Watchmen

[Inferno Dragon]

at least they never showed it when he was in GIANT FORM, that would have been... *shudders*

but yeah, it was kind of weird how no one ever mentioned it, but then again all of them were kind of used to it since they've known him for a good while so I guess it makes sense.

[Bomby]

Why would anyone go see it if they didn't read the graphic novel?

Because the film and the graphic novel are two separate works.

[Apiary Tazy]

Because no one reads. Ever.

[size=-10]Well, maybe the people with a brain...[/size]

[Sean P Kelly]

I usually never read the original before seeing an adaptation. That helps develop an unbiased opinion on the film.

[ZeldaGirl]

But then, wouldn't you have a biased opinion of the original?

[Lurch1982]

Because the film and the graphic novel are two separate works.

They're close enough to where they're essentially the same with a few adjustments (nukes vs squid-thing).

This isn't like saying "How could you see Batman Begins without reading Batman Year One or the Long Halloween."

I usually never read the original before seeing an adaptation. That helps develop an unbiased opinion on the film.

That's kind of dumb for adaptations IMO, especially when they're fairly close to the adapted material. I understand trying to detach yourself from nerdrage if they screw something up, but I don't really how you can create an opinion on an adaptation if you have no concept of what they're adapting from.

Sin City, V for Vendetta, and 300 are other great examples of this. If you've never read either, how can you really make any sort of call on how faithful they were to the source material or how they hold up.

Sure, you can say it was shot well and took interesting approaches to art direction, but you lose the angle of being able to say "Wow, look how they brought that panel to life with that shot" or "Man, they totally failed in that regard.

Other examples: Jurassic Park 1 (not 2), Harry Potter series, any of the Grisham films, the DaVinci Code, etc.

-----------------------------------------

Generally, if you haven't read Watchmen by now, you should have your nerd license revoked. There are like three or four graphic novels that everyone should read, and that's the FIRST on the list.

[Sean P Kelly]

^ I don't mean I don't familiarize myself with the source material. I just won't read it.

(and I do plan on eventually reading the graphic novel for Watchmen)

[Lurch1982]

^ I don't mean I don't familiarize myself with the source material. I just won't read it.

(and I do plan on eventually reading the graphic novel for Watchmen)

So what's your justification for that approach (out of curiosity)

[Sim Kid]

I usually just don't give two ****s about how different it is. If they tried making Lord of the Rings follow the books exactly, we'd wind up with a like, twelve films. (Even more if the story moves as slow as it does in the books.

[t3hDarkness]

But, but. . . Tom Bombadil.

[CaptHayfever]

I still haven't read The Princess Bride yet. Great film, though.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Sean P Kelly]

So what's your justification for that approach (out of curiosity)

Mostly, I don't want to know the plot before seeing a film (any film)

[ZeldaGirl]

Sin City, V for Vendetta, and 300 are other great examples of this. If you've never read either, how can you really make any sort of call on how faithful they were to the source material or how they hold up.

Well, you're assuming that matters to people. Most people are going to see what they think will just be an interesting movie. The original source material doesn't matter to them.

[Calamity Panfan]

I saw LotR before I read the books. (I did read the Hobbit though)

[Bomby]

Sin City, V for Vendetta, and 300 are other great examples of this. If you've never read either, how can you really make any sort of call on how faithful they were to the source material or how they hold up.

You're missing the point entirely. I think Sean can back me up on this:

We are more concerned with the quality of the film itself than faithfulness to the source material. The story that it is adapted from is only one part of the film. Cinematography, editing, music and sound, acting, etc. are all other very important aspects of film making. You can adapt the best story ever written and stay completely faithful to the story (and in the case of a graphic novel adaptation, faithful to the look of the drawings), but still have a bad film.

[Sean P Kelly]

I think it's a bit of both.

I believe Zack Snyder based the storyboards for the film right off the pages of the graphic novel. Same goes for Sin City, which didn't even have a script if I'm not mistaken (they essentially filmed the graphic novel).

[Bomby]

Considering how Robert Rodriguez works, I'm willing to bet there was no script.

[CaptHayfever]

That's why he credited Miller as co-director.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Bomby]

Miller was credited as co-director because he was literally with Rodriguez on set every day.

[CaptHayfever]

Well, yeah, that too. :)

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"