I'm not locked up in here with you.

You're locked up in here with me.

I recently finished reading Watchmen for the 1st time and it was incredible, and I hope that Zack Snyder does a good job with the film. The pictures and everything I've seen look great, and I think the casting is wonderful, so my hopes are high.

I really would've liked to see Bryan Cranston as Nite Owl, but that's really just a fanboy gripe.

shit. How do I get out?

I'm stuck!!

you need to go back to silliness where you belong.

I just really wish that no one would make a movie of this , but it seems I never get what I want so why should this time be any different ?

+1

you are a far less cynical man than me, my friend.

glad to hear that you read it, though - it really is a pretty fantastic story.

Oh, I won't. But I've yet to see a good movie of a book, which did the book justice; and the result is that the great reading public (ahahaha....) goes to the movie, sees that it's based on a book, finds the book, and thinks "ew... this isn't like the movie!".

Net result, people who think the book wasn't up to scratch.

That goes double for comics, of course - there, the visuals have to compete directly with the movie. Which is wrong, because the movie should be competing with the comic.

It's the author's book, it's the director's film...yes, i think the writer and director should stay as true to the book as possible, but sometimes that's not possible. Novels have the time to meander and explore different tangents; film does not. Film must find a track and run on it. This usually means finding the heart of the novel and dismissing the periphery. With the book, it goes from the author to you...with a film it goes from the writer to the director to you, which means you're looking at it through another person's eyes.

So why make movies out of books in the first place? Well, sometimes the book deserves it. The writing can be very visual, very cinematic. Making a film from a book can be very good for the book and its author--it gets them more notoriety. Hell, sometimes the author of the book can have final say on the script--not always but sometimes. So there's an endorsement for the film right there.

As for comics into films, both are very visual mediums, film a bit more so. I mean, you essentially have the storyboards already done for you with a comic. Sometimes, you even have the shots down already. You have to tweak it here and there to make it more cinematic, because again, you can do more in the printed medium than on celluloid. You have to compensate and balance things out.

That's my 2 cents. Still, I'm excited for the film.

Which is exactly why I don't think books should be filmed: they are not comparable media.

The writing can be visual, yes. But the pictures I get from the writing are better than the pictures from the film. Without exception.

So the film must compensate for its inferiority? Sounds about right

Understand, I have nothing against movies. But making films from books is not a happy or successful outcome.

one of us! one of us!

But isn't that only because the fanboys can't seem to grasp that two completely different mediums are attempting to appeal to a wider audience?

That is ridiculous. A screenplay and a movie are different "media" too. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make with this statement. Is anyone saying that they're the same form of media?

A bad movie based on a book does nothing to change the book or the original work any more than the millions of terrible movie novelizations.

So, you've never seen The Godfather?

More non-sequitors? "Making films from books" isn't an "outcome" at all, happy or otherwise.

i think my comment was misunderstood. it was a reference back to the fact that novels/printed media can meander storywise more than a film can.

and for the record, i think film is the ultimate form of media/art.

When I read Watchmen, I thought it was nowhere near the earth shattering masterpiece I had been led to believe it would be. It was... quite good.

Indeed it doesn't change the book. What it does do - as I said above, though not in these words - is take precedence. People see the film first, then find the book and put it down because it's not the same as the film which was made from it.

No. I have read the book, though. More than once.

Well, "process" doesn't cover it. Hm. How about "But making films from books does not do the books justice". Is that better?

Why in the world would that bother you? Blaming a movie for people's idiocy isn't the smartest thing in the world.

Great. If that's a book that you think is great literature, fine. I don't.

There. Did my not liking the book ruin anything for you?

People don't make films to "do books justice." That's the point you're missing. Do you hate painters painting portraits because "they don't look like the people!"

I'm not blaming "a movie". I'm saying that the author should get credit in the minds of the audience. If anything, I'm blaming the movie-makers.

No. But I fail to see what that has to do with it.

No. That's an entirely spurious comparison. People are not artworks.

Maybe they don't make films to do books justice. But they are very happy to market the film in the name of the book, and take the money, even when the film is a lame (unintentional) parody.

Well, by 'earth shattering', I meant how I expected it to affect me, not the comic industry! I was aware that it was supposed to be a landmark title; it just didn't amaze me like I expected it to. Maybe my own fault for letting my expectations get out of hand... but I enjoyed reading The Ballad of Halo Jones more.

I think that these are very different media and can both work or fail dependiong on a)who is creating and b)who is watching or reading........not everyone will read the same story or see the same film.

V for Vendetta is an example of for me a beautifully crafted book with a serious message that can be read on all kinds of levels. The film on the other hand did not get close to creating the same picture for me. It copped out and interestingly the author Alan Moore would not attatch his name to the movie. One of my friends loved the movie and never read or is likely to read the book. Doesn't alter my experience of the book. Had I seen the film first and read the book later I think I wuld be forming the same opinion. I will be testing this theory soon as I just watched Sin City for the first time and have yet to read the GN which is on my to read list.

It was all so much better when it was just traveling minstrels that sang the stories to you by the hearth over a few beers.

They still do that round here.