Watchmen

[Erdawn Il Deus]

[video]YDDHHrt6l4w[/video]

[t3hDarkness]

Time for the weekly Saturday Morning Watchmen post?

[CaptHayfever]

^Chill; a lot of people don't read the Meme Forum.

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

[Sean P Kelly]

As much as it pains me to say it, I see 2009's first big flop.

After the 67.7% drop last weekend, I hate to admit that this statement is not far off. I wouldn't rush (like most "analysts") to call it a flop, since people went to see the film. However, it will probably end up not making much of a profit (assuming it manages to break even).

[Bomby]

^ It will most definitely see a profit on DVD and Blu-Ray sales/rentals.

[Sean P Kelly]

^ True, but studios may be a bit more picky in the future about greenlighting further graphic novel adaptations.

[t3hDarkness]

Hahahahahahahahahaahahahahhahahah!

Go to your local rental place and tell me how many comic book movies you see.

[Calamity Panfan]

300 is a good example of how greenlit graphic novels can be very successful in the box office. I don't know how much money V for Vendetta and Sin City made, but I'm sure they weren't absolute flops.

[Lurch1982]

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

That's kind of dumb with an adaptation, especially one where the source material is relatively old and influential to the point where it reverberates through the rest of the genre/medium.

Did you really go into Lord of the Rings screaming "OMG NO SPOILERS" if someone said they can't wait to see how they do the Battle of Gondor?

If anything, I thought that being familiar with the Watchmen made me enjoy the film MORE than I would have if I had no idea what the hell it was. Honestly, I couldn't see how anyone not familiar with it could sit through 3/4ths of it.

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.

I think with adaptations--especially ones based on comic books/graphic novels--the quality of the film is almost intertwined with the actual source material. Even coming from a critical perspective, I'm not really sure how you can successfully evaluate something like Watchmen if you haven't read the source material. Without that degree of familiarity with the source material, you can't really make a judgment call on if a particular shot is good or not or if the characters are actually faithful to the adapted work.

Certainly, you can go shot for shot and match it up with the panels on the page and the film could still be terrible (usually from the writing), but that would stand out even if you were familiar with the source material. Putting blinders on to something that's supposed to be a "close" adaptation of a prior work is really stupid and its taking film pretension to an incredibly bad point.

After the 67.7% drop last weekend, I hate to admit that this statement is not far off. I wouldn't rush (like most "analysts") to call it a flop, since people went to see the film. However, it will probably end up not making much of a profit (assuming it manages to break even).

Apparently it pulled $134,636,957 worldwide as of last weekend, which already passed up the budget of 120M.

Considering they managed to get that much on a deep "R" rating on a decidedly non-mainstream work with heroes that the average person couldn't identify if you gave them the names to match to the pictures played by actors that nobody's really ever heard of, I think they did a pretty good job with it.

The dropoff should have been expected. This isn't really a collection of superheroes that are endearing to generations. This isn't something that the 13-17 crowd can even ATTEND (depending on how strict the theatre carding system is). For a niche film, this was pretty damn successful.

^ True, but studios may be a bit more picky in the future about greenlighting further graphic novel adaptations.

Probably, but not from this one. The Spirit might have more to do with it, and any future graphic novel films might affect this since they're running out of top tier ones to adapt.

Much of it depends on how out-of-control the studios get with the budgets. Even then, these things tend to sell like crazy on DVD to the core fanbase.

[Bomby]

I think with adaptations--especially ones based on comic books/graphic novels--the quality of the film is almost intertwined with the actual source material. Even coming from a critical perspective, I'm not really sure how you can successfully evaluate something like Watchmen if you haven't read the source material. Without that degree of familiarity with the source material, you can't really make a judgment call on if a particular shot is good or not or if the characters are actually faithful to the adapted work.

Certainly, you can go shot for shot and match it up with the panels on the page and the film could still be terrible (usually from the writing), but that would stand out even if you were familiar with the source material. Putting blinders on to something that's supposed to be a "close" adaptation of a prior work is really stupid and its taking film pretension to an incredibly bad point.

If a certain shot is bad in the movie, it doesn't matter how close it is to the original comic book. The director/cinematographer could easily use "trying to stay true to the source material" as an excuse for bad cinematography, but that doesn't make a bad shot any better.

[Sean P Kelly]

Did you really go into Lord of the Rings screaming "OMG NO SPOILERS" if someone said they can't wait to see how they do the Battle of Gondor?

I'm not THAT picky. It's more a personal preference than an actual rule. In fact, I have in fact seen movies, where I've read the source material first (the most notable, but probably not best, example being Dreamcatcher)

[Lurch1982]

If a certain shot is bad in the movie, it doesn't matter how close it is to the original comic book. The director/cinematographer could easily use "trying to stay true to the source material" as an excuse for bad cinematography, but that doesn't make a bad shot any better.

A bad shot is a bad shot; that isn't the issue.

The issue is that by refusing to acknowledge that the work is adapted, especially from a medium that in film sense is a fleshed out storyboard, takes away any true ability to really comment on if the film is shot successfully.

I'm not THAT picky. It's more a personal preference than an actual rule. In fact, I have in fact seen movies, where I've read the source material first (the most notable, but probably not best, example being Dreamcatcher)

I understand something that's a film first and everything else second (example: not reading the novelization of a movie before going to see it), but I tend to believe (at least from a critical perspective) that it is essential to read source material before seeing the film when said film is a straight adaptation of the source material (and not a loose interpretation).

[Bomby]

A bad shot is a bad shot; that isn't the issue.

The issue is that by refusing to acknowledge that the work is adapted, especially from a medium that in film sense is a fleshed out storyboard, takes away any true ability to really comment on if the film is shot successfully.

It's not refusing to acknowledge that the work is adapted. It's judging the film for what it is, not for what it's adapted from.

Shooting a film successfully does not necessarily entail being 100% accurate to the source material. As I stated earlier, I would not consider 300 a good film many reasons completely unrelated to the source work. I understand that Snyder was trying to replicate the graphic novel, but in doing so he failed to create a good film. Ignoring the massive box-office receipts and only paying attention to the quality of the film itself, I would consider Watchmen more successful, because even though it wasn't excellent, it was still an overall well made and worthwhile experience.

On the other hand, I would consider Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now to be one of the best film adaptations from any written work. It didn't even attempt to be an accurate representation of Heart of Darkness.

Want a graphic novel adaptation that follows along the same lines? Oldboy. Park Chan-Wook's adaptation changed a lot from its source, but is easy to argue as the best film of the recent string of graphic novel adaptations, not to mention one of the greatest films overall of the past decade.

[Sean P Kelly]

A bad shot is a bad shot; that isn't the issue.
I understand something that's a film first and everything else second (example: not reading the novelization of a movie before going to see it), but I tend to believe (at least from a critical perspective) that it is essential to read source material before seeing the film when said film is a straight adaptation of the source material (and not a loose interpretation).

I beg to differ. What fun is it going to a movie, which I already know every single thing that is going to happen? My money would be better spent elsewhere.

[Lurch1982]

I beg to differ. What fun is it going to a movie, which I already know every single thing that is going to happen? My money would be better spent elsewhere.

I knew Frodo was going to toss the ring into the mountain, I still went. I knew how Sin City, V, and 300 would play out, yet I still went. I knew how Watchmen would play out, I still went. I know how any adaptation of a Shakespearean work plays out, yet I've still gone to them (favorite recent one was the Merchant of Venice with Pachino). I've enjoyed every one of the Harry Potter movies even though I read the books before, and I even somewhat enjoyed the Star Wars prequels even though I knew none of it actually matters because he's still going to be Darth Vadar, the Republic still falls, and the Jedi with very few exceptions die.

This isn't the same as going on that website run by that fat tool in Austin, TX and getting every single spoiler you possibly can about every single movie in production. I agree, if the film is the first version of the material (ie: not derived from a book, comic, prior film, etc), you probably don't want to go in knowing the spoilers (example: [spoiler]Sixth Sense knowing Bruce Willis is a ghost[/spoiler]). With prior works though, especially top tier ones that are so deeply ingrained, its hard to scream spoiler. Coming from a critical standpoint, I really can't see how you can make any sort of informed and rational basis for any critical points and still be accurate on them if you're not familiar with the source material.

On the other hand, I would consider Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now to be one of the best film adaptations from any written work. It didn't even attempt to be an accurate representation of Heart of Darkness.

Yeah, but AN was different and distinct enough from HoD to the point where it almost stands alone. Very similar themes, etc, but different enough to where it isn't really necessary to read HoD in order to evaluate it critically.

That's the key point: With adaptations, especially coming out of a visual based medium like Graphic Novels, you should at least be familiar with the books enough to make a critical judgment on if the film succeeded in capturing the visual parts of what makes the books successful. Treating films as stand alone products is fine when you're dealing with stand alone products, but adaptations are NOT stand alone products in any sense and shouldn't be treated as such.

[Bomby]

Treating films as stand alone products is fine when you're dealing with stand alone products, but adaptations are NOT stand alone products in any sense and shouldn't be treated as such.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Sorry.

Whether or not an adaptation captures its source accurately does not weigh into the quality of the film itself. Perhaps Watchmen would have been better if it didn't stick to the graphic novel as closely as it did. What if Snyder had his own ideas of different ways to shoot things rather than using the graphic novel as the storyboard? Maybe he should have used his own creativity.

[Lurch1982]

I disagree wholeheartedly. Sorry.

That's fine. I understand where you're coming from, but don't agree with it when coming from a critical standpoint.

Whether or not an adaptation captures its source accurately does not weigh into the quality of the film itself. Perhaps Watchmen would have been better if it didn't stick to the graphic novel as closely as it did. What if Snyder had his own ideas of different ways to shoot things rather than using the graphic novel as the storyboard? Maybe he should have used his own creativity.

Let's say he took multiple departures from the GN. Instead of the movie grossing more than production a few weeks out, you have nerd backlash from the core audience that will see the flick 2x+. You don't get repeat viewings, it gets bad buzz into the mainstream (well if the geeks don't like it, why should I?), and the studio is saddled with a $120M bomb.

If Snyder had his own ideas, he should have done his own movie. This isn't something like, for example, the Chris Nolan Batman movies. Those are taking an extremely well-established character and blending in several different aspects to reboot a series that the prior directors/producers wrecked. People still have an attachment to Batman. If I show the Batman logo, almost everyone will universally identify it as such. Batman has multiple iterations, multiple interpretations, and about 80 years of interpretations to work with. Nolan essentially blended elements from Batman Year 1 and other similar works. That's fine, you don't need to read "The Last Halloween" to really get his flicks. You don't need to read The Killing Joke to understand Ledger's version of the Joker (but really, you should read the Killing Joke because it is completely amazing).

Watchmen (and V for Vendetta, and 300, and Sin City) is a self-contained story. It was basically a one-shot. They've never revisited the universe in any meaningful fashion. These aren't living, breathing stories like other comic book adaptations. These are very static, with a clear beginning, middle and end. You can play around with some of it, but you're pretty much tied with making severe changes to really anything for the same reasons you'd be completely prevented from making a King Lear adaptation have a happy ending, or altering the upcoming Harry Potter flick's storyline to include Ron murdering some kid and Harry having a sex scene. Burton's upcoming Alice in Wonderland adaption is another example. He can tweak visuals, take differing art direction approaches, but there's absolutely no way in hell any studio is going to let him tread into American McGee's Alice territory.

rather than using the graphic novel as the storyboard?

Also, I wanted to harp on this specifically. This approach in most situations WORKS. Sin City basically established this method, and in a very narrow case this method works (basically, dealing with high quality graphic novels that have a set storyline and already great art direction).

If you take something like that narrow case and **** with it too much, the movie fails.

[Kargath]

Just because fanboys/fangirls of the original text insist on things being a certain way does not make it a better movie for it.
The problem with Snyder is that he made his cuts and changes in the wrong places.
[SPOILER]
Not the removal of the squid. The removal of the squid was necessary for a lot of cuts elsewhere. Without that Watchmen could not have been done as a film, as much of the story in the comic relies on the scrapbook sections between chapters.
He changed things like the order of the final sequence in the newspaper office (making the sauce drop the opening of that scene, instead of the chilling final shot). Adding brutality to characters that didn't really have it before (Nite Owl and Silk Spectre II).
Slow motion everywhere.
[/SPOILER]
He made it more of a traditional 'comic book movie' than it should have been or could have been.

The problem with just using the comic as a storyboard is that the comics often do not deal with the consideration of motion and sustained shots, because they are comics and they do not have to do such things. The addition of motion means the shots must be reconsidered.

Sticking to elements that were in the source just because they were in the source breaks movies.

PS:
I don't like people abusing the term "graphic novel" either. There's only ever been one graphic novel (that I know of), and that's V for Vendetta.

[PowerUp37]

I am pretty sure this movie won't be the biggest flop of 2009 as someone said above. The rental sales alone will only reinforce the wise assertion Hollywood made that graphic novels of the past make for profitable film adaptations.

I mean look at the upcoming WATCHMEN: Tales of the Black Freighter DVD getting released on Tuesday. I work for the marketing company that is doing the campaign for it and even though I'm not getting the free copy that I'd like, I know several people who are going to be buying/renting it, all adding to the movie's success as a comic to film adaptation.

[Sean P Kelly]

Kargath, did you noticed the acronyms?