(Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. I had a rather cogent response and lost it.)
I liked Watchmen. I'll admit that I cheated: I skipped to the last issue about halfway through. That's a "me" thing, and I prefer it that way. I like catching the inside jokes on the first pass.
That kind of storytelling will, I suspect, play even better in the film than in the book. There are more tools you can use (sound, lighting, tempo) to indicate the shift in time, and I won't find myself missing the story in the first six panels trying to figure out where the hell I am.
The thing one might expect me to say about WATCHMEN, especially in the context of this conversation, about over-simplicity of views on vigilantism... nope. It didn't even occur to me, as I was reading it. Because it was telling a much more interesting, personal story at the time.
As opposed to say, BOONDOCK SAINTS, which inspired me to go on a mission to track down its smug writer-director and break his fingers to prevent him from ever writing again, for the good of humanity. (I also vaguely recall that the film found cruelty to animals funny, which gets my hackles up.)
WATCHMEN found a remarkable sweet spot, just different enough from reality to allow it to engage that sci-fi "what if" aspect without wandering so far that it entered "who cares" territory.
I'm really looking forward to the film. I think it's the glimpses of Doctor Manhattan that really get me: they're "right".
I suspect I'll try to read it again, after seeing the film, and that's actually rather high praise from me; I don't have time to read anything twice. I'm hoping that I won't find it worse on a second reading. So many things that look thought-provoking actually turn out to be shallow, with shadows giving the illusion of depth. But this one seems to have deserved a good deal of the praise heaped on it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-04 11:06 pm (UTC)I liked Watchmen. I'll admit that I cheated: I skipped to the last issue about halfway through. That's a "me" thing, and I prefer it that way. I like catching the inside jokes on the first pass.
That kind of storytelling will, I suspect, play even better in the film than in the book. There are more tools you can use (sound, lighting, tempo) to indicate the shift in time, and I won't find myself missing the story in the first six panels trying to figure out where the hell I am.
The thing one might expect me to say about WATCHMEN, especially in the context of this conversation, about over-simplicity of views on vigilantism... nope. It didn't even occur to me, as I was reading it. Because it was telling a much more interesting, personal story at the time.
As opposed to say, BOONDOCK SAINTS, which inspired me to go on a mission to track down its smug writer-director and break his fingers to prevent him from ever writing again, for the good of humanity. (I also vaguely recall that the film found cruelty to animals funny, which gets my hackles up.)
WATCHMEN found a remarkable sweet spot, just different enough from reality to allow it to engage that sci-fi "what if" aspect without wandering so far that it entered "who cares" territory.
I'm really looking forward to the film. I think it's the glimpses of Doctor Manhattan that really get me: they're "right".
I suspect I'll try to read it again, after seeing the film, and that's actually rather high praise from me; I don't have time to read anything twice. I'm hoping that I won't find it worse on a second reading. So many things that look thought-provoking actually turn out to be shallow, with shadows giving the illusion of depth. But this one seems to have deserved a good deal of the praise heaped on it.