaker and I say the film is very, very good. I think I know better than the critics and I do. I have to laugh at them focusing on Dr Manhattans shlong in every review. I wonder why? If you go by what these guys think about movies, youve got problems.
“2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist.”
How few do you think movie adaptations in this category should exist to make them more palatable for you?
heres one reason was the watchmen movie WAS necessary…for a great soundtrack:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid4020141001?bctid=23969151001
To be very honest, I dont know what was in the Watchmen movie that I download it and watched it. The story wasn’t that good, I mean I saw the story for the first time. I am not even aware of the characters which were in the movie. From where the story went to where, I had no idea.
I watched this movie earlier this year. I’ve never read the book but if it is anything as what Christopher Johnson described above then it was a well adaption. I would also have to agree with Chris on giving the movie a B in reference to its quality. I believe that substance was sacrificed due to time constraints. I think this movie had the potential to be one of the greatest films ever but fell short in many areas which I will explain at a later time. I understand the thread starter’s viewpoint as far a the film being relavent. I think that truly changes how some may view the film especially those unfamilar with the novel. Regardless, I felt pleased with what I
paid for. (written on phone)
Completey disagree. The Watchmen movie was absolutely brilliant (except for one scene). Even Alan Moore said that the original novel was too long. In the original novel, the threat of nuclear war was just a sub-text. Not really important or imminant.
The only scene that I wish was not in it was during the Dr. Manhatten exposure on television scene. When Dan and Lori had the attempted mugging or whatever. Way too graphic. Dan and Lori were not those types of characters. It totally did not fit into the film.
Everything else (except, I must admit, I hated the Bob Dillan song for the credits, not too fond of the 99 Red Balloons either) was perfect.
The message was there, even stronger (in some ways) than the book. The actors were great. It took me a while to get over the ending change, but in the end I think I like the movie ending better. It made more sense to use Dr. Manhatten, rather than some strange alien beast transported and sending brainwaves killing millions. Even the book didn’t do a very good job of explaining it.
I don’t know. I’m kinda happy it didn’t do well, as I love underground hits. Tank Girl, the oriinal Blade, now the Watchmen (as far as super hero movies go)…
The Watchmen was one of the best films I’ve ever seen. I didn’t anticipate it as much as others. I’d never really heard of it until it came out. But I read the book first then watched the film.
There’s a sequel in the works, I’ve heard through sources (yes, I have sources, not just the net)… the script sounds decent… new Rorschach (not re-incarnated, a person who picked up his trail but has delusions that he is the real Rorschach), flashbacks to Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis…
How can they make a sequel? Everything was finalized! “Rorschach’s journal, final entry. Veigt’s behind everything. Why? What’s his end game? I cannot imagine a more dangerous opponent. Used to joke he was fast enough to catch a bullet. He could kill us both alone in the snow. That’s where we’re going now. Antarctica. Whether I’m alive or dead upon this reading, I hope the world survives long enough for this journal to reach you. I live my life without compromise. I step into the shadow without remorse or regret. Rorschach’s journal. November 1st, 1985.”
In both the book and the movie…
Alan Moore did a brilliant job of writing a story about what would really happen to the world if Superman existed. The movie(s) portrayed it amazingly well.
I sure as hell hope you ahve seen the film, because it was absolutely brilliant. This is probably the first time I have ever written that about any graphic novel come to film, at least I can’t think of any others at the minute.