Also worth noting (as I'm sure KB knows) that Alan Moore formally (and magickally) cursed the film project, and took the stance of donating his fee to Dave Gibbons the artist; a decision he later sheepishly and in good humour appears to regret, as it was a great deal of money. In interview he has spoken about how the medium of literature, and particularly comics, allows the author to great thematic and visual links that bind panels in scenes separated by pages or whole chapters. This allow the reader moving at her own pace to flip back and forth between sections, absorbing the juxtaposed elements. This, he says, is impossible in a time-bound linear medium like a film. As he wrote Watchmen for the former medium, he believed it would never work as a film, particularly not a single Hollywood chunk. At one point the adaptation was to be a mini-series under the direction of Terry Gilliam. Perhaps a better form, allowing more depth, but arguable it would have taken more liberty with the content. Hollywood has a history of screwing up Moore's work. KB's right - this is the least worst adaptation; even some of the climactic plotting changes could be argued superior and neater; but for sheer depth and tone the original material is the way to go.
Yes, I'm sure this is why people didn't like the movie. I have mixed opinions, but I also try to look at movies as "riffs" on books as opposed to page-by-page retellings (because they never are; why get disappointed?). What Hollywood's done to the Hobbit is pretty shitty and gratuitous, though. However I still have seen it in theaters and will go see the last one...can't not. It's true. V for Vendetta is just totally different all the fuck over the place. Sometimes I find it very interesting to see what they change and why. Can we blame at least some of this on the MPAA, though? I'd like to. Though - the would-be Watchmen KB talks about, that just makes me shudder. I'm very glad that's not what happened.and magickally
Hollywood has a history of screwing up Moore's work. KB's right - this is the least worst adaptation
Amen. Lord of the Rings trilogy, read aloud: 54 hours. Hobbit, read aloud: 11 hours. Lord of the Rings trilogy, directors cuts: 228min + 235min + 263min = 12 hours. Hobbit, directors cuts: 182min + ~ 180min +~ 180min = 9 hours. LOTR, read aloud/LOTR, filmed = 5:1 Hobbit, read loud/Hobbit, filmed = 1.2:1 There's a reason The Hobbit seems 4 times as slow and drawn out as LOTR. It is.What Hollywood's done to the Hobbit is pretty shitty and gratuitous, though.
Yikes. Well, I guess they need more time to manufacture Hobbit themed Lego sets . . . I will say that the current movies look really great on the screen, but when I (tried) to watch the first part of The Hobbit I kind of just wanted to see that old cartoon version. Or Wizards.
I probably post this somewhere at least twice a year.Watchmen has had no shortage of Hollywood admirers. In the late '80s, producer Joel Silver (The Matrix) tried to make a film adaptation with director Terry Gilliam. Robin Williams and Richard Gere were rumored to be interested. But the project imploded primarily over budget, and the end of the Cold War deprived Watchmen of its political relevance. But in 2001, the comic found new life thanks to a zeitgeist-mining script by David Hayter (X-Men). Paramount was set to roll earlier this year with The Bourne Supremacy's Paul Greengrass at the helm — until a regime change at the studio sent it into turnaround. Still, says producer Larry Gordon, ''We have every reason to believe we will eventually make the movie.'' By the way, Moore doesn't mind: He's adamantly opposed to Watchmen's adaptation for artistic, business, and personal reasons — a position that hardened after Fox's limp 2003 version of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen — and plans to give any film royalties to Gibbons.