But who will watch the Watchmen?

I have just finished rereading the comic book graphic novel Watchmen. It’s a cracking read, filled with Big Ideas and it uses the comic graphic medium to great advantage – telling the story in a way that really wouldn’t work in a traditional written novel. The artwork is visually stunning with many pages containing no dialog, content to just let the pictures tell the story.

The producers of the upcoming movie will have had some hard choices to make. It is the density of little details that makes Watchmen so interesting, and any film will have to cut a lot out. I find filmed adaptions of novels interesting for their own sake so I have decided to take a stab taking note of what I would change if I were in charge of production (the following paragraphs contain both plot information and uninformed speculation – avert your eyes now if you don’t want to be spoilt and/or bored.)

Some things I think will be different in the film

Having the attempted rape in the film could work, but it would be a brave producer that would include an attempted rape where the victim actually has regrets about it and ends up with her would-be rapist. My guess is that this plot point will be cleaned up a little, or even removed entirely.

The lengthy sub-sub-sub-plot with the boy reading the graphic novel comic book about the pirates is just a love letter within a love letter to EC Comics. It does thematically compliment the main story but could be omitted without anyone noticing the hole.

For such a visual work, there is surprisingly little action in Watchmen. Vast numbers of pages are spent while characters talk more-or-less to themselves, reminiscing about past events. This looks a little silly on the page, but would absolutely kill the momentum of a movie, so I guess most of these scenes will be dropped. Sometimes such monologues give hints as to the direction of the plot, but other times they just seem like padding. Origin stories are the bane of all super hero movies, and Watchmen will have to find some other way to flesh out the characters.

I am also willing to go out on a limb and predict that the filmed version will contain 100% less atomic blue scrotum.

Some general comments about the story

Watchmen has aged remarkably well despite being mired in 80s sensibilities. During my recent rereading, I was caught myself wondering if the recent adventurism in Georgia and associated cold war rhetoric is actually part of the Watchmen movie marketing campaign. Even the forthcoming (and undoubtably awful) The Day the Earth Stood Still remake fits right into the plot. Everything old is new again.

One of the basic themes of the book is that in Watchmen’s version of events America got everything it ever wanted; costumed heros, a tame atomic demigod, and an emphatic victory in Vietnam. Instead of this America being a capitalist utopia, it is even more deranged and cynical than ever, turning against itself even as it rages against the world. As one insanely violent character puts it: the american dream came true, and he is it! Current events in the US and Iraq show that this idea still has legs.

It is unfortunate that the novel’s idea that an horrific event involving thousand of deaths in the heart of New York City would lead to peace on Earth was proved to be false when somebody with the opposite aim put his similar idea into practice. Watchmen’s epilogue rings a little hollow since the days of 9/11.

Watchmen is filled with visual symbols and symmetries that I think could go over well in a film. Some of them, like Laurie destroying the complex on Mars (as well as her own complex) with a bottle of Nostalgia would actually work better in motion – in print it comes across as extremely heavy handed while we are all used to seeing visual metaphors in film.

The whole subplot of The Comedian finding out what is happening on the island is kind of glossed over in the novel, alluded to in pieces at various times. This was a wise decision by the authors because it makes no sense. Why did The Comedian investigate the island when he had only glimpsed it from an airship? Perhaps he consulted The Lonely Planet Guide and it mentions this island as well suited for nefarious plans. And exactly how did he find out what the project on the island was for when even the people working on it didn’t know? How dumb were those supposedly geniuses anyway – did they all really believe they were working on a movie prop?

The villain’s plan is pretty half-baked anyway. It relies on total secrecy even though it must involve hundreds of people – people that must be killed when the plan succeeds least they spill the beans. A giant telepathic creature teleports into a major city months after world experts in teleporting, genetic engineering and psychic phenomena disappear – once the dust settles people are going to get suspicious!

This is where I think the film is going to have the most difficulty. The meat of the story is not what the villain is planning to do but his motivations, something that hard to get across in film. The novel has the indulgent luxury of including the false documents at the end of each chapter. My guess is that the film will replace some of these with “archival footage” illuminating aspects of the characters in the same way.

The otherwise excellent detour to Mars also has the same “it makes no sense” problem. Surely the good doctor would not be fooled by such an sketchy ruse; he would be the first to point out that he has had close contact with hundreds of people who were not dying of cancer. His conversation about predestination is great, as is his clockwork castle thingamabob, but these do not move the plot along.

Laurie’s revelation about her father is not well handled, it comes out of nowhere and doesn’t even make much difference. The film would be better if they foreshadowed this information a little more clearly, or at least made it matter more, its not like Laurie’s ignorance of her true father was holding her back.

Although you might expect a story about costumed crime fighters to be an action-packed romp, almost nothing actually happens in Watchmen. There is a flaming roof rescue that would make an exciting scene in a film, a prison breakout which take about 2 minutes, and a couple of short fights but that is about it. The ending is not exactly the stuff of high action either, with a couple of brief philosophical conversations leading to a consensus instead of a big showdown. One of the bigger problems with the ending as written is that half the cast suffers from Anakin symdrome, allowing themselves to be persuaded to go against their better judgement by a quick speech. Even in the novel this feels terribly rushed.

Three Ways To Go

Good adaptions of complex novels are like coke in green glass bottles, they don’t make them anymore. There are three ways a film can go when faced with such a source work. It can try to turn itself into an action movie, cutting the dialog and backstory to make room for lengthy action sequences. This can work (the Lord of the Rings films did this to some degree), but the result is usually unmemorable.

The second avenue is to make a low budget adaption with few spectacular scenes. This has the advantage that the producers can claim to have had their vision hamstrung by the inevitable lack of money, but still have some credibility with fans of the original material. Watchmen has a large budget, so I don’t see this approach working.

The third option is the “glorious mess”, where the produces gamely try to capture the scope of the source in a different medium without compromising their vision by doing sensible things like rewriting dialog for the screen. Dune is a perfect example of what can happen when a dense book is stuffed into a movie without making some adjustments, the “what the hell did we just watch?” factor is very high.

Hopefully the producers have avoided the common pitfalls with Watchmen, it certainly seems to be a labour of love if the trailer is anything to go by.


I guess we will find out next year.

Related posts:

  1. Movie Review : Watchmen

8 thoughts on “But who will watch the Watchmen?

  1. Wow – I think you may have spent just a little bit too much time analysing this ;-) That being said the watchmen story is really good, so it will be interesting to see how the movie tackles it.

    One point though from your analysis – I think the watchmen NY disaster that supposedly starts off the road to peace is more about the appearance of an ‘alien’ than the deaths themselves, so quite different than 9/11. An alien appearance might unite the world against a common unknown threat, while 9/11 allowed the US to unite against ‘terrorists’ and hence just helped to divide the world further. Not a fair comparison imho.

  2. Yeh, the comparison to 9/11 was more than a little stretched.

    And you’ve convinced me not to go see this at the theatre :-)

  3. I am going to defend my comparison of Watchmen and 9/11. The World Trade Center attack was seen (or at least portrayed) as an attack on civilisation itself. For a couple of weeks afterwards there was a lot of talk about pulling together to meet the threat of global terrorism, etc, etc. Saddam Hussein even sent messages of support to the US government (something that he probably regretted later.) That was seven years ago and the world is just as politically divided as ever.

    A single alien creature appearing at the height of the cold war wouldn’t solve anything. After the initial shock had worn off, the US would blame the USSR while the USSR would blame the US for researching teleportation in the first place. The idea that the whole world would cry out for a benevolent dictator to put things right after such a disaster is a little insulting, even the allies in WWII were split in the face of imminent threat from Germany. It’s not like Chernobyl (for another example) led to world peace – the USSR collapsed a few years later for other reasons (interestingly, in the world of the Watchmen, most of the cars are electric so I guess the Middle East plays a greatly reduced roll in world affairs.)

  4. You are a goddamn moron whose opinion isn’t respected for a very good reason.

    I don’t know how you got linked on reddit but I’ve seen internet forums with users that understand the point of the book better than you do.

    But in order to clarify this for you since you clearly adopt wannabe film guru-speak, here’s a primer for the creatively hard-of hearing. I know all caps lock is considered a cliche but since your font is big enough

    WATCHMEN IS NOT A BOOK ABOUT THE HEROES ORIGINS, IT IS ABOUT THEIR HISTORY.

    THE USELESS CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT IS TO DISSECT SUPERHERO CONVENTIONS THAT ARE OTHERWISE ‘accepted’ WITHOUT A SECOND THOUGHT, SUCH AS UNILATERAL INTERNATIONAL ACTION, HOARDING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, VIOLENT VIGILANTISM, AND POST-HUMAN ABILITY. THIS ACCENTS THE MAIN PLOT.

    THE VIOLENT, UNPLEASANT, SHEER IRRATIONAL ACTION PLEASANT THROUGHOUT IS A VERY DELIBERATE ACTION TO CONTRAST TO CORNBALL SUPERHERO IDOLIZATION WHERE ANY IDIOT IN SPANDEX IS MORALLY PERFECT TO A DEGREE EVEN MARVEL’S MOST GRECIAN HEROES HAVE BARELY TOUCHED.

    ON THE SAME NOTE YOU DON’T SEE MANY ACTION SEQUENCES BECAUSE THE CHARACTERS ARE HUMAN. FLAWED, BORING, AND MOST OF THE TIME THEY DON’T DO ALL THAT MUCH WITH THEMSELVES.

    There, that clear anything up?

    Your suggestions seem to be conjecture on what a typical Hollywood dick would do. Truthfully many have tried and for these reasons the story doesn’t actually work.

    Those of you invested in this property for the money should rest your greedy thumbs and remember that taking a complex and deliberately subversive work and making it happy, predictable, and tailored to success stories of the past are selling the money-making potential short.

    Do you honestly think Lord of the Rings would have made the money it did if it wasn’t as true to the book?

    I’m not saying it wouldn’t have made its money back. There are always just enough retard fans and thirteen year-olds out there to make a box office break even. I’m talking about the serious bank it made. Do the property justice and you’ll yield tenfold what you would get by underplaying your hand, and ‘Watchmen’ would be a fool’s property to throw away.

    And in spite of all this analysis and what some of you perceive as fanboyism I’m really not objecting to condensation of change in the story.

    But instead of attempting to get some blog traffic out of it I let the filmmakers do their job, make their vision, and if I’m going to make any comment at all about how the film should be changed it’s this:

    Watchmen was all about taking the fundamental building blocks behind superheroes, from the world they live in to the philosophies, people, and culture that drive them, drawing upon decades of publishing history and previous example and subverting convention to expand the typical boundaries of storytelling with such archetypes to their antithetical limits.

    Make the film the same way; not heavily reliant on action and with long stretches of human dialogue and character to subvert the popular “a hero changes, bleeds, fights, rises, bleeds, and fights again” arc only drawing upon cinematic superhero conventions, which production photos indicate is already underway.

    It’s possible to do, but not with fuckwits like you trying to suck out the soul of the work without even understanding it.

    Die, and never write again. For the good of us all.

  5. If anyone here deserves no respect for their opinion, it would be the guy who started off with “You are a goddamn moron”.

    However, after reading the rest of it and ignoring the similarly, pointlessly agressive ending…..

    You don’t seem to be actually disagreeing with the original blog item at all… and yet seem to be very aggressive about it…

    Perhaps theres a language barrier involved..

  6. Hi Z.Dag, thanks for the robust feedback. You seem to be agreeing with me in a most antagonistic fashion.

    You are right that Watchmen does a good job of deconstructing the whole superhero genre, my only point was that there are certain things that the film is going to have to change, and in the process they could clean-up or better explain certain parts of the plot. There are few films that handle introspection well, and stuff will have to be dropped to fit into a 3 hour film. On the other hand, other aspects of the story would be easy to get across, and these will probably be emphasized.

    Remember this is just some musings of my own, what I would consider doing if I was in charge of production. Besides watching the trailer, I have no knowledge of what the real producers are planning, but neither do you. Hopefully they don’t screw it up too much.

    The Lord of the Rings movies are considered excellent adaptions because the writers were willing to include nearly every plot point in the book, but they did so by condensing and changing many of the details. Because of this they made a much better series of films than if they had just filmed each page verbatim.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> <pre lang="" line="" escaped="" highlight="">

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word