Main Menu

Watchmen

Started by Matt, 31 January, 2002, 01:39:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Matt

Forget whose going to be playing Dredd in the forthcoming movies and get a load of this. The mother of all comic books is finally coming to the big screen. X-men scribe David Hayter and Darren Aronofsky have produced THE script for a 2 hour adaptation of Watchmen. Although several attempts have been made in the past this one is on track for production. The project was cast in doubt after Sept 11th (check the ending of the book) but the producers are even more determined  to continue with the film as ultimately "..all that does is reinforce the truth behind the story." Can't wait.

20-Phfor-7

Well, as long as the fillum's closer to the book than From Hell is said to be from *its* source.

Beats me why people bother adapting one medium to another if they're not going to get it broadly right...


But then I'm probably one of the (very) few folk who liked the Dredd movie... Ahem.

20-Phfor-7

Well, as long as the fillum's closer to the book than From Hell is said to be from *its* source.

Beats me why people bother adapting one medium to another if they're not going to get it broadly right...


But then I'm probably one of the (very) few folk who liked the Dredd movie... Ahem. So who am I to complain?

Mk13

Interesting. I loved Pi and Requiem for a Dream, so I'm intrigued to see what Aronofsky can do with Watchmen.

I'm slightly worried he's writing it with David Hayter though, as though X-Men was good, it wasn't anything more than a dumb, fun action movie. Admittedly, you can get away with that for the X-Men, but dumbing down Watchmen would be a massively stupid thing to do.

Anyone know if Aronofsky is doing Watchmen before or after Batman?

Mk13

From what I've heard, From Hell is close to its source as far as it goes, but there was only a certain amount of Moore's labyrinthine story they could get into one film and still appeal to the public as a thriller.

Watchmen is much more straightforward - as long as they don't remove all the aging superhero stuff and turn them into young, muscly meatheads. But they wouldn't do that, would they? Oh, I'm forgetting, this is Hollywood we're talking about...

Roll on the movie of V for Vendetta is what I say...

Matt

I think the movie version of From Hell is as close as it can get seen as Alan Moore & Eddie Campbell are credited as having written the screenplay themselves!

paulvonscott

Yeah, overall X-men was enjoayable but dumb.

My favorite scene was at the beginning in the Nazi camp.  It was quite funny really.  Yes, there is a superman, and he is jewish.

There's not much that can be said about watchmen that hasn't been said, but I hope the movie works.

I have to say that a V for Vendetta TV series made in Britain would be excellent.  Perhaps if watchmen does well the BBC could be presuaded.

Oh and then Halo Jones.


JamieB

A few things:

Hayter's script for the X-Men made it slightly more than a big, dumb actioner: Batman and Robin is a prime example of what a movie based on trademarked characters, and *nothing else*, can look like. I'm not trying to argue that its Eisenstein, mind.

V For Vendetta has, apparently, been taken up by the Hughes brothers ("From Hell") for possible filming later.

Hayter's script for Watchmen has, of necessity, had to lose a *lot* of the book - all the pirate stuff, etc. is gone. Let's hope they make a better fist of it than Constantine, eh? And please, god, no Nic Cage...

How Hollywood can really GET IT WRONG #1:
The original Jon Peters (Batman series) -sanctioned script for Sandman: The Movie opened with a fistfight between Morpheus (in costume) and the Corinthian. Ouch.

*J*

2000AD Online

Would a two-hour film really do 'Watchmen' any justice? I've always thought it would work better as 12-hour mini- (maxi-?!) series. And is the superhero element really necessary? Alan Moore has been quoted as saying the series could have been written with nary a mask and costume in it. Another problem: the politics of 'Watchmen', so inherent to the series, are very much a part of the mid-80s. Perhaps the film shouldn't be too reverent of its source material. The Real World doesn't care whether or not it's based on some dopey comic book.

fraston

i agree that the opener of the xmen was the high point. at that moment i honestly thought it was gonna be a good movie.

sob.
and yes, V would be a WAY better choice for moviedom. can't say i'm at ALL pleased about the idea of a watchmen movie.

fraston

i also feel that much of the magic of watchmen is it's referential qualities to the superhero genre that preceeded it, and for many non-comics readers this may well be lost.
context is the key point for a story like this and i reckon it's totally doable but would need serious rejigging by someone with talent, freedom and a great deal of enthusiasm for the project.

so why do i feel like that's like findiong 3 wise men and a virgin in hollywood?

Mongrol

If there was ever a comic that didn't want to be made into a movie then Watchmen is it.
The Watchmen *needs* to be in comic format to work - that's it's strength...  (and it so needs to be in 12 parts)
It's like writing a novel of a Tom and Jerry cartoon - "Cat trips on mat, cat falls over, iron lands on cats head" doesn't really survive the translation..

Mk13

V, filmed in London by someone like Jim Jarmusch or the aforementioned Aronofsky, could be awesome. And it should be incredibly cheap to make - ISTR there are no really planet-busting events or locations...

paulvonscott

I have to say, that the quality of some TV series is so good now that I think I'd prefer that for both V and Watchmen.  Having said that I think it would be easier to do V than Watchmen for film.

The problem with big movies for me is that they often just feel like a handful of set pieces strung together.

Imagine V produced to the same standards as something like I Claudius.  Wow.  And yeah, V would be relatively cheap to make.  I think it's quite relevant today too.

Well, I suppose I'll be greatful for anything I get to see I suppose.  Superhero movies seem to be getting treated seriously (well as far as money goes anyway) these days.

JamieB

<>

Money, yes. Otherwise...

The Constantine movie (adapted from DC/Vertigo's Hellblazer, natch) will star Nic Cage as a US cop. Who fights demons. With his attractive partner. The good news is that Tarsem (The godawful Cell) isn't directing.

McG (Charlie's Angels) is mooted for the next Superman flick.

There's the oft-mooted, but thankfully never made Sandman, as I mentioned earlier.

"League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", last time I heard, was going to change the team - primarily by adding Twain's Tom Sawyer as the cute kid interest.

"Catwoman" has, presently, a completely different origin story and leading character from the original comics.

On the bright side:
Daredevil's not had *too* many details revealed yet, and has, at least, a cast of 'knowns'.

Aronofsky & Miller on Batman: Year One.

Raimi's Spider-Man may well be very good indeed. Early notices indicate such...

Ang Lee's doing the Hulk (movie, not libel).

Guillermo Del Toro (Cronos, Mimic) has done Blade 2, which should make it an improvement on the first one.

Singer's doing X-Men 2, but they're understandably secretive about the plot.

Most or all of this info can be found here:

http:[backslash][backslash]www.comics2film.com

*J*