NEWS: Comic Con 4

Whaaaaat? Now they're just messing with my emotions! (*ranting*)

Thereby gutting the plot entirely... I should know better than to expect anything else, shouldn't I.

Thank you for the info.

i'd be surprised if they went that far.

I'm just pleased for Dave that this has been finally been made..it's been in preproduction hell for an eternity.

Dave did a lot of concept art and design work for them, and acted as a consultant, so hopefully people will enjoy it.

I have to admit I prefer Dave's earlier work..like Rogue Trooper in 2000ad... I never really obsessed over Watchmen like others have..

Still... Here's hoping it's a cracker!

Ruf..Team Tank

it's going to make money. Even if it's shitty i am going to go see it at least once. I wanna see Manhattan on the big screen, and the glass house looks pretty bad ass in the previews.

If it's good, i will see it multiple times. Although i mostly buy stuff on DVD's, i still like the big screen.

I feel the exact same way. It was very topical and I understand it was one of the first time certain literary and cinematic devices had been adapted into a mainstream comic. So if you had been exposed to no other form of media, it would have been a breathtaking leap forward. But I have the feeling that if you are or were just a casual consumer of comics, it wouldn't be spectacular, then or now. I like it, but I'm not overwhelmed by it and I much prefer the Sandman.

...and the break between Gaiman and Moore as far as comics pacing is concerned is one of the big reasons why Watchmen is considered seminal. If Sandman had been Moore's story, it would not have noodled around for twelve issues near the end.

See, this attitude I just don't get. I mean, sure, dislike 300. That's fine. But you can't really say that the book was awesome and the movie was shit, it's almost as loyal an adaptation as Sin City. Granted, they padded it with the wife's story, but the thing is like 20 pages long and they needed an hour and a half of material. But watch the movie with the book in hand, it's almost a shot-for-shot adaptation like Sin City, minus the dongs flailing about in the wind through the whole thing. I was okay with that change.

Given that he treated the book fairly and adapted it very loyally for the screen, I don't really see why we should be leery of him making Watchmen. Seems to me that if you like the book on which Schneider bases his movie, you ought to like the movie. And he certainly won't run into the problem of running out of material from the source like he did with 300.

Alan Moore will hate it, of course, but he hates everything.

300 was unfilmable, so the fact that it was a faithful adaptation is a little beside the point. It looked and felt like the book, and that led to an awful movie. Sin City looked and felt like the book, and it was amazing. The difference is that one simply had elements that lend themselves to film better. The one specific example I can think of is the beheading in 300. In the book it looked fine, and Miller was able to use panel and line to do what he wanted done in that part of the story. In the movie it just looked ridiculous and (pejoratively) comic-bookish.

Saying "if you liked the source material, you ought to like the movie" flies in the face of decades of evidence to the contrary, too.

Yeah, that's pretty much the position I was in when I read it. It was one of the first half dozen or so graphic novels I read when I started getting into them a couple of years ago. As it is, while I liked it fine, Watchmen isn't even my favourite Alan Moore book. I'll probably go and see the film.