Post Your Entry!
THURSDAY, JULY 29, 2010

NERD RAGE: WHY WATCHMEN CAN'T SUCK

SAMAEL

2009-02-09 16:56:45

Arts & Entertainment

Hollywood is an asshole.

You know that guy you wake up to see quietly sneaking out of your bedroom after a night of passion and intimacy? He says he’ll call you, but the truth is he pocketed your wallet on his way out. That’s Hollywood. There are many people that Hollywood fucks over, however the group of people that Hollywood periodically fucks over the most are the fan boys, geeks, freaks who can all be commonly referred to as The Nerds. How Hollywood does this is widely known and discussed: they do it with the little annoyance known as the film adaptation.

A film adaptation tends to receive harsher judgment purely because it’s doing what has already been done: it’s telling a story that has already been told. The reason why it pisses off nerds most is due to two reasons 1) nerds tend to love multiple forms of art and media (be it novel, comic, horrible Sci-Fi TV program, cartoon series, or foreign film) and in turn that love is exploited by Hollywood for ticket sales and 2) the final product rarely, if ever, gives respect to its source and often resembles a creative abortion than an actual adaptation. If it wasn’t for the latter of the two reasons nerds would love and openly accept adaptations of their favourite comic book or 80’s toy-line. It’s both party’s fault: the fans hold the product up to such high expectations that the film is bound to disappoint to some degree, and Hollywood runs it into the fucking ground with its final product. Hollywood is the clear winner here, because enough people saw the film to produce a sequel. In the end, the fans are the ones screwed over.

Without a doubt, one of the most frequently butchered/over-hyped forms of film adaptation is the comic book adaptation. The flaw within the transition from comic to film is easy to see: how can you pack a varied number of years’ worth of back-story and assorted characters into a two-hour film? Then again, a well-established covenant of fans who are willing to line up on opening night for a film is too hot of an ass for Hollywood to not tap (face down and without any eye contact whatsoever). Because of this, 2009 will live and die by the hand of Zack Synder’s Watchmen.


Superheroes, dated costumes, and a convoluted back-story to kill. Alright Synder, justify my faith!


The importance of the Watchmen adaptation is weighed by two factors. The first is due to…

The Comic Curse

2008 saw the release of The Dark Knight, which based on box office return and critical acclaim was, without a doubt, the biggest film of the year. In essence, Zack Synder needs to continue what Christopher Nolan and The Dark Knight started: creating an Oscar-worthy film that takes the subject matter as seriously as the fans do. It’s hard enough to treat comic books with a sense of dignity with adaptations, but Nolan took a superhero comic book and treated it as though it wasn’t something made for the radically retarded. No one has done the same since, or even before Nolan took control on the Batman franchise. Most of the films were just profitable as seen with the Spiderman franchise, with all three films breaking box office records (despite the fact that Spiderman 3 was a horrible). The other side of this, none have ever been treated with a sense of respect from the critical elite. Films such as A History of Violence, Ghost World, and Sin City found critical acclaim yet they were still looked down upon as comic-films, making them unworthy of any awards.


'I dare you to make him look more like a girl! Wait. Can we have him dance? Like, as much as fucking possible!'


For every innovator you need a follower: in order for superheroes to be taken seriously, you need more films with directors and writers who aren’t embarrassed by the subject material. There are currently over 70 comic adaptations in production. Realistically, less than half of these films will live to see post-production, but along with newly minted Marvel Studios and serious directors taking bat, the public should prepare for nothing less than a swarm (and it’s be nice if it wasn’t all shit). What Watchmen needs to do is prove that The Dark Knight wasn’t a fluke.

The second factor is less noticeable but just as important…

Hollywood owes it to Alan Moore

Hollywood needs to apologize to Alan Moore. Moore has been screwed over numerous times and it needs to stop. As it’s been established that most comic adaptations tend to disappoint, adaptations of works written by Alan Moore tend to be out right ridiculous. All of them (most evident being From Hell and V for Vendetta) are afraid to explore Moore’s complex themes and disturbed yet methodical story telling. The worst of these adaptations was League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which attempted to adapt the adventures of Victorian literature’s greatest characters into a CGI clusterfuck of an action flick.

Watchmen has a chance at changing this cycle of creative rape that Hollywood continues against Moore. So far there is evidence that this can actually be good.


Why do you wish to anger this man!? WHY?


The Evidence

What Watchmen currently has going for it is that the film’s director, Zack Synder, had complete creative control over the film. What this means is that Synder didn’t have to fight with any producer with “notes on the Vietnam scene.” Fights over creative control have always plagued movies and have often turned out some really shitty adaptations (see I am Legend, original Blade Runner, and Superman II).

So far, the biggest tip-off that the film might be good is the R rating, meaning nothing will be held back, including Dr. Manhattan’s big, blue manhood in all its superhuman glory.

Where the FUCK is the package!?

Also, from the trailers and promotional photos, the film looks amazing, but visuals can only go so far. This things can’t be just fucking slow-motion and flying debris!
Seriously...

This thing needs The Dark Knight’s Oscar talent (Jackie Haley should be good for this) and gritty realism.

Realistically, what’ll happen is it’ll come out, be hazy on the comic’s original story, and take liberties with interpreting a few of its more complex themes. However, it will be closer in comparison to its source than any other film based on Moore’s work before it. It’ll be critically lauded for its visual style, maybe the script’s streamlined version of the original, and not much else. However, there is a chance that Snyder actually became a better director after 300 (there is only going up from there) and the film will actually contain some good acting and well-written, multi-layered viewpoints on the story’s greater themes of fascism, world affairs, and the roles of individuals within the ever-growing mob. Then again, this thing is like, two and a half hours, maybe three at best. Fuck it. It’s doomed.


'Ok...I think this scene needs even more slowmotion. Like, really really slow.'
Comments

Alamir

Alamir

2009-02-09 18:13:33

If I could Arc you twice I would. One for the actual article and the other for this line:

"You know that guy you wake up to see quietly sneaking out of your bedroom after a night of passion and intimacy? He says he’ll call you, but the truth is he pocketed your wallet on his way out. That’s Hollywood." -Samael Macdonald

The fact that Moore's novels (from the two I've read) are meant to be limited in production and not continued causes me worry for this film. That's what makes it different from Spiderman and Batman franchises which have stories that are reworked even within the comics themselves. No one can be blamed for trying something new with a story that has been worked on for almost a 100 years now. But with Moore's novels, there's just one book or series and thus only one story.

Then again, both you and I know we'll be willfully giving our money to Mr.Hollywood after the night because the idea of Watchmen is way too fucking cool. Or are you going to be downloading it as means of protest?

Ryan_Sauve

Ryan_Sauve

2009-02-09 20:56:11

I'm glad this article was written.

This article is a bit dated, but it shows Moore's position on the Hollywood adaptation. As far as I know, Moore's attitude hasn't changed since publication.
REPLIES: Alamir

Alamir

Alamir

2009-02-09 21:46:52

Replying to Ryan_Sauve:
From the article you posted, Moore says "I find film in its modern form to be quite bullying. It spoon-feeds us, which has the effect of watering down our collective cultural imagination." I like Moore, and agree that film requires less imagination from the viewer than a comic book, but films are not bullying. I'm not sure what he means by it's "modern form" but with the explanation he provides you can make the same argument about comics. They require less imagination than a text-only book and thus "water down our "collective cultural imagination" as well.

I'm all for bashing Hollywood but film itself is just as much an art as any other story-telling medium.



USERNAME:
PASSWORD:
REMEMBER ME
Forget your password?
Don't have an account? Sign Up, it's free!
Most Discussed Articles Top Articles Top Writers