Watchmen

[The Demon's Head]

The problem is that you are rating it solely as an adaptation. It may be a good adaptation of the comic, but as a movie, it was just okay. And part of the reason it was just okay could be due to the slavish way it was adapted.

This is just silly. The core of Spiderman was still there.

You must be joking?

You still need to come up with some reason why a more faithful adaptation would make for a better movie.

Apparently you think the films were good enough they way the films were adapted. So, therefore, it wouldn't matter to you for a more faithful adaptation since you already think the films were good enough. It also depends on what you deem is faithful. If you think Raimi's versions were faithful then obviously you wouldn't think for a need of a reboot or changes to the current existing franchise.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I suppose you think changes applied to the Spider-Man films and X-Men films made those films great?

So we are back to comic book movies then?

Which changes in particular, referenced to which version of the comic characters?

 

[ponderingturtle]

The adaptation of Sin City was better than just okay. It was pretty much perect.

I have not seen a Marvel films that are about a Marvel character. Spider-Man films needed a reboot from the very beginning. Sure, the Spider-Man films were successful in terms of profits but poor adaptations.

What changes that where made in spider man do you think if they had not changed would have made it a better movie?

 

[dudalb]

The fact is adapting "Watchman" to the screen is much closer to adapting a "Straight" novel then a typical Superhero Comic,which is basically just a collection of short stories and/or short novels about the same characters.A huge difference.
And I thought the first two Spidey Movies and Batman Begins captured the flavor of the comics brilliantly.
BTW most SPidey fans praised the first two movies for being faithful to the spirit and characters of the Spiderman comics.

 

[dudalb]

So we are back to comic book movies then?

Which changes in particular, referenced to which version of the comic characters?

Good Point.Both Spidey and Batman have gone through dozens of versions as the writers and artists change.The Batman of the 60's is totally different then the Dark Knight concept.You really have to choose which,you can't do both.
This is too much like the freaking "Purist/Revisionests" wars over the "Lord OF The Rings" film.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Good Point.Both Spidey and Batman have gone through dozens of versions as the writers and artists change.The Batman of the 60's is totally different then the Dark Knight concept.You really have to choose which,you can't do both.
This is too much like the freaking "Purist/Revisionests" wars over the "Lord OF The Rings" film.

It is really the same thing. The Fanboys are going to complain, the fanboys ALWAYS complain. The goal needs to be to make the best film for the non fanboy.

 

[The Demon's Head]

What changes that where made in spider man do you think if they had not changed would have made it a better movie?

Are you satisfied with the Spider-Man films? If you are happy with the way the material was adapted, then you wouldn't think there would be a need for a new franchise or changes to the current franchise.

The fact is adapting "Watchman" to the screen is much closer to adapting a "Straight" novel then a typical Superhero Comic,which is basically just a collection of short stories and/or short novels about the same characters.A huge difference.
And I thought the first two Spidey Movies and Batman Begins captured the flavor of the comics brilliantly.
BTW most SPidey fans praised the first two movies for being faithful to the spirit and characters of the Spiderman comics.

I believe this sort of thing has already been discussed extensively before in this thread.

In what ways were the Spider-Man films absolutely faithful to the source material?

Good Point.Both Spidey and Batman have gone through dozens of versions as the writers and artists change.The Batman of the 60's is totally different then the Dark Knight concept.You really have to choose which,you can't do both.
This is too much like the freaking "Purist/Revisionests" wars over the "Lord OF The Rings" film.

I have no interest in seeing any earlier incarnation of the Batman being adapted.

It is really the same thing. The Fanboys are going to complain, the fanboys ALWAYS complain. The goal needs to be to make the best film for the non fanboy.

It would be nice if you wouldn't refer to me as a whining fanboy or what ever disparaging word you would use for your arguements purposes.

 

[Rufo]

I look forward to the movie, judging from what I've heard so far. Although I'm a little disappointed that Gilliam didn't make it (Gilliam being my absolute favorite director of all time, and Moore being amongst my favorite authors), it would be nice if the movie was simply good enough to get more people interested in the graphic novel. Moore being oversensitive after things like The League isn't really an indication that all movies based on his works will be bad.

Regarding changes in the film adaptions of books and comic books, I think there's a huge difference between adapting something to a new medium and taking the opportunity to add your own ideas. For instance - in V for Vendetta, several posters have mentioned V's speech to Madam Justice being missing from the movie. As much as I loved this scene in the book (to the point of often acting it out aloud ) I can understand that it may have fit less well in the movie. But a complete revision of what the Larkhill experiments were all about? Leaving out Finch's LSD use? That's just unnecessary plot changes and censorship.

The same applies to Watchmen. I have not read the script, but it sounds like there has been a revision of the ending which has little to do with adapting a graphic novel to a motion picture. Sure, authors should be more understanding than Moore, but that understanding needs to be mutual.

 

[MelBrooksfan]

Finch's LSD was crucial. That and his speech to Madame Justice show the "Maybe he's just crazy" side of V that was integral to the graphic novel. Moore is an admitted anarchist but he knew to write V ambiguously. The voice of morality is Evee, not V. There's the scene where V is all set to kill the man who had ruined Evee's second chance. All she had to do was give the word and she declined. Even V seems to realize this when he gives to Evee the decision to send the train or not.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Are you satisfied with the Spider-Man films? If you are happy with the way the material was adapted, then you wouldn't think there would be a need for a new franchise or changes to the current franchise.

You seem to be repeatedly claiming that there was some change made in the adaptation that was detrimental to the movie, but other than blind assertion you are not making any case for that.

It would be nice if you wouldn't refer to me as a whining fanboy or what ever disparaging word you would use for your arguements purposes.

You are acting like one.

 

[Overman]

You are acting like one.

Incorrect, he IS one!

The very definition of a Fanboy. I have shown a couple of friends who are fans of the watchmen this thread and each one declared DH to be a hardcore Fanboy well before you got to that...

And they have never seen his complaining in the spiderman or batman or any other movie threads (BTW, this is a book thread first!).

 

[Thanz]

The fact is adapting "Watchman" to the screen is much closer to adapting a "Straight" novel then a typical Superhero Comic,which is basically just a collection of short stories and/or short novels about the same characters.A huge difference.

I see what you are saying regarding the difference between a bunch of short stories (typical superhero comic) and Watchmen, which is a single contained story. But I think the comparison of Watchmen to a novel ends there. There is so much going on visually that it is hard to see how Watchmen could be adapted well to either a straight novel or a movie. For example, the chapters that have the pirate comic running through them. Extremely hard to translate that sort of thing to another format.

Which is to say it is hard to capture all of what is good about Watchmen into a movie. They may be able to make a good movie out of the central story - we'll see. But if they do, I expect the reaction to be the common "That was good, but the book was better". So I guess that is one other way that it is similar to adapting a straight novel.

 

[Thanz]

You must be joking?

Not in the slightest. What were the changes? Well, the spider was some sort of genetic modified super spider instead of radioactive. Does that make any real difference? No. Peter still gets bit by some special spider and gets spider powers.

The biggest change, of course, was the organic webshooters. Which I think made sense and did not change the essence of the character. He was still a nerdy, bookish, smart individual, who had more confidence as spiderman, with frail-ish Aunt May, Great Power equals Great Responsibility, Uncle Ben dying, etc. The essence of the character is the same.

Apparently you think the films were good enough they way the films were adapted. So, therefore, it wouldn't matter to you for a more faithful adaptation since you already think the films were good enough. It also depends on what you deem is faithful. If you think Raimi's versions were faithful then obviously you wouldn't think for a need of a reboot or changes to the current existing franchise.

Apparently, you don't know how to answer a straightforward question. Why would a more faithful adaptation make a better movie? What changes do you think should have been made to the movie to make it both more faithful to the source material and a better movie?

 

[alfaniner]

... There is so much going on visually that it is hard to see how Watchmen could be adapted well to either a straight novel or a movie. For example, the chapters that have the pirate comic running through them. Extremely hard to translate that sort of thing to another format.

Studio Executive: "Hey, pirates are really big right now. Let's make it more about the pirates. The whole superhero thing can just be a hallucination or something."

 

[dudalb]

Studio Executive: "Hey, pirates are really big right now. Let's make it more about the pirates. The whole superhero thing can just be a hallucination or something."

The biggest change, of course, was the organic webshooters. Which I think made sense and did not change the essence of the character. He was still a nerdy, bookish, smart individual, who had more confidence as spiderman, with frail-ish Aunt May, Great Power equals Great Responsibility, Uncle Ben dying, etc. The essence of the character is the same.

One of the marks of the die hard fanboy is an inability to see the forest for the trees.
I actually found the Organic Webs to be a improvement on the invented ones in the comic book.Even as a kid back in the 70's I had a hard time beleiveing that a 16 year old kid could invent an miracle adhesive that is 1000% more advanced then anything chemical corporations with large paid staffs of Scientests could come up with.

 

[The Demon's Head]

You seem to be repeatedly claiming that there was some change made in the adaptation that was detrimental to the movie, but other than blind assertion you are not making any case for that.

If I need to be more specific, then I will. I have no problem pointing out the problems with the adaptations.

You are acting like one.

Incorrect, he IS one!

Great way to support your arguement by using a derogatory term towards another

The very definition of a Fanboy. I have shown a couple of friends who are fans of the watchmen this thread and each one declared DH to be a hardcore Fanboy well before you got to that...

There's that term fanboy again.

And they have never seen his complaining in the spiderman or batman or any other movie threads (BTW, this is a book thread first!).

I'd have to say that I somewhat had high hopes for the sequel of Batman Begins because of what I kept hearing about the sequel. But, now that the Joker has been revealed and the Batsuit and the awful teaser trailer. I don't have those high hopes for the sequel.

Not in the slightest. What were the changes? Well, the spider was some sort of genetic modified super spider instead of radioactive. Does that make any real difference? No. Peter still gets bit by some special spider and gets spider powers.

Again, you must be joking.

The biggest change, of course, was the organic webshooters. Which I think made sense and did not change the essence of the character. He was still a nerdy, bookish, smart individual, who had more confidence as spiderman, with frail-ish Aunt May, Great Power equals Great Responsibility, Uncle Ben dying, etc. The essence of the character is the same.

Let's start with the organic webbing. First of all, it is completely wrong to remove the web-shooters and the rest of his equipment (the utility belt) when those have been a part of the character's mythos for most of the character's existing history.

Apparently, you don't know how to answer a straightforward question. Why would a more faithful adaptation make a better movie? What changes do you think should have been made to the movie to make it both more faithful to the source material and a better movie?

I've answered that question several times already. If you were pleased with the adaptations, then you don't care to see it improved or rebooted and properly adapted.

One of the marks of the die hard fanboy is an inability to see the forest for the trees.
I actually found the Organic Webs to be a improvement on the invented ones in the comic book.Even as a kid back in the 70's I had a hard time beleiveing that a 16 year old kid could invent an miracle adhesive that is 1000% more advanced then anything chemical corporations with large paid staffs of Scientests could come up with.

Go back and read the comics. Seriously.

If you can't imagine the material to be properly adapted, then find another genre.

 

[dudalb]

Mythos...the fanboy's favorite word.
We are talking about a comic created to make a few bucks back in 1962,not Greek or Norse Mythology here,folks.
I enjoy comics,but this whole routine of treating them like they are some of kind of pinnicle of literature is pretty silly.

 

[The Demon's Head]

Essentially, it is mythology that we're discussing here.

 

[Overman]

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.

 

[Gregory]

I started to read the comic, but I was quickly turned off by it. Why? Because the panel layout is excruciatingly boring. I suppose that's not a very good reason to give up on what's supposed to be the greatest comic book ever, but there you go. Maybe I'll try again sometime. Or just see the movie, if it gets good reviews.