Damon Lindelof to Develop WATCHMEN for HBO

[Eric Plumrose]

The squids is a fake inter dimensional invasion compleat with psychic shock and visions. It's an odd solution for sure but works in the context of the story world.

But it doesn't. Unlike Jon's initial resurrection which is detailed in a quasi-scientific highly individualized fashion, eight issues later we're expected to accept (by commonality?) a different kind of psychic phenomenon based on a couple of throwaway mentions, namely the beheading of a 'so-called' psychic's corpse in the NEW FRONTIERSMAN appendix and Veidt's glib line about using the cloned brain of a 'human sensitive' when he waxes expositional to Dan and Rorschach. Given the comic's verisimilitude when I first read it, I wasn't particularly convinced even then by the somewhat startling notion that anyone beside Jon would or could have some form of psychic ability. Had that aspect been addressed better then, yes, I wouldn't still be quibbling about it.

As to the movie's ending, I agree. Veidt's daft as a brush if (as you say) his plan was to unite the world against Jon's perceived culpability.

[sheridan]

Antagonistic nations won't simply forget their differences in the face of one tragedy, no matter what diplomatic goodwill is expressed.

Actually...

[Eric Plumrose]

Antagonistic nations won't simply forget their differences in the face of one tragedy, no matter what diplomatic goodwill is expressed.

Actually...

Operative word being 'forget'.

[sheridan]

Antagonistic nations won't simply forget their differences in the face of one tragedy, no matter what diplomatic goodwill is expressed.

Actually...

Operative word being 'forget'.

I don't think the comic or film suggest that the USA and Russia are 'forgetting', just working on diplomatic solutions instead of blowing the world up.

[Eric Plumrose]

I don't think the comic or film suggest that the USA and Russia are 'forgetting', just working on diplomatic solutions instead of blowing the world up.

True, but then I didn't say either the comic or the movie did suggest such a thing. I was responding to Steve based on my misremembering of the revised ending.

[Steven Denton]

The squids is a fake inter dimensional invasion compleat with psychic shock and visions. It's an odd solution for sure but works in the context of the story world.

But it doesn't. Unlike Jon's initial resurrection which is detailed in a quasi-scientific highly individualized fashion, eight issues later we're expected to accept (by commonality?) a different kind of psychic phenomenon based on a couple of throwaway mentions, namely the beheading of a 'so-called' psychic's corpse in the NEW FRONTIERSMAN appendix and Veidt's glib line about using the cloned brain of a 'human sensitive' when he waxes expositional to Dan and Rorschach. Given the comic's verisimilitude when I first read it, I wasn't particularly convinced even then by the somewhat startling notion that anyone beside Jon would or could have some form of psychic ability. Had that aspect been addressed better then, yes, I wouldn't still be quibbling about it.

As to the movie's ending, I agree. Veidt's daft as a brush if (as you say) his plan was to unite the world against Jon's perceived culpability.

I agree that the psychic thing in the comics could read a bit like the plugging of a plot hole in an otherwise amazingly intricate piece of story telling. The signalling in the NEW FRONTIERSMAN was a nice way of hinting at what was happening and letting the audience do some of the work. I liked that NEW FRONTIERSMAN was essentially right about everything. I would accept psychics, magic, and powers bestowed by aliens/science in Watchmen as it's a deconstruction of superhero stories where those things are commonplace. I can see where your criticism of the squid comes from but it still makes a ton more sense then the film ending.

[JOE SOAP]

I agree that the psychic thing in the comics could read a bit like the plugging of a plot hole in an otherwise amazingly intricate piece of story telling....I can see where your criticism of the squid comes from but it still makes a ton more sense then the film ending.

Aye, and to add to that, the Squid intervention is intended as a lateral shock to mankind and the reader - the idea of lateral action introduced into the story by Veidt and his being inspired by Alexander's cutting of the Gordian Knot - so not expecting is part of the point. The way it's hinted throughout the story is more or less the right amount without telegraphing the end punchline of Ozymandias' grand joke on mankind.

[Eric Plumrose]

Aye, and to add to that, the Squid intervention is intended as a lateral shock to mankind and the reader - the idea of lateral action introduced into the story by Veidt and his being inspired by Alexander's cutting of the Gordian Knot - so not expecting is part of the point. The way it's hinted throughout the story is more or less the right amount without telegraphing the end punchline of Ozymandias' grand joke on mankind.

I'm all for keeping the squid. Doing so would help distinguish the mini-series from Snyder's fanboy effort, which was too knuckle-headed to get away with it (mind you, Damon Lindelof . . .). Thirty years on I'm now aware the teuth ex machina is as much a nod to Greek tragedy as it is to Alexander but it wasn't something I was specifically cognizant of in 1987 when I bought the Titan trade paperback. It's a deliberate cheat, I get that. But it's a quibble I can't quite shake from that initial reading despite my belated appreciation of the comic's myriad intricacies, thanks in part to the various reviews and interviews of the time I caught up with soon after but also from being slightly better read prior to each re-read.

And that for me is the joy of WATCHMEN. It's a comic. No matter how much an improvement said mini-series might be over the movie adaptation it's unnecessary. I've still got my trade paperback, front cover long-since torn off (accidently) and tucked inside, ready to use as a bookmark whenever my next re-read might be.

[Jim_Campbell]

And that for me is the joy of WATCHMEN. It's a comic.

As much as I love seeing great comic book moments realised in other media so I can get non comic-reading friends to appreciate their brilliance (esp. Justice League's animated version of 'For The Man Who Has Everything'), Watchmen is a massively 'meta' work. It is and can only be a comic.

I don't often get to use the phrase "As Alan Moore said to me...", but: as Alan Moore said to me, when I asked him about the symmetrical layouts in #5: "There are details in the heights of medieval cathedrals that would never have been illuminated by any light source they could imagine. They put those there for the glory of God. We're making a cathedral to comics."

There's a reason why I always talk about the beauty of Watchmen in terms of architecture, and that's it. It's magnificent, but it's magnificent because it's a comic.

[Jim_Campbell]

As much as I love seeing great comic book moments realised in other media so I can get non comic-reading friends to appreciate their brilliance (esp. Justice League's animated version of 'For The Man Who Has Everything')

See also: my wife actually tearing up at "Trust me, Mrs Gordon -- I won't let your son die." in the also-excellent animated Batman: Year One.

[Steven Denton]

Watchmen is such a perfectly told, self contained story, is at once about using the medium to it's full effect and using the comics medium to it's full effect. As a comic it's intrinsically a comic about comics, rather then just a wonderful story that so happened to be a comic. It really is impossible to Adapt without substantially changing what it is at it's core. In my opinion any adaptation of Watchmen would need to stray massively from the source material to not be overshadowed and in the end crushed by it.

[CalHab]

And you have to wonder what the point is. The features of Watchmen that make it great are intrinsic to its medium.

*(as I've just realised was more eloquently stated by Jim above)

[JOE SOAP]

No comic adaptations are ever necessary, but they're going to do them anyway, so they may as well do something different. Paul Greengrass seemed to be trying a less slavish adaptation when he was producing it in 2004 as a docu-style political thriller – but then an in-coming Paramount chief axed it.

Arguably there's a more solidified cultural context for an adaptation of WATCHMEN now that the general audience is grounded in superhero lore and continuity existing within the structures of film and TV, so a deconstruction is not such an 'alien' idea – but not anally following the fixed structures of the comic would be a good start.

Personally, I'd prefer MARSHAL LAW with its MARVEL and DC cyphers.

[Eric Plumrose]

No comic adaptations are ever necessary, but they're going to do them anyway, so they may as well do something different. Paul Greengrass seemed to be trying a less slavish adaptation when he was producing it in 2004 as a docu-style political thriller – but then an in-coming Paramount chief axed it.

No adaptation of anything is 'ever' necessary. But Snyder didn't even do that. It was just Cut. And Paste. With added gore and gratuitous violence.

I think I remember hearing about what Greengrass had in mind. Pity.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Watchmen is such a perfectly told, self contained story, is at once about using the medium to it's full effect and using the comics medium to it's full effect. As a comic it's intrinsically a comic about comics, rather then just a wonderful story that so happened to be a comic. It really is impossible to Adapt without substantially changing what it is at it's core. In my opinion any adaptation of Watchmen would need to stray massively from the source material to not be overshadowed and in the end crushed by it.

I agree.  Watchmen is designed to be pored over frame by frame, not watched in real time.  It requires flicking back, cross-referencing, pausing at length on individual frames, re-reading, then re-reading again in non-linear order. 

The movie, in hindsight, should have been significantly different from the comic; celebrating the uniqueness of the medium of film, rather than slavishly copying.