![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Saw Watchmen on Friday. I wasn't entirely sure what I was getting into - I haven't read the graphic novel, and damn the previews don't tell you a damn thing (other than Zach Snyder is allegedly a visionary director. Dude, I love Dawn of the Dead, and 300 is pretty darn nifty, but "visionary" seems like a stretch - don't you generally need to be able to produce your own ideas in order to be said to have "vision"?). I knew there were non-super superheroes, the Comedian was Not A Nice Guy (that the actor thinks we shouldn't hate at the end), there was a rape scene and...yeah. That about sums up what I knew going in.
I was all set to view this as I believe all film adaptations of other media should be viewed: as a stand alone film. And when you dump $120-200 million into a film, you need to attract the attention of more than just the fanboys.
And after watching the whole thing, wanting to like it...I left disappointed.
Without reading the graphic novel, I can't tell you whether the story is truly unfilmable, but with this adaptation I certainly didn't feel like the novel was filmed well. It was wordy, the characters were thinly drawn, omg I hated the fight sequences (not the gore - well, okay, I wasn't a fan of that - but I felt they were poorly choreographed and felt extremely stilted). Not fun.
Even if I hadn't known this was adapted from a graphic novel (say, if I'd been living under a rock in Antarctica for the last decade), I think it would have been obvious this was adapted from a written medium, thanks to all the damn talking everyone did. There were lots of dense monologues. And Rorschach's voice grated on my only slightly less than Christian Bale's Batman voice.
I can only assume that the graphic novel expanded on the characters a lot more than the film did, because lots of articles I read about the film before I went in described parts of the characters that were at best mildly alluded to in the film. For example: while the Comedian brutally attacks the first Silk Spectre, he doesn't appear to rape her. The sex that conceives Silk Spectre II is said to be consensual. Comedian sexually assaults SS, it's violent and painful (and it's almost as painful to watch her be rescued by the other male heroes - why, oh why, couldn't she fend for herself after that initial punch?) Also, where are we told that Silk Spectre II was forced into following in her mother's dominatrix-light footsteps? Ultimately, I never felt like the film had given me a compelling reason to want to watch these people for almost three hours.
I also had lots of tiny unanswered questions - that really aren't a big deal, but in combination with all of my other issues bog down the film: why did Silk Spectre II & Nite Owl II name themselves after retired heroes? Everyone else has an original name. And why on earth don't the female heroes wear masks?! Lots of other super heroes stories have covered this: you wear the mask to a) strike fear into those you're fighting and/or b) hide your identity to avoid retribution (both from thugs and from the legitimate police force).
Okay, I'm running out of stamina to keep bitching. Fanboys/girls - feel free to flame me now ;-)
I was all set to view this as I believe all film adaptations of other media should be viewed: as a stand alone film. And when you dump $120-200 million into a film, you need to attract the attention of more than just the fanboys.
And after watching the whole thing, wanting to like it...I left disappointed.
Without reading the graphic novel, I can't tell you whether the story is truly unfilmable, but with this adaptation I certainly didn't feel like the novel was filmed well. It was wordy, the characters were thinly drawn, omg I hated the fight sequences (not the gore - well, okay, I wasn't a fan of that - but I felt they were poorly choreographed and felt extremely stilted). Not fun.
Even if I hadn't known this was adapted from a graphic novel (say, if I'd been living under a rock in Antarctica for the last decade), I think it would have been obvious this was adapted from a written medium, thanks to all the damn talking everyone did. There were lots of dense monologues. And Rorschach's voice grated on my only slightly less than Christian Bale's Batman voice.
I can only assume that the graphic novel expanded on the characters a lot more than the film did, because lots of articles I read about the film before I went in described parts of the characters that were at best mildly alluded to in the film. For example: while the Comedian brutally attacks the first Silk Spectre, he doesn't appear to rape her. The sex that conceives Silk Spectre II is said to be consensual. Comedian sexually assaults SS, it's violent and painful (and it's almost as painful to watch her be rescued by the other male heroes - why, oh why, couldn't she fend for herself after that initial punch?) Also, where are we told that Silk Spectre II was forced into following in her mother's dominatrix-light footsteps? Ultimately, I never felt like the film had given me a compelling reason to want to watch these people for almost three hours.
I also had lots of tiny unanswered questions - that really aren't a big deal, but in combination with all of my other issues bog down the film: why did Silk Spectre II & Nite Owl II name themselves after retired heroes? Everyone else has an original name. And why on earth don't the female heroes wear masks?! Lots of other super heroes stories have covered this: you wear the mask to a) strike fear into those you're fighting and/or b) hide your identity to avoid retribution (both from thugs and from the legitimate police force).
Okay, I'm running out of stamina to keep bitching. Fanboys/girls - feel free to flame me now ;-)