comment #1

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

I saw the trailer yesterday and I think it looks damn good. But I wonder, will it overtake The Dark Knight's box office success? It will be interesting to see.

comment #2

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

while we're on the subject, is anyone else just as disappointd as I am by the film version V FOR VENDETTA, based on Alan Moore's graphic novel?

The graphic novel is way, way, way better than the movie. So I hope THE WATCHMEN won't let me down.

comment #3

crazyeight says ...

"is a completely prejudiced and unreliable shill. He's an invested pre-believer, a suck-up, an emotional pushover -- his word means absolutely nothing. "

Actually, it means the whole world-- it means that Snyder may have found a way to successfully adapt a notoriously complex graphic novel (comic book, for old people) and made an excellent film out of it.

Wells, I know what you're saying, but you're wrong. These guys aren't shills-- they're the TOUGHEST POSSIBLE CRITICS of the film. If they're not satisfied with it, you sure as hell won't be.

That doesn't mean you will be satisfied with it. You will probably hate it, because you hate everything people younger than you like. Which means, well, everything these days.

comment #4

Aladdin Sane says ...

I was disappointed by V for Vendetta's adaptation. I still haven't finished reading Watchmen (after two years of owning it), so my expectations for the movie are only so-so. It does look like a good adaptation though...which means I should probably read the last two chapters sooner or later.

comment #5

62Lincoln says ...

Wells:"In other words, Nerdworld blogger Matt Selman ... is a completely prejudiced and unreliable shill."
Agreed, but didn't he essentially acknowledge as much in the portion of the article you quoted?

comment #6

Christian White says ...

There's a big part of me that would like to see the Watchmen movie get a major, post-dark knight mainstream exposure and acceptance. This probly, to a degree, will occur. NY ComicCon was almost ALL Watchmen. I tend to think that what probably will happen, to a more likely extent, will be seeing the movie gain a decent box office, underwhelming many but--the movie will end up acheiving a FightClubish cult status. another micro pop watershed.

There will definitely be the first big weekend, for nothing if not with-it or even without it curiosity factors alone....Even my MOM recently and suddenly asked me what's a WATCHMAN? That shows some level of saturation, even at a level that beams into my MOM'S lizard brain....to me, that says SOMETHING.

I, in regards to the blog that led to this post, hope to have some sort of nerdmecca moment too, seeing this amazing book become visualized in a moving, talking fashion. But, that was really never what Watchmen was about. It is a milestone in exploring what a comic book can do EXCLUSIVELY. Sure, you can translate it tofilm (the whole "unfilmable novel" thing is bullshit, seeing as how its a fucking COMIC BOOK. With ILLUSTRATIONS of events. It's 200 pages of storyboards. How can it be unfilmable?? What is that??) I hope for Nerdvana. But, I will also rue not having Watchmen be something that is exclusive to me. Soon, Hot Topic will be selling the t-shirts. Sadness.
However, Ill be there opening day with bells on. And I bought a NiteOwl II figure at comic con. Full disclosure.

comment #7

Jeffrey Wells says ...

I know nothing about how good, wonderful, historic, blah or bad Watchmen may be. I'm saying only that Selman is way too invested to be trusted on any level. He's a salivating fanboy. He writes that he has "no idea if it's a good or bad movie"? Sure thing.

comment #8

Christian White says ...

Well played, good sir.

Devin Faraci from CHUD just pointed out that it's a Time Magazine sanctioned blog.

His "thoughts" still gets me riled up though. God, I hate myself.

comment #9

Reedyb says ...

That's the funny thing about fans. We (yes, I must confess that I am a fanboy) can provide the greatest love, but also the most disdane and hatred for poor movie adaptations of the things we love.

Star Trek fans LOVE Start Trek II and VIII, think highly of VI and IV, are mixed on I (because it sucks as a movie but works as nostalgia) and loathe the other moviies vehemently.

Heck, the phrase "George Lucas raped my childhood" is all you need to know about fans not getting on board crappy movies like the Star Wars prequels.

We do love, just like you, Jeff, love your gritty crime moviies (Friends of Eddie Coyle, The Outfit), but we are as cranky as you when one is done badly.

I think the difference is that we go into a movie like Watchmen, wanting to like it. You go into it, and LOTR, as wanting to hate it. You're like the guy who is dragged to a chick flick when you talk about these types of movies.

Watchmen can be good. It certainly will look good. To answer the question about why 200 pages of storyboards doesn't ensure it can translated to the screen, that's because Watchmen is about subtext and history and knowing the conventions and what is getting broken and changed by the view of the world that lies within the world created by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Like any book, it requires the reader to think between pages and I don't know if you can get that type of thought process going in a movie, even one that is 2.5 hours.

comment #10

Gaydos says ...

Let's try it in French this time:

ANALYSE

La s�quence d�marre lorsque, entour� de son gang et de leurs petites amies Buzz d�cide de crever les pneus de Jim pour le forcer � se battre avec lui. A cet instant Judy, qui est en train de refaire son maquillage en regardant dans un petit miroir, l�ve la t�te et aper�oit Jim. Cut. La lame du cran d'arr�t de Buzz rentre en gros plan au milieu du cadre comme un symbole de puissance et de domination. Le cadre reste braqu� sur Buzz et sa main qui cr�ve les pneus avec d�termination puis s'�largit pour montrer un visage au regard furieux et sadique. Une fois les pneus d�gonfl�s, la cam�ra op�re un contre-champ sur Jim qui reste impassible, r�pondant simplement � Buzz qui vit dans un monde de comic-book: "You know something?... You read too many comic books."

comment #11

Balerion says ...

Selman pretty much says he's not reviewing it and that he can't review it. He's sharing instead what is, for him, an intensely personal experience... and he discloses that and explains why it's so personal to him in a way that it's not going to be personal for the overwhelming viewers of the film.

It's pretty lame to then call him a "shill". Or to say that his word means "nothing", when it means everything: to him. And he says so. His post is, in fact, more about him than the film. I thought it was a nicely written meditation on how a film could transport him because it captured something that held vast meaning to him but which probably doesn't hold vast meaning to a lot of other people.

I'm baffled, frankly, at the post. Has there been waves of people shouting, "Hallelujah, the film is the best thing ever!" because of Selman's post? Despite Selman making it as plain as possible that his reaction is going to be quite unique when compared to that of the masses? I am dubious.

comment #12

MickTravisMcGee says ...

It was a pleasure to read Selman's thoughts, which are not a review at all. I don't feel the same way about "Watchmen," but there are things I felt the same way about.

Thanks for sharing this. It's just a shame your reaction to it is so wrong-headed and rude.

comment #13

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Deaf - nope, not me at least. The comic was horribly dated. I won't say it was better, but it wasn't a disappointment.

comment #14

Jeremy Smith says ...

I'm a little miffed by the embargo break, but for anyone who was obsessed with comics during the late '80s, this is a very honest reaction to the film. Except for "Is Watchmen even a good or bad movie?" C'mon.

comment #15

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Jesus Christ.

Talking about setting the expectations high right off the bat.

Not saying I won't ultimately come to the same conclusion myself after seeing this, but...

This is really just a perfect recipe for early backlash.

comment #16

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

For the record, I enjoyed the VfV film quite a bit. It was helped by the fact that it was released at a dead time of year (like Watchmen), and wasn't getting too over-hyped (unlike Watchmen). Could have used one or two more action sequences (after all the director was responsible for some of the most badass stuff in the Matrix trilogy), but perhaps it's better to err on the side of one too few than two too many.

I like the comic a lot, but like Deathtongue pointed out, it was written awhile ago, and I thought the movie was pretty successful updating the look of universe, and some of the ideas and philosophies behind it.

The final reason it was a good Alan Moore adaptation? Don Murphy didn't produce it.

comment #17

plastiqueelephant says ...

Jeff, you hating fanboys is just as thick a lens as Selman being a drooling fanboy. It's like saying that for all of us who drank the Obama kool-aid, "our word means absolutely nothing" when discussing politics. Bullshit.

Tthe whole reason I watch so many movies is in the desperate hope that I'll love one in a blue moon as much as this guy did Watchmen. And, by the way, t's much easier to tip me into ecstasy with wildcards outside of my usual genre (like Diving Bell & the Butterfly, Pan's Labyrinth) then those within (There Will Be Blood, Lives of Others) because my expectations are so ridiculously high, I can't switch off my hyper-sensitive critical analysis. And the latter are the very pinnacle of movie watching, the six-foot blond supermodel-rockstar-rocket scientists who give eternal blow jobs. Lay-off, let the guy have his day... at least until you see the bloody film.

comment #18

MilkMan says ...

I get the feeling Sellman feels like this and verbally ejaculates like this probably four or five times a year.

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

"In other words, Nerdworld blogger Matt Selman, a longtime Simpsons writer and now one of the show's executive producers, is a completely prejudiced and unreliable shill."

Well, yeah, if it makes money, his boss Rupert makes money. And anyone currently working on that show should have their taste questioned. But I'm just surprised they didn't get anyone from AICN to hype it.

Deafbrown: Watchmen will be lucky if it overtakes Batman and Robin's box office. But yeah, I couldn't stand V for Vendetta, though not as much so as "A History of Violence".

Christian White: I think Fight Club would still hold value, if not for the Choke movie, Benjamin Button and Inglorious Basterds. Now it just seems like one of those tough guy gimmicks, like Marilyn Manson or Hulk Hogan. The fact that Mamet's cashed in with Redbelt probably further diminished its appeal. Unfortunately, in the case of Watchmen, it'll probably be more of a cult flick in the vein of Dark City, since 300 is Snyder's Fight Club. And yeah, Watchmen can be made into a movie; but the question is can it be made into a movie which captures all the nuances of the source material?

Kane: So you consider that dumb Benny Hill scene a "success"? Also, Joel Silver produced VfV, so that's not saying much.

comment #20

Jonah says ...

DZ said,
"I think Fight Club would still hold value, if not for the Choke movie, Benjamin Button and Inglorious Basterds. Now it just seems like one of those tough guy gimmicks, like Marilyn Manson or Hulk Hogan. The fact that Mamet's cashed in with Redbelt probably further diminished its appeal. Unfortunately, in the case of Watchmen, it'll probably be more of a cult flick in the vein of Dark City, since 300 is Snyder's Fight Club. "

I just thought this paragraph needed to be highlighted. DZ is completely fucked in the head.

comment #21

LYT says ...

I like V for Vendetta the book almost better than Watchmen -- I say almost because the art isn't what it could be, and sometimes it's hard to tell characters apart. But the story was a much more moving experience for me.

The movie got parts of it very right, but erred big time by trying to make it relevant to contemporary American politics and the War on Terror. Paul Greengrass' version of Watchmen was going to do the same, and I'm glad that didn't happen.

I'm not sold on the changes to Watchmen's ending for the movie (they're confirmed by the movie tie-in books). I'll wait and see how they work onscreen but the details feel very wrong. Everything else about it looks pretty good though.

comment #22

TVMCCA says ...

Christian White wrote:
Devin Faraci from CHUD just pointed out that it's a Time Magazine sanctioned blog.

Leaving aside the Time Warner incest factor (can't wait for the ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY fawning), I can't help but remember the advance review of STAR WARS in TIME (which I assume wasn't in the pocket of Fox in 1977). Maybe Selman is to be believed when he goes into ecstatic mode, no matter who's backing the publication.

comment #23

frankbooth says ...

" I just thought this paragraph needed to be highlighted. DZ is completely fucked in the head."

Almost the perfect D.Z, post, but he loses points for failing to work in Angelina/Jennifer.

comment #24

frankbooth says ...

Oh yeah -- was anyone else absolutely certain this entry was about Harry Knowles until they got to the identifying info in the third paragraph?

I suppose if I'd been paying more attention, I'd have realized that the excerpted passages are a bit too coherent.

comment #25

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

LOL...Did D.Z. really just compare Marilyn Manson to Hulk Hogan??

Sometimes these things are so absurd, I could swear I hallucinate them...

comment #26

markj says ...

Did anybody see Snyder's Dawn of the Dead or 300? What possible reason is there to believe Watchmen will be any good? IThere's not exactly a great film artist at work here. 300 was dreadful, slo-mo, badly acted garbage.

comment #27

Rich S. says ...

I posted this in the Backlash thread, but it probably works better here:

The "review" comes from the point of view of "Watchmen as religious experience" and, as such, can be easily discounted. Maybe it's a comment on the emptiness of 21st Century American life that these comic book movies are getting so much adoration. Watchmen was a classic of the comic book genre, but it's still a comic book. The movie looks entertaining. But this guy needs some perspective.

Just to add. You want to know why so many movies coming out these days are so vapid? Because guys like this (who is a producer on The Simpsons) are the ones at the controls. If he could apply this much passion to, say, an adaptation of Joyce's Ulysses, you might really have something. But then, of course, no one would watch it.

comment #28

Christian White says ...

"....I think Fight Club would still hold value, if not for the Choke movie, Benjamin Button and Inglorious Basterds. Now it just seems like one of those tough guy gimmicks, like Marilyn Manson or Hulk Hogan. The fact that Mamet's cashed in with Redbelt probably further diminished its appeal. Unfortunately, in the case of Watchmen, it'll probably be more of a cult flick in the vein of Dark City, since 300 is Snyder's Fight Club. And yeah, Watchmen can be made into a movie; but the question is can it be made into a movie which captures all the nuances of the source material?..."

Fight Club?? Tough guy gimmicks??? C'mon, man. Try harder. Fight Club is anti-tough guy antics. Watch a little more closely. And to compare it to Benjamin Button? Why, cuz they both have brad pitt? And weve seen 2 minutes of Inglourious Basterds....eh.

Mamet "cashed in" with Redbelt? Dude, I don't think a movie that probably grossed $16,000. domestically is a cash grab scenario. The subject matter of that movie is PURE David Mamet. That is like downing Spartan.

300 is Zack Snyder's Fight Club??? If anything, (and utilizing the Zack Snyder / David Fincher analogy, which I think is highly flawed to begin with but hey...) I think Watchemn will be Zack Snyder's Zodiac, due to the overwhelming obsessive recreation of period and sourse detail. I think a better filmmaking analogy would be Zack Snyder is the (qouteunquote) modern equivilent of Ridley Scott. Big, visually sumptious epics that seem to lack some intangible element that keeps the majority of his films, although spectacular to look at, from that sacred canon of immortal films. He is too (and happily so Im sure ) considerate of pop sensibility to ground his films in danger.

And I'm not even gonna go into the Hulk Hogan thing.

comment #29

D.Z. says ...

Kane: Have you seen "The Undertaker"? Manson has the same gimmick.

Christian: Actually, the Benjamin Button comment was an indictment of Fincher, since it's his "Peggy Sue Got Married". Also, Redbelt made $2 million.

comment #30

Jonah says ...

"Christian: Actually, the Benjamin Button comment was an indictment of Fincher, since it's his "Peggy Sue Got Married". Also, Redbelt made $2 million. "

Brilliant.

So, Redbelt was relevant to Fight Club how? It diminished Fight Club in what way?

It's simply amazing the way DZ's mind works. To just pile on the shit like pretzels until you can't unravel anything he said. Doesn't make him any less full of shit and stupid, though.

comment #31

D.Z. says ...

Jonah: Redbelt's trying to be its own tough-guy, "no-holds barred", fighting tournament flick. But it diminished Fight Club by examining the same idea through a behind-the-scenes angle, thus cheapening the underlying machismo of the concept.

comment #32

Jonah says ...

"Jonah: Redbelt's trying to be its own tough-guy, "no-holds barred", fighting tournament flick. But it diminished Fight Club by examining the same idea through a behind-the-scenes angle, thus cheapening the underlying machismo of the concept. "

Even if you were right, which you're not, about twelve people saw Redbelt. It didn't diminish anything.

comment #33

Dave Polands Gut says ...

so u have to be a non fan of material to actually write a good review?

so i cant like sports and write a good review of a sport movie?