Watchmen (Zack Snyder, 2009)

[knives]

I'm thinking, the extended Rorschach's Journal scenes tell you about as much as you need to know concerning the adaptation.

Yeah it seems he did the Rorschach stuff 'right', but that's kind of bad. I'm sure Snyder is the kind of guy who sympathizes with Rorschach, making his scenes the best in the movie, but for different reasons why they were good in the book. At least that's what it seems like.

[somnambulating]

And while it's certainly tempting to continuing noting why this film, as we've just observed, is a failure in translation... the benefit of understanding why is already available:

Faithfulness to form, literary or otherwise, is illusory: what matters is the equivalence in meaning of the forms. - André Bazin

Still, since it is inevitable that we will see a continuing trend in these verbatim graphic adaptations, I think it's important for forthcoming filmmakers to notice the widening visual vocabulary bleeding over and how its been test-run in its successes and failures.

[Svevan]

Faithfulness to form, literary or otherwise, is illusory: what matters is the equivalence in meaning of the forms. - André Bazin

It seems like Watchmen has neither.

[statsman]

I'm optimistic. I've been following this thread for months, and it encouraged me to buy the book (had read it before standing up in the bookstore). It's going to be tough to pull off, but so far the UK reviews are generally positive. I rcognize that some fans give good reviews because they want so badly to believe it's good (like the positive reviews "The Phantom Menace" received at first).

I'm not buying that Snyder proved himself a soulless reactionary with "300". To me, the graphic novel and the movie that mimicked it were basically telling the ancient greeks' ultra-chauvinist side of the story. All of the old slurs and invented legends were presented (and exagerrated) as real. It had nothing in common with history, but was a clever updating of a millenia-old oral history (I'm guessing either Miller and Snyder are ignorant of Spartan social customs or didn't believe they could sell a movie that showed them).

I think Snyder has shown with "300" and "Dawn of the Dead" that he is a clever technician. He has not shown that he is an artist. Reports on "The Watchmen" indicate that he defaulted to Moore's story whenever in doubt. Is that art? Probably not. Comics and movies are different media with different strengths and weaknesses. Typically, the best film adaptations don't feel the need to adhere to the story as much as to the idea or theme. To me, the gold standard is "Blade runner", which as a story has very little shared with "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", but shares themes and ideas. The book is excellant and the movie is excellant, each in their own way.

I don't think we're going to get that here. The news on the ending revision is actually very interesting to me. That may be the only significant revision. Still, if he can just manage to tell the story and get the characters right, it can be a very nice film, even if not a classic.

I'm optimistic.

[royalton]

I never thought it would be a monster hit, and still don't. I think too few of my fellow comic geeks get that, especially the AICN crowd.

I suspect Snyder has all this worship of the source text and none of the depth to give his literal translation any movement, focus or weight. He didn't need to worry about that sort of thing on 300, which started out as bravura spectacle anyway with minimalist Miller dialogue, or on Dawn of the Dead, which succeeded in being totally mediocre and not the utter abortion audiences had expected, therefore leading to people calling it "good." He is the ultimate example of success by lowered expectations. Except maybe Sarah Palin.

I really would love to be wrong and be wowed by this thing, but so far I see something very dazzlingly tricked up with not much meat on the bones. Of course, I also named Speed Racer the second best movie of last year, so take me for what you will.

[Cde.]

I'm not buying that Snyder proved himself a soulless reactionary with "300". To me, the graphic novel and the movie that mimicked it were basically telling the ancient greeks' ultra-chauvinist side of the story. All of the old slurs and invented legends were presented (and exagerrated) as real. It had nothing in common with history, but was a clever updating of a millenia-old oral history (I'm guessing either Miller and Snyder are ignorant of Spartan social customs or didn't believe they could sell a movie that showed them).

Miller is a known neo-con.

I don't believe that Snyder has spoken about his political beliefs, but he has been seen wearing the Major League Infidel shirt made by these guys.

Obviously, the political beliefs of the creators don't necessarily on their own mean that 300 was intended to convey a reactionary political stance. The way the film always emphasises how the Spartans are fighting for 'freedom' though, is more than a little suspicious. It seems to be analogous to the current context by design. It also arguably glorifies a fascist ideology, and presents a narrow minded, racist, reactionary and homophobic worldview.

300 may revive an old tale, but it's still very much a work of its own time. Why was the tale revived in 2007 as a major film? Why was it such a success?

I never thought it would be a monster hit, and still don't. I think too few of my fellow comic geeks get that, especially the AICN crowd.

That's what I'm thinking too. With all the marketing involved, this could lose Warner quite a bit of money.

Speaking of WB losing quite a bit of money...

I really would love to be wrong and be wowed by this thing, but so far I see something very dazzlingly tricked up with not much meat on the bones. Of course, I also named Speed Racer the second best movie of last year, so take me for what you will.

I was wondering if that's where you took your name from.
Speed Racer was also my pick for second best of 2008, and I would argue that it had plenty of meat on its bones. That film was style conveying substance (and style as substance), which is something I'm not convinced Snyder is really capable of.

[statsman]

The way the film always emphasises how the Spartans are fighting for 'freedom' though, is more than a little suspicious. It seems to be analogous to the current context by design. It also arguably glorifies a fascist ideology,

Your beef is with Herodotus, not Snyder or Miller.

Militarism isn't the same as fascism, which is a form of socialism (state control of key industries) with strong nationalist motivations. In the 5th century BC, everybody was a nationalist, except for those who were tribalists.

But, back to the movie. The final measure is always the public at large, even if they haven't read the source material. There are film adaptations that follow the source material religiously. These are often very good movies, and even become loved by the public at large. There are adaptations that reject the source material, strike out in a new direction, and fail horribly. And there are those that diverge from the source material, and reach new heights, different than those imagined by the author. It dosn't sound like Snyder is going that route.

He's taking a different risk. He's throwing a book-to-movie translation out there. His only metric for success will now be the box office. If the critics love the movie, and it fails at the box office, everybody will believe it's because he brought nothing new. If the critics hate it, but it scores big at the box office, he will be credited as a "daring" director for bringing unconventional material to the public. Of course, if the critics like it, and the public does too, he's a big winner. It goes without saying that if the public and critics hate it, he's a bum.

Spoilers below:

Spoiler

One of the political aspects of the book is the era in which it was written (the '80s) had a very differant view of the nuclear threat than we do today. That was a period when many Euros (Moore probably among them) believed that Reagan's foreign policy was making a nuclear war more likely, and that a nuclear was a real threat. Topics like "nuclear winter" were in active serious discussion. That debate colors the final conflict with Veidt, and the consensus decision by all but Rorschach to not disrupt it. It was the logical thing to do.

Now, 20 years later, we have a differant view of the world. Rorshach's Manichean worldview looks more credible in this instance, and he is a more sympathetic figure. Same events, differant perspective. The reports are that the film's new ending takes it in a slightly differant direction, and it might even work better for today's audiences.

[JonathanM]

Militarism isn't the same as fascism, which is a form of socialism

Tell that to the leftists who were beaten by Squadristi and sent off to Dachau.

[statsman]

There are many left/right spectrums. There are economic spectrums, on which fascism is on the left (state control of industries). There are civil liberties spectrums, where fascism is on the right. We have a wide, multi-dimensional panorama of liberty and oppresion to choose from. It's intellectually lazy to label any and all political opponents fascist or communist. Does it really take that much more effort to use more precise terms, like "militaris", "pacifist", "reactionary", or "extremist"?

The only states in the world more liberal than Sparta in that era were the other Greek city states. That said, when a friend's son told me how much he and his football teammates enjoyed watching "300" before games, I laughed and explained some of the Spartan's other habits to him. It was a teaching moment.

BTW, I enjoyed "300" and "Dawn of the Dead", but as simple entertainment, much like how I enjoyed "Sin City" or "Planet Terror". They certainly didn't make an impression on me the way "Brazil" did, when I swore to see all Terry Gilliam movies afterwards.

[Antoine Doinel]

The Hollywood Reporter weighs in.

Looks like we have the first real flop of 2009.

Variety shrugs its shoulders.

Yet the movie is ultimately undone by its own reverence; there’s simply no room for these characters and stories to breathe of their own accord, and even the most fastidiously replicated scenes can feel glib and truncated. As “Watchmen” lurches toward its apocalyptic (and slightly altered) finale, something happens that didn’t happen in the novel: Wavering in tone between seriousness and camp, and absent the cerebral tone that gave weight to some of the book’s headier ideas, the film seems to yield to the very superhero cliches it purports to subvert.

[HarryLong]

when a friend's son told me how much he and his football teammates enjoyed watching "300" before games, I laughed and explained some of the Spartan's other habits to him. It was a teaching moment.

Tight End had a whole new meaning, huh?

[royalton]

Speed Racer was also my pick for second best of 2008, and I would argue that it had plenty of meat on its bones. That film was style conveying substance (and style as substance), which is something I'm not convinced Snyder is really capable of.

ITA about SR, but that's my point about Snyder. I fear he has no substance, just style and literal translation.

[rs98762001]

As “Watchmen” lurches toward its apocalyptic (and slightly altered) finale, something happens that didn’t happen in the novel: Wavering in tone between seriousness and camp, and absent the cerebral tone that gave weight to some of the book’s headier ideas, the film seems to yield to the very superhero cliches it purports to subvert.

And this very succinctly nails why genuine fans of the novel were so concerned by the choice of Snyder as director. I'm not surprised it's turned out to be true.

[dx23]

The Hollywood Reporter weighs in.

Yet the movie is ultimately undone by its own reverence; there’s simply no room for these characters and stories to breathe of their own accord, and even the most fastidiously replicated scenes can feel glib and truncated. As “Watchmen” lurches toward its apocalyptic (and slightly altered) finale, something happens that didn’t happen in the novel: Wavering in tone between seriousness and camp, and absent the cerebral tone that gave weight to some of the book’s headier ideas, the film seems to yield to the very superhero cliches it purports to subvert.

This is the reason why it was always said that a 12 episode HBO mini-series would have serve as a better format in bringing Watchmen to the screen. There is too much to be told, to many things going at the same time that it is ludicrous to think that the novel was going to fit in a 2-3 hour film and even more ludicrous that a hack like Snyder, who is all about style over substance, was going to be able to get the proper tone of the film when he is more closer to camp than most directors in Hollywood.

This also tells the 2 conflicting sides Warner has as a company. Many of us thought that they had learned their lesson when the Schumacher Batman films almost killed the franchise. They fortunately were able to resurrect the character through the animated series and then with the last 2 films, where they got a an actor and a director who had a feel for the dark, serious tone it needed to be expressed to get as close to the source material. Then they go and approve a Superman film that took the Super out of the character and showed him as insecure alien with commitment issues. That is followed by hiring a guy with only 2 films with mixed reviews under his belt put at helm of Watchmen, the Holy Grail of graphic novels. When are studios going to learn? Why do they need to fail repeated times so that they can their act together later on?

[statsman]

Well, I don't think studios care. They had this script that they had paid a few million for all told. Snyder tells them he can make a $120 million film that will make money. They have nothing better to spend that $$ on, so they tell him to go ahead. I don't think they are very concerned with "getting it right".

The fatal flaw of so many comic book movies is that they waste so much time on the origin story, sometimes the whole film. By all accounts, Snyder does a bang-up job using film shorthand techniques to cover that in 30 minutes or so. That only leaves 2 hours for the story. I wonder if an alternative way to do this would have been to film a Part I that covers the background, introduces the characters, shows their foibles, and ends with a (flushed out and expanded) mid-60s takedown of Moloch. A second film could cover the rest, and at more leisure.

[kaujot]

"And in honor of Zack Snyder, I've made this review R-rated."

[knives]

Spoiler

For the creation of Laurie he later used his charms to convince the first SS to cheat on her husband.

As for the review, I'll take your word for it, but I'll wait until at least the nineteenth.

[JonathanM]

The fatal flaw of so many comic book movies is that they waste so much time on the origin story, sometimes the whole film.

I actually think the exact opposite is true. For a lot of comic books (particularly the Stan Lee ones) the interesting ideas are all loaded into the origin story. Once you get past the origin story most comic books are this weird grind of outlandish monsters, romances, deaths, cross-overs, costume changes, retcons and Superman being a psychotic dick for the entire silver age.

Iron Man and Hulk were great examples of this; vaguely interesting origin stories and then pointless fighting for the last 20 minutes.

[jojo]

The fatal flaw of so many comic book movies is that they waste so much time on the origin story, sometimes the whole film. By all accounts, Snyder does a bang-up job using film shorthand techniques to cover that in 30 minutes or so. That only leaves 2 hours for the story. I wonder if an alternative way to do this would have been to film a Part I that covers the background, introduces the characters, shows their foibles, and ends with a (flushed out and expanded) mid-60s takedown of Moloch. A second film could cover the rest, and at more leisure.

Much of Watchmen's key plot points hinge on the "origins" of the cast. What made Watchmen such a fun read was the back and forth interplay of the past and present, and how they reference one another.

The narrative structure is what made Watchmen truly great, not the actual "story". Oh sure, the story's still pretty nice, but even Alan Moore said that he considers its claim to fame to be its construct, rather than any "big" themes it purports to espouse. It was a comic book intended to show off the storytelling possibilities of the comic book form.

That said, I'd like to add that at least Dave Gibbons will be getting some money out of this whether the movie is bad or less so. So that's good. Comic artists are too often the underappreciated side of comics in the mainstream media.

[Cde.]

Your beef is with Herodotus, not Snyder or Miller.

Heorodotus isn't around today, writing, producing or directing movies.

My main point is: why 300 now? Look at the style and the content of the film. It's not because the public have been hankering for accurate conversions of classical Greek storytelling.

[royalton]

I tend to find origin movies deeply tiresome; I always preferred Superman II to Superman. Iron Man and Batman Begins are two of the few exceptions to that rule for me. Also, Ang Lee's Hulk but look what happened to that poor masterpiece.

[GoldenPilgrim]

Not sure if THIS has been posted anywhere.
Although it's not as sinful as destroying Watchmen (in my opinion), it's still a pretty scary thought.

Then again, with all the money The Dark Knight pulled in, I can't imagine this would fall into Snyder's butterfingers.

[Antoine Doinel]

Then again, with all the money The Dark Knight pulled in, I can't imagine this would fall into Snyder's butterfingers.

Why not? If Watchmen makes money for WB, and Nolan decides to pass on making another Batman film, it's not outside the realm of possibility they'll let Snyder create a "visionary" take on the comic book hero. Hell, they let Joel Schumacher make two atrocious films. As long as they make money, WB could care less about "integrity".

[Orphic Lycidas]

There are many left/right spectrums. There are economic spectrums, on which fascism is on the left (state control of industries). There are civil liberties spectrums, where fascism is on the right. We have a wide, multi-dimensional panorama of liberty and oppresion to choose from. It's intellectually lazy to label any and all political opponents fascist or communist. Does it really take that much more effort to use more precise terms, like "militaris", "pacifist", "reactionary", or "extremist"?

Hate to break it to you but state control of industry is a left-wing position only in the fantasies of Anglo-Libertarians. There is a reason why "All power to the soviets (workers' councils)!" has been the battle cry of more than a few revolutionary socialist movements rather than "All power to the bourgeois state."

Here are yet more scenes from "Watchmen". Whoever did Carla Gugino's make-up ought to be shot. I think whether the film is a total disaster or not will depend considerably on Mathew Goode's interpretation of Adrian Veidt. Next to Dr. Manhattan he's probably the most complex of the Watchmen - both mortal god and monster, part Donald Trump, part Noam Chomsky. His claim to have made himself "feel everyone's pain" is so believable yet so at odds with his detachment from the normal bonds of humanity.

[Grand Illusion]

Hate to break it to you but state control of industry is a left-wing position only in the fantasies of Anglo-Libertarians.

Dunno what "Anglo" has to do with a political stance, except as some way to play some sort of race card where there is none. But tell your definition to Obama as he debates partial ownership in auto industry, nationalization of banks, and full control over health care. Different modes of fascism are extremely similar with economic issues to socialism. This is the opposite side of the spectrum from libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism. Surely, you see this?

When are studios going to learn? Why do they need to fail repeated times so that they can their act together later on?

I wonder if they'll need to "learn." Let's wait for the box.