en

Geek rant for the week:

So the first few production pictures of Watchmen have begun to surface. Now I have been very open in my belief that this movie is going to be hard pressed to both do well and be good. At least in my conversations with myself... Disregard that last sentence. However the initial looks at the cinematography is great. The colors and sets are just a fat can of nifty. However one thing jumped out at me. They got the graffiti all wrong. Well all is overstating it. It is two letters too long.

Now most people who read this won't know who Watchmen is, unless I am the only one who reads this. (In which case my ultimate plan for this blog has been carried out!) And I normal don't give any background to what I am talking about for the purposes of audience abusion (don't bother, its not a word). But I will say this: from a literary standpoint Watchmen is the best written comic book I have ever read. I came to this conclusion long before I saw it listed on such things as TIME's top 100 novels. The work defines epic masterpiece. However if I were to list my favorite comics I've ever read this book would not be on it, for numerous and varying reasons.

Translating this to a movie though... This could just be really bad. The director did little to impress me with his interpretation of 300. The best moments and shots were straight from Frank Miller, and all of the additions were between terrible or boring or excessive. Not to mention the added inspirational dialogue/moments... Miller already has his corny noir narrative down pat, why pile on more corn? You know that's a fire hazard.

So now this same director tries to take on Watchmen. And you're going to convince me that the necessary additions and subtractions are going to be well done? And that he can keep any semblance of subtlety? Doubts abound. What is more, people are going to see a trailer and think, "Oh a new super hero movie... It looks a bit dark... maybe its like Batman. Sign me up!" This movie is very much not a super "hero" film. Yes there's the masks and the powers, but this ain't a summer frolicky (don't bother, its not a word) story. At least it had better not be... People don't always like meeting something they don't expect, and that could kill this movie. This depends on how they market it though.

And then I see the pictures that came out in the past couple weeks. They look great. Fabulous. Then I look at one closer and see it. How could they? Its always written the same way. Why would they write the last two letters? A part of me knows a reason for it, but just let the audience find it in a later viewing. Maybe they'll have to pause their DVD or something. More likely they'll never notice it. Unless of course there's a scene where they focus on it. Ack, this movie could be bad. Sorry Mr. Moore, you may not like this one either.

WHO WATCHES THE WATCHM

2 comments:

Enter Arbitrary Name Here said...

Interesting, the writer doesn't want to be associated with the film and the artist doesn't think it's filmable (you made up words first). Gibbons still says "I do think Zack has got the ability to make a really good movie, and I think Watchmen has the ability to be a really good movie, and hopefully the two things will come together... I'm basically supporting it." It seems to go both ways. Gibbons does not like comic films to begin with, or at least that's how I interpreted some of his other comments, but the fact that he does seem to see some hope for this film instills in me the idea that it could be alright. I'm kind of interested in reading the graphic novel now, before the movie. As an addendum, your comments on the graffiti confuse me. As far as my research led me, the quote from the novel is "Who watches the Watchmen?" You wrote "Who watches the Watchm" So which is in the movie and which is the comic? Anyways, that's my ten cents.

AedonTor said...

I will call you Jim