WARNING: This post contains spoilers. So, read no further...unless you like being surprised and whining like a girl about it.
Trailer numero uno for Alan Moore's classic of the graphic novel genre, Watchmen, was released this past week. And the geekosphere rejoiced.
I collected comics as a kid and occasionally purchase comics and/or graphic novels as an adult. Yet I had never read Watchmen. So after viewing the trailer, I wanted to see what all the fuss was about, and I picked up a copy of the graphic novel at my local bookstore. It was enjoyable. It was suspenseful. And even though I was let down by the ending--a fake alien invasion, seriously--the truth of Watchmen was clear: This is what a graphic novel can and should be. It is truly a genre-defining piece of work.Wanting to know more about the book and its story, I sought out information about Alan Moore and learned that the author is not thrilled at the prospect of his work being thrown on the silver screen. To quote, "There are things that we did with Watchmen that could only work in a comic, and were indeed designed to show off things that other media can't."
Furthermore, he said, "I increasingly fear that nothing good can come of almost any adaptation, and obviously that's sweeping. There are a couple of adaptations that are perhaps as good or better than the original work. But the vast majority of them are pointless."
This raises my question of the month: If the creator of a masterpiece is dead-set against its adaptation into another medium, should we bother seeing that adaptation?
An example: If Shakespeare knew that Hamlet had been adapted into a graphic novel, how would he feel? If Shakespeare told us that Hamlet had no business being penciled and inked, would we read the comic anyway? After all, who knows their own creation better than the creator?
For this reason, I am struggling with my own decision to see Watchmen or not, when it eventually comes out. Honestly, after reading the graphic novel, I don't see how it can be accurately turned into a film. The shifts in time, the unique narrative devices that so accurately set the mood (the pirate comic, for instance), and the numerous characters that undergo serious psychological development... How will Hollywood pull all of that off? Maybe they won't. And maybe they don't intend to even try.
As Moore said, "So often any film that comes out is going to be a sequel or a remake of a film that's previously existed — and I've said this before, that we will see Johnny Depp playing Cap'n Crunch. It will eventually get down to breakfast cereal mascots!"
In the end, I probably won't pay to see the Watchmen movie. I'll just wait until it comes to cable or something. In the meantime, the graphic novel is definitely worth reading over and over again. In fact, I think I'll give it another look tonight...
5 comments:
The question is: how did the producers get the rights to make the film? If Moore sold the rights then he has no right to complain. If you sell something you no longer own or control it. He could have prevented any adaptations by keeping the rights.
If he somehow never had the rights because of his original contract, then it's more of a dilemma, but ultimately not our problem. He should have had a better agent.
As for Shakespeare, most of his works were adaptations of other works so I can't imagine him complaining too much. That said, I can see him protesting Romeo and Juliet becoming a musical called West Side Story.
I have to question the idea that the author knows best about their work. Not to criticize Alan Moore, because I respect his uncompromising approach to his work, but you cannot stop at authorial intent. Once an artist puts their work out into the world, then the interpretation of that work, the meaning of it, the relevance of it is no longer under their control. Other artists will take the characters and ideas and rework them and readapt them just as Moore took the original character ideas for heroes in Watchmen from other comics.
Moore didn't officially sell his rights, the rights were held by DC/Vertigo when it was written, and to able to get access to the recently acquired Charleston Comics characters, he accepted certain terms in the contract. Problem is that DC ended up screwing him and didn't give him the access to those characters. So he went of and wrote his own story with slightly similar characters (i.e. Night Owl is highly similar to The Blue Beetle, etc).
Problem is he wrote the best graphic novel ever, and DC is now able to make bank on it with Warner Bros. because epic movies on this scale can finally be done right. They're no longer attempting to attach big names to the cult films (directorially or acting wise) mainly because someone finally has some sens in Hollywood and realizes that the same hundred or so people can't continually be making all the movie out there and not everyone wants to see Tom Cruise as Tony Stark (frankly I'm glad nobody wanted to, if it was cast that way that movie would've sucked).
I find your comment disappointing that you say you won't pay money to see this movie. if anything, this movie is EXACTLY the type you should be spending money on. Things like Midnight Meat Train, The Mummy, and Step Brothers don't need much less deserve any money. The more money you pump into those crap "original" ideas, the more they will dominate cinema and make movie going experiences seem trite and terrible.
This movie is going to be fantastic, and if you did anything more than tertiary research you would understand that. Watch some of the Video Blogs Zach Snyder has put together. See how open he and his production team have been about this film: They could've been as tight lipped as possible with the comic fans, and then deliver crap. But they've been as open as they can be, informed us every step of the way, and shown us proof of how true they're trying to be to the riginal work.
Sure, no secondary medium can do justice to the original intent, but if one is going to attempt they can at least try to do the original justice than think they know better than the original. Look at all the transliterated comics and novels that have been made into movies, how many of them are faithful to their source material, much less honorific of it?
Allan Moore's main issue is the fact that people don't seem to ahve original ideas anymore. He is a literary genius and as such is very protective of what he holds sacred and e is rightfully cynical and paranoid about when his work is translated to film. Have you sen the crap action flick that they pasted his name on and called League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? Not even close to his comic. And "From Hell"? Very disappointing. The closes thing that has been true to anything he has written has been "V for Vendetta" and even that was messed with a bit. His main qualm with that was the fact that The Wachowski Brothers lied and said that he was approving and ecstatic, when in truth he hadn't even seen the film and not formed an opinion. At that point he wanted nothing more to do with the Film Medium.
I personally don't blame him and I respect his opinions about changing literature into Film and the laziness of adapting a story meant for something else, but I'm also selfish and want to see my Watchmen brought to the big screen. So I'm half and half. I'm skeptical about the film yes, but I can't help but be excited because all I have seen so far does not look AT ALL disappointing.
I urge you to put side your doubts, go into it with an open mind and enjoy what you see.
~JYH
I have to raise a couple of points here.
1) In my opinion, Alan Moore is a bitter man who hates it when people mess with his shit. And that's understandable, but he really needs to stop bitching, he doesn't own any rights. He said the same things about V for Vendetta and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
2) There's always this talk of how an adaption can't "do the original justice." People act like the measure of how good an adaption is is solely how true it is to the original. That way of thinking needs to be abandoned. Filmmakers aren't simply picking up stories and carrying them over to the big screen. They're adapting those stories and themes and characters into something that will work in a cinematic setting. Of course things will be different. Some things work in one medium and not another, and must be changed to accommodate that.
Hey, how about next time, don't have a blog with a blatant spoiler in the second paragraph.
[quote]
It was suspenseful. And even though I was let down by the ending--a fake alien invasion, seriously--the truth of Watchmen was clear: This is what a graphic novel can and should be. It is truly a genre-defining piece of work.
[/quote]
Not only were you good enough to tell the ending of the comic, but also of the upcoming movie. Sweet.
Oh yeah, good luck of this ever seeing the light of day. Comment moderation. Hah.
Post a Comment