We wanted to know the order of operations when a book becomes a movie. The answer was pretty clear with 65% of you saying: read the book, then see the movie. This is a philosophy I certainly support, but it doesn’t always happen, even in cases where I’m told just how much better the book is than the movie.
However, in the case of the Watchmen, I read the book, oh, at least 20 times before seeing the movie. It helps that they came out over 20 years apart (though as Chatty pointed out after reading my review, I was 3 when the original came out, so my experience is even different than the diehards who had read it when it first came out).
My sense when it was being advertised, and especially after seeing it, is that the movie is something of a tough sell. It’s long, it’s R rated, and it’s fairly high concept as far as movies with this kind of advertising budget go. Early box office receipts are panning that out, and I’m not confident in its word of mouth to those who aren’t fans of the original.
Regardless of how the movie does overall, I’m interested how our audience feels about the movie, and also I want to know:
[poll id=”116″]
Interstingly enough, the critic I saw over the weekend said the exact same thing you did. That the changes made to fit the new media were necessary but would likely anger the diehard fans while confusing the non-initiated.
I haven’t read it in a few years, so I hope my muddled memories will make watching the movie more interesting because I won’t be doing a comparison.
The Chatty DM´s last post: DM Chronicles: Session 11, Foray into the Well of Demons, part 1
I’m not confident in its word of mouth to people who ARE fans of the original. I found the movie entertaining enough (though a few of the artistic decisions I thought were questionable), but after it was over I wondered what the point of it was – it’s not just that the book is better (the book is almost always better, no matter what adaptation we’re talking about), it’s that the movie itself literally didn’t do ANYTHING that the book hadn’t already done. Unlike a typical book adaptation, where the director gets to focus on taking a prose work and weaving it into a visual form, in this case it felt like I was watching a shot-for-shot remake of a movie that was already widely regarded as a masterpiece – what’s the point of that?
That’s where I think it falls down. The movie itself isn’t a masterpiece (it was actually pretty slipshod in some ways – whoever did the makeup work should go back to doing makeup for high school musicals), but because so much of it was nearly a shot-for-shot rendition of the novel to the screen, it inherits some of the qualities that make the novel a masterpiece. It really hit me when I read Roger Ebert’s twin reviews at the SunTimes and at his blog – the things he praises in the movie (with the exception of Billy Crudup’s performance) are all in the novel – where he sees the depths of symbolism or the heights of brilliance in the work, including the visuals, they are all right there on the page that Snyder used as a roadmap to make the movie.
I took my wife to see it last night, and since she hasn’t read the comic, I looked at the film slightly differently. I tried to see it through the eyes of someone who hasn’t read it. I wasn’t totally successful, because they have done such a beautiful job re-creating the images from the graphic novel.
The clarity of the visuals from the graphic novel created a problem for me, though. They made the departures from the plot of the graphic novel more jarring, and although I enjoyed the expanded fight scenes, I found the increased graphic violence to be questionable, both in terms of taste and purpose. I’m not sure of the rationale for it, plot-wise or aesthetically. If the only purpose of the violence was to make it clear that this wasn’t no kids comic, then it was a mistake. I can’t think of another reason, though, so why?
The music was terrible, though. Inappropriate and too loud, plus, from the wrong era. Why use 70’s stuff in a movie set in the 80’s? It made no sense to me. But those are just picky points. Overall, I thought it was beautiful, memorable and a reasonably good interpretation of a wonderful comic. Nice to see it on the big screen in a way that does not at all interfere with my memories of the book.
wickedmurph´s last post: Writing an Adventure, 4e-style
@wickedmurph – Because you can never get enough gratuitous violence…THAT’S WHY!…
Reverend Mike´s last post: Demotivational Monday: OH SHI-, indeed.
Heh, and that’s also why I play 4e. More mindless action for everyone. Now with even fewer random encounters!
On the upside, my wife thought the scene in Archimedes was dead sexy, and liked the movie in general. I’ll pick up the graphic novel for her, I think.
And don’t get me wrong here, I’m a fan of a bit of the old ultra-violent, but if you’re going be so faithful to the book, why deviate on this issue? It just jars with the rest of the tone, and to the detriment of the movie.
wickedmurph´s last post: Writing an Adventure, 4e-style
I have read the novel and liked it, but I honestly don’t see that many movies in the theater. This movie looks interesting, but no so much that I ran to theater to watch it this past weekend. That being said I will definetly watch it once it come out on DVD.
I had read the graphic novel, and had heard plenty of things – good and bad – before I saw it yesterday (Sunday). But to state my opinion simply and plainly: I liked it. It did what I wanted it to do.
There are some things that bothered me, not as a fan of the graphic novel but as a movie-watcher (for example, that The Comedian could punch clean through a wall without blood or pain when everything else hurt, or the inconsistency of technology like Veidt’s pixely desktop computer vs. Nite Owl’s futuristic goggle HUD) BUT there was a lot less to get uppity about than I expected.
One thing that did surprise me was how well Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan were cast. I didn’t know what to expect from Billy Crudup in particular, but his reminiscing on Mars was much more emotional than I had thought possible.
I only noticed how long it was when I got out and looked at my watch… until that time I was wondering why I ran out of popcorn…
I actually was surprised that there was so much male nudity. Usually, there is female nudity aplenty (not complaining) but this time… it was… blue.
I wonder if blue glowing male full frontal nudity is taken any differently by the ratings people…lol
GrecoG´s last post: Controversial Trek
Haven’t seen this movie yet. Living in small town Iowa means I have to schedule a trip in to see it or wait for it to hit the dollar theater in a month or two.
That said, my teenagers and I are planning on seeing it after World D&D day next Saturday.
Vulcan Stev´s last post: “Unfortunately…” new hooks for your game.
This movie damaged my hearing.
The dialog is fine, but the action sequences were shrill and punchy. I had ear pain for 2 days after this movie. They prescribed too loud of volume and then the volume levels were way too wide. So the peaks were just shattering. I couldn’t enjoy the movie, and regretted staying for it to finish. I hate hollywood sound engineers/directors, and I’m never going back to a movie theater ever again. These people are idiots.