Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Watchmen

Page: (1)2 3 4

01

20:41 / 29.10.03

Rewritten endings? John Cusack as Nite Owl?

Why are they doing this? It's bad enough I've had to see my childhood hero dragged through the mud in the latest sling of "Batman" films, but now they're going to hack apart my favourite comics story of all time as well? Who's steering the ship at Warner Bros? Wile E. Coyote? Actually maybe it would be better if he were. What next? The Invisibles feature length comedy starring Ashton Kutcher, Sinbad, and Dr. Maya Angelou? Somebody please fetch my puke pail.

22:01 / 29.10.03

I don't think Cusack is that bad a choice. I always imagined Nite Owl as a bit older, but I think Being John Malkovich shows Cusack can probably pull off the role. I'd heard Dan Ackroyd a while ago as either a rumor or suggestion, and I think that would be pretty cool, and could possibly do a Bill Murray style revival for him, but I don't see it happening.

About changing the ending, it's absoultely idiotic. The entire book is designed to build up to that ending, and I can't think of anything else that would work. If anything, the ending is even more relevant and morally ambiguous after 9/11.

And, apparently the minutemen and pirate subplot are being dropped. Dropping of the pirate storyline I can see, but if you take away the Bernards, you take away a lot of the humanity of the book. But without the ending, the pirate storyline, and by extension, the Bernards have no real narrative point.

Taking out the minutemen however, I've got to really question. The minutemen are essential for making Laurie who she is. One of the most beautiful passages of the book is the issue where Laurie pieces together her past. And, the death scene of Hollis is one of the most effective emotional scenes in the piece as well.

So, once you take out all the things that are "inessential" to the plot you lose what makes Watchmen special. The only thing that separates Watchmen 12 from an issue of the Authority or New X 147 is the development of the Bernards and Malcom (alright, maybe not the only thing, but it's a big part of it). And then when you take out the incredible structure, and the ending, what's really left of Watchmen?

That said, I'll be there opening night, regardless of what happens. I mean, it's Watchmen.

01

21:01 / 03.11.03

Same here. They're hacking it to death. The story is not meant for the film medium. It's meant for comics. It won't translate at all. But I agree no matter how much it stinks, I'll be there for the opening matinee geeked out wearing a trench coat with cowprint mask.

Dan Akroyd as Nite Owl? Now that's a step in the right direction.
Also, who do you cast as Rorshach?

21:08 / 03.11.03

Rorschach should be played by that David Caruso. He cant act and Rorschac doesnt say much. Perfect.

Brigade du jour

21:54 / 03.11.03

I think I should play Rorschach. Who'd know, I wear a friggin mask 90% of the time anyway.

03:35 / 04.11.03

Ah it'll never happen.

I love the book to death and nothing can change my feelings for the book. Darren Aronofsky once said in an interview that Watchmen was his dream project. With Year One never getting made and Aronofsky not getting a chance to take a crack at Watchmen, I feel that I'm living in the wrong reality. Other than that we all know it's not meant for cinemas. Terry Gilliam wanted to make it and he agrees.
So fuck you Hayter.

04:10 / 04.11.03

HBO series, maybe two or three seasons? That might work.

The resistable rise of Reidcourchie

09:13 / 04.11.03

Posted by &...I Heart Dan Clowes
Other than that we all know it's not meant for cinemas.

I've never understood this sentiment, I have trouble thinking of a comic more suited to cinema treatment. Visually one of the things that stuck out about the Watchmen was the use of cinematic techniques like flashbacks and merges (I forget the proper term for the technique), the story itself although well written is pure soap opera and in fact the most non-cinematic thing about it is the paralell pirate story, though even then I'm sure people could thing of films where this technique has been used. Structurally it's a lot more conventional than something like Pulp Fiction or even the aforementioned Being John Malkovich. Certainly the technical ability to provide special effects for the project exist and I would argue have done since it was originally written (though obviously improved and cheaper nowadays).

Does anyone actually know why Gilliam said it was unfilmable? Was it just the length? It's a long story and in that sense Jack may be right an HBO mini series with the worlds highest production values would probably be a good idea but long novels have been turned into films before.

But I think the most important thing is we tear this film apart whilst it's in pre-production. It can't possibly be good enough for coniesseurs (sp?) of our calibre.

Cusack is a sublime choice, possibly a little too sexy but has the sort of under stated charm of Dreidberg. I would suggest Sean Penn for Rorshach.

The resistable rise of Reidcourchie

09:15 / 04.11.03

Changing the end is sad but the reversal of the normal villain/hero climax is a nice touch but ultimatley a clever gimmick, the story does not rely on it and sadly post 9/11 no major studio has the balls to show the original ending. A shame but not the end of the world.

Jack The Bodiless

10:49 / 04.11.03

Apparently it's not actually true. Unconfirmed rumour.

10:57 / 04.11.03

Gilliam couldn't make it because it was too long, but Gilliam likes making long movies. Also, the thing where the mass-murderer is the hero. That's a little tricky.

The resistable rise of Reidcourchie

11:51 / 04.11.03

I've always thought Ozymandias filled the role of villain in the narrative. Even if he is to be the protagonist I'm much more comfortable with that, than the way Hannibal Lector or even Freddie Kruger are presented.

14:22 / 04.11.03

Nah. Rorschach's the villain. Ozymandias saves the world, dude!

16:22 / 04.11.03

This is a film that should never be made. Ever.

01

16:56 / 04.11.03

Damn right. Ever.

I always saw Rorshach as the protagonist and Ozy as the antagonist. Maybe because of much of the story focuseson Rorshach and his hunt for the mask killer. I've read this series thousands of times, but I still could pick up again and read them all back to back.

18:30 / 04.11.03

Well by Cinema I did mean the big screen didn't I?
It might make a tv series but like having a mass murderer save the world is quite difficult to pass off in America ennit?
Also Alan Moore has said countless times that it's not a film and the mad detail in the panels would be missed in a film because, you know, comics don't whiz by you at twentyfour frames per second.
There is no central character. There is no fixed protagonist, no hero, no villain.
I have very little faith in television quite honestly.
I'm not fond of adaptations really because a work is best experienced in it's original form. I've never understood why people hate novelisations of films but love films of novels. This is a great and complex work that needs someone like Tarkovsky or Kubrick (both dead) to be excited about. Not some fucking X-men screenwriter making his directorial debut.

20:04 / 04.11.03

Well, there are quite a few bathrooms for Kubrick to get hot about. Suprised he didn't do it, really.

I repeat. NEVER MAKE WATCHMEN INTO A MOVIE, FILM, OR TV SERIES.
I thankew.

19:28 / 22.04.04

Darren Aronofsky to Direct Watchmen?

So, the ever reliable Aint-it-cool-news is reporting that Hayter is no longer going to be directing Watchmen, it's going to be Darren Aronofsky, after he completes The Fountain.

Now, anything on AICN is automatically questionable, but the idea that Aronofsky is going to do this after The Fountain, which has already been delayed, and will probably not be out for at least two years, if everything works out for it, means that even if he is in place now, a lot could fall apart in the four or five years it would probably take before he makes this film.

But, assuming he is on board, I think he's the best choice, other than Gilliam, and possibly even better than Gilliam. Aronofsky displays an amazing visual eye in his work so far, and is the first filmmaker to synthesize music video style techniques into a satisfying narrative film. Plus, he clearly has love for the material, and wouldn't pull a From Hell or LXG, and gut the story. It would be very difficult to film, but I think Aronofsky could pull it off. And even if he did fail, it would probably be a failure like David Lynch's Dune, a film that has great parts, but doesn't quite come together in the end.

23:19 / 22.04.04

Chris Cooper for Rorschach!

Phillip Seymour Hoffman for Nightowl!

Mickey Rourke for The Comedian!

Haus of Mystery

07:37 / 23.04.04

Steve Guttenberg fer Dr Manhattan.

09:25 / 23.04.04

Seems like a pretty safe source - Hayter himself - although the project could easily go into turn around.

Why is Hayter so hell bent on adapting this comic? Why can't he leave the fucking thing alone? Christ, Watchmen will loose soooo much in the transformation.

09:44 / 23.04.04

Steve G as Dr M - Yes !

And Rob Lowe as The Comedian, Emilio Estevez as Rorschach, Andrew McCarthy as Nite Owl, Patrick Swayze as Ozymandias, Demi Moore as the Silk Spectre, James Spader as Moloch... Come to think of it, that might actually work. Y'know, JS excepted, these burned-out heroes who've seen better days

16:59 / 23.04.04

I think I'm a celebrity... is an agent of the Stonecutters.

23:07 / 23.04.04

Surely no one who's actually read Watchmen wants to see this on the screen? It'll ruin the "yeah, well, read Watchmen, then.."-type statements that we like to make when trying to convince people that some comics are great.

Now they'll just say "What, that shitty movie?"

Rememeber LXG, people...

23:15 / 23.04.04

This keeps happening here - everyone always says that a bad movie adaptation ruins the original source material's reputation, but I don't buy it. Anyone who's closed-minded enough to refuse to give the comic a chance simply because of a shitty film version wouldn't be particularly likely to read it anyway. Hell, they'd probably still ignore it if the film turned out to be the best thing ever.

Do intelligent people refuse to read a novel recommended by their friends because the film treatment of it was rubbish?

Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!

18:31 / 24.04.04

I still maintain that you could quite easily turn this in to quite a decent film, and that if you're trying to convince people to like comics by reading watchmen you're just not going the right away about getting people to like comics.

Even as a comic, I find this has "blockbuster!" written all over it. Just because it's a big, bad, "clever" superhero comic, doesn't mean it's y'know, not.

And I did say "could" turn it in to a decent film, not that I was absolutely certain that this will be the case. I don't see what makes this comic in particular so difficult to translate and I think someone could do a pretty good job of it.

What will actually come of it, well there's a different story...

19:47 / 24.04.04

>>>I don't see what makes this comic in particular so difficult to translate <<<

Well it's that Watchmen exploits the unique properties of the medium of comics to great effect. Things like the Rorschach chapter which is designed in both text and artwork to be symmetrical - the placement of the panels and the pictures and dialogue within them are carefully arranged to reflect each other, but is only really noticable if you examine and compare the pages carefully, flipping back and forth from the first half of the chapter to the second. Or the Black Freighter pirate comic, which acts as a secondary narrative parallel to the primary one, by intertwining captions from the pirate comic with the main story.

You can of course eliminate these things from a film and not really affect the basic story, but it's these things (and those are only two examples) which give the comic its richness and depth and sacrificing them will lead to a shallow adaptation.

HOWEVER.

A friend of mine is a television producer, he used to have a tv show about comics (it was actually a really interesting show, full of fascinating interviews with top creators - sadly missed). Anyway, he's probably the biggest Watchmen obsessive I've ever known or encountered, he's friends with both Moore and Gibbons, and he's read the David Hayter script, and he had to admit that it works. "You know me," he said, "if anyone's going to be critical of a Watchmen script it would be me. But he's done it, he's really done it."

So, that actually kind of gives me hope.

21:38 / 24.04.04

Cameron, that's good to hear. The AICN script review was really strong as well. I think that, while on some levels Watchmen would be very tough to adapt, it's also very cinematic. The opening zoom shot is basically storyboarded for you right there.

I feel like it could work really well with a lot of subjective techniques. A movie like Taxi Driver makes you see the world through one viewpoint, but I've never seen an ensemble movie that lets you see through the eyes of each character. I think that would be the best way to make the movie, have one part with a Rorshach voiceover, but another with a Manhattan voiceover, as needed. If done right, it would a film that could take advantage of the cinematic medium in the same way that the book takes advantage of comics. And, I think Arofonsky would be great at exploiting the medium in that way.

Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!

23:32 / 24.04.04

Aye, I get why it might be difficult, Cam. I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been before. I think anyone who's going to do a good job of it will do just that, y'know? It's just not some comic-movie holy grail, to me! I think I just get a little fed up of seeing people reacting so strongly to this ; "noo! it will taint the great comic work" and so on. But that's the same for any comic movie, pretty much.

And if the script sounds promising, then there we go! Personally, if it were up to me, I'd jettison the Pirate thing, as I thought it was clunky and embarassing.

Or otherwise, as comics so deftly produce the same medium within itself, as like for like, have it as a cartoon/tv show. So it's there, for the purists. I am really quite big on the whole "what comics can do as a medium" thing, and I agree that a movie might not be able to capture these things so well. I just don't think it would really detriment the story in any great way, on this occasion. There would still be enough there.

But I'll stop before this turns in to to much random hypothesising!

Also: PatrickMM OTM. It seems only right to me that a talented individual would see fit to switch the focus of the mediums, to play up to films strengths. There is a lot of stuff that can only be done in comics, after all. But film is a pretty diverse medium within itself! Or so I hear...

We're The Great Old Ones Now

08:37 / 26.04.04

The problem with Comic-to-movie is always guts. For various reasons - notably that you can always undo next month - comic writers are allowed to take bigger risks. The studio process doesn't favour brave endings or controversial characters or anything which might make people uncomfortable - certainly not in a comic book adaptation, because comic books are for kids in the minds of the execs. So, Constantine has to be nice. Elektra can't wear that... and so on. If they can gun through a decent storyline, we'll be okay. Otherwise, it'll be popcorn and drab drivel all the way.

Good luck to 'em...

13:50 / 26.04.04

I would like to see it adapted to film because of course the movie would have so many anthological scenes that it would create a ripple in space-time fabric within which all Creation would be recreated: Rorschach leaping from inside the fridge towards Moloch; Gigantic Dr. Manhattan in Vietnam; Laurie discussing with 8 or so Dr. Manhattans after finding out he was at the lab at the same time while having sweet electric-battery-flavored sex with her etc.

But of course, the chances that it wil be any good by any civilised criteria are really small. Let's wait...

miss wonderstarr

14:05 / 26.04.04

The problem with Comic-to-movie is always guts. For various reasons - notably that you can always undo next month - comic writers are allowed to take bigger risks

More notable, I think, is that the film audience is absolutely massive and mainstream compared to the comic book readership.

17:03 / 26.04.04

I think it's premature to even discuss this too much, honestly. Aronofsky has been linked to all kinds of comics projects, none of which ever happened; while it would be ironic if the one that clicked was the most monstrously ambitious, expensive and easy to fuck up of the bunch, I'll believe it when I see it.

That said, there's a lot here to give one pause. Hayter wrote some decent scripts for...um...the X-Men. I realize that Watchmen and the X-Men are both comics superhero projects, but the similarities end there. And Aronofsky has made two -- two -- films, both with miniscule budgets, small casts, and limited settings, none of which implies that he'll be any better with a story of this scope than would be, say, Kevin Smith (thank God he's not involved in this). Not to mention that many things that work on the page -- such as Nite Owl with his prominent beer gut -- are less likely, on the screen, to evoke Citizen Kane than they are Mystery Men. And finally, by the time this gets around to actually being made, how many producers are still going to want to throw 150-200 million dollars at a comics adaptation? The trend already seems to be running out of steam, due to market oversaturation and, well, a fair number of just shitty movies.

02:13 / 28.04.04

How about they get PT Andersen to direct it? I'd like to see a nice big montage near the end, when all the storylines tie together and the characters all sing an Aimee Mann song. While Ozymandias drops a giant frog on New York. It could work.

19:38 / 28.04.04

Moth, he's actually the first person that comes to mind when I think of someone to direct Watchmen, largely because of the way he handled that massive cast in Magnolia. All mocking aside, that was a really well handled film in covering a lot of plot territory and sketching out a bunch of characters, within its three hours. But, he's one of the few directors I've never seen linked to a comic book adaptation, or express any interest in comics, so I'm assuming he wouldn't happen.

As for Aronofsky not being able to handle the film, it's true that Pi was a very small film, but Requiem did deal with an ensemble cast, and had a fairly large scope. If you look at Pee-Wee and Beetlejuice, you'd not think that Tim Burton would be able to handle Batman, but he pulled it off. The thing I'd fear happening is producers who try to exert control over the project, like happened to Burton on Batman.

I think a good comparison for Aronofsky right now, shoudl he do Watch, would be David Lynch working on Dune. Both have made some beloved fairly underground films, with strong critical, and were going to adapt a beloved piece of literature to the screen. For Aronofsky to succeed where Lynch failed (at least to himself) would requite him keeping tight control on the production, and not bending to studio wishes.

I don't know what happened with Year One, but the reason it didn't get made may very well be the studio wanted him to do things that he wouldn't, and they had a falling out as a result.

Page: (1)2 3 4