Graphic, but not so novel: Adapting Alan Moore's Watchmen

[Dusty Ayres]

Watchmen, a graphic novel by Alan Moore, is something of a holy icon in comic book world. I have this on good authority, having asked a number of men (mostly in their mid-thirties) who maintain that when Watchmen was released, in the mid-1980s, it was like a bomb going off. "We'd never seen anything like it before," is what most of their comments boiled down to. Why do they love it so much? Let me sum up. A cold-war tale set in an alternate-history 1985, Watchmen is a peek behind the mask into the psychology of superheroes and heroines. The graphic novel — and it is a novel — is layered with multiple stories that cut back and forth, every frame jammed with inside jokes and visual puns. Running underneath each individual adventure is the gonzo hand of fate, like some great cosmic banana peel, popping up when you least expect it. (More than one critic has compared Moore to Orson Welles.) Watchmen is the only comic book to win a Hugo Award, and the coming film adaptation has already inspired wild speculation: will it be good or a terrible disappointment?
Certainly, the film adaptations of Moore's work have not served him well to date. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and V for Vendetta were variously dreadful. In an interview with film-buff website spout.com, Watchmen illustrator Dave Gibbons said that Moore has disowned this film too, on account of his bad cinematic experiences.

Graphic, but not so novel: Adapting Alan Moore's Watchmen

 

[Jim Steele]

will it be good or a terrible disappointment?

However good it is, it's never going to live up to the source material.

 

[JoeZhang]

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.

 

[slappy]

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.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

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.

 

[Mike Farley]

Moore didn't sell Watchman to DC, it was an assignment originally to feature the Charleton characters.

 

[dragunzng]

will it be good or a terrible disappointment?

However good it is, it's never going to live up to the source material.

Though somewhat rare it isn't unheard of for film adaptations to live up to or rise above the literary source material.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

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..

Actually, Ealing Studios still exists and have released 2 films, that I know of, this year, and Dorian Gray slated for next year.

 

[Jim Steele]

will it be good or a terrible disappointment?

However good it is, it's never going to live up to the source material.

Though somewhat rare it isn't unheard of for film adaptations to live up to or rise above the literary source material.

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.

 

[Bishbot]

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.

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.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

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..

Actually, Ealing Studios still exists and have released 2 films, that I know of, this year, and Dorian Gray slated for next year.

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.)

 

[Bob The Skutter]

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..

Actually, Ealing Studios still exists and have released 2 films, that I know of, this year, and Dorian Gray slated for next year.

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.

 

[Mistral]

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.

 

[stj]

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.

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.

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?

 

[Worf412]

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.

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?

 

[Neroon]

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.

 

[JoeZhang]

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.

 

[Neroon]

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.

 

[Worf412]

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.

Pulling from Wikipedia (spoilers, obviously):

There are several fundamental differences between the film and the original source material. For example, the comic is set in the '90s, while the film is set in 2038: Alan Moore's original story was created as a response to British Thatcherism in the early 80s and was set as a conflict between a fascist state and anarchism, whereas the film's story has been changed by the Wachowskis to fit a modern political context. Alan Moore charges that in doing so, the story has turned into an American-centric conflict between liberalism and neo-conservatism, and abandons the original anarchist-fascist themes. Moore states, "There wasn't a mention of anarchy as far as I could see. The fascism had been completely defanged. I mean, I think that any references to racial purity had been excised, whereas actually, fascists are quite big on racial purity." Furthermore, in the original story, Moore attempted to maintain moral ambiguity, and not to portray the fascists as caricatures, but as realistic, rounded characters. The time limitations of a film meant that the story had to omit or streamline some of the characters, details, and plotlines from the original story. Chiefly, whereas the original graphic novel has the fascists elected legally and kept in power through the general apathy of the public, the film introduces the "St. Mary's virus," a biological weapon engineered and released by the Norsefire party as a means of clandestinely gaining control over their own country.
Many of the characters from the graphic novel underwent significant changes for the film. For example, V is characterized in the film as a romantic freedom fighter who shows concern over the loss of innocent life. However, in the graphic novel, he is portrayed as ruthless, willing to kill anyone who gets in his way. Evey Hammond's transformation as V's protegee is also much more drastic in the novel than in the film. At the beginning of the film, she is already a confident woman with a hint of rebellion in her, whereas in the graphic novel she starts off as an insecure, desperate young woman forced into prostitution. V and Evey's relationship, strictly platonic in the original novel, develops romantically in the film, ending with mutual pledges of love. In the graphic novel's finale, she not only carries out V's plans as she does in the film, but also clearly takes on V's identity.Whereas in the film Inspector Finch sympathizes with V, in the graphic novel he is determined to stop V and goes as far as taking LSD in order to enter into a criminal's state of mind. Characters who were completely omitted from the film or had a significantly reduced role include Rose Almond, Alistair Harper, and Mrs. Heyer.
The graphic novel's main villains also underwent changes in the film adaptation. While the Chancellor within Moore's text is a brutal dictator, he is also a lonely, socially inept man who truly believes in fascism, and, in the end, wishes merely to be accepted and loved by his people. The film, however, presents none of these human qualities. Creedy, meanwhile, evolves from a relatively minor character in the graphic novel to one of the chief characters of the film adaptation; in the film, he is revealed to have been the brains behind the bioterror attack that Norsefire used to seize power. His personality is also somewhat revamped in the film; whereas he is a coarse, petty opportunist in the graphic novel, in the film he is an icy sociopath whom V calls "a man seemingly without a conscience, for whom the ends always justify the means."
The setting and plot of the film were also changed from the original story. Whereas the film only mentions the United States' civil war and collapse, in the graphic novel, it is mentioned that a global nuclear war has destroyed much of the world outside of Britain. With a nuclear winter causing famine and massive flooding, there is a real fear that a collapse of the Norsefire government would lead to disaster. Whereas the film ends in a relatively peaceful overthrow, in the graphic novel there is a violent collapse of authority. Other differences include the computer system "Fate", which is completely missing from the film. (In the original story, Fate was a Big Brother-like computer which served as Norsefire's eyes and ears and also helped explain how V could see and hear the things he did) V's terrorist targets are also different in the graphic novel, as he destroys Parliament and the Old Bailey in the beginning, and destroys 10 Downing Street for the finale.