I think I'm mostly done with comic book movies, and big budget movies in general. I don't think (with a few exceptions) that they're made for me. Which is fine. But the more comic book movies I see, the more I value the imaginative space created by books. It's a great thing when your imagination is matched by the movie. I'm thinking that scene in the first Spiderman when Parker first swings on the webs to catch his Uncle's killer. Or that opening Nightcrawler scene in X2. Or the scene in the first Batman where Bruce Wayne is bumrushed by bats, and stands up and they all fly over him.Indeed, the ideal viewer -- or reviewer, as the case may be -- of the "Watchmen" movie would probably be a mid-'80s college sophomore with a smattering of Nietzsche, an extensive record collection and a comic-book nerd for a roommate. The film's carefully preserved themes of apocalypse and decay might have proved powerfully unsettling to that anxious undergraduate sitting in his dorm room, listening to "99 Luftballons" and waiting for the world to end or the Berlin Wall to come down.
He would also no doubt have been stirred by the costumes of the female superheroes -- Carla Gugino and Malin Akerman, both gamely giving solid performances -- who sensibly accessorize their shoulder-padded spandex leotards with garter belts and high-heeled boots. And the dense involution of the narrative might have seemed exhilarating rather than exhausting.
I'm not sure that this hypothetical young man -- not to be confused with the middle-aged, 21st-century moviegoer he most likely grew into, whose old copy of "Watchmen" lies in a box somewhere alongside a dog-eared Penguin Classics edition of "Thus Spake Zarathustra" -- would necessarily say that Mr. Snyder's "Watchmen" is a good movie. I wouldn't, though it is certainly better than the same director's "300."
Pretty great stuff. But more and more, I'm feeling like I'd like to keep my memories, and perserve my imagination. This is mostly personal. A bad movie really exacts a psychic toll on me. Kenyatta can sit back and enjoy the experience. For me it's excruciating and I can't leave it at the theater. I tend to be over-sensitive. And so the more information I take in--audio, visual, text--the harder it is for me to let it go.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I feel the same way. It take to much out of me to see a bad movie. I feel like a sucker and it makes me unravel the myths of the good movies I've seen. For how much money they make and use Hollywood just is too lazy, which is fine, just not for me. Why make the Watchmen movie? Not because its sacred but because its such a medium bound story. Whatever.
I don't think (with a few exceptions) that they're not made for me.
I think you want to remove the not. Because the Which is fine. makes no sense with it there.
/end grammer nit picking
I echo all your sentiments, from too many comic book movies to the psychological toll of bad movies.
I think that this particular movie might be different from say Spiderman or X Man because at least both of those comic book story lines also had animated cartoons on Tee Vee for a time. In my opinion its much harder to transition straight from a comic book to a movie. Its pretty much like taking a great novel and making it into a movie where the movie just about never lives up to the book no matter how great the movie. I always point out The Color Purple as an example. I love that movie but the book IMHO was still just so much better. There is always something to be said for being able to take whats in a book, even a comic book, and being able to use your imagination to visualize how it would actually play out. Movies tend to take that away from you and then you end up seeing Hugh Jackman when you think Wolverine when I always imagined him as more of a Mel Gibson type or you see Halle Berry when you think Storm whereas I used to think of her more as a Grace Jones type. But unfortunately I am hooked on these movies and I can't just let them go. Especially with GI Joe coming down the pike. Thats a must see for me.
The Halle Berry=Storm thing is a travesty. All the worst casting in comic book movies, sadly, involve Halle Berry. And Kate Bosworth.
One more thing, IF this movie is better than 300, which was all kinds of great IMHO, then it must be a pretty damn good movie.
All I'm going to say is that Wil Wheaton was all about this movie and I'm taking my team to the noon showing.
I'm prepared to be disappointed anyway, but whatever.
Better than 300 is something. I hated that piece of shit. And totally with you on Halle Berry, ugh.
I think there's another layer with comic book movies; not enough directors take the time to really adapt. "It's all there, the story and the visuals!" Well, no. That's not what a movie is and not what a movie does. It's different; it has to be different or it won't be successful. And instead, we just get weak carbon copies.
Totally agree with you on the fiasco of the Halle Berry = Storm thing.
But Kate Bosworth...I certainly hope you are not speaking Underworld, which I thought was fairly well cast.
Full disclosure...
Underworld was a comic book??!!
hehe
I'm totally with you. It was The Dark Knight--for me, one of the great personal disappointments of the last couple of years--that pushed me over the edge.
My Boston reviewer's review made me interested in finding a copy of the graphic novel, rather than in seeing the movie.
Though contra The New Yorker's reviewer, I like group superhero movies more--the X-men, Hellboy, The Incredibles!--because there's an interesting social dynamic to how we deal with special people. I think it's just a storytelling preference--I like the magical world aspect of Harry Potter, and I like that in The TimeTraveler's Wife other timetravelers appear in the future.
Underworld is Kate Beckingsale, not Bosworth.
Agreed. There's something restrictive in the exquisite execution of today's blockbusters. Admittedly, my partner and I see nearly every CGI-fest on offer -- and the technical spectacle can be breathtaking -- but because these pictures develop every minute detail, they leave the audience little room for participation, too few blanks to fill in or to personalize. The moviegoer's experience risks becoming too passive -- or too forcibly manipulated.
This is what made the crappy standards of yesteryear's entertainment so much fun: your imagination was needed to complete the idea. Take Leonard Nimoy's Spock, for example: charismatic actor with pointy plastic ears, some extra brow liner and a healthy dose of ambiguity. Nice. We can each piece the details together for ourselves.
On the same note: some time ago, my parents told us that they didn't buy a color TV until the late 70's. They said it felt like something that would stifle our creativity, especially when, over the years, we kept pointing to images on the black-and-white screen and yelling things like, "look at the big red car!". Funny, I must have been 10 or 11 by the time we got color, but I can barely remember the change.
But Kate Bosworth...I certainly hope you are not speaking Underworld, which I thought was fairly well cast.
Not sure what you mean LNeale but Bosworth was not in Underworld. She was in Superman Returns. Kate Beckinsale was the lead in two of the Underworld movies. Same initials. Very different actresses.
thanks to bittorrent, i've had my eyes opened to many wonderful, often forgotten hidden film treasures i'd otherwise never even heard of, let alone seen.
people from all across the world digging up films, digitizing, presenting and sharing them, creating a global film library
film buffs' paradise imho
no need to spend time and money consuming crap
I thought the Dark Knight was masterful. But I am also a Christopher Nolan fangirl.
I am seeing Watchmen later today as a relationship commitment. I have not read the graphic novel - nor plan to (I don't like the graphic novel medium) - and I'm not expecting a great movie. I like going in with low expectations. I usually enjoy movies that way.
Thanks TNC and brent...
I can face the day knowing Underworld wasn't being disrespected!!
I generally think its a mistake to expect a film experience to match, compare, or be in anyway like a book/comic book experience. I think the reason we have a glut of bad comic book movies is because the film artists are constrained by unreasonable expectations that they adhere slavishly to the book.
There's a reason why book-to-film translations that take a few more liberties, but capture the essence of the story, like The Talented Mr. Ripley work. The artist tells the same story, but three-dimensionally. That necessarily changes things and to ask for it not to is ridiculous.
Clearly - stuff gets fucked up anyway (witness Benjamin Button), but the point is to understand that its a different medium, with different conventions, styles, constructs and strengths.
For me, a great book-to-film translation expands my appreciation and understanding of the source material. So Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Superman (and moments of that first Spider-man) are nearly perfect comic book-to-film translations because they take the broad themes of the books and set them in a three-dimensional world and let the story play from character.
Fellow fanboys - I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that in terms of story Smallville is as good a comic book translation as the original Superman film and the last two Batman films because they've done just that - how would a "superman" raised as a human with an indestructible moral compass grow into a superhero? Smallville answers those questions masterfully.
We saw it at midnight last night, and Amy has a write up of it here, and let me just say this much--A. O. Scott doesn't get the book, and thus doesn't get the movie either. This isn't an Oscar-winner, but it is a fine film, and really captures the important aspects of the book rather nicely.
I'll jump in and say that I think the Harry Potter movies are usually a pretty good adaptations of the books. (Child-like nerd disclaimer: I started reading the books when I was a summer camp counselor around the time the fourth book came out and just happened to order an advance copy of that one and became hooked.)
The movie adaptations are already limited because the books become more complex and lengthy as the story goes along, so it becomes harder to include all elements of the story line. I've screamed while watching some of the movies because I feel like they've left out what I think are important parts of the mythology but all in all you can enjoy the movies as a great supplement to the novels.
I also totally agree with Tyler. It's wrong to expect a movie to match the same experience you've had with a novel or comic book. It NEVER happens that way. It's impossible to, because a books/comic books aren't screenplays and they aren't written to be that way. But I think, as I did with Harry Potter, that if the author are faithful to the original themes in the source material and to the main elements that are beloved by the fans, its often a pleasurable experience.
A lot of reviewers are noting the cold war elements of the book. I hope that's just their hang ups, 'cause I rather think that's the least important- and most dated- part of the book.
It's going to be rough, though, 'cause the point of the book is to explore comic books and super heroes. Film really isn't the perfect medium to do that.
I agree with Tyler, but not from the fanboy perspective, but as an avid reader. Beloved is my example. I had read it 8 times, and never fully got all of it. Morrison is a difficult puzzle that you can never quite finish but you keep going back to. I don't see Oprah's portrayal as particularly good. However, I truly enjoyed seeing it on screen to either confirm my views about it, or help me to understand something new. Oprah provided a clue to a part of the puzzle that Morrison presents, and now I can read it again with a new appreciation.
I have no expectation that a movie will live up to an author's portrayal of a book. I see a movie as just another interpretation of the original and appreciate it for what it is. Letting another person's portrayal of a favorite book upset me is giving too much power to the interpreter when all of that emotion should be reserved for the original author.
As someone who enjoys big blockbuster movies just because- I am going to go to Watchmen: The Imax Experience with bounce to my step and smile on my face. I can't wait!! :D
Casting. You can't forget Bryan Singer as he was involved in casting both Berry and Bosworth and, for that matter, Kevin Spacey and Hugh Jackman (sorry, his Wolverine sucks).
Speaking of Underworld, I saw Underworld Rise of the Lycans, and It was SO BAD! But I loved the first one. But you're right, comic book movies usually suck. But comic book cartoons on tv are teh awsome. Does it get any better than the XMen cartoon show? I think not. The Batman cartoon was pretty legit also.
TC
have you read Watchmen yet?
Wow, very cool you mentioned that opening Nightcrawler scene in X2, a scene I was shocked and amazed by, and still think is one of the best "summer movie" moments of all-time, and Bryan Singer's greatest achievement as a filmmaker. The editing, the use of CG, the mystery and suspense of it....it's just 21st Century Studio film-making of the highest caliber. Very cool stuff.
I thought that A.O. Scott review was hilarious as well, but ultimately unimportant, since the world no longer cares at all about critics, and Watchmen is likely to make a shitload of money, huge Rush Limbaugh size shitloads of money. Which is always the big "kiss my ass" to the critics. As it should be, I guess.
The problem to these eyes with films like The 300 and it sounds like Watchmen is that they can work in comic books because comic books allow a much higher degree of suspension of disbelief, where as in movies there's a lot more stock put into character's motivations and "what would really happen." Only a true comic book geek could think that The 300 film was anything but completely ridiculous, an affront to logic and history of every sort, and really, aesthetically barren. But those comic book geeks sure buy a lot of movie tickets!
I think one reason film adaptations of books or graphic novels so often fall short is that they tend to be adapting something that was really well done in the first place. Watchmen is a spectacular graphic novel that uses the full range of the medium to the advantage of the story. It's hard to separate the story out to tell in a different medium with different advantages without tromping on something.
On the other hand "A History of Violence" is another movie adapted from a graphic novel (who knew? Not me!). I liked the film; it's not perfect, but it's interesting and whole and has some great acting, its main strength. By chance I came across the graphic novel - which is utter crap. The film was able to develop the characters much more fully and dispensed with some of the bombastic aspects of the plot. The story turned to questions of character, which are easier to convey in acting than in drawing/thought bubbles, I think. But then, it's not a Superhero story, which does change the landscape.
Just a mostly irrelevant aside. Maybe Hollywood should think about adapting more books that don't quite work and leave the successful ones alone more often.
I just want to say that the LOTR trilogy movies were about as big budget as they come, and I thought captured the spirit of the books quite well. I remember distinctly going into Fellowship of the Ring being very skeptical of the film's ability to really capture the fearsomeness of the Nazgul that I felt when reading the books and coming out being genuinely surprised at how well it was done. Sure the films fell down at some points, but those three years were about as good as it gets for me, cinematically.
I'm of two minds on this one. I read the Watchmen for the first time when I was 13 and have reread it on many occasions since then. I freaking loved it. Especially Dr. Manhattan and the issues of how a god or somebody that isn't spaciotemporally bound views the world, morality, etc. I remember arguing with one of my teachers in junior high about whether or not I could technically call it one of my favourite 'novels'. So I have a huge attachment to the story.
This means I simultaneously want to see the movie really badly - seeing Dr. Manhattan instantaneously and simultaneously teleport an entire angry mob back to their respective homes should be even more amusing/badass on screen for example - and I am terrified that it will be ruined FOREVER (see: Nipple suit Batman/all of Spiderman3).
I was treated to the first 10 or 15 minutes of the film last week at "WonderCon" in SF. That I was even at WonderCon should suggest that I don't come to the comic adaptation without significant comic 'baggage'. What I saw was enough to make me eager to see the movie, but anxious that I may be in for an uneven ride.
There is an opening credit montage that brings the viewer (I just typed, then corrected 'reader' instead of viewer) up to date with key events in this parallel America, set to Dylan's "The Times They Are a Changin'" which was, frankly, beautiful. It was paced perfectly. It progressed things and did the storyline and mood justice.
And then there was the movie. Frame for frame, it was not identical but rather close and the dialog matched. The characters looked right, mostly sounded right and were believable, but the pace seemed off. That is the biggest flaw with attempts to bring comics to the big screen.
While a comic may look like a movie 'storyboard', they aren't the same. Unlike the mythical mid 80s roommate who boxed his edition, I've read the Watchmen over and over and over again. At times, it's by my bed and I go through a few pages before getting to sleep. And I do pick up on new things. It's a great *novel*, not just a comic (and Time rightfully acknowledged it as one of the 100 best of the last century accordingly) and you can pick up new things in subsequent readings.
But this is me picking it up and taking it in as I am ready, at my own pace. The pace of a movie is dictated by the director and the editors who decide how long a scene lasts, who decide how much to throw at you at once. The Watchmen book is dense. Basic story can be captured in the first read, but it takes time to absorb Moore's dialog and Gibbons's art. And as a comic, the reader decides how much time he or she wants to commit to it, how carefully he or she wants to process it. A page can effectively cover one blow in a fight, or span many, many years and you can take as long as you want to try to figure it all out. People read at different rates too, but I suspect that the combination of prose and picture in a comic makes for a more variable rate *within a book* than prose in a novel, with readers speeding up and slowing down, flipping back (something less common in a prose-novel, but something comic readers do all the time) as is necessary to capture the book.
A minute in a movie seat is a minute in the seat and you live with someone else's decision as to how fast it comes at you. Comic successes seem to hit about right by becoming intelligent action movies. Failures present too many villains (the terrible Batman films come to mind) and bounce all over the place squeezing in this thread and that thread and generally leaving you feeling like it was directed by 11 year-olds shouting about what to cram in next to appease their need for catchphrases and explosions. Getting beyond this and making a movie out of an already intensely visual art seems very, very difficult.
As a counter point to Scott's review I recommend Ebert's TWO reviews of the Watchmen. He did an initial review and gave it 4 stars and loved the move. He saw it a second time on Imax and loved it even more and wrote an extended article/blog post I am not sure which in which he mused at length on Dr. Manhattan and the morality of being a quantum being.
To provide a little context, Ebert was not only one of the few mainstream critics who loved Dark City he also made it his top move for 1998 and I loved Dark City. I had low hopes for Watchmen but may be pleasantly un-dissapointed.
@Tyler--
Dude, as a fellow Smallville fanboy, lemme say it's nice to hear someone else praise the show in such a way. The reasons you gave is EXACTLY why I love the show so much. I never understood the hate it gets, especially from Superman fanboys (who turn around and praise Superman Returns. I mean, WTF?)
Also, I've heard WB execs blame the failure of recent Superman movies on the fact that modern audiences can't identify with Clark/Superman. And every time, I think, "uh, hasn't Smallville been doing that for the last 8+ years?"
Put Tom Welling in some blue and red tights and throw him on the silver screen, and I guarantee a successful Superman film franchise. Dude looks like he fell out of a comic book anyway.
Agreed. There's something restrictive in the exquisite execution of today's blockbusters. Admittedly, my partner and I see nearly every CGI-fest on offer -- and the technical spectacle can be breathtaking -- but because these pictures develop every minute detail, they leave the audience little room for participation, too few blanks to fill in or to personalize. The moviegoer's experience risks becoming too passive -- or too forcibly manipulated.
Something I've read and think really applies to the early and later Star Wars movies is that creativity is goosed by having obstacles to get around. With CGI, whatever visual you can imagine can get tossed up there on the screen. Now that CGI is pretty mature, seeing things just for the cool effects doesn't work so much. If the point is "look how cool" all through the movie it doesn't work at all. And some of the best animation today is what comes out of Studio Ghibli in Japan--Totoro is their masterpiece--which isn't done with CGI. But the storytelling is incredible, and the visuals charming and memorable. Similarly I love the effects in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon or Hero, and it's worth seeing those on a big screen if at all possible, but it's because the effects and lovely visuals are used in service to a decent enough plot, not in place of one.
We advanced to a point where we could put anything visual up on screen, gorged on that for a bit as they made some sci fi and fantasy movies that would never have worked 20 years ago (e.g. LotR), and now we're getting back to whizbang special effects not being enough to carry a movie.
As a grownup I'm appalled at the intrusion of 3-D into movies aimed at kids, because throwing things at the screen is not a plot. The movies are going backwards as a compelling story once again takes a back seat to showing off the special effects medium; we'll be doing more traditional animation because "3-D!!!" is now enough to make me assume a movie will be painful to watch.
@Incertus: "A. O. Scott doesn't get the book, and thus doesn't get the movie either."
Or maybe doesn't like the book and thus doesn't like the movie either. I just read Watchmen and plain didn't like it; I'm not sure that means I didn't get it.
Personally, I find it very hard to watch movie adaptations of books I love -- The English Patient being a huge example. I don't know whether it's better or worse where there's a picture already developed. I remember watching Sin City and thinking, "This feels like I'm reading a graphic novel." I'm not sure it should feel the same way as reading. Isn't it supposed to be different? And yet when it is different (see English Patient, above), I am disappointed.
even better quote for the New Yorker review...
"“Watchmen,” like “V for Vendetta,” harbors ambitions of political satire, and, to be fair, it should meet the needs of any leering nineteen-year-old who believes that America is ruled by the military-industrial complex, and whose deepest fear—deeper even than that of meeting a woman who requests intelligent conversation—is that the Warren Commission may have been right all along."
I'm way late to this party, but I just have to say that the scene in Batman Begins that TNC referenced was phenomenal and likely the single best scene in that movie.
Whether you hated or loved 300, I don't think that it can not be denied that it was true to the original. What was deplorable about the movie was deplorable about the original, and so too with its virtues.
I've heard that the director was very reluctant to take on Watchmen precisely because it's such an important and iconic work that he feared that he wouldn't be up to the task, but that he hated what the studios wanted to do with it. His goal was to make a movie that remained true to the source and he did so to preserve it against those who just saw it as another way to cash in on the genre.
I haven't seen the movie yet but early reviews from people I true\st (such as Wil Wheaton) indicate that he succeeded in that goal.
We shall see.
"“Watchmen,” like “V for Vendetta,” harbors ambitions of political satire, and, to be fair, it should meet the needs of any leering nineteen-year-old who believes that America is ruled by the military-industrial complex, and whose deepest fear—deeper even than that of meeting a woman who requests intelligent conversation—is that the Warren Commission may have been right all along."
The problem, though, with this hypothetical 19-yr-old is that he's a culturally outdated, irrelevant caricature.....Lane is confusing his own generation with the 60s--as if the 60s Left was the only possible version of left-wing politics. His analysis is out of date. Small things, maybe, but I think a sign of how reviewers typically become obsolete, I think; they stop caring about how the culture changes--they lose track...
Great post. It is clear, direct and has a good use of grammar. i agree w/ your setiments exactly regarding super hero film's. Now if we could only figure out how to seperate great music from the ugly fashions of video's.
"Only a true comic book geek could think that The 300 film was anything but completely ridiculous, an affront to logic and history of every sort, and really, aesthetically barren. But those comic book geeks sure buy a lot of movie tickets!"
Never bought a comic book (until Watchmen last year), and I thought 300 was pretty awesome (though not as good as it could have been.) Of course its exaggerated, it was ment to be. It's all from the Spartan's perspective so the Persians are all alien. I assume that bothers you because of racial stereotyping issues... As a white male I don't have the baggage (or the sensitivity which some have cultivated), I guess. I just took it for what it was (ie the Spartan's perspective). I would have been equally fine with an interpretation from the Persian side making the Greeks alien and monsterous.
I don't know, I seem to be able to separate the two experiences. There have been very few screenplays that I feel have ever lived up to or surpassed their literary counterparts (Hellraiser is an exception that comes to mind). For the most part, I can maintain the imaginative aspect of the story while still enjoying (or sometimes not) the theatrical version for what it is - somebody elses vision of the same story.
I agree about comic book movies - they're rarely any good - and second that sentiment with movies based on video games - which are usually much worse (cf, Doom, final Fantasy, Bloodrayne, Silent Hill, most of the Resident Evil movies, I won't go on as I'm getting a headache). Though I admit that I'm still much looking forward to the Y: The Last Man movie whenever they get around to completing it. I truly hope I'm not disappointed by it.
I have to admit that I am intrigued by the glowing blue guy's nudity. The recent Atlantic article about The Watchman was all about that very thing: how truly uncomfortable American moviegoers (at least the male ones, don't know how the women feel) are with seeing male nudity that is neither comic nor artistic - just casual, as female nudity often is. So as bad as this movie seems to be, I wouldn't mind seeing it for this alone. And yes, I admit being gay is probably part of that.
"as bad as this movie seems to be"
Is the move supposed to be bad? To me, it seems that it is getting a lot of mixed reviews; some reveiers love it, some don't. It's not like it was panned.
The blue penis issue does seem to be causing alot of controversy, though. Every other post on IMDb is entitled some variation of "Blue Penis!!1!" and there are a lot of stories about people walking out of the theater. I wonder how this is effecting the reviews; are the reviewers sophisticated enought that it doesn't bother them, or are some of them secretly thinking "Arrrg, too much penis" when they write their reviews?
I saw Watchmen yesterday. I had read the novel several times with great pleasure. The book's complex structure, narrative and visual, is a thing of beauty in itself, and not something film, as a medium, could possibly compete with.
But the movie as a movie was just fine. I enjoyed it thoroughly, and I'm looking forward to the extended version on bluray.
In my experience, and hence in my expectations, the movie is never, ever as good as the book. There may be exceptions, when a mediocre book makes a good movie, but they are few.
Recently I binged on Highsmith's Ripley novels and the several films made from them. The novels were of uneven quality, and the screenplays always changed things in odd ways for inexplicable reasons. But I managed to enjoy them all, somehow.
Sometimes people need to just lighten up and engage the work.
(The mainstream reviews of Watchmen I've seen were just plain stupid. That snooty NYT guy sucks. He just doesn't like comix, films, popular culture or the human race.)
I have seen some not all of the comicbook become cinema blockbusters that have been coming out at a steady clip over the past few years. the dark knight stands alone in my mind. i read an interview with nolan in time right before the movie came out in which he explained that part of his inspiration for the movie was the war in iraq. the way terrorism had ripped apart a society. maybe bullishit but the joker character is quintessentially a terrorist and the more i watch the film, and i admit i have seen it a half dozen times now at least, the more i appreciate both the subtly of nolan, e.g. the shards of glass just hanging in the frame to the right of the joker as he taunts a cop into beating him and then uses the shard as a weapon to escape, and the subtly of the script, the themes of paradox good/bad being repeated almost endlessly adnaseam through the film make the movie almost shakesperean in its scope, and a glimmer of this was in batman begins, though not as good a movie, a legitimate attempt to make a story about a man in a cap and a batmask somehow relevant to today. I know some have said the movie was too long or too complicated but I think the dark knight was a masterpiece. Of course Heath Ledger is also probably partly responsible for this but all in all the idea of the film of the importance of symbols in the organization of society makes me think that Nolan elevated the art of interpreting comics for the big screen. Also worth noting is Unbreakable M Night Shamalayans film with Bruce Willis as a closeted superman. That film was also underrated and I think did a wonderful job of reproducing the comic book on the big screen.
"the world no longer cares at all about critics"
I think this depends on what kind of movie we mean and how many critics.
On action movies and teen movies I'd generally say critics are unimportant. If they're near universally negative on a movie that likely means it'll do bad, or it sucks, but that'd be true of any other group too. (If you polled Pizza Hut workers and 60%+ of them had a negative view of a new action film it might also turn out it sucks or will fail)
However I think film critics are important when it comes to small or independent films, particularly those aiming for a highly educated urban audience. So what critics have to say about the latest adaptation of a Chekhov play matters, what they have to say about the latest adaptation of a comic book not as much.
Woman here, sometimes sci-fi fan, but my viewing/reading has been scattershot (esp. the reading, as I will go for Nabokov or Lorrie Moore or Cornelius Eady over fantasy & sci fi any day). And certainly I can lay no claim to expertise (except maybe about Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly) (and LOTR).
Moreover, I'm not planning to see Watchmen. BUT - io9 has put up the opening credit sequence and I would say it's pretty amazing. This from someone with zero knowledge of the comic. NB it takes totally forever to load. Start, hit pause, go make coffee
Yeah, I agree I can't stand most of this stuff.
1. They appear to spend 100 million on FX and 10 bucks on writers.
2. I agree--it's funny how our imaginations serve us so well when we're given a little space. That's why I like radio...
Myles, you write, I think largely correctly:
They appear to spend 100 million on FX and 10 bucks on writers.
That's what I like about Joss Wheedon, particularly Buffy, Firefly, and the total delight I didn't expect, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog (catch it here - click on the "Watch It Right Now" link for free viewing). It's sci fi but Wheedon is much (much!) more focused on writing than FX. Am currently trying to figure out if his new Dollhouse is going to work, but the writing, at least, remains interesting.
Deborah, you write:
As a grownup I'm appalled at the intrusion of 3-D into movies aimed at kids, because throwing things at the screen is not a plot.
A hearty yes to that, from an exhausted parent, on Journey to the Center of the Earth, Bolt, etc. etc. But have you seen Coraline? Just brilliant stop-motion animation, beautifully enhanced by the 3D, which is used not to shock but to add depth. I was blown away.
One of the turn-offs for people about Watchmen on screen and in print is that it's not a typical superhero adventure. It's a critical deconstruction of superhero culture, and American culture. In this regard, the Watchmen movie had the guts to go where Dark Knight did not, with its wavering quasi-indictment of vigilantism and empty affirmation of human (American) decency (Tiny Lister not blowing up the other boat).
A lot of people were also harder to please b/c the characters are not franchises. But as super-teams go, the relationships between the characters possess a dynamic that blows away the X-Men, and a tension that would make even Josh Wheadon envious.
I liked this movie rendition because it was faithful and dark with just enough eye candy to overstimulate my jaded moviegoing senses. I thought it was well-paced even at nearly 3 hours (as opposed to Dark Knight--they could have cut out 20 minutes of Bat Vision and still had a great movie).
It's a shame that the state of comic book royalties is such that Alan Moore rebuked the film. I wonder if he could take a lesson from Frank Miller about constructive, positive involvement, or if DC screwed him a long time ago.
I would tend to reiterate the agreement of many other posters regarding books versus movies. Until the reviews began hitting, I planned to see The Watchmen, but now it just seems like a waste of money and, more importantly, time.
The New Yorker recently had an article about how marketing now rules in the making of movies, which I wrote about in the post Why are so many movies awful?. That might shed some light on way movies seem to be an inferior imaginative space to books.
I thought Watchmen was a deep and thoughtful flick. I'm a partisan of the book, though, so I understand why some people don't like the movie. But the movie is not what a lot of people on this thread have suggested -- it's not a cynical cash grab. It's weird, very non-mainstream, and will probably be considered a cult classic. I expect a significant box office drop in the second week after nerds like me stop seeing it for the second or third time.
But -- if you can stomach the over-the-top violence (seriously...) and graphic sex -- you should check it out. I think people who avoid the movie because its a big-budget comic book adaptation are missing the point, and missing out. The film contains multitudes.