I did it thirty-five minutes ago.

[thehefner]

So while there's still no word for who is going to be in the upcoming film adaptation of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' classic WATCHMEN, we now know of two people who were considered. Ron Perlman as The Comedian and Tom Cruise as Ozymandias.

Apparently Perlman was considered during the last time WATCHMEN almost got made, back when UNITED 93 director Paul Greengrass was set to do it (and by all accounts, it would have been the best fucking possible WATCHMEN movie we'd ever see, ever, but Paramount didn't want to take the risk, so they dropped it). And the utter, utter perfection of Perlman as Edward Blake gives me chills just thinking about it. That he won't be playing it honestly hurts.

Tom Cruise apparently turned it down for the current production by Zack Snyder. Now, I know the knee-jerk reaction is to recoil in fear and horror by the thought of Cruise bespoiling what has the potential of being the greatest "superhero" film ever made, but... he'd actually have been pretty damn good as Adrian. I could have happily accepted that.

Zack Snyder is the guy who directed the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake and 300. After seeing 300, I'm now actually a bit more concerned about what this means for WATCHMEN. Both of those films were fun, ass-kicking, hollow, visceral experiences with little substance to take away with you (unlike the original DAWN). WATCHMEN is epic and dense, rich with symbolism, irony, metaphor, and alla that udder gud lit'rary stuff. Unlike the majority of the cranky fandom, I think it actually could be done as a two hour film. The usual cry is "HBO miniseries! HBO miniseries!" and they're not wrong there... as long as it had the biggest budget of any HBO mini to date.

Snyder is all about style over substance. And that's fine, he's a music video director, after all. But it does not bode well for WATCHMEN. Neither does the fact that he's insistent on adapting the pirate comic sequence, which seems like a total waste of precious running time.

Comments

[chickenhat.livejournal.com]

I really don't know why I'm poking at this bee's nest, but still...

Go, re-read the series, and then come back and tell me "why" the shipwreck comicbook sequence shouldn't be in there.

Yes, it would shave off a good chunk of time that seems irrelevant to the main plot, but if you cut it then you have just another League of Extraordinary Gentlemen adaptation and it's just a couple of ex-vigilantes trying to solve a murder mystery. Hell, cut the shipwreck and you might as well cut Rorschach's journal, and if you cut that you might as well cut the magazine, and if you cut the magazine you might as well cut the artists who create the monster, and while you're at it just cut the monster altogether and make it a couple of 747s instead... feh, guh, meh, and bleargh.

Why do I feel like I'm the only one that wants the shipwreck sequence and thinks it's integral to the story?

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

The shipwreck sequence seems, first of all, much more tied into the nature and narrative style of a comic rather than film. That's the immediate thing. Secondly, Rorschach's journal is more directly important since it directly focuses on the outlook of one of the most important characters and because it might be the single thing which completely undoes Ozy's work.

The shipwreck stuff (which I love) just doesn't seem as integral to the story as about fifteen other subplots and threads, stuff that the movie will be hard pressed to satisfactorially incorporate even *half* of 'em! That was an incredibly clumsy sentence, but you know what I mean?

[chickenhat.livejournal.com]

Y'see, my deal is that all of the narratives parallel each other, and they all tie in together at the end. The shipwreck also serves as the comicbook within the comicbook (play within a play, etc).

On film it could be a kid watching chapters from a bootleg DVD, or on TV, or a couple of teenagers talking to each other inside a movie theatre the way the newstand person and the reader were talking to each other. The visual parallels were important, too, and I'd hate to lose that since it was SO stylistically Alan Moore at the time it came out.

Which ties in to the journal. The obvious way is through a voice over rather than showing the actual pages and handwriting, but in the comic it was also honoring the media of the personal journal, as well as letting us peek into the mind of RR. And in that, we get a peek into the mind of one of the artists... heh, almost let a spoiler slip... as well.

Feh, ignore me, I'm a tired and cranky old man who needs a nap and just wants to see an Alan Moore movie not suck.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Oh hell, man, I just turned 24 and I'm ALREADY a cranky old man when it comes to comics and movies. Believe me, if there's any Alan Moore movie that needs to be done well, it's this.

But at a two hour running time, even three hours, they're gonna have to be exceedingly selective. It won't be the book, it's impossible to cram all that in there without rushing.

I want it done right. But I don't want some elements to be done right (or at all) if it means sacrificing some of the even MORE important elements. And then again, it might just end up a superhero murder mystery, in the wrong hands anyway.

[seangrimm.livejournal.com]

I read Watchmen once, a long time ago, but I remember enough of it to say I think the best idea is not to make it into a three+ hour epic, or shorten it to a two hour action film but instead to go the way of Kill Bill and simply make a four hour movie released in two parts.

In particular I remember a rape-baby subplot to the comic and if it becomes a two hour film I'm sure that will get cut because you can't emotionally digest that in two hours if there are another five or six other layers to the plot. I just don't remember Watchmen being simply enough to cut the plot into two hours. They would have to make things happen so fast the audience won't keep up or cut out massive content to shorten the length.

I'm less 'excited' for a Watchmen movie than I am for Iron Man since I couldn't expect a better director/actor combo for that. So long as the writer(s) don't reference any of the current Civil War Tony Stark, that guy is a fucking twat, I hate that guy.

[little-dinosaur.livejournal.com]

Okay, I didn't even know about the Ron Perlman thing until right now, but he would have been so amazing. And not just because I've totally got an old-guy crush on him. Which I do. He would have kind of made up for the gaping chunks of story they're going to have to scoop out with a serrated melon baller to fit "Watchmen" into a mallgoing audience's brain. I'm actually a little reassured by the "style over substance"ness of the director. There's so much "look" to "Watchmen", and it's so important to the thing (not the story, exactly. The thing). He might handle it better than a more thinky director. Or else he might try to update it or something ill-advised like that.

Also, I'm afraid that there's no way Doctor Manhattan and Rorschach aren't going to be depressing Looney Tune versions of themselves.

[lairdofdarkness.livejournal.com]

Perlman as the comedian??? Yup I can see that. I would throw Connery in there too but then I am a biased Scot!
I agree with the Cruiser as Adrian, he can act when he tries (Born on the Fourth of July) but all to often he just sleepwalks through his films.
I have spoken with a mate of mine and we cannot seem to fit anyone into the roles. I do think it will only work as a TV mini Series as 2+ hours of running time will not do the story justice, esp if they put the comic in there. Probably better to have snippets during the film and then make the full thing available as a dvd extra (like the Jim Carrey flick about the cinema...damn my weak brain!)
I will still go and see this and then be dissapointed...it is written

[gnort.livejournal.com]

I can see why you'd want to cut the pirate sequence, and if you want a 2 hour movie you'd probably have to cut it. On the plus side, his insistence on keeping it in shows a reluctance to deviate from the book which is a good thing.

Also, they should cast Jeffrey combs as Rorshach..yeah he'd just do a live action repeat of The Question but it was so good that I wouldn't care.

[spacechild.livejournal.com]

i was fascinated by the idea of simon Pegg as Rorshach.

sadly, i think that is no longer happening.