1986 was a great year in comics. There were two masterpiece's that came out that year - Frank Millers The Dark Knight and Alan Moore's Watchmen. A lot of people have said that Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight was the equivalent of adapting Miller's comic book. So that left the Watchmen as the final comic source to be untapped - until now. Watchmen has be made in to a feature film. A lot of people thought that the comic was un-filmable - and I agree - the comic is so filled to the brim with subtle details, flashbacks and time changes, supplemental material, and characters that you have to read slowly and repeatedly to soak it all in and to "get it". I've read Watchmen over the years about 11 or 12 times and each time I come away with something I missed before. The comic is a complete masterwork from both Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. It is the Citizen Kane of comics. Every thing after it stands on its shoulders.
Last Sunday I saw the film based on my favorite comic of all time. I sat there for 3 hours and the time seem to fly by. There was Rorschach and Dr Manhattan up on the screen. Two characters that I grew up with but that most people didn't even know they existed. I smiled at the scenes taken directly from the comic panels. The nerd in me loved seeing the comic come to life - but did the film work? Parts of it did, and parts of it didn't. Part of me wondered, "why even make this story a movie? It was written about the comic book universe, not the Hollywood/film one." And to me that is the real problem I have with the movie - the story is meant only for comic book readers. Period.
When Alan Moore wrote this story 20 some odd years ago, he wrote it with 50 years of Comic Book history in mind. The original story he pitched to DC comics was written with the purpose of using Charlton Comic's Characters: The Blue Beatle, The Question, The Shield, Captain Atom, all with years of history and continuity. DC decided that they didn't want to lose any of these characters in Alan's story due to death, so they persuaded him to create all new characters. Alan agreed. So with these new superheroes, Alan told his story - "what if superheroes really existed in our world?" What changes and ramifications would that have on our history? The comic world ate it all up. Watchmen was a watershed in the industry. It delt with not only superheroes but with the genre as a whole. Watchmen was tailor-made to be told via comic book panels. Alan and Dave stuck to the 9 panel grid, a very E.C Comics layout. With sticking to this format they could properly set up tension and suspense, and be in total control of everything - including the reader. This is the main reason that the word "un-filmable" was ever thrown out there. Countless writers over the last 20 years have tried to write a screenplay that captures the essence of what Watchmen is about and they all failed. Not that they were bad writers but because the story isn't meant for film. Any film adaption of this comic would automatically lose half of the essence of the story - regardless of how great the screenplay and direction was.
But, along comes Zack Synder. His last movie a comic book adaption "300" was a hit, so being the bad ass that he is he took on the Everest of comic book movies. He got the backing to film Watchmen his way - and I gotta say, the end result is as close as anyone would have ever gotten. The essence is there at times. There are scenes that are better then the how they played out in the comic. Hearing the dialog come to life by the actor that plays Rorschach is awesome and gave me goose bumps. Here, all these years later, I get to hear this character talk and see him move, not in my mind, but up there in on the screen. But yeah, half of what made Watchmen great is gone, and cannot be filmed. The pacing, the dread, the quiet moments, the foreshadowing, the symbolism hidden in the tiniest corner of the comic panel - all of it missing.
Watchmen also may have been made too early, believe it or not. When the comic came out, it carried with it 50 plus years of comic book history with it. Everything was based on that history and the readers instantaneously recognized these characters and the way they "did things in the comic book world". It was what made Watchmen a hit. Without that history the comic has no meaning. And so with the film, really there has only been about 8 or 9 years of comic book film history - starting with the first X-Men movie. That film opened the doors to adapting comics and making big bucks: Iron Man, The Hulk, Spider-Man, Batman Begins, The age of comic book films has just started. Watchmen is suppose to deconstruct those films, but it's too early for that. The movie going audience hasn't quite lived with these characters and their world long enough yet. And I think Zack knew this and as a result he tried to appeal to an audience that just wasn't ready. It's too flashy in parts. Too slick. I think if another 10 years had pasted before it was made in to films Watchmen would be a much better movie.
Good, Bad, and Ugly, we now have Watchmen to throw in the Bluray whenever we are too lazy to pick up the Graphic Novel - and that is pretty cool.
-Erik
6 comments:
I debated posting on this because I didn't want to be overzealous, but I figured you posted this because you want some sort of dialogue so here it goes.
Dude, I don't understand this resignation among comic book readers. Why are you older fellows (you and Mike) so eager to just let this movie (and other mediocre comic manifestations) just get off with an "it's okay"? I understand your desire for movies to open the doors to world of comics, but don't you think better movies would have a greater effect? People have shown us that it can be done. There are plenty of legitimate films out there with comic books as source material, so how can you encourage people to see Watchmen when you know it's not that good? I agree with you completely that this story is meant for comic book fans, and could have been better used as a deconstruction of the super hero movie, but what would that mean exactly? I understand getting upset about it won't change anything, but denying yourself disappointment is dishonest. And it let's these assholes go on making mediocre comic movies. They used Watchmen to get with my wallets, and maybe that's the overall goal of good movies like the Dark Knight, but it doesn't feel that way, does it?
If someone has to lie, it should be them. Watchmen as a film is a blockbuster cash cow. It has very little if any of the blood and soul of the comic book, and I'm tired of being used.
You make a good point about Watchmen needing more comic book movie history to sustain it, to make it work. And I, too, for years, admitted that it might have been impossible to adapt into a movie. As I mentioned on the discussion board, I just want people to read comics and appreciate them, first and foremost, as a viable medium. I prefer films that are "inspired" by comics (like Iron Man or Dark Knight) rather than strict adaptations.
Having said that, and seeing how clearly Snyder made a point to make a strict adaptation, I can't say I'm disappointed. I disagree with Rex -- the film is better than mediocre. It's a dense, Zack Snyder action flick that has some redeeming qualities. I wasn't expecting brilliance and I mostly didn't want people to be turned away from comics. It was good, bottom line.
I want to see it again.
Dear Loudmouth,
I see your point - why do we encourage people to see a "just okay" movie based on our favorite comic? I suppose the answer would be, "to cause them to pick up the graphic novel and experience it in that medium." Plus the thought of millions of people that have never heard of Rorschach (a character that I've loved for years) being introduced to him and his story makes me happy - no matter how mediocre the film might be, Rorschach's coolness comes across. Sure I wish Zack had kept the comics true ending (alien squid anyone?) and did other things a bit different, but it is what it is, good and bad.
As far as the deconstruction of movie superheroes is concerned, what the comic book did was take all that history and break it down and show us the just how "un-super" these heroes are. What the film version of Watchmen could have done to a better degree would be to take the audiences knowledge of comic book movies like X-Men and Superman and strip down those worlds in which they exist. Take the tired clichés of superhero antics and show us the real world reaction to mutants or flying aliens or wall crawling reporters. It could have given us a better insight to our psyche when we "watch" films like this - how we clap at the right time - how the music swells when the hero returns - you get the idea.
You can call me Rex, Erik. We're all friends here, and in real life.
I have no problem with you wanting more people to read, we've had that discussion. But if the movie had done what you suggest (the deconstruction), and had the movie been a cinematic tour de force, wouldn't audiences be just as inclined to check out the book, or even more so?
And as for Jackie Earle Hayley, Rorschach still sounds cooler in my head than on screen. Hayley stayed the same through out the movie, a gravelly, intimidating voice to be sure, but monotone. A lot of Rorschach's great lines were delivered without passion.
The scene where he tells Dreiberg that he's a good friend would have been way more powerful and meaningful if he had spoken like Walter Kovacs. That opening monologue felt over rehearsed, like he was acting like Rorschach instead of being him.
Hey Rex, I can't believe you didn't like Haley in the role of Rorschach? We'll just have to agree to disagree bro.
I really like Hayley as an actor and I think Haley was a good choice for Rorschach, but he didn't play him to the best of his abilities.
Post a Comment