Blog

Keeping an Eye on Watchmen

Keeping an Eye on Watchmen

Good news Alan Moore fans… Watchmen might not be making it to cinemas.

Related reviews and interviews

We don’t mean to sound unduly cynical or anything, but if you’re really a fan of Alan Moore’s masterpiece, Watchmen, perhaps this is good, rather than bad news.

According to Variety, Fox are suing Warner Bros (who’ve footed most of the bill for and stand to pocket most of the cash from the Watchmen adaptation), claiming that they in fact own the copyright to this $50 million film and, so, you know, pony up the cash, bitches.

Or maybe not even that. Says Variety: “Fox’s legal team says it isn’t looking for monetary compensation and instead wants to prevent the big-budget film from being released altogether.”

Watchmen is one of those films that has a certain section of the fan boy populace slavering. But why? Alan Moore doesn’t give a shit about it. He never has, and for good reason: his films have been consistently mangled by rubbish adaptations. LXG, V for Vendetta, From Hell… Why should Watchmen be any better? Oh sure, 300 was good fun for a fascist/homophobic romp, but that doesn’t make Zack Snyder the ‘visionary’ that Warners’ bullshit marketing has hailed him as.

Watchmen isn’t Spiderman or Batman – you can’t just select the best bits and stick them on screen with your fingers crossed. Moore wrote it as a graphic novel because that was the incarnation that best suited the story. It lives and breathes on page and in Dave Gibbons’ ink because that is the only way it can exist. You can put it on screen if you want, but it won’t be Watchmen.

Perhaps we’ll never get to find out how bad it is. Perhaps we’ll be denied a legitimate cinematic masterpiece. Probably it’ll all get resolved and time will tell.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Comments (5)

  • Even if the lawsuit is settled (one way or another, it will be), and even if Zack Snyder has done a decent job in his screen adaptation (the buzz is good here), Warners are applying considerable pressure for the film’s running time (currently just short of three hours) to be radically reduced, so this might just end up being one of those ‘IMAX experiences’ that is better viewed on DVD in the director’s (non-)cut.

    We’re all going to see it anyway, aren’t we?

    Written by Anton Bitel on August 19th, 2008 at 23:00

  • Kevin Smith, self-appointed guardian of the dick and fart joke, claims to have seen it. He has a short post on his blog saying that it’s amazing, epic, a masterpiece etc. I don’t trust him in these matters, but he does say that it’s more or less a completely faithful adaptation of the comic – page by page.

    This is what Snyder has promised all along, but I just don’t think ti can be done. Not by anyone and certainly not by Snyder, who so far has only proved competent with relatively simple source material.

    That said, there’s no way this won’t get released. there’s too much money riding on it. One way or another it’ll come out and against all evidence I still think that there’s a chance that this might be ok. But it’s a farking longhsot and I wouldn’t bet my own money on it.

    Written by Bobby on August 20th, 2008 at 08:08

  • It was good to hear Dave Gibbons talk about his faith in the project last weekend- which dampened some of my fears about the adapt.

    Politics and money aside though I really doubt this film will never be released- and although all this hoo har over the rights might eventually be costly its at least generating great PR coverage.

    Written by Marie F on August 22nd, 2008 at 14:50

  • Dave Gibbons’ support is somewhat reassuring, but David Lloyd gave his support and input to V For Vendetta, if I remember right, and that ended up being a bit of a stinker (it certainly didn’t do justice to the book).

    I don’t particularly trust Snyder to pull this off. After seeing the unintentionally hilarious 300, I agree that he’s great at capturing the LOOK of a comic book, and from what I’ve seen of his Watchment adaptation so far, it seems he’s being similarly slavish to the source material for this project too. But effective mimicry doesn’t make a good adaptation. Copying Watchmen more or less frame for frame won’t deliver a good film, and I’m not sure Snyder is capable of doing anything else.

    Written by Graimito on August 22nd, 2008 at 16:03

  • Interesting article in the New York Times on this actually. It breaks downt he issuse quite well. Apparently it’s something called “Turnaround” and in this instance seems linked to a “didn’t you get my message?” scenario. Very strange that such a massive film could be derailed because of this.

    The murky side of movie rights

    Written by Bobby on August 28th, 2008 at 07:43

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Follow us on Twitter
latest comments
  • I think the relationship between Bad Blake and Tommy Sweet is self-explanatory and has a lot of depth in the film. We...
  • I did actually mention Maya Deren's films, as well as Dali/Bunuel-Un Chien Andalou – for some reason...
    Thom Harris Art On Film
  • A fine piece if you ask me, I think it's got a good amount of depth for the length and plenty of names for...
    Thom Harris Art On Film