When it comes to superhero hype, you can’t get much better than Watchmen.
It’s been hailed as the “greatest graphic novel” of all time. It’s been on Time’s Top 100 List. It’s being made into an enormously cross-promoted titanic that Warner Bros. hopes will stack up to the soon-to-be billion-dollar baby that is the Dark Knight.
But I’m worried it won’t live up to its promise.
It’s something I’ve been thinking ever since I read an early draft of the script. But I told myself that perhaps it would see revisions. But after watching the numerous trailers for the movie, I’m more concerned than ever. Indeed, after seeing the minute or two of footage, I had one thought run through my head:
He’s trying to play Watchmen straight?
Let me explain what I mean, while warning you that there will be some spoilers up ahead. Zack Snyder is a great director, don’t get me wrong. I raved about 300 when it arrived in theatres, and it was for one simple reason: Snyder didn’t treat that movie as tongue in cheek. He made 300 into a hard-core battle film, heavily stylized but always secure in that this was a heroic film made up of earth-shaking fights, cut with hyperreal scenery, slow-mo action, and artistically placed blood spatters. And based on the trailer of Watchmen, at any rate, Snyder seems to be taking the same approach here, amping up the tension of the heroes’ actions against the conspiracy in their midst.
And that’s where I think the movie has gone irreversibly wrong.
Watchmen is not a masterpiece because of the details. (Although they certainly are plentiful, and great if you can find and understand them.) Watchmen is a masterpiece because it has a central premise: there is no such thing as a superhero.
Yes, there might be people dressed up in costumes, but Moore’s triumph lies in the fact that these people are all too human. They don’t live up to the Superman archetype, the guy who stops crime “just because.” More often than not, they were adrenaline junkies and damaged personalities who got their kicks out of getting into fights while wearing homemade spandex.
In the Watchmen graphic novel, there were no armor-style costumes, no slow-motion jump kicks, no running away from fire without fear: the main substance behind Watchmen is that these were ordinary people–you and me–who were eccentric enough that they decided to put on a handmade costume and maybe manage to not get themselves killed. In other words: crime is omnipresent, but the reactions to it have been dramatized. But in Watchmen, there is no dramatic arc, no feel-good resolution.
It’s almost real life.
That’s what made the main thread of the entire story so powerful: it’s how these regular joes, in their makeshift domino masks and their purple-and-gold fabric sweaters, couldn’t stand up to the real evil that’s in this world. How they became even more insignificant when a man with the power of a god happened to change the balance of power. About how their punching and kicking drug dealers and pimps never really saved anybody, and when these amateur cosplayers actually have a chance to save the lives of thousands… they blow it.
Even the ending of Watchmen is proof that there are no superheroes: in order to save the world, Dan and Laurie basically have to hang up their costumes and accept the real world. Rorshach cannot, and is killed for it.
Let me reiterate what this means. Rorschach? He’s not a Dark Knight Detective, or even a romantic protagonist–he’s a crazy homeless guy in a mask, driven crazy by the unstoppable evil of the world. Dan Dreiberg? He’s an overweight schlub whose return to crimefighting is less an epic return to heroism and more of a riff off of Network: “I’m scared as hell and I can’t take it anymore!” Yes, he’s got a slick Owl aircraft, but again, this is more in the vein of holding onto your sweet 1988 Pontiac Fiero than having an Iron Man-style battle vehicle. In terms of the story arc, it’s the equivalent of an elementary school hockey team slowly reuniting, only to be suddenly placed in the Stanley Cup Finals.
(Or, to use another “superhero” movie: they’re the Mystery Men, but not trying to be funny about it.)
But with recent movies like the Dark Knight and Iron Man, I worry that Snyder might have missed this. Back when rumors that someone with the melancholic range of John Cusack was involved, I thought this film had the right idea, of emotional demons trumping action and conspiracies. But the casting of dreamy Pat Wilson as Night Owl, or someone with the expressiveness of Billy Crudup as the aloof Dr. Manhattan honestly concerns me over the film’s tone. These are not people with genius IQs or an X-factor that makes them different, or even strong biceps or six-pack abs–the Watchmen’s main tragedy is that they are no more powerful than you or me. These are five people with no powers, but with severely broken psyches–and one automaton stronger than any nuke.
In other words, I’m concerned that a movie that’s meant to break up even the notion of heroism has been blinded by the bucks and missed the point, and is instead propping up the superhero genre with a titanic marketing campaign and a couple of “badass” second-hand Batman and Robin costumes.
I hope I’m wrong about this. I hope this is just a sensationalistic trailer. I think Zack Snyder is a great director, but the more I see and the more I hear, the more I wonder if the spectacle and anticipation behind this movie got the better of him. But I hope I’m wrong.
Because if not, Watchmen’s greatest irony might be that the characters on the page turn out to be more real than their film counterparts.
December 12th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Of course it won’t “live up to its promise.”
Not with the fanboys, anyway.
It’ll make serious cash with eveyone else, though.
December 12th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I actually do have similar concerns. When they made Nite Own cool in the trailer, when I know for a fact that he isn’t, that got me really concerned about the movie, in spite of the apparent accuracy of many of the surface details that’s so evident in every preview material we’ve seen.
If I may induldge in further SPOILERS…
The thing that got me seriously concerned is the major change in the ending. I won’t say what it is, but the fact that Zach Snyder is so gung ho about shooting the Black Freighter sequence, when it’s significance is now zero considering how they changed the ending, is puzzling. Why shoot it when the reason for it existing is no longer there? Perhaps they found a different purpose for it. I’ll just have to wait and see.
I have no doubt that they will come up with a spectacular movie that will make lots of money. I’m definitely going to watch it the first day it’s out. But I have great fears that this will be a movie that will miss the point of Alan Moore’s Watchmen so completely that it will be an entirely different thing altogether. And perhaps I can enjoy it from that point of view. That it’s a superhero movie that looks like Watchmen, but it really isn’t.
Alan Moore regretted the effect that Watchmen has had on comics since the mid 80′s when it first came out… That because of Watchmen and Dark Knight, lesser creators, hooked on to the superficial thrills of Watchmen (Rorschach breaking fingers in a bar for instance),built a whole comic book industry on it, missing completely what Watchmen was trying to say.
Will this happen to the movie as well? I certainly hope not! Like you, I loved 300. But Watchmen is completely different creature, that requires a completely different approach.
December 12th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I’m not bothered by the armored costumes. Watchmen used spandex because that’s what comic book superheroes wear. The movie uses the armor because that’s what movie superheroes wear. I wouldn’t mind it if the bits in Watchmen about the impracticality of capes getting stuck in doors was reworked into the movie as the impracticality of the armor suits preventing you from turning your head or whatever inflexibility goes with the suit.
I am bothered by the non-pudginess of Nite Owl. My hope is that we (or at least I, since I intentionally try not to pay much attention to trailers) just haven’t seen the older Dreiberg yet, and that he’s nice and plump and at least a little silly looking when he’s older.
We’ll see. I’m not totally sold on Snyder. I enjoyed 300, and I respect his enthusiasm for trying to turn great comics into great movies. But I’m not sure it’s going to happen here, and there seem to be a couple things he’s done that I don’t like, and the overall look of the movie from the trailer does seem to make these people look like super cool badasses, which was great for 300 but totally wrong for Watchmen. And while making things look really cool is an impressive skill to have, that alone does not equal a great director. I’ll give the movie a chance, and I really want it to be good.
December 12th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
“There are no superheroes.”
I didn’t really think about Watchmen in those terms before, but that kind of makes sense when you think about it. I like the comment you made about them being adrenaline junkies. That kinda reminded me of Codeflesh.
December 12th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I think you may be overstating just how ‘normal’ even the nonpowered costumed adventurers like Dreiberg and Rorschach were in the comic. After all, Rorschach is shown as quite capable of taking down multiple cops, and even an out of shape Dreiberg (along with Sally) is able to handle a small street gang without much difficulty. I doubt that most of your readers are that ‘powerful’. Dreiberg’s inventions such as the Archie the owl ship and the hover platforms would probably also qualify him as an inventive genius. Ozymandias, on a tier above them albeit still way below Dr. Manhattan, is both a bonafide genius and a chambara-style martial artist who proves capable even of catching a bullet.
Now, there’s a really fine line between being true to the comic and presenting these characters as *more* cool and powerful than they were meant to be, given that you’re right about the overall theme of failure, but it’s not entirely the case that these are meant to be ordinary schlubs.
December 12th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Thank-you for this piece. It perfectly and completely sums up my feelings toward the Watchmen and how it’s not an all-out action flick.
December 12th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Great article. You said it all.
December 13th, 2008 at 1:08 am
This is the best column I have read on Newsarama, such that I can remember, in 3 years of frequenting the site.
December 13th, 2008 at 6:01 am
hahaha… Here is some more stuff about watch movie online
December 13th, 2008 at 8:43 am
I like your reading of it.
I wrote a whole piece over at ShotgunReviews about Watchmen and age and why the pretty young superheroes of the trailer threw me off. And your take is just another reason why I’m quite sure still that the movie won’t be Watchmen.
December 13th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Thank you, this is exactly what I’ve been thinking. I’ve always felt that Watchmen should feel like an early Scorsese film, but what we’re getting looks more like a prequel to The Matrix. And not in a good way.
December 13th, 2008 at 9:53 am
The casting is about the one thing that is giving me hope. Patrick Wilson may be dreamy on his own, but in makeup he’s a dead ringer for Drieberg and his performance in Little Children was beyond anything that Cusak could dream of touching. What worries me is that with all this slow motion action, it’s obvious that the characters on the street are the ones who are going to get cut. Understandable, as their significance isn’t readily apparent the first few times you read the book, but once you really have delved into it you realize how vital to the story they are. To see those disparate people coming together despite themselves to comfort each other when the clock strikes twelve while the costumed philosophers of the twentieth century (materialism, objectivism, feminism, existentialism, and structuralism… absurdism was thrown out a window and is thus absent) talk about shaping the future safe and sound in their monolithic fortress in Antarctica was one of the most powerful literary moments in my life. The movie just won’t be able to capture anything as poignant.
December 13th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
@ Mecha-Shiva: You know, I hadn’t thought about that with the armored costumes, but if they do that, that’ll actually go a long way to alleviate my concerns. They didn’t mention anything like that in the script I read, but perhaps there are revisions.
@ lotocution: I really appreciate you saying that. I hope you keep giving us a chance to impress!
@ Julian: I really find your discussion about the -isms to be really illuminating — I hadn’t thought of it like that. As for the casting, for me anyway, when I first saw that Patrick Wilson was going to be cast, I thought he was obviously going to be Dr. Manhattan. His performance as a conflicted, distant husband in Angels in America was the first thing that came to mind. But is he Dan Dreiberg awkward? He’s too much the All-American type to do that for me, anyway. Cusack, in my mind anyway, has built a career out of insecurity and nostalgia. Give him an extra twenty pounds, and listen to him talk about his impotence in the face of what seems to be impending doom. I think he could pull it.
@ Scott H.: I understand where you’re coming from. But — if I may defend my point — Rorschach does take on a group of police officers, but it is far from easy, and he certainly doesn’t win. I think a crazy homeless guy could certainly take on a police officer or two, especially if he was in close quarters with some flammable items.
Dreiberg and Silk Spectre, meanwhile, do have a slight edge, yes, simply from years of practice (and the fact that I believe they’re fighting strung out druggies). But as I wrote earlier, all the characters in this story (Dr. Manhattan excluded, of course) are human — and human vs. human, if each party feels in control of the situation, can typically be an even toss-up. (As for the Owl craft, hover boards, etc., obviously there is a suspension of disbelief in terms of his capabilities, but the vibe I get is again this is the “built-from-a-model-kit” comic book vehicle, not the work of a superpowered genius. Think the fake Batmen from the Dark Knight but with more cash.)
Now, your point with Ozymandias is interesting, but I think you still have to put it in the realm of ordinary people. (I agree, in his case, calling him an “ordinary schmo” is too much.) But basically, he’s a successful businessman, and he’s channeled those resources into creating what is in essence a bioweapon. But what I’m saying is — the only “superpower” he has is being rich, if you really want to call it that. But that isn’t outside the realm of possibility — if Bill Gates or Rupert Murdoch wanted to make a kiloton bomb, they probably could, with their resources. As for the catching of the bullets, of course, I read this as less of a power and more of a party trick — it’s the sort of thing the extravagantly wealthy could pick up if they wanted to play superhero. But if you really want to boil him down to his essence, you’ll see how “real world” he actually is: he’s a filthy rich guy who is also a health nut.
December 13th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I agree with this article. I’ve been saying this from the beginning: the failing of the WATCHMEN movie, outside of the fact that it’s an obvious cash-grab and that its existence goes against Alan Moore’s wishes, is that Snyder doesn’t get the larger picture.
People seem to be wowed by the visuals and the spectacle. That’s well and good but the philosophy of the film isn’t what it should be. WATCHMEN the movie is a big-budget superhero spectacle. WATCHMEN the novel is a satire of big-budget superhero spectacle (technically, it’s an indictment of western political and philosophical ideology that’s dressed as a satire of big-budget superhero spectacle).
The central premise of the book is more or less that Zack Snyder movies are a lie and that everything we’ve been told about superheroes and real-life heroes should be questioned. This is what people who understand the novel know and why everyone who “gets it” has always said WATCHMEN can never be turned into a summer popcorn flick. It is deconstructionism by its essence… it destroys what it is.
There’s a lot of talk that people who decry the movie are detail-obsessed ultra-nerds who are miffed that the comics aren’t a pitch-perfect mirror of every visual detail. I’m not worried about the detail changes just for their own sake, but that they betray a lack of understanding.
I’m more worried about the movie’s heart and mind, the non tangible elements. Is there a conceptual basis other than simply making a badass comic into a badass movie? In interviews, Snyder claims that the intelligence and complexity are things he wants to translates but he seems to be missing the fundamental message.
December 13th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Although, in fairness, I haven’t seen the movie. I should have said that Snyder DOESN’T SEEM to get the larger picture and that WATCHMEN the movie APPEARS TO BE a big-budget superhero spectacle.
I haven’t read or seen anything at all to convince me otherwise, however. Consider the fact that for whatever is good about 300 and DAWN OF THE DEAD, they weren’t terribly intelligent movies.
December 13th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
It may be dangerous to judge this movie from the trailer. Of course the trailer is going to be explosions and fights. It has a job to do – get people in the theaters. It’s quite possible that the movie will have a much different tenor than the trailer.
December 14th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
That Watchmen: The Movie was going to be misinterpreted as a revitalization of superhero movies rather than a tombstone to the genre, leading to increasingly weaker and grimmer follow-ons, was going to happen anyway. It happened to Watchmen: The Comic Book.
You’re not saying anything new.
December 15th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Wouldn’t that be fantastic, if the grim/gritty decade brought on by Watchmen/DK expressly repeated itself in the realm of comic movies, due to the exact same duo of influences? It won’t happen, though – for the reasons this article points out in addition to many others, all signs point to mediocrity for this movie. And regardless, mainstream comics industry circa 1988 does not at all equal Hollywood circa 2009.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Gerry, we’ve already seen the beginning of the realization of your fear when, spurred on by the success of “The Dark Knight,” Warner Brothers made their statements that the next Superman movie would be “bathed in the same brooding tone as ‘The Dark Knight’ by “exploring the evil side to character” and invoking the image of “an angry god.”
December 15th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
@lotocution: That would be awesome. I pity in advance the guy in ~2012 that has to wear the 140lb padded suit required to play Cable in X-Force.
December 21st, 2008 at 5:11 am
Why worry and get thin legs? I never understood what that meant but it feels apt. I’ll judge the film. Trailers are trailers – representative sometimes, a sales pitch for ticket goers typically. But ultimately, just a trailer. I take all your points made here – and made well. But a whole column supposing a bunch of things from a trailer? Maybe I’m just not as fanboyish as I thought…
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:15 am
Maybe “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” is the best we can hope for? A film that is… fine by itself for a “James Bond in 1899″ premise but doesn´t really have anything to do with the great comic itself? I know of one friend at least who didn´t bother reading the comic because “I have seen the movie, duh!”
I agree that this film will probably not be capable of being as big as the comic was in its genre, but let´s give it a chance, willya? It won´t be Lord of the Rings, but it might prove okay. Why not?
December 29th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Some good points. These guys are the anti hollywood heroes:
http://www.entertonement.com/clips/46205/Watchmen-are-over