It's funny to see no writing credits on this. Other than based on the graphic novel. This was a pretty cool adaptation, I liked the original art in semi animation. Seemed like an audio book, with one guy narrating all the voices.
What does the writer think of this?
[deleted]
The Zack Snyder movie was fine - you probably went and saw a different film. As an Alan Moore adaptation, it's as close as it gets. I'm a big fan of Alan Moore's work, but as far as his reaction to the Watchmen adaptation is concerned, he's just being anal.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I admire your way of putting it, I thought sensibility was lacking in the feature film adaptation, too. More than a few scenes didn't bring across the point made in the graphic novel. Example: When Dr. Manhatten leaves Earth for Mars and reflects on how time works for him, he takes us through a chain of events, which ultimately lead to an conclusion: he's lonely. We come to ask ourselves how much guilt the individual has for the outcome of his life and how much he can change himself.
For me the graphic novel reflects on personality and brings out rare qualities. Where Christian Bale chose to have a bad vs. good psychosis in Batman - The Dark Knight, the situation in Watchmen is much more intricate. It's not good versus bad, its oppinion versus oppinion. When the bad guys die for their oppinion in a movie, we cheer because we see a wrong choice undone. When Rorschach dies, because he cannot fall out of role it is more tragic, because his oppinion should be the valid one.
Surely there are some flaws in the story, which is why this shouldn't have been made into an American action movie. Too long for a single feature, this story should have been split in two, in order to give its revealing moments time to show. I like the motion comic much better in that regard.
Except he refused to have anything to do with it ages before the movie even went into production. It could be a scene-for-scene direct adaptation and he wouldn't even bother to see it because he apparently considers his own work to be completely sacred and special and perfect and any alternate take on the story is blasphemy.
He's just an arrogant, crotchety old man.
Actually, it's not that. I read an interview with him that brought it up, and he mentioned that although it's probably going to be a fine movie and a good adaptation, he won't see it because he feels that his comic books are best experienced in a relaxed environment, perhaps with a cup of coffee; a movie theater is the absolute antithesis of this.
shareAlan Moore is so up himself. I met the guy and asked him to evaluate my (unfinished) comic book. he was so rude. he said things like "the lead guy doesn't talk at all, your writing skills are bloody awful" and "if the guy was such a great family man, why did he let his wife die?" the guy is an idiot, not just that, a pretentious idiot.
want free IMDb pro? click on the IMDb pro button (top of page) enter your details, press alt+F4
Did the thought ever cross your mind that maybe, just maybe, your book was not very good? Just because someone thinks something sucks, it doesn't make them an idiot or pretentious. It just means either a) it blows, or b) they have a different opinion from yours.
Get over it.
No, he is an angry old man, I don't even consider him the best in comics anyway. The Watchmen is probably the best thing he's put out and that was decades ago.
share"Alan Moore is so up himself. I met the guy and asked him to evaluate my (unfinished) comic book. he was so rude. he said things like "the lead guy doesn't talk at all, your writing skills are bloody awful" and "if the guy was such a great family man, why did he let his wife die?" the guy is an idiot, not just that, a pretentious idiot. "
Wow, people like you make me wonder how we ever got out of the caves we used to live in. You should be amazed that he took the time to even look at it, and take the criticism on board. It seems that it is you who are guilty of all the things you accuse Moore of being. I'm not even a fan of Moore, I prefer people like Moebius and Bilal
Alan Moore is so up himself. I met the guy and asked him to evaluate my (unfinished) comic book. he was so rude. he said things like "the lead guy doesn't talk at all, your writing skills are bloody awful" and "if the guy was such a great family man, why did he let his wife die?" the guy is an idiot, not just that, a pretentious idiot.
The guy's not exactly known for tact, so what did you expect at any rate? I'd EXPECT him to be rather rude, no matter what! >>> THAT's your explanation? That the man doesn't have tact? Sorry, but rudeness is NOT a requirement in criticizing a work. It isn't hard to point out flaws or give an honest and meaningful critique while still maintaining a level or professional courtesy...unless he is a cretin who, to borrow the words of another user before you, still lives in the proverbial cave that the rest of mankind left long ago. Plain and simple, there is no need in his acting like an ass the way he does. He doesn't deserve for people to play a game of apologetics on his behalf in a misguided effort to excuse unnecessary rudeness.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
What about the fact that the movie followed the graphic novel maybe about 95%? Doesn't that make it somewhat good, if you liked the graphic novel?
I thought the movie was amazing, but that's just my opinion.
Umm...nope, try again.
share[deleted]
Compare and contrast the following two pieces of text:
"The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves, go into Oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. Was Rorschach. Does that answer your questions, Doctor?"
and:
"God didn't kill that little girl. Fate didn't butcher her. Destiny didn't feed her to those dogs. If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind. From then on I knew; God doesn't make the world this way, we do."
The former paragraph is the essential thesis of Watchmen. It is a sledgehammer to the soul. The latter is Mr Snyders attempt to cut down on some of the words to leave more time for ass-kicking.
I think you can see why Mr. Moore was not amused.
That said, it was a fair attempt from the filmmakers to make an entertainment based on a classic novel that suffers from being in the genre of superheroics and balancing Watchmen's bleak nihilism with the audience expectations and financial expectations of a big budget production.
I wondered why they would even make the attempt in the first place since a serious adaptation of Watchmen must surely leave a proportion of its intended audience stunned, depressed and angst ridden. Its like having a christmas movie where Santa is revealed to be a non-existent coca cola marketing gimmick and marketing it to kids as a fun holiday romp.
Really!? There's TONS of emotion in the GN. Nite Owl can't get it up until he puts the suit on and saves people, the distinct lack of emotion in Doc M is there to reflect Laurie and everyone else's intense feelings.
To me, all of this was lost in the film. I would never ever in my life think that a film adaptation of a novel should or would be exactly the same as the source material. But this was just too much. It was pretty eye candy, for certain, but as a film, it was slag. There was no character development, not really. I did not sympathize with anybody.
I could go on and on about how this movie failed AS A FILM, regardless of its relation to the source material. Even if this were an original story, I still would consider it a failure. But I won't bore you.
i was watching this "motion comic" and was thinking "what the hell are people complaining about? this looks EXACTLY like the movie, except the movie looks better than this ,and the parts that arent in the movie werent even noticed and the parts that are different are better than the original ones" . I didnt know that the movie was so similar to the comics, its exactly the same
shareWhWhat? This is nothing like the film by Zack Snyder. The tone is different, the costumes are different, the delivery of lines is different.
Either you are a troll, or you haven't actually viewed the motion comic.
He hasn't said anything, and his name isn't on it because he took his name off ALL future Watchmen stuff.
So even if he likes this, he had already agreed to have his name taken off it.
ok people... even if the movie followed the original story, much of the meaning was totally lost. I think this movie is for people who aren´t intelligent enough to truly understand the point of the original story.
Watchmen is a story about PEOPLE. Even with the superhero costumes and whatnot, they were just people. They sure couldnt punch a hole in a wall, or jump 4 meters in the air just like that.
The movie was eye-candy for sure, but i agree zack snyder must work on his sensibility as a filmmaker. But then again, i see most people today just want a show of special effects... CGI ISNT EVERYTHING DAMMIT!
I'd like to think I'm a middle grounder fan of the watchmen. I read the GN once before the film came out an dI liked the film. I DO agree that the use of CGI/ everybody hopping around being super strong and stuff in slow motion took me out of the film a couple times. But I think if you watch the movie as a companion to the GN not a separate thing I think you'd enjoy it more. Or rather hardcore watchmen GN fans would enjoy it more.
The problem I see is that the hardcore fans wanted the film to be the exact same. Don't get me wrong I was a little irked at the changed ending (and how it totally didn't make sense to Ozzy's plan), but I just put the "real" ending in my head and all is well. If you use your imagination a bit you can kind of make the perfect movie in your head while watching the movie.
But that's just kind of what I did. I tried to think more than the movie asked me to(haha). That's just me though, if you check out the movie again ever try and edit while it goes.
I think saying he rejected this implies he cares, which he clearly stated he doesn't.
Qué yo no vuelva jamás a sentirme el dolor.
[deleted]
I don't recall ever reading anything where he said he didn't want the "from hell' movie being made, although I think he did say afterward that he wasn't going to be part of any movie adaptations of his books. The point is, with Watchmen, he might have had an anti-commercialism bias but the main reason he didn't want to watch or have anything to do with the movie or motion comic is because it was a work of art created specifically for the comics medium: It has been characterized as a 'deconstruction of the modern superhero myth' and since in the 80's 'superhero' was virtually synonymous with 'comic book superhero' (I mean do you really count those awful spider man movies from the 70's?) it was done with comics specifically in mind. It even has a comic within a comic fer zombie christ's sake! It was meant as the apotheosis of what a comic was/is by making it transcend the original meaning of the word 'comic' and redefining it for the future. Sure, Ronin and others were out before WM, but nothing else came close to the depth and immersion, the use of repetitive symbols (there are hundreds), the realistic psychology, the ambiguity of morals - this was all intended to transcend the 'classic' mode of comic book, and mark the definitive step from pulp to true art in every aspect with the immense level of detail that's intrinsic throughout. This is why I can understand calling even the motion comic a basterd (;) because it omits certain facets of the comic e.g. cropping of frames (you can hardly see the purported aged 'hooded justice' and lover in the first dinner scene, and the four legged turkey not at all) along with many many other examples of missing tiny detail. I will say that I watched the motion comic straight through, though, even though at the time it came out I had just had my first kid, and hadn't slept in weeks - it was that engrossing. The movie was anything but IMHO, and would have been better as two movies. That's just the thing, though, with the advent of the modern superhero movie, with its array of super powerful beings REQUIRING CG (why do you think they weren't really well made before, with the exception of Batman, who isn't superpowered) noone would go to two movies where there is a limit on action and emphasis on character and subtle detail. We know these are not Snyder's strengths so the movie was doomed to mediocrity. And that's sad because the story is a modern classic, on par with anything else created in the 20th century - at least we have the motion comic. Speaking of detail, I was just thinking about when Nite Owl I tells Dan that he bumped into The Screaming Skull, exchanged addresses, married has two kids - well, Derf's knot-top friend says 'my dad know him, lives above some garage..' I wonder if that friend's dad was the screaming skull, and if that little accidental meet was indirectly the cause of his death - these are the kinds of things that permeate the consciousness better through a medium that you can take time with, flip back and forth through and ultimately appreciate more - due to the medium it's in. Maybe that's what Al was jabberin' bout.
.-'-.-'-.-Once it was death for prophet - now it's death for profit-.-'-.-'-.