dude whatever!  I guess all the subtle things went over my head (as they usually do when I read/watch something for the first time, SORRY BUT I CAN'T CATCH EVERYTHING THAT'S THROWN AT ME) so I guess some of the MOCKERY was lost on me.  I went into Watchmen thinking that it I guess PRETTY CLEARLY MOCKS SUPERHEROS because that is the impression that I got from this topic, but as I read it I felt like it wasn't so much making fun of superheroes as it was... I don't know, looking at them from another perspective, like in a more realistic way (in terms of HUMAN REASONING and things like that). 

And besides I don't read comic books anyway so I guess I don't notice all these comic book tricks or whatever.  You can't expect someone who has never watched a movie before to catch all the subtleties of Mulholland Drive, right?

Actually I forgot what I was arguing, or if I even was arguing for anything in the first place.  I think some people are getting too up in arms about the movie?  I don't know.  Like there is nothing wrong with being offended by the idea of a Watchmen movie, but it's something you just have to be like "well looks like someone missed the point" and shrug it off.  Or something.  Don't listen to me because I am not really putting too much thought into this post.

Maybe if you guys could make a solid argument about how bad the movie is without comparing it to the comic, then it'd be more receptive to the people who you are looking down on for trying to come up with a reason to (Heaven forbid!) actually look forward to the movie coming out. (You can bitch about the movie falling short five-ways from sunday and not be called elitist until the instant you start holding yourself above people that choose not to do this)

When I heard about the film, I expected it to fall short of the comic. If everything that made the comic great was stuff you could capture in a movie, I would simply call the comic an overhyped piece of garbage. It's also why I try to look forward to what this film will offer in the respect that it is a film. A good film is a good film, a bad film is a bad film. If it's a bad film of a great comic, then I would be just as pissed off and bitch with the rest of you. I don't know for certain it's a bad film though, because I WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY WATCH IT FIRST. (Hey, has anyone picked up on the irony of people judging a movie called "The Watchmen" when nobody has yet been able to "watch" it? Who watches the Watchmen? Nobody yet, but that won't stop them from telling us all about it!)

Well, at least we get a trailer now, so we can watch the whole thing condensed into 2 1/2 minutes and pretend that that shows everything significant about how the movie will express the plot. (Although it can't be far from the truth. Since the trailer can only be so long, we know it'd have to take the portion of most significant clips out of the entire movie in order to maximize that limited amount of trailer time.)

The point is that it really is a great comic, but you have to be pretty fucking pretentious to assume that the method in which the comic chose to potray the story is so intertwined with the things that it potrayed, that it is literally impossible to tell that story using any other medium.

Why can't you pretend that the comic doesn't exist and view this movie as what it was made to be (Hint: It wasn't made to be a comic book. At least I hope to God it isn't, or we'll have another "300" on our hands), then if you want to experience everything that the comic offers, you can read the damned comic instead of trying to get it from the movie! I would think you guys clinging to what makes the comic so great could appreciate that! But instead you want the movie to be everything the comic is, so you can get it all by watching a glowing screen and never have to worry about reading ever again!

If it makes you feel any better, I do have unreasonably high expectations for this film (Even though when I do watch it, I will be judging it as a film, and not a comic book). Like, if it isn't as good as The Dark Knight was, then I'm not giving it any regard at all, since I feel like judging it any less in regard to cinema quality would be doing the comic injustice in relation to what the comic did in terms of comic quality. Hopefully it's better than The Dark Night though, because that's what I'm going to walk in there expecting. (coincidentally, Roscharch sounds exactly like Bruce Wayne when he's in his "Batman mode". I'm probably going to count that aganst the movie.)

what the hell are you talking about.

I'm saying its a comic book because thats the only thing the creator and pretty much the plot let it be. it would make a shitty fucking novel or play, and it'll be a forgettable movie, one of those things like cloverfield where gw says I FORGAVE ALL ITS FLAWS ITS A GREAT MOVIE ANYWAYS and never mentions it again.

IF YUO DONT LIKE MOVIE GO READ THE BOOK jesus christ listen to yourself.

And I'm disagreeing with you.

I'm saying that nobody here has presented a ground basis for making the claim that "It is a comic book because that's the only thing that it could possibly be. Trying to present it as anything else cannot possibly work because it can only work as a comic book" All you guys are doing is making that claim, assuming that it is valid by necessity, and that WE are the ones being illogical by saying "Well, maybe it could turn out differently... We haven't seen the movie yet, so in our eyes the possibility of it being actually good still exists". If you want us to beleive what you are saying even half as hard as you do, then you are simply going to have to prove it.

Even if the movie is terrible, that does not prove that the only way to express the ideas that the comic book expressed was with the comic book. All it proves was that whoever made the movie can't do it by making a movie. Even if the movie is great, it's not going to give you everything (or possibly even anything) that the comic book gives you. And even if the movie gives you little to nothing the comic gives you, that in no way tells us that the movie will be terrible. The movie and comic book are two different things, and no matter how related to each other they are, the quality present in one does not have any bearing on the quality present in the other. The book will always be a good book. And the movie, will be whatever the movie is. Sure it's more likely than not that the movie won't be good (I'll give you that much, it makes perfect sense to expect that), but there is no proof present that eliminates the possibility of the movie being good.

Hell, let me just take a break here so I can make this perfectly clear (and you no longer have to put words in my mouth...):

IF YUO DONT LIKE MOVIE GO READ THE BOOK.

IF YUO ABSOLUTLEY LIKE MOVIE GO READ THE BOOK.

If I can't get any other point out, then I want to make sure this point is perfectly clear:
IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW THIS MOVIE TURNS OUT. IT HAS ABSOLUTLEY NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON HOW GOOD THE BOOK IS. THIS MOVIE BEING RELEASED WILL NOT CHANGE HOW GOOD THE COMIC IS EVEN IN THE SLIGHTEST WAY IMAGINABLE.
(If you have a good reason for disagreeing with this, then I would love to hear it.)

What I'm trying to find out is what you guys are arguing about? Are you saying that because this movie isn't going to be the greatest comic book ever, than it shouldn't be made? I doubt that is the case, because it's impossible (by definition) for a movie to be a comic book. Are you saying that because this movie is under the same name as a comic book known for being a really great comic book, that it has to be terrible movie in order to even try to fit in with what the comic book was about? What if they made the movie that didn't fit with the comic book, or what if it used a different plot entirely? (since you did claim that the comic book is the only thing the plot let it be... without giving any proof, or reasons for that matter) In that case would you argue that it'd have to be a terrible movie if it didn't follow the comic book?

Every argument you guys made works under some assumption that the movie tries to copy something from the book. I'm saying that any such argument is moot because the possiblity exists that they made the movie and didn't copy anything from the book. That is, for any one thing that the movie does to copy the book, it can be the case that instead they did something different from the book. If they did do something different from the book, then you have no basis on which to claim whether or not what they did will make the movie good (because they could have done anything).

I'm not saying whether or not the movie is going to be any good or not. There is absolutley no way to tell. I'm trying to show you that there is no way to tell whether or not the movie is going to be any good, until you actually fucking watch it. But because you really like this comic book, you are absolutley convinced some movie coming out that we hardly know about will be terrible! I try to ask you how you can so assuredly know something about the future that is impossible to tell, and you look at me like I'm crazy!

fffffff how do you not get this.

the original point was that I'm confused how anyone can read Watchmen and think YES THIS NEEDS A GODDAM MOVIE. it could be completely accurate to the comic book and it would still be at its fundamental level completely unnecessary. this isn't the case with all works; something like V For Vendetta (and I know not everyone is a comic dork but please choose something that is not a franchise to compare to Watchmen, BATMAN doesn't really work) can be translated without much loss to the original message. but Watchmen is devoted to medium critique at its core. at best you're going to end up with a work wholely missing that core message while focusing on the political and character development shit and at that point the question is why even bother watching it?

this movie is completely unnecessary, which is why I said the original point, anyone who enjoyed the comic book really shouldn't be excited about a movie. it's not needed. it won't offer a fresh perspective (and I'm not arguing a media point there, Zach Snyder is devoted to making shit the exact same as it is in the books so) or do anything other than 20th century up it a bit (leather costumes!!!) and put panels that were quite striking already in motion. at best, it'll be mediocre.

Ok, now that's a pretty good argument.

I can imagine maybe one way a film like that could be relevant (maybe devote it to critique of film adaptations of that medium... Really such an idea isn't so bad since all theese film adapations of comics are making me sick, and a critique of the idea might put some quantum of insight into the hollywood cash blusterfuck), but I highly doubt someone like Zach Snyder is nearly as clever enough to pull it off.

But you have a really good reason for beleiving what you beleive, so I'll get off your back about it.

that trailer makes this look just as bad if not worse than any other comic book movie and based on it alone i wouldn't give this a second look and probably not even a first!

see i keep forgetting this is being directed by the guy who done 300.

watchmen is a work almost WHOLELY dependent on the fact it's a comic book. do you know what a movie version of watchmen should be? a bunch of old movie characters like bogart, cary grant, gregory peck, all who have retired in the face of new action heroes like harrison ford, except for one or two who discover a sinister plot to destroy the world via some movie macguffin.

but this will not happen because it can't be watchmen and also because that's actually an interesting idea. you could do neat visual effects like have the film slowly progress from black and white to color, all sorts of stuff. but it won't happen.

The way you guys see it is under the assumption that the genre of "superheroic justice" is limited to and wholly dependent on the comic book medium. It very well can be, but If that's your basis against this film adaptation of a comic book based on superheroes, then you'd have to feel the exact same way about every film adaptation of a superhero comic book series.

And yet most people are acting as if this particular film adaptation of a comic book series about superheroes is somehow "more significant" or "more offensive" than all of the others based on the unique fact that this particular comic book series is "all about superheroes".

I finally get it.

This here is a pretty stupid idea.

no it would piss off everyone at once, everyone would scream THIS IS RUINING LEGACIES and the macguffin would be that orson welles has created an audiotape that will destroy whoever listens to it. it would be so fucking grand. via la vie boheme, jorge. down with hollywood's aristocracy.

CHARGIN MY MANHATTAN LASER.

Alan Moore lives near me. My friend claims he saw him at Pizza Hut with Warwick Davis. Y'know. From Return of the Jedi.

Oh yeah, the Black Freighter. Those parts of the book were great.

Maybe so. The Black Freighter was an essential part of the book, though. Plus, it was a good read even as a stand-alone.

Despite the fact that it has been more than ten years since Fox decided to abandon production based on the superheroes graphic novel Watchmen, a federal judge on Wednesday ruled that it continued to own a copyright interest in the project. He advised Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures, which took over production of the film and plans to release its own Watchmen movie on March 6, to negotiate a settlement with Fox or appeal his decision. It was unclear how the dispute might be settled, although the judge appeared to suggest a way in his opinion. "Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the Watchmen motion picture," he said.

:o

alan moore is laughing from his cave.