Post by Grey on Aug 14, 2004 14:32:35 GMT -5
The most important comic in history is set to get the silver screen treatment, and from the looks of things, it seems like everything's in pretty good hands, in the form of David Hayter,(who wrote X-Men the movie, and, surprise surprise, is the voice of Solid Snake in the classic PS game, Metal Gear Solid!) who'll be writing and directing the movie. Despite the fact that he has publicly announced that the apocalyptic ending to the classic comic will be tweaked, in light of the 911 tragedy, the script was greeted with rave reviews from screenwriter Drew McWeeny,(who posts at Ain't it Cool News as "Moriarty") who published a detailed and overwhelmingly rave script review of a fairly recent David Hayter draft. To kickstart this thread highlighting the most anticipated comic adaption,(besides Sin City and Batman Begins) below are an early article on the movie from Yahoo's Greg's Reviews.
www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=13607
The Citizen Kane of comic books is Moore and Gibbons' Watchmen. First published (in comic form) in 1986-1987, it is a work that only seems more important as time goes by (I think in the 1980's themselves it was difficult to look at it with perspective, but even then, many fans knew what it was). What Moore did was to create a world in which superheroes actually did start popping up about the time that they first appeared in comic books (the 1930's), and then stretched the "reality" through time. Moore's Watchmen world is one of just a few "heroes", and each is fully developed (even the little-seen Golden Agers), representing a different type of person who would put on a mask and go out at night, fighting crime. Watchmen winks at itself, and the audience, recognizing how ridiculous the concept of a hero is in some scenes, revering bravery in others.
By making this a thickly-textured crime story set in an alternate reality, every panel became something to read over six times, maybe more, to see what you're missing (this is where Gibbons must get full recognition; realizing Moore's detailed notes must have been quite a challenge). No image was wasted... for comic fans who often have to put up with, let's be honest, comics that aren't great, Watchmen was a godsend. However you wanted to interpret just about anything in the book, there was enough there to support your opinion and/or argument. Somehow, with all the information crammed into the 400+ pages, Moore even managed to keep the mystery of the story concealed until the end, and on top of it, keep a consistent level of humor and characterization in every bit of dialogue. This was supplemented by text pages in each issue, which gave us various bits from the Watchmen world... a book chapter, psychological files, a companie's catalog, etc. And... if following several sub plots at once wasn't enough, there was a recurring comic book, suggesting that in a world where "super heroes" are real, they wouldn't have taken off in comic books, replaced instead by pirates (Tales of the Black Freighter is the name of the comic-within-a-comic).
Most importantly, Watchmen works because it shows us how, even in a "real world" setting, vigilante characters could indeed exist... but they would probably not be the sort of people we would want to idolize like fans love characters like Captain America and Superman. Instead, a "real hero" is more likely to be a violent nutcase like "Rorschach", who doesn't bathe, wears his costume for weeks at a time, regularly kills people, and is prone to paranoid fantasies. Or maybe they'd be The Comedian, an equally-violent mercenary soldier and pillager of nations. Not all of the heroes in Watchmen are "bad guys", but those that are more civil (Dr. Manhattan, Night Owl, and others) have their own psychological flaws/quirks (Night Owl, for example, can only make love costumed). Marvel Comics took off in the early 1960's because it "dared" to show super heroes like Peter Parker dealing with "real problems", but Moore and Gibbons' characters took that concept farther than Stan Lee could've imagined. Watchmen was part of a trend that predated it, but none of its predecessors accomplished what it did, or inspired the sort of awe amid fans and other writers alike (evidenced by dozens of comics that went down the same path in the 1990's).
So, actor (mostly voice work in animation & video games) and writer David Hayter has signed with Universal (why it isn't at Warner Bros must surely be a long, long story) to make this his debut. What can we make of this? First, we have to recognize that many fans have been convinced forever that a) this film wasn't going to get made and b) if it did somehow get made, it would be directed by Terry Gilliam. So, now, in late 2001, the fan reaction tends to be one of "be careful what you wish for", as the good news is a) it's getting made and the bad news is b) not by Gilliam. Hayter has, then, a bit of a Damocles' Sword hanging over his hyphenated head. Sure, he gets to bring fans' treasured favorite to the big screen, but if he botches it up, he'll hear about it too.
I'm optimistic. Sure, I think Watchmen would be best as a cable mini-series where its fullness could stretch out. Terry Gilliam was even thinking about this in recent years (but didn't get the financing to move ahead). Part of me wonders if, by digesting it to two hours, you're more likely to get an "action movie" than a "crime movie" (Watchmen is definitely intended to be light on "action"; it has more in common with Fight Club and L.A. Confidential, than say, The Matrix and X-Men). Hayter could, however, and he's suggested he's leaning this way, keep the crime elements strong, I think, which would also help keep the budget down. This isn't about "big fight scenes"... it's about twisty-turny surprises and mind-games on a massive, massive scale. People are more likely to compare it to a "Memento with super heroes."
So, Hayter, screenwriter of X-Men (really the only product we have to judge him by as of 10/30/01), is going to be the writer/director. One thing in his favor is that he managed to combine depth, faithfulness to the comics, and humor in that script. Another is that he definitely knew how to work within the constraints of a budget. The question is... can he do it with a story that's not his own creation (that film had no comic book equivalent)?
www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=13607
The Citizen Kane of comic books is Moore and Gibbons' Watchmen. First published (in comic form) in 1986-1987, it is a work that only seems more important as time goes by (I think in the 1980's themselves it was difficult to look at it with perspective, but even then, many fans knew what it was). What Moore did was to create a world in which superheroes actually did start popping up about the time that they first appeared in comic books (the 1930's), and then stretched the "reality" through time. Moore's Watchmen world is one of just a few "heroes", and each is fully developed (even the little-seen Golden Agers), representing a different type of person who would put on a mask and go out at night, fighting crime. Watchmen winks at itself, and the audience, recognizing how ridiculous the concept of a hero is in some scenes, revering bravery in others.
By making this a thickly-textured crime story set in an alternate reality, every panel became something to read over six times, maybe more, to see what you're missing (this is where Gibbons must get full recognition; realizing Moore's detailed notes must have been quite a challenge). No image was wasted... for comic fans who often have to put up with, let's be honest, comics that aren't great, Watchmen was a godsend. However you wanted to interpret just about anything in the book, there was enough there to support your opinion and/or argument. Somehow, with all the information crammed into the 400+ pages, Moore even managed to keep the mystery of the story concealed until the end, and on top of it, keep a consistent level of humor and characterization in every bit of dialogue. This was supplemented by text pages in each issue, which gave us various bits from the Watchmen world... a book chapter, psychological files, a companie's catalog, etc. And... if following several sub plots at once wasn't enough, there was a recurring comic book, suggesting that in a world where "super heroes" are real, they wouldn't have taken off in comic books, replaced instead by pirates (Tales of the Black Freighter is the name of the comic-within-a-comic).
Most importantly, Watchmen works because it shows us how, even in a "real world" setting, vigilante characters could indeed exist... but they would probably not be the sort of people we would want to idolize like fans love characters like Captain America and Superman. Instead, a "real hero" is more likely to be a violent nutcase like "Rorschach", who doesn't bathe, wears his costume for weeks at a time, regularly kills people, and is prone to paranoid fantasies. Or maybe they'd be The Comedian, an equally-violent mercenary soldier and pillager of nations. Not all of the heroes in Watchmen are "bad guys", but those that are more civil (Dr. Manhattan, Night Owl, and others) have their own psychological flaws/quirks (Night Owl, for example, can only make love costumed). Marvel Comics took off in the early 1960's because it "dared" to show super heroes like Peter Parker dealing with "real problems", but Moore and Gibbons' characters took that concept farther than Stan Lee could've imagined. Watchmen was part of a trend that predated it, but none of its predecessors accomplished what it did, or inspired the sort of awe amid fans and other writers alike (evidenced by dozens of comics that went down the same path in the 1990's).
So, actor (mostly voice work in animation & video games) and writer David Hayter has signed with Universal (why it isn't at Warner Bros must surely be a long, long story) to make this his debut. What can we make of this? First, we have to recognize that many fans have been convinced forever that a) this film wasn't going to get made and b) if it did somehow get made, it would be directed by Terry Gilliam. So, now, in late 2001, the fan reaction tends to be one of "be careful what you wish for", as the good news is a) it's getting made and the bad news is b) not by Gilliam. Hayter has, then, a bit of a Damocles' Sword hanging over his hyphenated head. Sure, he gets to bring fans' treasured favorite to the big screen, but if he botches it up, he'll hear about it too.
I'm optimistic. Sure, I think Watchmen would be best as a cable mini-series where its fullness could stretch out. Terry Gilliam was even thinking about this in recent years (but didn't get the financing to move ahead). Part of me wonders if, by digesting it to two hours, you're more likely to get an "action movie" than a "crime movie" (Watchmen is definitely intended to be light on "action"; it has more in common with Fight Club and L.A. Confidential, than say, The Matrix and X-Men). Hayter could, however, and he's suggested he's leaning this way, keep the crime elements strong, I think, which would also help keep the budget down. This isn't about "big fight scenes"... it's about twisty-turny surprises and mind-games on a massive, massive scale. People are more likely to compare it to a "Memento with super heroes."
So, Hayter, screenwriter of X-Men (really the only product we have to judge him by as of 10/30/01), is going to be the writer/director. One thing in his favor is that he managed to combine depth, faithfulness to the comics, and humor in that script. Another is that he definitely knew how to work within the constraints of a budget. The question is... can he do it with a story that's not his own creation (that film had no comic book equivalent)?
