Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Dusty Ayres, Dec 28, 2008.
Graphic, but not so novel: Adapting Alan Moore's Watchmen
However good it is, it's never going to live up to the source material.
Watchmen is also a period piece, so I'll be interested to see how a film set in an alternative 1985 plays with the under 20s.
That lady is full of shit. V for Vendetta was a GREAT movie. Why shit on it in order to create consistency with your "every Alan Moore movie is garbage" theory. It's not the case.
Because she's like every Sundance Film Festival/Sundance Channel/IFC/indie film snob; NOTHING from Hollywood is good unless it was made in the 1970's, is kitchen sink/weird, a foreign film, and comes from the 'boutique' divisions of the major studios (Paramount Vantage, Sony Pictures Classics, Fine Line Features, Fox Searchlight, etc.) These people are, and never will be, satisfied. Moore of course wants his creations be be adapted by some mythical independent film company that isn't located in Hollywood, something like Ealing Studios/Rank;only problem is, both companies are gone and aren't coming back, unless an outside group of investors decides to bring back Two Cities/Ealing/London Films/British Lion/Hammer/Rank..
And as I said before, if Moore didn't want his films adapted by Hollywood studios, he should not have sold Watchmen to DC Comics. He has no one to blame but himself if they didn't turn out the way he wanted.
Moore didn't sell Watchman to DC, it was an assignment originally to feature the Charleton characters.
Though somewhat rare it isn't unheard of for film adaptations to live up to or rise above the literary source material.
Actually, Ealing Studios still exists and have released 2 films, that I know of, this year, and Dorian Gray slated for next year.
Trainspotting, prime example imho. But Watchmen has attained that almost mythical status of being unfilmable, and in the eyes of so many a new version will never cut it.
Judging by the trailers, it doesn't even look like it'll be a great film in its own right imho. But then, I'm just a cynical bastard.
V was good movie (with some bits that were rather cringe-worthy to British watchers) but it doesn't come close to the original book, so in that way, she has a point. It's not as big a traversty of an adaptation as LXG or From Hell, but its definitely not Alan Moore's vision of V for Vendetta.
Okay, I forgot about that. But expecting that there will be some great independent company that's as large as the big five of Hollywood is a bit much, even for him.. And a company like Ealing can't afford to make a film like Watchmen in a million years, to say nothing of films based on any classic English sci-fi/fantasy characters, either, else they'd have done it years ago (there was a British version of Dune that was supposed to happen in the 1970's but never did, for whatever reason.)
I wasn't really trying to contradict you, just pointing it out.
I am optimistic-the visuals for Watchmen look great and as long as they don't "revise" the written material for the script they have a great source material. Fingers crossed.
A little off topic, but perhaps you can help me out. The explanation of the end hasn't stuck with me. It looked exactly as if everyone was marching to the Houses of Parliament, which are propmptly blown sky high. Visually, the conclusion is that they are all killed. This seemed especially likely since characters we knew to be dead appeared at the unmasking, implying the other were too, or would be when exploded.
So what exactly did happen in the movie end? And how does that contrast with the comic book's ending?
V was an ok movie. My biggest problem with V is the same as my problem with Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (as well as several other book adaptations). I understand that some changes must be made when a book is adapted to the movie screen, but if you are going to stray so far from the original material/message of the book... then why even use the book as a base?
A good point, something that's bugged me off and on as as well. In the case of "V For Vendetta", how did the film vary from the book, or is it too much to summarize here? I've only seen the film and not read the book.
Gawd - how do we get into this one
* there is no 100,000s of people in masks
* there is no march to Parliament, people just riot and things fall to pieces
* there are at least 5 or 6 major characters who's stories don't appear in the film and numerous interconnecting sub-plots about life in "modern" Britain.
* The leader is a misguided tragic figure who thinks he is doing the right thing not a scene chewing nutter.
That's just off the top of my head without reference to my books.
So it sounds as if things are presented in the book as being more chaotic, thatn they are presnted in the film, is that right? The reason I ask is because I find it interesting to compare a particular story when it's presented in different media. As has been said alreayd, you get forced into some changes when you go from one medium to another, yet there akways seem to be additional changes that weren't due to the medium itself.
Pulling from Wikipedia (spoilers, obviously):
Separate names with a comma.