Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Make it stop.

As soon as an Old/Ugly/Fat person steps into a familiar character's guise, my view of that character is ruined forever.

sA



Oh god. SNOW WHITE. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

Ahtman wrote:

whatwhat wrote:If there not supposed to be the same thing, why are they called the same thing?

You are right. Alan Moore should also take his name off Miracleman, Swamp Thing, and change the names of all the characters in the League because they are not like the original versions but they use the same name. They way he took source material and changed it and explored it is unforgivable. Same is true with Frank Miller or any other comic writer. What a bunch of hacks.

Considering I said that in response to you saying the film v for v is not supposed to be the same thing as the comic none of that means much does it. As the characters in the league, for example, ARE meant to be the characters they represent.

Ahtman wrote:

whatwhat wrote:And ahtman, my objections to the movie adaptations are entirely my own opinion, I'm not just taking the side of Alan Moore. I know he goes on a lot, although I do respect him as I find in the interviews he gives he makes a lot of sense. Plus he was one of the figures I looked up to when I was younger and inspired me to become an artworker.

That is fantastic. Still doesn't mean prejudicing yourself against a piece of artwork you have never seen is a very thoughtful course of action.

What makes you think I haven't seen it?

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:You are right. Alan Moore should also take his name off Miracleman, Swamp Thing, and change the names of all the characters in the League because they are not like the original versions but they use the same name. They way he took source material and changed it and explored it is unforgivable. Same is true with Frank Miller or any other comic writer. What a bunch of hacks.

I'm honestly of the opinion that Sin City was quite possibly the best translation of a comicbook-to-movie. Maybe for the artistic vision that went into it, maybe for the cinematography, or maybe even the list of A-List actors (Which I'm usually against, but in this case it worked brilliantly).

Basically all other comicbook movies have simply fallen into the 'Good on their own merits, at best' category. I'm thinking that this is probably where Watchmen will end up as well.

If you judge a re-working of a piece of art based completely on the original, you will almost always be disappointed. You have to open your mind a bit, or you will probably end up disappointed.

Sin City is a special case. Unlike the "major" Super-Heroes out there, like Bats, Spidey and Iron Man who all have a running series, or graphic novels like V or LXG (no matter how awefull it was), Sin City was exactly like the comic, just in motion. I think Rodriguez even once said that they wouldn't need Story Boards because they have the comic. That's what makes the movie so entertaining for fans of the source material. They get exactly what they read on paper before. Which doesn't mean, that it won't work the other way round. Spider-Man 2, Iron Man or Incredible Hulk are great examples how you can get the essence of a comic in a movie, without relying too much on a single story.

whatwhat wrote:You can't wait? Well prepare to be disapointed. Alan Moore will be uncredited in the movie as he completely oposes it's film adaptation. Therefore we're likely to see a gak remake of one of his great comics just like V for V and the league of extraordinary gentlemen.

Alan Moore doesn't want to be credited in any adaptation of any of his works. This has nothing to do with the final quality of the movie. Alan Moore is an odd bloke.

From Hell wasn't too bad, though it ditched some pretty interesting elements that's unavoidable when you want to keep a movie under three hours. V for Vendetta was also pretty solid.

The only bad remake was League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (which had a bizarre production history, the short story of which is that they paid Moore a pile of money to make a film that had little to do with his own work... and finally resulted in everyone getting sued and Alan Moore somehow ending up in court talking about how his work plagiarised something that was written after his own graphic novel).

Terry Gilliam was lined up to make this and eventually agreed with Alan's position that the watchmen was unfilmable so he abandoned the project. Unfortunately imo gilliam was one of the few people in hollywood who could have made it work.

Gilliam has great imagination but his technical skills are... lacking. He's also got mediocre box office record and a history of failed productions. He's just not going to be given a mega-budget movie. Zack Snyder's other point of reference, 300, was pretty faithful.

whatwhat wrote:Unfortunately i feel they changed it enough to make it less about the Biritsh context, which the comic was, and more about American politics.

It wasn't just the British perspective that was lost, but much of the anarchist thought. Whether or not this is a good thing largely depends on your view on anarchism. The film was certainly less provacative.

Miguelsan wrote:Adaptation, adaptation? What adaptation? This is a total remake Hollywod style, "we take everything cool from the book and throw it down the drain but we put [cool]fight scenes [/cool] to compensate!".

I just read that, I don´t know if it´s still on the current script, that Watchmen has some kind of energetic crisis going on, I don´t remember that being in the original comic, no wonder Moore doesn´t want to have his name on the credits.

What´s next a WWII movie without Nazis because modern sensibilities might be hurt? A Moby Dick movie without the whale because hunting whales is not cool?.

M.

PS: I hated the last Potter movies due to the same problem, they raped the books to put more CG for the kiddies. Or Mr Peter "no this is not Tolkien´s story it´s mine" Jackson and his LotR alternate plots.

That's pretty close to fanboy elitism. Things don't have to exactly the same, shot for shot, for a remake to be legitimate.

Thing is, Watchmen is very much of its time. The idea of reasonable men taking each steady step towards nuclear armageddon doesn't have the same resonance today. The theme can't be effectively captured today.

I doubt an energy crisis could play as effective a part, but I know that trying to keep the cold war would be a big mistake.

VermGho5t wrote:It's more about the failings of the movie industry and bigshots trying to make a quick buck without tryign to be innovative, smart, and using their imagination to come up with their own material. They have to ride in on the coattails of others.

Fight the power!

Anung Un Rama wrote:Sin City is a special case. Unlike the "major" Super-Heroes out there, like Bats, Spidey and Iron Man who all have a running series, or graphic novels like V or LXG (no matter how awefull it was), Sin City was exactly like the comic, just in motion. I think Rodriguez even once said that they wouldn't need Story Boards because they have the comic. That's what makes the movie so entertaining for fans of the source material. They get exactly what they read on paper before. Which doesn't mean, that it won't work the other way round. Spider-Man 2, Iron Man or Incredible Hulk are great examples how you can get the essence of a comic in a movie, without relying too much on a single story.

They're also much, much simpler stories than Watchmen.

sebster wrote:

Terry Gilliam was lined up to make this and eventually agreed with Alan's position that the watchmen was unfilmable so he abandoned the project. Unfortunately imo gilliam was one of the few people in hollywood who could have made it work.

Gilliam has great imagination but his technical skills are... lacking. He's also got mediocre box office record and a history of failed productions. He's just not going to be given a mega-budget movie. Zack Snyder's other point of reference, 300, was pretty faithful.

Gilliam is underated, well underated. You can't rate him on box office success, he doesn't make mainstream films. That's the reason he isn't given mega-budget films. Many of the films he has made have cult status now. for example fear and loathing, twelve monkeys, brazil.

The watchmen is a totally different kettle of fish compared to 300 so if he approaches it in the same way it wont work.

My main gripe in all of this is not because I'm some fanboy as some have suggested. It's because I sigh every time I mention I like v for v and someone goes " oh I love that movie!" as if the comic never existed and reckon they can still have a conversation about it on the same level. Hollywood just rape everything which will make them money, I bet there were some producers smiling while they watched 9/11 unfold.

whatwhat wrote:My main gripe in all of this is not because I'm some fanboy as some have suggested. It's because I sigh every time I mention I like v for v and someone goes " oh I love that movie!" as if the comic never existed and reckon they can still have a conversation about it on the same level. Hollywood just rape everything which will make them money, I bet there were some producers smiling while they watched 9/11 unfold.

You are coming off as one of those people who liked a band, then the band got big and gained a large following and you are upset that other people now like them even though they didn't know them before their big break.

Of course I'm assuming you haven't seen the film considering there is a very tiny handful of people who have, and I'd be willing to bet you aren't one of them. The only person that has gone on record as having seen the film is Kevin Smith, who I believe has read a comic or two in his time, and he loved it.

I'm not saying it is going to be a great film either. I am saying that we don't know at this point. Anything else is just ignorant judgments based on limited information and personal bias.

Ahtman wrote:

whatwhat wrote:My main gripe in all of this is not because I'm some fanboy as some have suggested. It's because I sigh every time I mention I like v for v and someone goes " oh I love that movie!" as if the comic never existed and reckon they can still have a conversation about it on the same level. Hollywood just rape everything which will make them money, I bet there were some producers smiling while they watched 9/11 unfold.

You are coming off as one of those people who liked a band, then the band got big and gained a large following and you are upset that other people now like them even though they didn't know them before their big break.

Of course I'm assuming you haven't seen the film considering there is a very tiny handful of people who have, and I'd be willing to bet you aren't one of them. The only person that has gone on record as having seen the film is Kevin Smith, who I believe has read a comic or two in his time, and he loved it.

I'm not saying it is going to be a great film either. I am saying that we don't know at this point. Anything else is just ignorant judgments based on limited information and personal bias.

Well I assumed when you said your earlier statement you were talking about whtehr or not I had seen V for V, as not once have I said Watchmen is this or the other, only my prediction.

As for your first point, Obviously there is a bit of that yes. But if I could give you an example of a group iIused to like. Pendulum, a drum and bass group from Australia, used to love them. They were very experimental which I liked and weren't afraid to try out new stuff. Then they released 'Hold your Colour,' which was good and achieved great success for a group in a niche genre. From then on they dropped their experimental qualities out the window and just continued to churn out the same stuff which they achieved success with. They sold out. And nowadays it's: "I'm into drum and bass" "oh I love pendulum" as if they're the only drum and bass group in the world.

It's not the fact that these things gain a large following that annoys you it's the way people assume to know more than you do even though they make no effort to go back and listen to there earlier music, read the comic etc. etc. So I can't talk to people who have only seen the film of v for v because it's not the same as the book in the same way I can't talk to people who got into pendulum after 'hold your colour' because they're not the same pendulum I used to know and like.

Saying that it's only part of the issue. I geniunely don't find the film adaptation of V for V a good adaptation in the same way something like Fight Club is.

whatwhat wrote:Gilliam is underated, well underated. You can't rate him on box office success, he doesn't make mainstream films. That's the reason he isn't given mega-budget films. Many of the films he has made have cult status now. for example fear and loathing, twelve monkeys, brazil.

You don’t just line up the box office results of people who make small movies and people who make big movies and declare a winner, that’s true. You look at the cost of each movie from each director, and compare it with the box office take for each. Gilliam films lose money more often than not, even considering the low costs of production.

He’s also had a lot of cost over-runs, and relied on lots of reshoots. He’s a big risk for any financing group. Because of this he has to battle to get the financing for his small movies… he won’t be given a mega-budget movie any time soon.

The watchmen is a totally different kettle of fish compared to 300 so if he approaches it in the same way it wont work.

Do you really want a Watchmen full of surrealism and sight gags? If he approaches it in the Gilliam style it won’t work. I’m not sure there’s much merit in suggesting a director would make a great version of a film as long as he doesn’t make it anything like his other movies.

My main gripe in all of this is not because I'm some fanboy as some have suggested. It's because I sigh every time I mention I like v for v and someone goes " oh I love that movie!" as if the comic never existed and reckon they can still have a conversation about it on the same level.

Is that it much of an agony to know the source material better than another fan?

Hollywood just rape everything which will make them money, I bet there were some producers smiling while they watched 9/11 unfold.

Was that comment really necessary? Or relevant to anything?

sebster wrote:You don’t just line up the box office results of people who make small movies and people who make big movies and declare a winner, that’s true. You look at the cost of each movie from each director, and compare it with the box office take for each. Gilliam films lose money more often than not, even considering the low costs of production.

Does that make him a bad director? no.

sebster wrote:He’s also had a lot of cost over-runs, and relied on lots of reshoots. He’s a big risk for any financing group. Because of this he has to battle to get the financing for his small movies… he won’t be given a mega-budget movie any time soon.

Ok.

sebster wrote:Do you really want a Watchmen full of surrealism and sight gags? If he approaches it in the Gilliam style it won’t work. I’m not sure there’s much merit in suggesting a director would make a great version of a film as long as he doesn’t make it anything like his other movies.

I suggested if he made it like 300 it wouldn't work. That is all.

sebster wrote:Is that it much of an agony to know the source material better than another fan?

Nope. No agony.

sebster wrote:Was that comment really necessary? Or relevant to anything?

Necessary, no. Relevant, yes.

sebster wrote:
That's pretty close to fanboy elitism. Things don't have to exactly the same, shot for shot, for a remake to be legitimate.

Thing is, Watchmen is very much of its time. The idea of reasonable men taking each steady step towards nuclear armageddon doesn't have the same resonance today. The theme can't be effectively captured today.

I doubt an energy crisis could play as effective a part, but I know that trying to keep the cold war would be a big mistake.

I disagree in part, things don´t have to be the same but there is a trend in all these recent adaptations were main parts of the plot are dropped from the script due to time limitations only to be substitute by totally pointless, plot wise, CG scenes or similar. Continuing on my LotR example Tolkien opposed to an adaptation of his works due to Hollywood´s disregard of the original works, in his words:

Tolkien wrote:"The canons of narrative an in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owning to not perceiving where the core of the original lies."

His point is not that works are inmutable but that if you are not going to respect the underlying idea, write your own idea, make whatever you want with it and call it something else. I agree with Ahtman that in Moore´s case (or Rowlings), he sold the rights for a profit knowing that this could and would happen but other authors don´t have the luxury of having their works respected due to the little problem of being dead.

M.

Miguelsan wrote:I agree with Ahtman that in Moore´s case (or Rowlings), he sold the rights for a profit knowing that this could and would happen but other authors don´t have the luxury of having their works respected due to the little problem of being dead.

M.

Actually Tolkein sold the movie rights for LOTR long before he died, it's not so different. I agree with you completely on this though...

Miguelsan wrote:His point is not that works are inmutable but that if you are not going to respect the underlying idea, write your own idea, make whatever you want with it and call it something else.

Err, I think it was Stage rights, not film.... I need to go back to Spain and read my books again.

M.

whatwhat wrote:Does that make him a bad director? no.

Indeed, he's quite a good director, but he works to his strengths, and I can't see how his strengths match up with Watchmen at all.

Nope. No agony.

So what's the problem then? That you might know the source better than another fan?

If you go see and enjoy an interpretation of Hamlet, do you really need someone telling you that this was a dreadful interpretation and they should know because they studied Shakespeare and how annoyed they get that there's all these folk that haven't studied Hamlet who still try to enjoy it.

Don't be that guy.

Necessary, no. Relevant, yes.

It was pretty crass man. It also has problems with reality. There were a number of productions that had to be shelved at the cost of millions (some were in principal shooting, some were in editing) because they were too close to 9/11. The handful of films made around 9/11 have been box office disappointments, largely because they were to reverential, too careful.

Personally, I think a Gilliam Watchmen could have been interesting, but would be likely as equally flawed as what we do end up getting. I will likely watch the film at some point, but I doubt it'll be better than the graphic novel. (Which is already pretty darn full of 'sight gags' lots of little easter eggs on every page)

Aha

reds8n wrote:

Vandez wrote:I've heard horrible rumours that they've changed the ending for the film.

If they butcher it, I will be most displeased.

They have indeed

Spoiler:

No giant squid thing, instead the "threat" comes from Dr. Manhattan built/powered machines exploding instead. Exactly how this unifies the world as one in a manner akin to the "alien invasion" I'm not sure. How film is supposed to be very brutal apparently, lots of stabbings, burnings and cleavers hitting "meat".

V for V was about more than just Thatcherism, more totalitarianism as a whole.

This information has made me sad. I'd be better off watching The Incredibles again

As I recall, in one interview Dave Gibbons, the man who draw Watchmen and apprearantly is also working on the movie said that:

!? wrote:Maths really ain't that important unless you're going to become a teacher or mathematician when you are older.

Or an accountant... And we all know they rule the world.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:

!? wrote:Maths really ain't that important unless you're going to become a teacher or mathematician when you are older.

Or an accountant... And we all know they rule the world.

G

Do we? Sweet!

I just watched the second, or as I call it Retribution trailer online. Looks flippin sweet. From the line said by doctor Manhattan, I suspect the guy who plays Nathan on Heroes is voicing him. Only time will tell.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I just watched the second, or as I call it Retribution trailer online. Looks flippin sweet. From the line said by doctor Manhattan, I suspect the guy who plays Nathan on Heroes is voicing him. Only time will tell.

Or you could just check imdb.

too Lazy.