My first target?
WATCHMEN.
Based on the 80’s graphic novel -- cited by Time Magazine as one of the hundred best novels of the past century -- the film is long, expensive, and ambitious.
And a failure.
A caveat: I enjoy mindless, stupid entertainment such as Bad Boys II or Pearl Harbor, etc., etc. In much the same way that I enjoyed those films, so too did I enjoy WATCHMEN.
Which is to say, as a mindless, stupid, overly-long piece of cinematic entertainment.
So how did an amazing graphic novel that changed the tone of comics forever after become such an (entertaining) mess?
The fans.
Often hailed as unfilmable, WATCHMEN has been in development since its publication. But it’s epic, sprawling story has been impossible to wrangle into a manageable narrative, giving the project the air of “always a bridesmaid, never the bride.” But director Zack Snyder -- he of the execrable 300 -- decided that a literal adaptation of WATCHMEN best suited the project. His decision was hailed by fanboys all across the internet (who, incidentally, all love the film). But it is this adaptation that WATCHMEN fails so completely.
This is not a review, but rather thoughts I’ve been having about the movie. My “review,” is that the film looks beautiful, is exceptionally silly, but is entertaining in a pure “sweet-baby-jesus” kind of way.
WATCHMEN fails because Mr. Snyder failed to adapt the story of the graphic novel. Instead, he, and the millions of fanboys across Internetlandia, decided that literally adapting the graphic novel to the screen (with minor changes to suit the modern era, and the expected length of films) was to be preferred over a real adaptation of the film.
Come with me for a moment.
If you had read the novel Jurassic Park, without seeing the film, you would have expected a very different beast than what Steven Spielberg shot for your pleasure. Characters are cut or altered; the main relationship between the adult leads is merely hinted at in the film, whereas it is explicit and central in the book; action scenes are cut; characters who live in the book die in the film; characters who die in the book live in the film. And so forth. Yet it cannot be argued that Jurassic Park struck a chord. Yet, being adapted (by the original novelist, Mr. Michael Crichton, and hit-maker David Koepp, no less) for the screen, as opposed to being literal, saved the story. The gist of Jurassic Park the book was transferred to the screen, even while many changes were made to the narrative and characters. The spirit of the book lived on in celluloid.
Another classic: To Kill a Mockingbird. The film is considered by many I know to be “perfect.” And yet the film and the novel differ in many ways. Details from the book are absent from the film, with whole passages excised to fit the narrative into a two hour film. Yet, once again, To Kill a Mockingbird is a perfect adaptation because it captures the spirit of the book. It tells the story of the novel, without becoming bogged down in the nitty gritty. Hell is in the details, I have heard.
This is precisely where WATCHMEN suffers. Rather than adapt the story of psychologically damaged superheroes, incapable of staving off the impending (and possibly necessary) holocaust, it becomes a spectacle of showing off insider cred and spectacle. Action scenes are added -- just because, without thought to how it affects the characters. Secondary characters and scenes are kept to show how “faithful” to the novel the production was. Important scenes were cut because they didn’t “drive the main narrative.”
Snyder didn’t adapt the story. He adapted the graphic novel. Literally.
And in this way he missed out on making a movie that really said something, that was really about something.
One of the main “awesome points” for the fans is that the film takes place in the alternate-universe 1985, when the graphic novel took place. But this allows them to forget that the book was portraying what was, at the time, a contemporary alternate universe. In the film, we got an alternate past. It removes the viewer from the film. The 80’s sucked, but they didn’t suck in the same way that now does.
And sticking the film in the original time of the novel allows Snyder to punish the audience with a terrible Richard Nixon. As if Richard Nixon being president and abusing the power he has with superheroes is the point -- the point being that the United States Government, corrupt regardless of who the President happens to be -- would always use Dr. Manhattan in the same way. That conflict would always arise when one nation has a literal superman and the rest do not. That Dr. Manhattan is as much a metaphor as he is a character.
Not only that, but the time period allows Snyder to assault the viewer with music from the times -- and with the exception of the opening montage set to Dylan, it is distracting and annoying.
Because ultimately the focus is on the graphic novel rather than the characters or the story. Characters having sex in a hovercraft, accidentally hitting the flamethrower button during orgasm? An amusing comment, in the graphic novel, on the inanity of comic books; on the immature treatment of sexuality; the silliness of the moment. In the book, so loud, so boisterous, so in your face, it’s an American Pie moment -- “Look, they’re cumming, so it’s funny that the craft shoots out flames! GET IT?!”
Yes, Mr. Snyder. I get it.
A friend of mine commented that they loved the film so much due to it’s conflicting, false portrayal of “good.” What is “good” in the WATCHMEN world, when it causes to much bad to so many? This is an idea that is gone into in great depth in the graphic novel, but the movie rushes through so much that these ideas aren’t fully developed. The story is about the impotence (sometimes literally) of supermen to change the world by fighting crime at its source. It’s also about how silly it is to expect anything from such a method, anyway. And so much of that is missing from the film.
Instead, Snyder decided to focus on action and literalness. Arms are broken. People exploded. But the quiet moments from the story are all missing -- instead of more time with Laurie and her own conflict over her very existence, we get arms being rotor-sawed off in prison. And so forth.
But subtlety is not Mr. Snyder’s trade. WATCHMEN disappointed me because there is -- literally -- so much to mine from the graphic novel. To truly make the movie about something that wasn’t the graphic novel.
I’d like to go into how he also doesn’t know how to direct actors -- how any sort of subtle, emotional moment in the film is ruined by clunky acting by good actors, but I am running long, and I’d like to wrap it up.
I wish WATCHMEN had lived up to the graphic novel instead of being the graphic novel. I wish Snyder had decided to tell the story, as opposed to the graphic novel. I wish he had taken the time to direct his actors. Or think about what a world would be like now with masked heroes who only ever made things worse.
Instead, he treated WATCHMEN like a loving, inept boyfriend -- worshipping at your feet, without taking the time to ask her about your feelings. WATCHMEN is the most shallow kind of adaptation.
Literal. And dumb.
Over and out.
-RoboNixon
I’d love to hear your thoughts on the film. Please comment below.
WATCHMEN fails because Mr. Snyder failed to adapt the story of the graphic novel. Instead, he, and the millions of fanboys across Internetlandia, decided that literally adapting the graphic novel to the screen (with minor changes to suit the modern era, and the expected length of films) was to be preferred over a real adaptation of the film.
Come with me for a moment.
If you had read the novel Jurassic Park, without seeing the film, you would have expected a very different beast than what Steven Spielberg shot for your pleasure. Characters are cut or altered; the main relationship between the adult leads is merely hinted at in the film, whereas it is explicit and central in the book; action scenes are cut; characters who live in the book die in the film; characters who die in the book live in the film. And so forth. Yet it cannot be argued that Jurassic Park struck a chord. Yet, being adapted (by the original novelist, Mr. Michael Crichton, and hit-maker David Koepp, no less) for the screen, as opposed to being literal, saved the story. The gist of Jurassic Park the book was transferred to the screen, even while many changes were made to the narrative and characters. The spirit of the book lived on in celluloid.
Another classic: To Kill a Mockingbird. The film is considered by many I know to be “perfect.” And yet the film and the novel differ in many ways. Details from the book are absent from the film, with whole passages excised to fit the narrative into a two hour film. Yet, once again, To Kill a Mockingbird is a perfect adaptation because it captures the spirit of the book. It tells the story of the novel, without becoming bogged down in the nitty gritty. Hell is in the details, I have heard.
This is precisely where WATCHMEN suffers. Rather than adapt the story of psychologically damaged superheroes, incapable of staving off the impending (and possibly necessary) holocaust, it becomes a spectacle of showing off insider cred and spectacle. Action scenes are added -- just because, without thought to how it affects the characters. Secondary characters and scenes are kept to show how “faithful” to the novel the production was. Important scenes were cut because they didn’t “drive the main narrative.”
Snyder didn’t adapt the story. He adapted the graphic novel. Literally.
And in this way he missed out on making a movie that really said something, that was really about something.
One of the main “awesome points” for the fans is that the film takes place in the alternate-universe 1985, when the graphic novel took place. But this allows them to forget that the book was portraying what was, at the time, a contemporary alternate universe. In the film, we got an alternate past. It removes the viewer from the film. The 80’s sucked, but they didn’t suck in the same way that now does.
And sticking the film in the original time of the novel allows Snyder to punish the audience with a terrible Richard Nixon. As if Richard Nixon being president and abusing the power he has with superheroes is the point -- the point being that the United States Government, corrupt regardless of who the President happens to be -- would always use Dr. Manhattan in the same way. That conflict would always arise when one nation has a literal superman and the rest do not. That Dr. Manhattan is as much a metaphor as he is a character.
Not only that, but the time period allows Snyder to assault the viewer with music from the times -- and with the exception of the opening montage set to Dylan, it is distracting and annoying.
Because ultimately the focus is on the graphic novel rather than the characters or the story. Characters having sex in a hovercraft, accidentally hitting the flamethrower button during orgasm? An amusing comment, in the graphic novel, on the inanity of comic books; on the immature treatment of sexuality; the silliness of the moment. In the book, so loud, so boisterous, so in your face, it’s an American Pie moment -- “Look, they’re cumming, so it’s funny that the craft shoots out flames! GET IT?!”
Yes, Mr. Snyder. I get it.
A friend of mine commented that they loved the film so much due to it’s conflicting, false portrayal of “good.” What is “good” in the WATCHMEN world, when it causes to much bad to so many? This is an idea that is gone into in great depth in the graphic novel, but the movie rushes through so much that these ideas aren’t fully developed. The story is about the impotence (sometimes literally) of supermen to change the world by fighting crime at its source. It’s also about how silly it is to expect anything from such a method, anyway. And so much of that is missing from the film.
Instead, Snyder decided to focus on action and literalness. Arms are broken. People exploded. But the quiet moments from the story are all missing -- instead of more time with Laurie and her own conflict over her very existence, we get arms being rotor-sawed off in prison. And so forth.
But subtlety is not Mr. Snyder’s trade. WATCHMEN disappointed me because there is -- literally -- so much to mine from the graphic novel. To truly make the movie about something that wasn’t the graphic novel.
I’d like to go into how he also doesn’t know how to direct actors -- how any sort of subtle, emotional moment in the film is ruined by clunky acting by good actors, but I am running long, and I’d like to wrap it up.
I wish WATCHMEN had lived up to the graphic novel instead of being the graphic novel. I wish Snyder had decided to tell the story, as opposed to the graphic novel. I wish he had taken the time to direct his actors. Or think about what a world would be like now with masked heroes who only ever made things worse.
Instead, he treated WATCHMEN like a loving, inept boyfriend -- worshipping at your feet, without taking the time to ask her about your feelings. WATCHMEN is the most shallow kind of adaptation.
Literal. And dumb.
Over and out.
-RoboNixon
I’d love to hear your thoughts on the film. Please comment below.
EDIT: On Ain't It Cool News, screenwriter David Hayter, one of the two credited writers on the project, takes time to talk about his opinion of the film [that he worked on].
Check it out. But I also wanted to take the time to look at one particular thing he says:
The point is, I have listened for years, to complaints from true comic book fans, that "not enough movies take the source material seriously." "Too many movies puss out," or "They change great stories, just to be commercial." Well, I f***ing dare you to say any one of those things about this movie.The thing he's leaving out is the question of why you would adapt something if you aren't going to tell it in a particular way -- why would you adapt something so literally? Why not just have people read the comic?
And for the record, I'm not saying they should have or could have drastically changed the story of the graphic novel for cinema. I'm saying that by paying so much attention to the FANS -- but a small segment of the film-going community -- they limited their perspective on the story, and instead of telling something that meant something to them through the story, they merely told the graphic novel.
Just like the best song covers bring something new to the table, so too are the best adaptations. Film is a similar, but different medium than ink and words, and in keeping so close to the fanboys insistence, on the fanboys' vision, they blinded themselves to the possibilities.
Posts
4 comments:
There was a whole lot more I'd have liked to include in my write up of WATCHMEN, but, unfortunately, it was already getting kind of lengthy, and I don't want to ramble forever. But I feel like in the following conversation with a friend I managed to distill the theme of my post, that Fans Ruined Watchmen, down -- whereas I kind of lost it in all my whining.
FRIEND: So why was Watchmen so self involved?
ROBONIXON: It was all about the graphic novel
as opposed to being about the story or characters
FRIEND: Wait...I'm confused. The movie was about the graphic novel itself?
ROBONIXON: It is not LITERALLY about the graphic novel itself -- but, imho, the problem with the movie all stem from them being super focused on the graphic novel as opposed to, you know, telling a story, creating characters, etc, etc
I enjoyed it
It was just for reasons that aren't flattering to the filmmaker
FRIEND: O I gottcha
I think it needed to just focus on pleasing the nerds maybe haha
ROBONIXON: eh, I think the problem was they focused on the nerds and not on the movie. Nerds will always see nerdy properties, no matter how un-nerded it is. But the meat of watchmen wasn't there, because they needed to fit in "all the shit from the graphic novel." But, I thought it looked pretty.
I thought the movie was fine, except for the end. Oh god, the end. When I first year sometime last year that they took out the squid, I thought "fine, the squid was pretty lame anyway and probably wouldn't look good on screen." But a bunch of explosions replacing the ultimate horror was even more lame. Why would a bunch of nuclear explosions killing lots of people reduce the Comedian to tears? He could kill a thousand kittens and then sleep like a baby. No sense. The squid would've looked great on screen too, after seeing what Snyder did with the rest of the imagery. A bunch of close up shots of a mysterious alien thing, and some wide shots of millions of bodies piled up. All he had to do was cut back on some pointless action, add about 30 minutes of backstory on the scientists and artists gone missing, and it would've worked fine. I don't care that it was a literal adaption of the book, I like that in a movie like this. I don't see why thats such a taboo for you, either. It was done pretty successfully, except for the stuff they LEFT OUT. Why take it out of the 80s? Why go through the trouble of creating an entirely NEW new reality where two warring superpowers threaten the existence of mankind, when that was already established with the cold war? Because "the 80s sucked?" I heard one script worked in Saddam, Iraq, and terrorism as replacements. Snyder could have done more to establish the threat facing the world, but adapting the ideas would have been a disaster.
tl;dnr version: Watchmen would have been a great literal adaption, if they didn't go fucking with shit.
"I don't see why thats such a taboo for you, either."
Because I can read.
If I wanted a literal adaptation of the graphic novel I...
...Would...
...READ IT. The bonuses of reading it are that it works better and the actors in my head are way better. Plus, everything that makes it meaningful and relevant is, you know, in that text.
I don't want to paint you as an idiot, because I honestly respect different points of view, but you just reinforce my point: Fans ruined WATCHMEN.
Haha, you're a fucking lunatic. I'll respect your opinion, and reiterate mine: if they stuck to the material it would have been a fine movie. Maybe not a great movie, but not a disaster either.
Post a Comment