The Big Picture: There Will Never Be Another Watchmen
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I agree with your opinion about the ending of Watchmen. To me it made more sense to do that, instead of the other thing. The other thing seemed a bit too dismissable, though, that's probably not important, considering how it ends with that thing that gets found by those guys.
The prequels are a stupid idea, because everything you needed or wanted to know about any of the characters was already there in the original work.
[sub]The book's ending made more sense in the grand scheme of things.[/sub]
[sub]The book's ending made more sense in the grand scheme of things.[/sub]
I agree. To me, the problem with more Watchmen is not that is some kind of blasphemy (as many comic books fans will regard), its that is redundant. The more defining points on the arc of each character are already covered in the original comic book... there is no need to revisit the past of the characters without also risking to create plot holes with the original work (since we already know who lives/dies, get together/separated, etc)Casual Shinji said:
I agree with that statement. However without the grand scheme actually being brought into the already long movie, the movie did provide the best ending it could.Casual Shinji said:
As for MovieBob's statement about new characters, big companies, and comics I'm going to partially disagree. You won't find a lot of new material in DC and Marvel comics, but you can find all kinds of unique characters if you go looking for comics on your own. Of course, odds are you would have to turn to the internet, but you can find them.
On the subject of the ending change in the movie vs. the comic: Yeah, the movie one makes more sense in a thematic context, but not really in a logical context. I'll continue my post under a spoiler covering:
But, I will say that in translating the book to the movie, that ending change was necessary to keep it from going too long, and was probably the best solution Hayter and Tse could have come up with.
The made-up alien invader in the comic, in my opinion, works far better than pinning the power plant catastrophes on Dr. Manhattan, because, in the eyes of the world, Dr. Manhattan is someone we're familiar with. He may be super powerful, but he's not entirely beyond human. He's still labeled as an AMERICAN, for chrissakes. I can't see every country in the world believing that Dr. Manhattan went rogue, whereas the alien invader is completely and utterly unknown to us. Introducing an enemy that is totally alien to us works better IMO than trying to paint a superhero as a sudden traitor against humanity as a whole.
But, I will say that in translating the book to the movie, that ending change was necessary to keep it from going too long, and was probably the best solution Hayter and Tse could have come up with.
Another tick in agreement from me on the movie.
And there's one other thing that I think the movie did right in its adaptation: removing the clock motif (or at least making it more subtle). The clock in Watchmen is a symbol that links Manhattan's powers (the ability to perceive time) with his background (he wanted to be a watchmaker), Cold War concerns about MAD ("The Doomsday Clock"), and the sense that everyone was no longer had control over their destinies. It works really well in the graphic novel, but you really couldn't translate that subtle iconography into a movie.
And there's one other thing that I think the movie did right in its adaptation: removing the clock motif (or at least making it more subtle). The clock in Watchmen is a symbol that links Manhattan's powers (the ability to perceive time) with his background (he wanted to be a watchmaker), Cold War concerns about MAD ("The Doomsday Clock"), and the sense that everyone was no longer had control over their destinies. It works really well in the graphic novel, but you really couldn't translate that subtle iconography into a movie.
Well... that's ultimately rather depressing, unfortunate that internal politics in the comics industry seem to be a large part of what's preventing a successor to Watchmen... and hell, what's screwing over a lot of comics in general.
Holy Fuck you did not just say Adam Hughes is a "big talent"
Just GIS "Adam Hughes" and you'll he represents the very worst elements of comic book art since Liefeld
Jae Lee needs WAY more love.
Just GIS "Adam Hughes" and you'll he represents the very worst elements of comic book art since Liefeld
Jae Lee needs WAY more love.
Oh hey, more prequels.
I would have sworn that fad was over by now, but guess I was wrong.
As for the ending issue; I gotta' say I liked the book's ending more. The movie ending ties the characters to it a little more, sure, but to me the pivotal scene when Dr. Manhattan and Silk Specter come back to New York just lacks that "oh my god, the horror!" type of flair the book had. It just didn't have as much of a stomach churning, gut wrenching feel.
Just my opinion, though. The movie is still damn fine.
I would have sworn that fad was over by now, but guess I was wrong.
As for the ending issue; I gotta' say I liked the book's ending more. The movie ending ties the characters to it a little more, sure, but to me the pivotal scene when Dr. Manhattan and Silk Specter come back to New York just lacks that "oh my god, the horror!" type of flair the book had. It just didn't have as much of a stomach churning, gut wrenching feel.
Just my opinion, though. The movie is still damn fine.
Lets clarify something here. These prequels ARE about DC trying to make money, as they are a business after all. They ARE NOT about keeping Alan Moore from getting the rights to his characters back. That agreement was based around the idea that the original Watchmen series would, like so many other books from that time frame (ie, the 80s), eventually go out of print. Neither DC nor Moore could have foreseen at that time that Watchmen would become popular enough that it would, effectively, never go out of print.
That said, do I agree with it? Meh, whatever. Don't rightly care either way, actually. Should DC be doing it? Probably not, but that won't stop them. Didn't stop Lucas from making the prequels and writing/directing them himself when he should have played creator/producer for better writers and directors.
Botttom Line: Will I read these books? I'll probably pick up the first issues, I do like some of those writers, after all. Will I continue reading them after the first issues? ONLY IF THEY'RE GOOD.
That said, do I agree with it? Meh, whatever. Don't rightly care either way, actually. Should DC be doing it? Probably not, but that won't stop them. Didn't stop Lucas from making the prequels and writing/directing them himself when he should have played creator/producer for better writers and directors.
Botttom Line: Will I read these books? I'll probably pick up the first issues, I do like some of those writers, after all. Will I continue reading them after the first issues? ONLY IF THEY'RE GOOD.
Great video. Completely agree on the ending to the Watchmen film being better than the comic's version. Granted, the book does a lot of things better than the film, but the film does do that one thing greater at least than it.
Oh, and if I may say, glad to see you made a new "American Bob" on Youtube, Moviebob. Missed seeing them and hope they'll be more in the near future.
Oh, and if I may say, glad to see you made a new "American Bob" on Youtube, Moviebob. Missed seeing them and hope they'll be more in the near future.
I thought Watchmen sucked but I only saw the movie. I've never been so close to walking out of a movie.
I agree the movie did the best it could, and was at least surprisingly creative with it.vxicepickxv said:
Honestly, I think both endings have holes in them, the movie's ending just happens to be more substantial.
Watchmen was arguably the best comic book ever made, at least within the megalith of American superhero comics. There was no way the movie could have the same impact on its medium that Watchmen had on comics. The book has its problems, but nothing else in the medium has usurped it from its throne.
Even though I respect some of the creators involved, the Watchmen prequels don't really interest me. I think everything that needed to be said about that story was said in the original book, and I can't think of anything the prequels could add that wouldn't be cliched, pedantic or possibly even diminishing.
That all said, I think the movie was about as good a film adaptation as we could get. And I agree the film ending makes the narrative tighter and cleaner than the book. It still has its problems though:
So cities around the world are suddenly destroyed by power signatures identical to Dr. Manhattan's, who up until this point was known to be the USA's strategic defense system. President Nixon immediately gets on the phone to world leaders saying "we have to band together against this common threat". Well that's great, but notice how every other country lost their capital city, while the US didn't? And conveniently, the city at the heart of what Nixon in the film earlier denounced as the "east-coast liberal establishment", ie, his political opposition.
Isn't the rest of the world, mostly leaderless and in chaos, going to turn around and accuse the US of sacrificing one city full of political opposition to the government in the name of absolutely crippling everyone else? It's not like those kinds of Pyrrhic scorched-earth policies weren't commonly discussed in the Cold War era. At least when you fake an alien invasion, once you establish there is an alien, it's much easier to claim they're a common threat.
Even though I respect some of the creators involved, the Watchmen prequels don't really interest me. I think everything that needed to be said about that story was said in the original book, and I can't think of anything the prequels could add that wouldn't be cliched, pedantic or possibly even diminishing.
That all said, I think the movie was about as good a film adaptation as we could get. And I agree the film ending makes the narrative tighter and cleaner than the book. It still has its problems though:
So cities around the world are suddenly destroyed by power signatures identical to Dr. Manhattan's, who up until this point was known to be the USA's strategic defense system. President Nixon immediately gets on the phone to world leaders saying "we have to band together against this common threat". Well that's great, but notice how every other country lost their capital city, while the US didn't? And conveniently, the city at the heart of what Nixon in the film earlier denounced as the "east-coast liberal establishment", ie, his political opposition.
Isn't the rest of the world, mostly leaderless and in chaos, going to turn around and accuse the US of sacrificing one city full of political opposition to the government in the name of absolutely crippling everyone else? It's not like those kinds of Pyrrhic scorched-earth policies weren't commonly discussed in the Cold War era. At least when you fake an alien invasion, once you establish there is an alien, it's much easier to claim they're a common threat.