So, "Watchmen" - after yeeears of movie development hell, being passed from writer to writer and director to director- has finally been made into a film, will be released on Friday and I'll be seeing it that evening.
While I'm sure, and have read reviews that support this feeling, that the movie will have plenty of good points, I also have a feeling that a lot of it will be far too similar in cinematic style (both visual and aural) to what Snyder did with '300', with lots of slow-mo and over-dramatised fight scenes. Whilst that worked quite well for '300', given that the source material is Frank Miller and therefore is deliberately over dramatised and involves a lot of fighting, I'm really not sure this will do justice to Watchmen. Of course, I'm sure Zack Snyder has it in him to direct in a more subtle, understated and realistic manner (as a story like 'Watchmen' should be done) if he feels the need, but I don't think he's going to have done it. Almost every clip I have seen so far has an unnecessary change, an extra 'cool looking' fight scene thrown into it, a bizarre choice of music, or all of the above. This has me a little worried as I feel if in the future people will associate the book (one of my favourites, not just amongst comics, but in general) with an 'average' or perhaps at best 'reasonably good' movie, which contributes nothing amazing that they haven't seen before. So here's my main point:
If you reckon you'll end up going to see 'Watchmen', please, I implore you, read the graphic novel first (or, if not first, then at least don't be convinced after you've seen the movie that it's not worth your while to check it out). I assure you, it is worth it; it's a great story and a great comic. But, as the author, Alan Moore, says; it was created to show off what comics could achieve that film/novels can't and, as a result, it's amazingly dense. For some examples, check out the level of detail in background (the brand of trainers somebody wears, a poster, a bit of graffiti), and how all the seemingly pointless minor characters and references crop up subtly all over the place, tying the fictional world together and giving you a real sense of an alternative 1985 New York that contains its own living and flowing personalities. The world of the story is subtle and careful. You don't have time to study each frame of a film like that and therefore, right off the bat, any movie of 'Watchmen' - despite the best attempts of the director to include tiny details (and respect to him for that) - is not going to be able to achieve to same effect and, inevitably, certain changes will need to be made. Not once in the comic does anybody actually say 'Watchmen' out loud; the book's title comes from both background graffiti that says 'Who watches the Watchmen?' (a translated Latin quote, being used in this case to question the effectiveness of superheroes), and from the speech President Kennedy never got to make in Dallas where he was to refer to the American people as the 'watchmen of the world'. In the film, this has simply been changed to be the direct title of a superhero group - just one silly example of a nice subtle touch being made glaringly obvious for the audience in an attempt to make the story more accessible and Hollywood friendly.
Also bear in mind that, written in the mid-80s, 'Watchmen' was the first 'superhero' comic that really attempted to be grounded in a sense of reality. The characters are "real people" and their lives have "real consequences" as demonstrated by a few examples (don't worry, these aren't really spoilers, just background info); one hero, made by the bank that employs him as a gimmick, to wear cape, gets it caught in a revolving door during an armed robbery and, unable to free himself quickly, is shot to death. The 'Superman' character, upon discovery of his existence, is immediately snapped up as a government weapon to give the US leverage over the USSR - but at the same time also emits dangerous levels of radiation. The 'Batman' character, following a government act that bans superheroes, finds his identity robbed in ways that majorly effect his confidence and personal life.
'Watchmen' asks; what would happen if, disbelief suspended, masked crimefighting crusaders really had begun to exist in the 20th century. It looks into the psychology of people who would put on a ridiculous costume and go outside and fight crime - sound familiar? Probably because it's since been a huge influence on the superhero genre as a whole, both in comics from the mid-80s onwards and the movies that those modern storyline re-writes have inspired (for non-comic readers; remember that line in Batman Begins; "A man who dresses up as a bat clearly has issues"; or perhaps the entire series "Heroes"; in particular Mr Linderman's plan, in the first series to let Peter explode, wiping out half of New York City, eventually causing the country to unite through grief and fear was ummm, rather shamelessly stolen from one "Watchmen" character's view on the world let's say).
The biggest reason to read it though, is just to experience the story unedited, unchanged, with all the proper characters in all the proper places, with the original - albeit slightly ridiculous - ending still in place (which I know for a fact is re-written for the film, which is silly, since it's SUPPOSED to be ludicrously shocking - that's the point of the character's plan) and without random Hollywood extended fight scenes, dodgy music choices and over-extensive use of Snyder slow motion.
I'll report back when I've seen it! Until then, I'll leave you with a panel from the comic. And, the guy doing the finger breaking? He's the hero. These are complex characters! Haha.
