BARBELITH underground
 

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


Watchmen movie news

 
  

Page: 1 ... 1819202122(23)242526

 
 
Eek! A Freek!
14:04 / 20.03.09
Well, I could argue he killed Kennedy because he's a right wing nutjob who's patriotism shuns the slightest whiff of the left: Better dead than Red. Nixon would have been the one who ordered the hit... It's not like Blake would have shot Kennedy just for shits and giggles.

When he shot the Vietnamese woman it was a knee-kerk reaction to being slashed, but also because he saw her as an enemy at best, a lesser human being at worst - He was there fighting the vietnamese and didn't differentiate them as "good" or "bad"- To him, they were all the same. Whether he shot her out of misogyny, racism or because he's psychotic (or a combination thereof) isn't 100% clear, but I doubt he would have shot Sally if she slashed him. He'd have beat her to an inch of her life, but I doub't he'd have shot her.

But I get your point - He's a sleezeball character and I wasn't trying to be an apologist or defending his actions; I'm just stating what I believe made the character tick. Not exactly a one-dimensional creation...
 
 
electric monk
14:36 / 20.03.09
On reflection, I think I see what you were driving at there, Freek. Perhaps

In his mind he was, above all, a patriot who killed for ideals he believed in.

is a clearer phrasing of your point?

When we're putting it up as the adaptation of "The Greatest Graphic Novel In History Ever!!!11one!!!", I wonder how many non-comic people are going to walk out of the cinema and think "Fuck yeah, I need to read the comic. Clearly, they're not just for kids, and are capable of tackling complex themes just like a Real Book.

This is definitely happening IME, Neon. Of the group that I went to see the movie with, the people who enjoyed it most were the ones who hadn't read the book and they were asking to borrow it right after the show. My tattered, battered copy is currently out on loan to a couple of them, and is scheduled to be passed on to another friend after they're done.
 
 
Jack Fear
14:47 / 20.03.09
Nixon would have been the one who ordered the hit... It's not like Blake would have shot Kennedy just for shits and giggles.

Not in the specific, no. But in the bigger picture, I reckon he gravitated towards a job in black ops because it suited his character and temperament—because it gave him a societal license to do all the horrible shit for which his philosophical leanings had already given him moral license.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
15:05 / 20.03.09
he killed Kennedy, which is neither a military objective nor the act of a patriot.

He was in Dallas that day as part of Nixon's entourage, though there was no clear reason for their presence. If he was acting for Nixon, the murder of Kennedy would have been presented to him as the act of a patriot and a (military/)political objective, plus a huge joke, plus the tactical pleasure of a challenging hit and escape.

I don't believe there's a clearer indication of Blake's involvement in Kennedy's murder in the comic book, but the Moore-authored background to the role-playing game does, I think, mention that a trademark cigar was found near the grassy knoll.

He also says in the film, but not I think the book, that until the Badges Not Masks riot, he hasn't had as much fun since Woodward and Bernstein (whom, we are meant to believe, he also killed). So, yes, he does get kicks out of committing government-sanctioned violence. He's enjoying himself in Nam, and during the riots, like a guy with a video game ~ which is probably roughly how he sees it.

But I think there's a difference between enjoying getting a perfect hit on a moving target and then disappearing, and realising that someone's going to wipe out millions, and that you're going to have to lie about it because it's actually saving billions.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
15:08 / 20.03.09
Andy:In his mind he was, above all, a patriot who killed for ideals he believed in.

is a clearer phrasing of your point?



Jack:because it gave him a societal license to do all the horrible shit for which his philosophical leanings had already given him moral license.

Thanks, both of you: What I had in mind sounds much clearer the way you've put it... in his own mind Blake was a right leaning "patriot" because Nixon and his government not only let him act out his sadistic and sick nature, he was rewarded to do so.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
15:11 / 20.03.09
The four prime movers of the story each represent a different philosophical stance, and each reaches a turning point when his philosophy proves inadequate to the challenges of the situation.

Great post, but there is the added ambiguity that at least three of them also represent the same principle that it's acceptable to sacrifice a certain number of people if it saves a larger number.

Rorschach voices that idea with regard to Truman and the atom bomb.

Manhattan justifies the deaths of the rioters he transported in contrast to the larger numbers who would have died, had he not acted.

And Ozymandias' grand plan is based on this idea.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
15:15 / 20.03.09
I wonder how many non-comic people are going to walk out of the cinema and think "Fuck yeah, I need to read the comic. Clearly, they're not just for kids, and are capable of tackling complex themes just like a Real Book.

This is definitely happening IME, Neon.


This piqued me, so I did a search: Today, Watchmen is amazon.com's number 6 best selling book... Not bad for a book over 20 years old. #6 on the worlds biggest book-vendor... I'd say that the movie is inspiring people to read the book...
 
 
Neon Snake
15:47 / 20.03.09
Very interesting - happy to stand corrected on that one.
 
 
Quantum
14:30 / 21.03.09
The sales of “Watchmen” collected editions have topped 1 million units since the trailer was released with the “Dark Knight” film in July 2008, DC Vice President of Sales Bob Wayne announced at the ComicsPRO Annual Meeting.
 
 
CameronStewart
23:25 / 21.03.09
Today, Watchmen is amazon.com's number 6 best selling book... Not bad for a book over 20 years old. #6 on the worlds biggest book-vendor

A few days ago it was number one! I wish it had held that spot for a little longer but still, incredible.
 
 
Neon Snake
08:15 / 22.03.09
Does anyone know whether 300 had anything like the same response?

(I'm suspecting not, but then I'm surprised at Watchmen's sales, so...maybe it did).

I'm really surprised by this. Even in the face of the facts, I find it very difficult to understand why someone who doesn't normally read comics would see the film, and decide to read the book. AFAIK, it didn't happen with either Batman, Iron Man or Hulk last year (Watchmen being based wholly on a single work being probably the difference).

I can see a group coming out of the cinema, and then asking the comic reader amongst them, the guy who has been talking about the comic, if they can then borrow the book; it's the group with no prior exposure to the book that I'm having difficulty with.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
09:04 / 22.03.09
AFAIK, it didn't happen with either Batman, Iron Man or Hulk last year (Watchmen being based wholly on a single work being probably the difference).

Probably, but also that Batman has a prominent place in popular culture, and the other two are easily summed up (oh it's a guy who's in a robot suit, oh it's a guy who gets massive and green when he gets angry). Watchmen being more complex, and less well known than the usual summer fare, it makes sense that people would go back to the source material.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
09:52 / 22.03.09
The big difference is that there is no "book" of Batman, Hulk or Iron Man. Those movies are not adaptations (as far as I know, in the cases of Hulk and Iron Man) of any one text ~ they are quite loose adaptations of the mythos and selective continuity. Watchmen is an unusually-faithful adaptation of one book: a book which, we are now frequently reminded, received mainstream plaudits and is supposedly one of the most important comics of the 20th century.

If I liked Nolan's Dark Knight, what am I meant to go on to read? Morrison's Batman TPBs? Would they really expand on my experience of the movie? Miller's Dark Knight? The texts of Batman that Nolan draws on are pretty broad, the continuity of Batman is dauntingly complex and wide-ranging, and Nolan's Batman is pretty distinct from any Batman in the comics of the past 20 years.

Buying Watchmen after seeing the movie, on the other hand, is equivalent to people buying Tolkien after seeing Lord of the Rings.
 
 
Neon Snake
10:08 / 22.03.09
Watchmen being more complex, and less well known than the usual summer fare, it makes sense that people would go back to the source material.

What makes you say that? I don't follow the reasoning. Do you mean that people would be more intrigued, since they're less likely to have heard of it, and/or understood it completely?

Buying Watchmen after seeing the movie, on the other hand, is equivalent to people buying Tolkien after seeing Lord of the Rings.

I buy into this completely; being an adaptation of a single work, I can go and buy that single work in my local Waterstones. Easy and convenient.

I'm wondering why it didn't (at least, to the best of my knowledge) happen with 300, V For Vendetta, From Hell, and so on.

I'm thinking that the accompanying marketing campaign, being "frequently reminded" of the book's status - which alos built on the recent success of comicbook films - probably overcame the weaknesses of the film.

Or, am I just being overly prejudicial because I didn't think the film was anything special?

I feel that I'd have walked out (having previously been told that it was the best comic ever) thinking "If that's the best they can do, then I don't think I'll bother" - that the film may actually have harmed the perception of comics in the mass public, rather than helped.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
11:32 / 22.03.09
I'm wondering why it didn't (at least, to the best of my knowledge) happen with 300, V For Vendetta, From Hell, and so on.


Firstly, I think those were worse films ~ secondly, they weren't launched as long-awaited adaptations of the most celebrated graphic novel of all time.

I feel that I'd have walked out (having previously been told that it was the best comic ever) thinking "If that's the best they can do, then I don't think I'll bother" - that the film may actually have harmed the perception of comics in the mass public, rather than helped.

I agree that being told Watchmen the movie is a faithful adaptation of the best comic ever is like being told Blade Runner is a faithful adaptation of the best novel ever. Both are visually rich and detailed and deal with some interesting, ambitious ideas, but they're also very much framed by genre conventions.

If Watchmen the movie was being promoted as an adaptation of the best superhero comic ever, that would be more accurate and less bold; like, to use the same example, promoting Blade Runner as an adaptation of the best SF novel ever. It would be a debatable claim, but not unreasonable.

But in both cases, if the film is being presented as an example of the best a medium has to offer, basically you're left with some interesting ideas and visuals, very much entrenched in genre conventions. If you don't like SF/superheroes, and this is the best the form has, then you'd be excused for thinking the whole form is pretty limited.

And in the case of comics, I think that's true. The comic book form is, to a large extent, tied to a single genre of superheroes, and it is as though the novel, as a form, was mostly tied to science fiction. Some SF novels are intelligent, entertaining and memorable, and explore ideas that go far beyond their genre, but still a great SF novel is going to involve certain generic motifs and conventions, and it's going to have to overcome the association with a lot of trash within the same genre, and it's going to carry the stigma of being linked in the general public's minds with male teenage fantasy.

However intelligent and interesting Watchmen is, it still involves a lot of guys with gadgets, tights and silly masks, and a plot to invade the world with a giant squid, and a pretty weak role for the main female character ~ so yeah, I think a lot of people could be forgiven for thinking that if this is as good as comics get, it's still superhero nonsense.

However, my impression is that the idea of comic books as a respectable mainstream cultural form collapsed a long time ago now, so I don't think Watchmen will harm the general public's view of comic books ~ I don't think it will do more than confirm it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:10 / 22.03.09
Which dovetails neatly with the Grant Morrison interview thread, in fact, where the latest interview mentioned opens with:

Armed with an intellect and curiosity rivaled in comics only by Watchmen author Alan Moore

I can see why you'd want to mention Moore, since he is tied into the big movie out at the moment, but the use of "comics" to mean "comics in which muscular men in skintight clothing hit each other" is pretty telling. At this point it amost feels like books like Persepolis (also made into a film, of course) or Fun Home, or even an old stager like Maus, don't really occupy the same space any more, before we even get into writers like Roberta Gregory or Trina Robbins, or people like Joss Whedon who are notable for other, quote-unquote mainstream work; the interviewer is making a point not about Alison Bechdel but about, essentially, Warren Ellis.
 
 
Neon Snake
12:44 / 22.03.09
I'd probably agree that the films weren't as good (V For Vendetta aside, *maaayybe*), but in terms of popularity, lets take a look at 300, which made $70,885,301 in it's opening weekend, whereas Watchmen took $55,214,334.

Watchmen might burn slower, but it's been arguably less popular with the public than 300; 300 was (I think) promoted off the back of Frank Miller's name, fresh from Sin City. It certainly had a lot of publicity and controversy, raising it's profile above a simple comic-book adaptation.

It's also a much, much simpler tale (which may make it more appealing), and was freely available and heavily promoted in nearly every bookshop I visited in the relevant time-period, from Borders through Waterstones down to WHSmiths. But whilst I think it sold, I don't think it had anything like the uplift that people are talking about in relation to Watchmen.

As far as I can see, the advantage that Watchmen has is in the advertising - the line used was "The most celebrated graphic novel of all time". Less contentious than "the best", and I'd say it's probably accurate. And the implication is that it *is* "the best"; the difference between "most celebrated" and "best" being lost on the target audience, as of course would be intended.

What I'm wondering about is: Were I a non-comic reader, with no comic-mates badgering me to read the bloody thing *now*, dagnammit, would I come out of the cinema and spontaneously think "Yes, I can see why the comic version might be the best comic ever, and worthy of reading. Despite the fact that I haven't read a comic for many years, I'm going to go and buy it."

And I can't make that train of thought seem likely. What is it about the film that supports and triggers that thought process?


Post-reading, I can absolutely see that cleverness and technical expertise aside (both of which might be lost on a new reader), it's essentially men-in-tights, and might not create a longterm reader.
There might, on the other hand, be an argument to be made that (given that men-in-tights is the most popular genre) it might be more likely to create a long-term reader, since it's the genre that evidently appeals the most.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
12:45 / 22.03.09
but the use of "comics" to mean "comics in which muscular men in skintight clothing hit each other" is pretty telling.

Sometimes I look back on the "graphic novel phenomenon" of the mid-1980s, and the transformation of funny papers into post-literate forms, and wonder if it simply transformed comic books from muscular men in skintight clothing hitting each other, into muscular men in skintight clothing hitting each other while thinking "I look fucking RIDICULOUS... old men...SHIT... at this of all MOMENTS I remember DINAH ...a line she once quoted from BAUDELAIRE, while the sweat dried on her BREASTS."
 
 
miss wonderstarr
12:45 / 22.03.09
And sometimes... sometimes I just WONDER. [/Moore]
 
 
Neon Snake
13:08 / 22.03.09
I'm stealing that post, for each and every time I have to explain why I don't really like Watchmen or quote-unquote deconstructionist comics in general.
 
 
CameronStewart
13:23 / 22.03.09
What is it about the film that supports and triggers that thought process?

In my experience, a lot of the people that have seen Watchmen (and not read the book) were expecting it to be like an X-Men movie, and really not expecting the complexity of the story (dumbed down as it is from the comic, it's still significantly more than your usual superhero movie). This, coupled with the fact that literally every single review of the movie I've heard or read devotes equal space to reviewing the comic, with all of them mentioning how sophisticated and intelligent it is, is what's generating interest in the book. Friends of mine who are reading the book, the first comic they've ever decided to read, are also usually surprised by it - one of them said that she was expecting to read it all in a couple of hours and was shocked at its density and that it took her more than a week to get through. She also thought it was excellent and was recommending it to her friends.

News this weekend broke that the number of copies sold since last summer's debut of the trailer just passed one million.
 
 
Neon Snake
14:15 / 22.03.09
coupled with the fact that literally every single review of the movie I've heard or read devotes equal space to reviewing the comic, with all of them mentioning how sophisticated and intelligent it is, is what's generating interest in the book.

That feels very likely as a relevant factor; not something I'd considered, but true in my experience also.



As an aside, I love the fact that "one million" needs no context whatsoever to sound impressive.

I'd be highly amused to discover that, say, Green Arrow/Black Canary: The Wedding Album had just broken 800k in the same period. I strongly suspect not, and I'm just being facetious, but still.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
14:46 / 22.03.09
Maybe the success of celebrated graphic novel Watchmen on the big screen will lead to a replay of the late 80s and the rise of the "post-Watchmen" superhero, and other adult, dark and sophisticated visual narratives like Grell's "The Longbow Hunters" can now be adapted to cinema! Audiences have shown they're ready to see Oliver Queen's nob.

Safe for work preview of Grell's visionary post-literary deconstruction.
 
 
Neon Snake
15:03 / 22.03.09
Audiences have shown they're ready to see Oliver Queen's nob.

I wonder if Oliver Junior has it's own immaculate little blond goatee.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
16:05 / 22.03.09
This, coupled with the fact that literally every single review of the movie I've heard or read devotes equal space to reviewing the comic, with all of them mentioning how sophisticated and intelligent it is, is what's generating interest in the book.

Yeah, leaving aside Oliver's fireman, briefly, the reviews have generally (and I'm not sure fairly - The Dark Knight Returns is at least as good, and The Enigma's better, IMVHO) flagged up 'Watchmen' as the Citizen Kane, the Ulysses of comics. So it's understandable that, even if they didn't like the movie, today's I-pod generation would want to check the text out. As they should. Damn them.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
11:46 / 23.03.09
This, coupled with the fact that literally every single review of the movie I've heard or read devotes equal space to reviewing the comic, with all of them mentioning how sophisticated and intelligent it is

But this is almost apologetic, isn't it? I think that the movie was great (From a comic fan's perspective), but harping on and on that; "No really! The comic's a masterpiece, really adult and deep and smart!" is almost a pre-emptive "Don't judge the movie until you've given the book a chance!"

Which is not a bad pitch, actually. But still, it's like they (The reviewers, the marketing team) are afraid that the right audience won't give it a chance unless they're convinced that it's based on a "real" literary work; "Yeah, it's based on a, *ahem* Graphic Novel, and it's about Super Heroes, but it's so much more..."
 
 
CameronStewart
12:32 / 23.03.09
Well, all I was doing was speculating as to why sales of the book have been so unusually strong.
 
 
Neon Snake
13:09 / 23.03.09
I think, Shirley, that there are a number of valid reasons to mention the book in a review of the film;

The marketing of the film explicitly mentions that not only is it based on a graphic novel, but the "most celebrated graphic novel" ever. That would seem to me to prompt a reviewer into reading the novel, and using it in a review, if only for comparison's sake. Likewise, many reviews of Lord Of The Rings compared the films to the books, rightly so in my opinion.

Watchmen isn't Superman, Batman, The Hulk, Spiderman or even Iron Man - it may be well-known amongst the comic-reading world, but I imagine it's *largely* unknown outside of it, it's place in the 100 Best Novels ever notwithstanding. There's little or no immediate pop-culture recognition amongst most movie-goers, so a discussion of the film's roots is appropriate, I feel.

Certainly, many of the reviews I've read have been in favour of the film; there's been little apologising for the film in the manner you're thinking of.

If there is, then it's been more like apologising for the genre itself, rather than the film - "Yes, it's men-in-tights, again, but this ain't no Spiderman 3 - this is based on a work that's a bit more subtle and sophisticated."
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:14 / 23.03.09
Also, it will be on the frontage of booksellers, online and offline. There will be displays and banners and it will be outside the graphic novel section in Borders. I think a novelisation of a big summer movie will sell a fair few copies even if it is not being sold as the high point of an art form. On which note, I imagine the reviews are talking up the graphic novel in past to explain why the audience are being presented with a big-budget superhero movie featuring characters they have never heard of - every tie in so far has at least had a TV series or two or a Warhol print in the mainstream.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:15 / 23.03.09
Ah. double post.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:29 / 23.03.09
At this point it amost feels like books like Persepolis (also made into a film, of course) or Fun Home, or even an old stager like Maus, don't really occupy the same space any more

It's like what happens with science fiction as a genre, isn't it? The minute it becomes accepted as literary or in any way intelligent, it's no longer classed as SF.

Look at all the reviews of BSG which said "essentially, this isn't science fiction, because it deals with contemporary social and political issues". Well, two things, really. HG Wells? Yeah, social and political issues, and ALSO SF. And... for fuck's sake, they're in space fighting robots and it's not SF because it's a bit clever? Fuck OFF!!!

Yeah, I think maybe the same is happening with comics. Which is why I hate it when people make the distinction between "comics" and "graphic novels" based on a perceived literary superiority rather than anything other than the physical form and presentation of the comic in question. "I don't read comics, I read graphic novels". One of the wankiest lines I have ever seen, and one which you see all the time on the internets.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
13:42 / 23.03.09
"I don't read comics, I read graphic novels". One of the wankiest lines I have ever seen, and one which you see all the time on the internets.

Which ties in to what I was awkwardly trying to say above: It's all marketing. Clever new ways to sell things to people who would be otherwise uninterested. On one hand it opens people's minds to new things, on the other, to me, it seems like apologetic pandering...
 
 
Neon Snake
13:55 / 23.03.09
Well, including the line "most celebrated..etc" is certainly marketing, Shirley; I disagree that it's *all* marketing.
I might think that a reviewer who doesn't mention the book when reviewing a film of the "most celebrated etc" hasn't done his homework.

But explain "apologetic pandering" to me?

I mean, Watchmen *is* arguably the "most celebrated graphic novel of all time", as claimed by the advertising. Further, though, it's superficially a superhero film about a bunch of guys who are largely unknown, featuring a cast that is also largely unknown, and thus maybe a hard sell.
I'd have been very surprised had the marketing boys and girls not used Watchmen's standing and reputation as a hook; I don't think that doing so is "apologetic", any more than I think "Starring Brad Pitt" is apologetic when placed on an advert, where it has, I think, the same purpose and intent.
 
 
deja_vroom
14:36 / 23.03.09
Meanwhile, Grant Morrisson at Comic Book Resources: "I’ve just been doing an Earth Four book, which is the Charlton characters but I’ve decided to write it like “Watchmen.” [laughs] So it’s written backwards and sideways and filled with all kinds of symbolism and because of that it’s taking quite a long time to write."

You don't say so.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
14:50 / 23.03.09
Neon: I am being cynical because of my love for the source material, which I first read in ’88 or ’89. I grudgingly admit that stating that People Magazine listed “The Watchmen” as one of the greatest novels of the century (A Graphic one at that!) is a great hook for the movie. I know that Warner needs to raise awareness to recoup production costs (and pay Fox) and will promote the film in any way possible to get as much money as possible.

I am only “grudgingly” doing so because as a fan, I don’t like the real fact that it needs to be sold in such a way, that it cannot stand alone (Or make as much money) without doing so.

But you are right. It is a work that’s sat on the fringe of popular awareness and is being presented to be more approachable for an audience unaware of its existence.

I still find myself getting upset that the genre which spawned it needs to be apologized for: “It’s not a comic, it’s a Graphic Novel…”, “It’s not a superhero movie, it’s a postmodern critique of the superhero genre…” I’m taking the position of the “cult following” type fan watching a favorite work enter the mainstream and upset that the work is being sold on other peoples opinions of it instead of the material itself. In reality, many people were introduced to The Watchmen 20 years ago because someone we knew told us it was really great. Now it's being mass broadcasted that it's really great.

I agree: many many people wouldn’t give it a second look without being informed a bit more about it. I’m just crying sour grapes because I really believe in the power of the story and find myself frustrated that it needs to be sold largely in part on the basis it’s the “comic that proved that comics aren’t just for kids”, a fact that the European and Asian markets have known a long time…

In my mind, all I see is “only” marketing, and not that it's about finding the best way to reach the largest amount of people with a great piece of storytelling.

I realise, however, that's all because of my own hangups and snotty “real fan” mentality, the whole "You can't enjoy it unless you knew about it before everyone else" bullshit.

I’m still working on that, honest.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 1819202122(23)242526

 
  
Add Your Reply