As mentioned in a previous life, Blue Man’s First Law Of Comic Adaptations is this: just get the big stuff right. Work out what makes a comic worth reading, find the foundations that it’s built upon and make sure that those essentials come across successfully on screen. The corollary to Blue Man’s First Law Of Comic Adaptations therefore is this: change as much small stuff as you need to.
The first two X-Men films keep the mutants-as-an-oppressed-minority and family vibes from the comics, along with the iconic powers of Cyclops, Wolverine, Magneto and Professor X but change the costumes (“What, you think we should be wearing spandex?”), turn the Xavier Institute For Gifted Youngsters into an actual school, and re-interpret both Magneto (as a Holocaust survivor) and Rogue (as a teenage runaway). Batman Begins shows us Bruce Wayne’s double life, keeps Batman’s ambiguous relationship with the law and portrays him as a figure of superstition and terror to the criminal classes. However, it also gives us an on-again off-again romantic dalliance, the Batmobile as a military vehicle and Batman being trained as an actual no-fooling ninja. My very favourite comic movie ever, The Crow, retains almost nothing from the comic - about one-and-a-half scenes (Eric visting Gideon’s pawnshop and his confrontation with Fun Boy), plus the basic look, origin and mission of the central character, a bunch of villain names and that’s your lot.
I reiterate this to make my attitude clear – I’m a huge fan of Watchmen, but I don’t regard the book as a sacred text from whose holy writ deviation is not to be tolerated. I understand that what works on the page doesn’t necessarily work on screen. In fact in the case of Watchmen this is doubly true, it being a story that is structured specifically to take advantage of the strengths of the medium it was written for. Sin City may have basically treated the original comic like a storyboard with more-or-less successful results (mind-bendingly rampant misogyny aside), but in that case you’re talking about a very simple plot and books that were intended to be a film noir in comic form. Try the same thing with Watchmen and you’d just end up with a sprawling mess, albeit one with some great characters, nice set-pieces and interesting visuals.
Watchmen is a sprawling mess, albeit one with some great characters, nice set-pieces and interesting visuals. It’s not a very good film at all. I enjoyed it very much, look forward to seeing it again and would recommend it without hesitation to anyone who’s read and enjoyed the comic.
(Anyone who hasn’t read the comic I would recommend to, er, read the comic – it’s about the same price as a cinema ticket, can be read in about the time you’d invest in a visit to the flicks and is better than the film in every respect).
Let me attempt to explain.
The Phantom Menace is a terrible film by anybody’s standards. It’s got a rotten script, dodgy performances, it’s bloated, baggy and filled with characters I couldn’t give a flying hug about. But the first time that Qui-Gon O’Jinn The Oirish Jedi and Awful Alec Guinness Impression drew their lightsabres with that ssssccccchvooom! sound and began cutting loose with them I started grinning like I had a flip-top head. There are things that I’m just programmed to enjoy, that are hard-coded in my Nerd DNA to give me pleasure.
The sight of a giant Doctor Manhattan creating a glass palace of cogs and gears is one of these things. So’s the Comedian’s costume. So’s Archie the Owlship. So’s “You don’t get it! I’m not locked in here with you! You’re locked in here with me!”
Director Zack Snyder is obviously a fan of the comic, and he’s pretty good with cool images, with cool lines, with cool props, with cool fight scenes. He’s not so good with anything below the surface sheen. To coin the excellent phrase that m’good friend Lori used while we were comparing after-action reports last night, he’s respectful but not insightful. Almost without exception,every problem with Watchmen as a film can be traced back to one of those two traits – too much respect or not enough insight.
SPOILERS FOR BOTH FILM AND COMIC FROM HERE ON OUT. FAIR WARNING GIVEN.
The scene near the start of the film showing Dan Dreiberg visiting the first Nite Owl, Hollis Mason, is a decent example of showing too much respect for the source material. In the comic, Hollis plays a much bigger part, largely via the excerpts from his autobiography that make up the last few pages of the first three issues. We know him, we empathise with him, we’re upset when he gets killed, a shocking, saddening piece of collateral damage from Rorschach’s crusade. In the movie, Hollis gets that one short scene and is never heard from again. So if you’re not going to develop him as a character why include him at all? We don’t learn anything from the scene that couldn’t have just as easily been included in the (excellent) title montage that sums up the rise, fall and replacement of the Minutemen. The scene doesn’t serve any dramatic purpose so why does it exist? The answer: because it exists in the comic.
A smaller example is Bubastis. In the comic she’s a tiny bit of foreshadowing, an example of the genetic engineering that Ozymandias later uses to create the Space Squid Of Doom. In the film, she’s just a cool (and quite badly animated) pet. Why is she there? Because she was there in the comic.
Ozymandias was a major problem in general, in fact. In the comic he’s portrayed as a cross between John D. Rockerfeller, Bill Gates and Bono. He’s a media star, he’s a philanthropist. Yes, he’s a genius but he’s also approachable and down-to-earth. When the “assassination” attempt occurs, we hear a character saying “Who’d go after a guy like Veidt? He’s a real hero.” When it’s revealed that he’s behind the “mask killings” and then worse – much, much worse – it’s a kick in the gut that’s all the more savage for being totally unexpected.
In the film, he’s a stereotypically superior corporate kingpin. If he’s using his riches to do good works we never see it, beyond one rather nice little speech early on where he’s talking about infinite resources meaning an end to war driven by envy and hate with the twin towers of the World Trade Centre silhouetted behind him. We see him using people as human shields to avoid an attacker’s bullets. When it’s revealed that Veidt is behind the “mask killings” and worse our reaction is “yeah, he seemed the type”.
It feels almost as if the director’s started from the premise of Someone Capable Of Killing Millions To Save The World and worked backwards from there rather than appreciating the nuances of the character as written. In the book Ozymandias is a reflection of Rorschach – the latter is a character who we initially see as a despicable right-wing psychopath but gradually gain a measure of respect for. The former is a character who at first seems noble and sympathetic but who is revealed to be capable of unthinkable atrocity. That symmetry is lost in the film, as are plenty of other subtle parallels and juxtapositions and it’s the poorer experience for it. I don’t mean to sound like I’m complaining that too much has been taken out in the transition from stage to screen, that’s not the issue at all. Almost the opposite in fact – the problem isn’t that Stuff Has Been Taken Out, it’s that the director’s primary concern appears to have been getting as much Stuff into the film as possible, with the structure that that Stuff hangs on a secondary concern.
This is a film that seems to have been made by someone who loves the book too much and understands it too little.
The director’s big stampy bootprints are uncomfortably visible all over the place, making sure that any layers are properly smashed flat. There’s no room for subtext, nothing’s allowed to be hinted at or implied. I could nit-pick any number of examples but I think one sums up Snyder’s approach perfectly. He’s perfectly fine with allowing Rorschach to speak the iconic line;
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise.”
So long as he then adds:
“That’s the difference between you and me, Daniel.”
For CRYING OUT LOUD. YES. We KNOW that’s the difference between them, you’ve just spent TWO AND A HALF HUGGING HOURS SHOWING US that that’s the difference between them, this line is coming at the end of a scene where they’ve practically specifically DISCUSSED that that’s the difference between them, you’d need to have a MAJOR CONCUSSION not to realise that that’s the difference between them so WHY ON EARTH do you feel the need to SPELL OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM, you ENORMOUS HACK?
Honestly, it’s “from my point of view the Jedi are evil!” all over again.
For all that, there was plenty of stuff to like. The look of the film is almost perfect, a couple of dodgy costumes and some extremely dodgy makeup aside. Rorschach is utterly fantastic, and his incarceration is one of the few sequences that the film abridges almost completely successfully – a lot of the detail is gone, but the shape is still right, it’s tense but romps along at a good pace and is comfortably the best section of the movie. Dr. Manhattan comes across as properly unearthly, the Comedian as properly brutal, Nite Owl as properly diffident. The Silk Spectre is OK, but didn’t display anything like the hatred for the Comedian that she shows in the book which rather undermined the Luke I Am Your Father revelation on Mars. The change to the ending is perfectly acceptable. The action scenes are pretty good, albeit over-reliant on slow-mo and maybe erring on the side of “whoa, cool!” a bit too often. 155 minutes shot by amazingly quickly.
I just wish I could have seen a Watchmen movie made by someone who didn’t seem as scared of the source material and the fanbase. I wish I could have seen a Watchmen movie that was more interested in the book’s themes than its look, with its steak rather than its sizzle. I wish I could have seen a Watchmen movie that complimented the comic rather than just trying to duplicate it. I wish I could have seen a Watchmen movie made by Paul Greengrass, basically.
Until that happens, we could do an awful lot worse than the Watchmen movie we’ve already got.

I think my biggest problem with it was the inconsistencies. To be honest, I could live with a slavish copy of the novel. I’m a reasonably uncomplicated guy, and having awesome, mind-bending fiction delivered with more cool than you can shake a stick at works for me in any format. But why include some bits and not others? Case in point – Nite Owl 1 is there, but the great scene where Rorschach has to pull Nite Owl 2 off the ganger gloating over the brutal killing of him isn’t. You’ve already mentioned
bubastis, but there’s loads of other bits like it.
I was thinking on the way home last night that the new, less squiddy ending worked better in some ways. With the squid, it only attacks one city. If I was the Russians, with one US city down, I would capitalise on it and steamroller over the rest of the country! With worldwide strikes, the world would unite. Plus it makes a more compelling reason why Dr Manhatten should do the offski. When the chips are down, Dr Manhatten IS the problem, and this is much clearer in the film.
I would never be so foolish as to expect a film version of a graphic novel to measure up to the panoramas inside my head, brought about by reading the book. However, the bad (Ozymandias, inconsistencies in translation, slightly hammy script edits) are far outweighed by the good (very authentic visualisation, clearer finish, Rorschach, Nite Owl/Archie, Dr Manhatten, The Comedian, Silk Spectre, hilarious sex scene…).
Without a shadow of a doubt it is the best conversion of a Alan Moore graphic novel to be turned into a film, ever. And considering the illustrious competition (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, V for Vendetta, From Hell), this is a huge feat. Oh, hang on…
The part that really grated for me (especially as it’s reported that Snyder let the actors rewrite scenes and dialogue on the fly to match up with the book more closely) is that they changed the “DO IT?” speech at the end just enough to make it wrong. “Do that?”
Ugh.
Cracking film though. Even though I knew what was coming next all the time, I was utterly, utterly gripped throughout.
Mr. Russ:
As I said in the post, I don’t want to nit-pick examples and look like a fanboy who can’t stomach any deviation from the comic. I don’t have an issue with stuff being changed, I have an issue with stuff being changed for the worse.
But they did the exact same thing you’re talking about with the end of Rorschach’s opening monologue – in the comic it goes “and all the wh***s and politicians will look up and shout – save us! And I’ll look down and whisper – no”, in the film they remove the words “I’ll look down” so that the rhythm and symmetry of the speech – look up and shout, look down and whisper – is screwed up. Grrrrr.
I liked the film very much, but I felt the adaption was more than a little ham-fisted in several important places.
Dave:
I’ve read several people saying they preferred the new ending. I wouldn’t go that far – the comic version fits the Gordian Knot parallel better, with the solution coming from totally outside the proverbial box – but I didn’t mind it at all.
And – whisper it – but I quite liked League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Terrible adaption of the source, obviously, and a huge missed opportunity, but taken on its own merits I thought it was decently good fun.
Oh, and you were right. Rorschach does visit Moloch three times in the comic. I stand corrected and can only blame the fact that I was wrestling with deep ambivilence at the time.
Agree with a lot of what you say, I think it is a superb film that is enjoyable despite its tremendous flaws. I can see why it has split people right down the middle.
On the Hollis thing, I believe that his death, plus “Under the Hood” is going to be on the super-duper Directors Cut DVD. But you are right about that single scene being left in – either chop it all or leave it all.
And LoEG was a fun film. A travesty of the novel, but like The Italian Job (2003), would have been alright under a different title.
From the office of Zack Snyder: Look out for ‘Watchmen 2: Revenge of Squiddly Diddly’ in which the fishy space fiend turns up after all, decides enough is enough of all this “peace in our time” crap & promptly teams up with Zombie Comedian to get the last laugh on us all. Ozymandias goes on a road trip in an attempt to get his charm & winning personality back & Rorschach takes some time off dead for tax purposes. Silk Spectre & Nite Owl decide that this adventuring lark can actually be quite bad for your health & resolve their ongoing bedroom issues with a large supply of Viagra instead. Dr. Manhattan is found living in a hut on Brighton beach & refuses to intervene until he’s counted & considered the meaning of every single grain of sand there (takes him about ten minutes), He then “points & clicks” & makes all the bad things go away, unfortunately including the planet. Oh, what the hell, he makes another Earth & everything is basically OK in the end. Of course, it might need a bit of reworking but I feel that we have a potential winner here just as long as we can avoid that pesky Alan Moore bloke who clearly just doesn’t get it…
I liked LoEG a fair bit, but I think I’ve seen it too many times. Sean Connory was the.worst.person.ever. to play Quartermain. To be fair, I quite enjoyed parts of V for Vendetta too. Completely missed the point of the book, but looked great and ripped off most of good scenes effectively.
I wouldn’t say I preferred the new ending, merely that it does make more sense in a few ways. Insane squid nuttiness would make for a more out-and-out horrific climax.
I did feel that the film finish (after the big reveal) was a fair bit tidier. In the book it’s all a bit of a slow trudge once Rorschach is killed – Dan and Laurie get buzy, Ozzy gets a bit smug, and Dr Manhatten does the offski. The film wraps up a bit quicker than that.
Anyhow, from here on in I suspect we’ll just be debating somantics, so let’s just leave it as Watchmen is great fun in a parallel-world-1985-gets-largely-disintergrated way.
Rob: Did you see the latest on it? The working title is now “Watchmen 2: Watch Harder”.
I’m always a shade bitter and twisted about the whole comic book adaption thing. Well, okay any adaption for for that matter.
I can’t remember the last time I appreciated an adaption because the way it was done neither trod all over the original media with large boots nor sullied my childhood memories.
There have been many to have used and abused both of the above – which I have nonetheless enjoyed.
I speak of course of Starship Troopers.
this movie leaves a bad after-taste I think I hate it now.
What many people overlook is the film context of the movie. Consider the authorial intents of the comic projected as the intents of the film. Funny, the majority of your complaints don’t support your claim that the director lacks insight as if to compensate for respect. Most if not all of your complaints are just differences between the comic and movie. And why complain about easter eggs? It’s an aesthetic film device meant to allude. Many movies do it all the time. It’s nothing to criticize.
You understood, “That’s the difference between you and me, Daniel”, quite literally. Where’s the insight? By Rorschach admitting this, he admits awareness of his perspective. That makes him more complicated because it means he is not simply the victim of a horrible past. He chooses what he is, which is one of the film’s themes- perspectivism.
The director didn’t lack insight. In fact, he shares Moore’s insight into the medium and genre he’s working with. Perhaps you should have prefaced by admitting what you think Watchmen, the comic, was about so readers ascertain the angle of your criticism.
An easter-egg allusion is Ozymandias’ infinite-energy project being named SQUID. Giving Hollis Mason 3-4 minutes of screen time to provide next to no character development or exposition then never mentioning him again is just flabby film-making.
I don’t remotely buy that the expicit stating of Rorschach’s perspective makes him more complex. We know he chooses what he is – both in the comic and the movie he describes the exact moment he chose to surrender himself to the Rorschach persona. The very first page of the comic has him talking about people choosing which standards to hold themselves to. It’s a theme he returns to several times. Spelling it out in small words feels clumsy and patronising.
I read Watchmen once, a good long time ago now so the story line was a little fuzzy in my memory when I went to watch the film.
Taking that into consideration and also the generally agreed upon fact that I am fairly easily entertained my opinion of the film is really only that of a simple minded cinema goer who has forked out a considerable amount of hard earned to be entertained.
I have seen some well made, well constructed films made by talented and celebrated people that I simply detested and I have watched some utter tripe that I found surprisingly enjoyable, this film for me kind of falls into the middle ground where I feel it was a bit mediocre.
Sure the fight sequences looked ok, the lighting effects were moody and some of the characters were really engaging…but some of the good stuff, for me, was undermined by the simple fact that one of the core characters was written wrong (Ozy) and played by a guy who just seemed to come off a bit “pantomime villain”, a bit like a poor man’s Jeremy Irons rather than a really good chap who is loved by everyone – hence the big shock when he really does turn out to be the big bad.
That you could tell from the word go that this chap was a wrong ‘un sort of made everything a little less interesting for me for the rest of the film.
I leave it to you others to contemplate the merits of the film vs book debate, as I say, I am coming at this simply as a movie watcher who has this nasty feeling that she sat through a very long bad film and paid for that priviledge.
Wot no Ghost Rider?