A recent pop-cultural epiphany: I'm excited as fuck for the Watchmen flick. My rekindled interest compelled me to go back and flip through the comic for the first time since my freshman year of college. Though I can't say I was a big fan of Snyder's last film, "300"--though I adore the trailer--I'm not writing off the film like I had initially done.
Let's toss aside all the bullshit first: filmmaker Terry Gilliam considering the comic to be unfilmable, a pesky lawsuit regarding which studio had rights to the film, Alan Moore's distaste for adaptations of his work. What's left is a bunch of whiny fanboys (and fangirls, I s'pose. Fan...people? Oh right, fans.) complaining about a film they haven't even seen yet. So here are some things I must address.
"The comic is too large in scope. How are all the chapters, backstories, subplots, etc. going to be captured on film?" is a common defense for the fans' vitriol. Not everybody can be a Snyder fan (though the "Dawn of the Dead" remake pretty much shifts my bowels), but people can find solace in Snyder's appreciation for the comic. Disagree? How about a near 3.5 hour director's cut of the film for DVD? I assume this extended version will feature everything, but at the very least contains the Black Freighter-comic-subplot. Which is great to read, don't get me wrong, but seems superfluous for film. So why did Snyder shoot that particular material? To satiate the needs of a bunch of nerds.
Respect for the source material is fine and well, but so what if Snyder slightly strays from the events in the comic? Condensing and omitting sections or subplots can present a more concise narrative for the purposes of film. As I recently discussed with some friends of mine, one doesn't need to judge a film adaptation by its relation to the initial text; they're independent works. Hell, some might argue that one must divert from the source material to create something great. The book's nihilism, politics, and rich characters could translate well to film, but that's the only real overlap the film needs for it to be great.
Perhaps it might be easier to not treat the "Watchmen" comic like its sacred. I found that after rereading it that it lacked the punch it initially packed when I tore through it three years ago. Its impact had already been made; it shifted the way I view comics and art in general. Perhaps a widely distributed film can introduce a new set of people to this amazing story. There's no better time than now for this flick.
I, for one, will be watching the Watchmen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Justin,
ReplyDeleteI saw "Watchmen" last night and, although excited for the film, left feeling slightly disappointed. I suppose that is to be expected given my fondness for the source material and the amount of material the film had to cover. I completely agree that Snyder doesn't has to stay completely true and that there are some things that would obviously not translate to film. I even understand and why Snyder changed the ending--drastically deviating from the source material.
Such adaptions are to be expected; what disappointed me was how many of the book's most important themes were were glossed over in order to tell a more frivolous story. For example Ozymandias' was barely explored in the film, resulting in a shallow, two dimensional character, and ultimately lame villain. Ignoring arches such as these cause the film miss the whole point of "Watchmen".
Instead Snyder chooses to boil the book down to it's most digestible parts, leaving us a group of dull people and their problems. I know this is kind of the point, but the book was at least able to make these characters compelling. So although "Watchmen" was not bad, it wasn't good either.