How to enjoy a movie adaptation of a comic book:
Read the source material.
Don’t have a huge emotional stake in the outcome.
It was fine, much better than I expected The backstory that played out over the credits was moving and poignant, even if Dylan is an obvious choice, and the movie captured the nuances of the characters, even making Rorschach sympathetic.
The two teens I went with had a fine time dissecting its shortcomings on the way home, so a fine time was had by all.
3 Comments
patrick · March 8, 2009 at 10:05 am
I breathed a small sigh of relief after we saw it. It could have been much, much worse. All in all, it was a decent adaptation that delivers about 1/3 to 1/2 of the book. It covered the basic plot well enough, but little to none of the post-modern commentary on comics and comic creators that made Alan Moore’s GN really significant (in fairness, that’s what makes the Watchmen ‘unfilmable’). And the revised ending, while less comic-booky scifi than the original, contains a pretty big plot hole. I’d rather have had the squid. 🙂
Tiff brought up a really good point: the Watchmen movie is somewhat a victim of its source material. The really new elements in the 1986 GN (heroes in the ‘real world’ who are psychotic, neurotic, etc.) have been absorbed by film makers and incorporated in their comic-influenced movies for a while now, so the Watchmen movie has essentially arrived late to its own game.
Patrice Sarath · March 8, 2009 at 11:06 am
Yeah, you know there’s going to be someone who sees it and wonders what the big deal was, the Dark Knight did superhero angst way better. 🙂
Patrice Sarath · March 10, 2009 at 5:03 pm
So I’ve been reading the tsunami of commentary both mainstream and genre regarding the movie and the novel and Alan Moore, and I came to the conclusion that of all the characters, Rorschach is the most like Moore himself and probably the one Moore identifies with the most.
Which makes Rorschach a Mary Sue.