Queue on 2/8/2008 at 00:04
Sure I do. I'm just saying that it didn't need to be made into a film.
Mr.Duck on 2/8/2008 at 01:53
It didn't, but we're glad it did. Also, SinCity :thumbsup:
:cool:
Now play nice.
Queue on 2/8/2008 at 16:59
:p :p :p
:cheeky:
Okay, okay--geesh, of course you had to pull out good examples.
Stitch on 2/8/2008 at 18:22
While I can name countless examples of excellent book-to-movie adaptations, I do sympathize with the basic lament that books and graphic novels are all too often seen simply as source material for films.
Queue on 2/8/2008 at 20:28
Much agreed, Stitch.
Scots Taffer on 3/8/2008 at 01:12
Quote Posted by Queue
why is it that every damned novel, graphic novel, comic book, and, now, game needs to be turned into a film?
A fairly valid if "waaah waaah" complaint.
Quote Posted by Queue
There is no need to make a film of them--one that is usually not a very good film--for the masses as the material already exists as a creative entity.
A comment wrong in nearly every way. So every adaptation of anything not originally written in the medium of film is "usually not a very good film"?
That's fucking retarded.
I disagree with your central thesis that nothing
should be adapted but I agree that there are certainly areas where there is no need to adapt or that would adapt poorly (a good example is Max Payne, although it is looking promising in tone at least), but then I also reckon there are many areas where there's no need to reboot/remake and I was proven wrong (Batman in particular).
Quote Posted by Queue
So quit fucking up our enjoyment of books, comics, and games, you incredible hacks, with your asinine and poorly produced films.
It'd really help you if you didn't speak in blanket statements, sure, we can all point at a few poor adaptations, especially in the videogame and comic book area, but to generally decry adaptations? Foolish. They provide an alternative take for people who either didn't read the novel or who did and wish to see it visualised in a way that brings something new to the story.
Stitch on 5/8/2008 at 14:44
I picked up Watchmen on Friday and have been rereading it for the first time in three years or so, and if anything I'm more amazed than ever at the sheer depth of what Moore and Gibbons pulled off. I've got to admit the sexy visuals of the trailer seduced me into optimism, but rereading this has reminded me of just how unsexy Watchmen is. (
http://squappity.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-watches-watchmen.html) The film may wind up being incredibly faithful to the source material and yet utterly miss the point.
(blog link to a more detailed take up there)
Also: I've got to say short of appealing to fanboys I can't see any point in producing the Black Freighter material if it's going to be divorced from the main narrative. Bereft of context, the Black Freighter story is little more than a particularly gruesome pulp tale.
Thirith on 5/8/2008 at 14:53
On the whole "need" thing: is there any need for a new production of Hamlet? Or of Pinter's The Homecoming?
While many adaptations/remakes/reboots/sequels are creatively corrupt pieces of trash, I always enjoy an interesting, intelligent and challenging new look at an old narrative. A good film adaptation, just like any interpretation, can make you look at the original text with new eyes and see things that you didn't see before.
Scots Taffer on 5/8/2008 at 23:34
Quote Posted by Stitch
I've got to admit the sexy visuals of the trailer seduced me into optimism, but rereading this has reminded me of just how unsexy Watchmen is. (
http://squappity.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-watches-watchmen.html) The film may wind up being incredibly faithful to the source material and yet utterly miss the point.
Also: I've got to say short of appealing to fanboys I can't see any point in producing the Black Freighter material if it's going to be divorced from the main narrative. Bereft of context, the Black Freighter story is little more than a particularly gruesome pulp tale.
Absolutely right on both counts.
I've got to say that coming straight off the back of the graphic novel the trailer looks like they've chosen the youthful cast to nail the regular comic-book movie demographic into coming along, however this potentially comes at the expense of the humanity in the characters. Your quote from Zack in your blog highlights quite clearly the danger in this adaptation - "superman can't get it up" - that's fine, you can demystify superheroes and get behind the mask and reveal the pathos lurking there if you wish, but you've got to do it right. For these youthful types to be reminiscing of times past and struggling with their insecurities as they go is going to take a little convincing through a lot of solid acting.
And to be honest, while a nice parallel for the main body of the plot, I found most of the Black Freighter stuff utterly unnecessary, even in the context of the graphic novel. It provided some meta humour, but I wasn't interested in the ridiculously predictable plot of it at all.
Muzman on 6/8/2008 at 01:45
(I'm sure this has been covered somewhere but...)
You see even usually sane movie writers saying things like "You can see some clear comic panel quotes in the trailer, so you know Snyder and co are focussed on being faithful to the source"
They are? You can tell that from comic panel quotes in a film? That's a lame enough measure of authenticity in a normal comic film. In Watchmen it's almost an insult. Sure if there wasn't a great big pull back from a smiley badge on the ground or the surface of Mars here and there I'd be bummed, but otherwise who cares.
