While “Watchmen” was a powerful movie, it was most certainly not as significant to its medium (film) as the “Watchmen” comic was to its own.
But I’ll argue that there’s just no way for a groundbreaking book to be made into a groundbreaking movie. Take The Lord of The Rings, for example. The films are powerful adaptations of one of the most important works of 20th century literature, but they themselves are not among the most important works of film. (Well… they were groundbreaking, in that nothing that large had been attempted before, but I digress…)
But that doesn’t mean I was at all disappointed by “Watchmen” on the big screen. It was amazing. (But it probably will not be my #1 movie of the year.)
Asking it here, since I don’t want to risk the spoilers in the other thread.
Should I read the graphic novel before or after seeing the movie?
Either, I suppose.
I suspect after. They missed a lot of media related things that could have been transferred from comics into film, and you would notice them. Would have been not so easy but very rewarding. Anyhow the film was really cool.
Also, there is a slight difference in plot (I like comics version better).
Asking it here, since I don’t want to risk the spoilers in the other thread.
Should I read the graphic novel before or after seeing the movie?
Either, I suppose.
I suspect after. They missed a lot of media related things that could have been transferred from comics into film, and you would notice them. Would have been not so easy but very rewarding. Anyhow the film was really cool.
Also, there is a slight difference in plot (I like comics version better).
What would be a ground breaking movie?
I guess Star Wars, in a way. It steered SF movies away from science fiction and towards space opera but it’s look upped the bar for production values.
In the superhero genre, has there been one yet?
I’d argue that the first Christopher Reeve Superman had the same ground-breaking effect on superhero movies that Star Wars did for space opera.
— Steve also wonders how much the success of Batman Begins influenced Broccoli’s decision to make the same sort of reset for Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.
Star Wars is not “in a way”. It is perhaps the single most groundbreaking and influential movie ever, and certainly the most significant one in my lifetime. It made the SF/F genre viable as a mainstream thing rather than a tiny, tiny niche (with the rebirth of Star Trek following that up).
For superhero movies, the Christopher Reeve Superman may have been a start, but I would argue that it’s the Spider-Man movie that made REAL superhero movies work.
I would argue that the original X-men did that before Spider-Man.
What would be a ground breaking movie?
I guess Star Wars, in a way. It steered SF movies away from science fiction and towards space opera but it’s look upped the bar for production values.
In the superhero genre, has there been one yet?
I’d argue that the first Christopher Reeve Superman had the same ground-breaking effect on superhero movies that Star Wars did for space opera.
— Steve also wonders how much the success of Batman Begins influenced Broccoli’s decision to make the same sort of reset for Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.
Star Wars is not “in a way”. It is perhaps the single most groundbreaking and influential movie ever, and certainly the most significant one in my lifetime. It made the SF/F genre viable as a mainstream thing rather than a tiny, tiny niche (with the rebirth of Star Trek following that up).
For superhero movies, the Christopher Reeve Superman may have been a start, but I would argue that it’s the Spider-Man movie that made REAL superhero movies work.
I would argue that the original X-men did that before Spider-Man.
You’re right.
And I think part of that is simply the fact that the ground is already broken.
Also for something to be groundbreaking it needs to be new and exciting in some way. An adaptation may be exciting, but it is not new as it is based on an existing work.
You’re right.
And I think part of that is simply the fact that the ground is already broken.
Also for something to be groundbreaking it needs to be new and exciting in some way. An adaptation may be exciting, but it is not new as it is based on an existing work.
I just discovered your blog here, and wanted to let you know I have been enjoying your podcasts Writing Excuses very much. Hope it will be continued for a long time to come.
I just discovered your blog here, and wanted to let you know I have been enjoying your podcasts Writing Excuses very much. Hope it will be continued for a long time to come.
In what way was the graphic novel groundbreaking? I’ve never read it. I did see the movie, however, and was like “WOW!”
The graphic novel was the first to explore the psychology of superheroes. Rather than glorify them, Moore and Gibbons didn’t so much “deconstruct” the superhero ethos so much as disassemble it. The gritty realist story they generated is what led to the current style of comic hero writing and arguably also led to the production of the more recent (and darker-toned) superhero movies, most notably the Nolan Batman ones.
Plus, the story is engaging, entertaining, and incredibly subversive. Had they made the movie 10 or 15 years ago, it would have been far more so. Now it stands more as a wry commentary on its time.
Just my humble unbiased opinion.
In what way was the graphic novel groundbreaking? I’ve never read it. I did see the movie, however, and was like “WOW!”
The graphic novel was the first to explore the psychology of superheroes. Rather than glorify them, Moore and Gibbons didn’t so much “deconstruct” the superhero ethos so much as disassemble it. The gritty realist story they generated is what led to the current style of comic hero writing and arguably also led to the production of the more recent (and darker-toned) superhero movies, most notably the Nolan Batman ones.
Plus, the story is engaging, entertaining, and incredibly subversive. Had they made the movie 10 or 15 years ago, it would have been far more so. Now it stands more as a wry commentary on its time.
Just my humble unbiased opinion.
There’s a very good reason that the movie can’t be as groundbreaking as the comic.
It’s not 1985.
The comic is so thoroughly invested and involved in the atmosphere of a time gone by… and that time is so different from this one… that it’s not possible for a period piece told about that time to be as startling and soul-wrenchingly affecting.
I couldn’t help but wonder, sitting in the theatre with a crowd of mostly 18 to 25 year olds, how much of the movie was lost on them, given that everything about it was involved in a period that none of them were alive for. It was a great ride on its own, but so much of the depth depended on you having experienced that time first hand.
There’s a very good reason that the movie can’t be as groundbreaking as the comic.
It’s not 1985.
The comic is so thoroughly invested and involved in the atmosphere of a time gone by… and that time is so different from this one… that it’s not possible for a period piece told about that time to be as startling and soul-wrenchingly affecting.
I couldn’t help but wonder, sitting in the theatre with a crowd of mostly 18 to 25 year olds, how much of the movie was lost on them, given that everything about it was involved in a period that none of them were alive for. It was a great ride on its own, but so much of the depth depended on you having experienced that time first hand.
I think the movie was an excellent adaptation, and actually enhanced my enjoyment of the book in a good way; having the themes and imagery put forth in a slightly different medium caused me to look at some things differently, and notice others for the first time. Seldom, if ever, have I also seen a movie make changes to the original for reasons of the limits of the medium– mainly, time– while within those changes, staying true to the theme and concepts of the original work.
I think the movie was an excellent adaptation, and actually enhanced my enjoyment of the book in a good way; having the themes and imagery put forth in a slightly different medium caused me to look at some things differently, and notice others for the first time. Seldom, if ever, have I also seen a movie make changes to the original for reasons of the limits of the medium– mainly, time– while within those changes, staying true to the theme and concepts of the original work.
You can’t re-paint the Mona Lisa and expect to be the next Leonardo.
You can’t re-paint the Mona Lisa and expect to be the next Leonardo.
I saw it with a friend who hadn’t read the comic. He was blown away by the story. One of our pet peeves are movies scripts that are so obvious that a six year old could have written them. This was a nice change.
Having read and re-read the comic, I was amazed at how well they did in the adaptation. There were so many scenes that must have been blocked with the page right there as reference. Brilliant!
I will agree that there was no way for the movie to be as involved as the comic was, I am already looking forward to the DVD as it is going to be even longer and include some of the things that made the comic so eerie.
I saw it with a friend who hadn’t read the comic. He was blown away by the story. One of our pet peeves are movies scripts that are so obvious that a six year old could have written them. This was a nice change.
Having read and re-read the comic, I was amazed at how well they did in the adaptation. There were so many scenes that must have been blocked with the page right there as reference. Brilliant!
I will agree that there was no way for the movie to be as involved as the comic was, I am already looking forward to the DVD as it is going to be even longer and include some of the things that made the comic so eerie.