The book is... odd. It's a pretty pedestrian comic with *thousands* of little things that make it interesting. People can and have written doctoral theses on it and the difference that masked vigilantes and The Doctor Manhattan Project made in that world.
It's a movie that's based on a comic that questioned the tropes of the Golden and Silver Ages. Do you think that's going to make the transition to "comic book movie," especially 20 years later?
It looks like they've removed the digressions and metatextual analysis, improved the writing, and just made a movie out of the main story.
Which could be quite good. Very, very different from the comic, but still could be good.
The way I see it, I'm going to see this film on the first day on the strength of my wife stabbing me if I don't go with her. So I might as well enjoy the bits that look good and hope the rest of the movie is going to match up with it.
More to the point, it's something created by Alan Moore, and given past history on his works being translated to film (V for Vendetta, From Hell, and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen), it's going to... well, if not suck outright, at least be substantially different from the comic.
The way I see it, I'm going to see this film on the first day on the strength of my wife stabbing me if I don't go with her. So I might as well enjoy the bits that look good and hope the rest of the movie is going to match up with it.
Oh sure. Likewise, there's no way I'm going to be able to avoid seeing it. But I find if I manage my expectations, I usually do better. (HELLBOY II SUCKED SO HARD OMG.)
In defense[1] of those movies, the source comics sucked fairly hard. Moore is very much the Tolkien[2] of comic books - he's got legendary status for the quality of his ideas, regardless of their consistently lousy implementation.
[1]: Well, okay, "defense" is a little strong a word for LxG. But V for Vendetta was, barring a few writer fuckups, a pretty good film, and From Hell was eminently watchable.
[2]: The *story* of the Lord Of The Rings is remarkable and entertaining and classic. The *writing*? Ugh. Find that man an editor, stat.
It might not suck all THAT hard. In 300, Zack Snyder showed that he could transliterate a comic book into a film, and I am given to understand that he fought against the worst heresies of David Hayter's original script. Like Peter Jackson's treatment of LotR, it might well tell *a* good story and ignore that the source material is eight good stories woven together.
I'll be happy if the movie is good enough to lead people to (re)read the graphic novel, which is one of the most notable stories of the twentieth century. I agree with Time Magazine that Watchmen did for the superhero genre what The Maltese Falcon did for pulp detective fiction. Plus it is so infused with incidental detail that nearly deserves credit as a piece of hypertext fiction.
Huh, I guess I didn't mind it so much aside from the Senate conspiracy subplot which was insipid even by Scooby Doo standards. Still, my point is that if I were to describe 300 in a single word, it would be "faithful".
It's not exactly "pedestrian" in any sense of the word. It changed the potentials and possibilities of the superhero genre, and heroes as characters in a realistic world setting.
And I'm speaking as someone who finds it *very* hard to say that, because what Moore *can* do with comics is amazing and I love him for it. But I found the art honestly bad (having seen and loved O'Neill's work on Nemesis, I was expecting *much* better), the characterization thin (I found Quartermain and Griffin to be the most developed), and the plot simplistic. Lovely alternate world, fun digging through references, but as a story rather than a setpiece? No.
Speaking as the wife who's going to be doing the stabbing:
Yes. Because in addition to questioning the tropes, it's also a decently written conspiracy that with engaging characters, and all the "comic book" part of it is going to do is give an excuse for the grandeur of the plot.
(Pleasegod pleasegod pleasegod.)
It acknowledges the four-colour world and then contrasts it with a grimmer one (done most beautifully, I think, in Hollis Mason's final scene), but I don't think you need to know the four-colour world to appreciate the work, or even notice that the old comic tropes specifically are being questioned. It's very much a story about of ideals clashing with reality and prettied-up public memories being contrasted with the actual events behind them, and I think that'll carry through.
Regardless of whether it was a faithful adaptation of the comic or no, the LXG movie was *fun*. Like 'A Knight's Tale', they kind of threw realism and plausibility out the window and said 'Let's do something shiny and entertaining'. And it worked.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 01:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 01:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 01:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 01:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 01:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 01:47 pm (UTC)Which could be quite good. Very, very different from the comic, but still could be good.
The way I see it, I'm going to see this film on the first day on the strength of my wife stabbing me if I don't go with her. So I might as well enjoy the bits that look good and hope the rest of the movie is going to match up with it.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 01:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 01:49 pm (UTC)Oh sure. Likewise, there's no way I'm going to be able to avoid seeing it. But I find if I manage my expectations, I usually do better.
(HELLBOY II SUCKED SO HARD OMG.)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 01:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 01:54 pm (UTC)[1]: Well, okay, "defense" is a little strong a word for LxG. But V for Vendetta was, barring a few writer fuckups, a pretty good film, and From Hell was eminently watchable.
[2]: The *story* of the Lord Of The Rings is remarkable and entertaining and classic. The *writing*? Ugh. Find that man an editor, stat.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 01:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 01:58 pm (UTC)For realz. I only got through The Two Towers because I am a stubborn bitch.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 02:23 pm (UTC)I'll be happy if the movie is good enough to lead people to (re)read the graphic novel, which is one of the most notable stories of the twentieth century. I agree with Time Magazine that Watchmen did for the superhero genre what The Maltese Falcon did for pulp detective fiction. Plus it is so infused with incidental detail that nearly deserves credit as a piece of hypertext fiction.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 02:26 pm (UTC)(Granted, it's a Frank Miller book, so there wasn't much to work with.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 02:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 02:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 02:41 pm (UTC)I got up to pee during one of the Senate scenes. I never do that!
Don't mind me; mostly I just like hating on Frank Miller. *cries about the Spirit movie a bit*
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 02:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 02:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 02:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 02:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 03:41 pm (UTC)And I'm speaking as someone who finds it *very* hard to say that, because what Moore *can* do with comics is amazing and I love him for it. But I found the art honestly bad (having seen and loved O'Neill's work on Nemesis, I was expecting *much* better), the characterization thin (I found Quartermain and Griffin to be the most developed), and the plot simplistic. Lovely alternate world, fun digging through references, but as a story rather than a setpiece? No.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 03:42 pm (UTC)I am so there with you.
And I'm going to see it. And then I'm going to weep.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 03:49 pm (UTC)Yes. Because in addition to questioning the tropes, it's also a decently written conspiracy that with engaging characters, and all the "comic book" part of it is going to do is give an excuse for the grandeur of the plot.
(Pleasegod pleasegod pleasegod.)
It acknowledges the four-colour world and then contrasts it with a grimmer one (done most beautifully, I think, in Hollis Mason's final scene), but I don't think you need to know the four-colour world to appreciate the work, or even notice that the old comic tropes specifically are being questioned. It's very much a story about of ideals clashing with reality and prettied-up public memories being contrasted with the actual events behind them, and I think that'll carry through.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-24 03:52 pm (UTC)