Watchmen

Here's the thing about Watchmen as a movie... the whole pudgy masked-adventurer thing works well in a comic panel, but transferred to a live-action movie, what do we get? A sagging middle-aged actor in tights. I just can't imagine that the sight of a real human being in the Nite Owl costume is going to do anything but incite laughter, which is certainly NOT what Moore had in mind.

ETA: Although Rorschach is gonna look BADASS.
 
insomneac said:
Maybe not, but it reflects how we feel about your posts.
Click to expand...

I've been right about the superhero adaptations all along. You know I'm right. And if you think the Marvel and DC properties were adapated correctly then wouldn't have anything to contribute to the discussion of how faithful an adaptation could be. This I have been sayin' all along.

For those who think I haven't been specific about this. I been specific on how faithful The Dark Knight should be and I have no problem being specific on how the rest of the adaptions could be faithfully adapted.

Sin City, Superman: The Movie and Batman Begins could be included as being faithful adaptations, but Batman Begins should have been better. Sin City being the most faithful adaptation. I've been saying this over and over.

Along with the horrible film adaptations, the comics are in a horrid state. I pretend that the events that have taken place in the last few years in comics didn't happen. Some worse more than others. I have lost all faith in Grant Morrison because of the awful issue Batman 663. JMS has pretty much ruined Spider-Man. Wolverine and the X-Men are and have been unreadable. Frank Miller isn't the writer he used to be with that jaded Batman comic.

Cowardice and realism are used as excuses for not being faithful to the source material.
 
Going way off topic here - what do people think of Ian Rankin being a future writer for Hellblazer? I read a lot of the early issues but haven't read it for a loooong time. But I do like Rankin's novels, so it might be worth another look.
 
Is that the only response you can think of? Fanboy? Any other derogatory terms? As said before, that kind of arguementation doesn't help your arguement in any way.
 
No Idea how that double post happened, so here is a funny gif to make up for it.

DataBlueScreenOfDeath.gif
 
Last edited:
I've made two declaritive posts...

1.
What you consistantly fail to comprehend is that what makes a good comic book does not necessarily make a good movie. The mediums are different, people perceive them differently, and people think in a different fashion while experiencing them.

Changes are absolutely necessary, if not just for time justification.
Click to expand...


2.
Fanboy is not a derogatory term. It is a term used to describe fans of something who nitpick and complain about any change to an adaptation. You have proven yourself to be this time an time again...Why don't you just accept it? At least wear the label proudly!

It sometimes gets a derogatory nature because of the lack of reason and rational the fanboys use when forming their arguements.

To put it simply in an example...if you cannot see how using organic webshooters in the Spiderman movies greatly simplified the story at little to no cost to the superheros origin or character then you are probably a fanboy.

Seriously...WTF is the difference? It saves the directer about 15 minutes of explaining the invention. Thats 15 minutes that the director can progress the story and have other cool things that fans want to see in there. 15 minutes is millions in the movie world.

Oh BTW....Spiderman also currently has Organic webbing in the 616.

Let it go dude.
Click to expand...

I have failed to see after rereading this thread how you have 'argued' against either or these claims. You have many responses that are the equalivent of 'nope' or 'come on' but yet to provide any responses that refute either of these claims.

In fact, I haven't even needed to post anything else because your own posts have clearly shown that

1. You consistantly fail to comprehend that changes from a comic book medium to a motion picture medium are necessary (my first statement)
and
2. You are a Fanboy by the defination I provided. (my second statement)

Reread the thread dude, check for yourself!

Edit: Anyway, this isn't an arguement...its you whining and us rolling our collective eyes at you. If you took a break from this thread, so that we can get some type of disscussion other than "its unfaithfully to the source!!1!" every other post, it would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Overman said:
I've made two declaritive posts...

1.


2.


I have failed to see after rereading this thread how you have 'argued' against either or these claims. You have many responses that are the equalivent of 'nope' or 'come on' but yet to provide any responses that refute either of these claims.

In fact, I haven't even needed to post anything else because your own posts have clearly shown that

1. You consistantly fail to comprehend that changes from a comic book medium to a motion picture medium are necessary (my first statement)
and
2. You are a Fanboy by the defination I provided. (my second statement)

Reread the thread dude, check for yourself!

Edit: Anyway, this isn't an arguement...its you whining and us rolling our collective eyes at you. If you took a break from this thread, so that we can get some type of disscussion other than "its unfaithfully to the source!!1!" every other post, it would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

What you fail recognize is that no one has tried to adapt the material correctly of certain properties and when the harder concepts for adaptation are spoken of you and the like say it won't work because the comics and film are different mediums or other phrases that are similar to that one. And this is being said without those more difficult concepts haven't been adapted. If you can't imagine most of the source material to be faithfully adapted then why are you reading the comics?

How are the changes neccesary? Which ones exactly would be the more precise question. Changes needed to work cinematically? That is just as bad as those other phrases you keep saying.

The makers of these superhero adaptations are jaded. Yes, jaded. If they think there is a need for significant changes when adapting the material then they shouldn't even be trying to do so.
 
Dave Stevens LOOOVVVVVED Disney's The Rocketeer (as did I). This movie pretty much sums up how an adaptation can make some pretty sizable excursions from the source material and still be successful (note I'm not talking about economically), even to the extent of being popular with the original artist.

Slavish adaptations usually suck. Witness the first two Potter films. Yeah, I know Potter isn't comics, but it illustrates the point.
 
Buckaroo said:
Dave Stevens LOOOVVVVVED Disney's The Rocketeer (as did I). This movie pretty much sums up how an adaptation can make some pretty sizable excursions from the source material and still be successful (note I'm not talking about economically), even to the extent of being popular with the original artist.

Slavish adaptations usually suck. Witness the first two Potter films. Yeah, I know Potter isn't comics, but it illustrates the point.
Click to expand...

Man I love me some Rocketeer!
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Going way off topic here - what do people think of Ian Rankin being a future writer for Hellblazer? I read a lot of the early issues but haven't read it for a loooong time. But I do like Rankin's novels, so it might be worth another look.
Click to expand...

Phew! I almost missed this through Demon Head's nonsense. I'm kinda stoked for Rankin to hop on Hellblazer. Can't wait to see what he brings to the table.
 
Wheezebucket said:
Man I love me some Rocketeer!
Click to expand...

You ain't jes' whistlin' Dixie, brother. They're just about my favorite comics of the last 20 years. Dunno why -- that title just pushes the right buttons for me. The only downer about the movie is that it was made about two years too early, so it didn't have the benefit of the post-Jurassic Park digital renaissance. The effects look just a little -- okay, okay, a lot -- dated. Doesn't bother me too much, though, since everything else was pretty much pitch-perfect.

But WHY such a crummy DVD release?! (Grrrrr....)
 
Buckaroo said:
Dave Stevens LOOOVVVVVED Disney's The Rocketeer (as did I). This movie pretty much sums up how an adaptation can make some pretty sizable excursions from the source material and still be successful (note I'm not talking about economically), even to the extent of being popular with the original artist.

Slavish adaptations usually suck. Witness the first two Potter films. Yeah, I know Potter isn't comics, but it illustrates the point.
Click to expand...

You have misinterpretated everything I've said with statements like that.

I will be absolutely clear so that this can be completely understood.

It depends on what is determined successful. It is not a valid excuse the removal of source material if the films seemed to entertain and satisfy some fans. And there are those who are dissapointed with the adaptations. It should also be understood that the material hasn't been faithfully adpated. A film maker could honor the source material faithfully and the film still could be great. I thought Batman Begins was a fairly good film, but it still wasn't right for the removal of source material and could have been better. See my point about the idea of a more faithful adaptation?

Have the Spider-Man films honored the source material faithfully? No. Have the X-Men films honored the source material faithfully? No. Has any other adaptation honored the source material faithfully barring Sin City and Superman: The Movie and possibly Batman Begins. The answer again is no. The idea of organic web-shooters replacing the mechanical web-shooters isn't an improvement.

A few times it has already been said that there are those that can't imagine Peter Parker building his web mechanical equipment but could discuss the highly advanced sciences with Otto Octavious in Spider-Man 2. How absolutely absurd of a statement is that about Peter not being able to build his web equipment? Obviously those are the ones who don't understand Peter Parker. Parker is not an everyman character. He is extremely bright. Go back and read the Spider-Man comics, specifically the classic comics that were written by Stan Lee and pencilled by Steve Ditko and John Romita Sr.

There is not any room for this type of discussion with replies such as different mediums, changes neccesary and so forth. Those are not valid replies. I've made good reasoning on how a faithful and an adaptation could and should be. So, I'm pretty much done replying to this thread and the lack of valid replies.
 
The Demon's Head said:
You have misinterpretated everything I've said with statements like that.

I will be absolutely clear so that this can be completely understood.

It depends on what is determined successful. It is not a valid excuse the removal of source material if the films seemed to entertain and satisfy some fans. And there are those who are dissapointed with the adaptations. It should also be understood that the material hasn't been faithfully adpated. A film maker could honor the source material faithfully and the film still could be great. I thought Batman Begins was a fairly good film, but it still wasn't right for the removal of source material and could have been better. See my point about the idea of a more faithful adaptation?

Have the Spider-Man films honored the source material faithfully? No. Have the X-Men films honored the source material faithfully? No. Has any other adaptation honored the source material faithfully barring Sin City and Superman: The Movie and possibly Batman Begins. The answer again is no. The idea of organic web-shooters replacing the mechanical web-shooters isn't an improvement.

A few times it has already been said that there are those that can't imagine Peter Parker building his web mechanical equipment but could discuss the highly advanced sciences with Otto Octavious in Spider-Man 2. How absolutely absurd of a statement is that about Peter not being able to build his web equipment? Obviously those are the ones who don't understand Peter Parker. Parker is not an everyman character. He is extremely bright. Go back and read the Spider-Man comics, specifically the classic comics that were written by Stan Lee and pencilled by Steve Ditko and John Romita Sr.

There is not any room for this type of discussion with replies such as different mediums, changes neccesary and so forth. Those are not valid replies. I've made good reasoning on how a faithful and an adaptation could and should be. So, I'm pretty much done replying to this thread and the lack of valid replies.
Click to expand...

My goodness. :eye-poppi
 
But back (almost) to the topic at hand...

How are they going to prevent Nite Owl and Ozymandias from looking like dorks on the big screen? Even in the book, their costumes looked a little like something you'd see on Who Wants to be a Superhero...

That's not actually a criticism of the book, BTW.
 
God, I was getting flashbacks to the endless arguments about how "Faithful" the LOTR films were to the books when the films came out.
My main reason for being skeptical about the Watchman movie is not that changes will be made but nothing I have seen in Zack Synder's two previous movies gives any indication he can handle material as complex as the Watchmen.
 
Buckaroo said:
But back (almost) to the topic at hand...

How are they going to prevent Nite Owl and Ozymandias from looking like dorks on the big screen? Even in the book, their costumes looked a little like something you'd see on Who Wants to be a Superhero...

That's not actually a criticism of the book, BTW.
Click to expand...
In a way, I wouldn't mind it very much if people thought they looked like dorks. After all, their costumes are not much more ridiculous than those used by established superheroes, and if the movie could make people realize it actually does look rather ridiculous, I would see that as a success of sorts.

Of course, I wouldn't want people to laugh at them. But if the actors do a good job portraying the characters, I do believe we could have at least a ridiculous-looking Nite Owl that isn't far from the original.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom