Alexander

Bear in mind that Moore was writing for DC comics, a company that primarily publishes superhero comics. You are right, of course. Comics don't HAVE to be about superheroes. As with any medium, comics can accomidate any and all subject matters and genres. Some of the best comics are NOT about superheroes (Spiegelman's "Maus"; Satrapi's "Persepolis"; Clowes' "Ghost World"; Ware's "ACME Novelty Library" and "Jimmy Corrigan"; Bagge's "Hate"). I love "Hate." Me, too, as well as "Ghost World," but Chris Ware puts me to sleep, and I despise "Maus." How can one despise "Maus"? Do you dislike the art? Or is it that it has become an untouchable "classic," taught in high schools and universities? Ware is an amazing draughtsman. I don't think any living cartoonist draws buildings as well (he's probably the greatest since Windsor McCay). I also love the fact that his stories hit so close to home that it's unsettling. Every one of his books and strips makes me feel depressed and creepy. He's brilliant!

Again, clearly Snyder's heart is on the right peg. He clearly loves the work of Moore and Miller and in both films he tries very hard (too hard) to adapt the books faithfully. It's not that he has done a poor job on purpose. His talent doesn't match his ambition. And I do give him credit for both his love of the source material and his ambition in trying to do right by it. The funny thing is that for ages and ages, every time a comic book came to the screen, it was done by people who DIDN'T love the form. Tim Burton (a brilliant director in his own right) stated at the time that he had never read "Batman" and had no interest in making the "Batman" comic fans wanted to see. He didn't want to make Frank Miller's "Batman" or even Bob Kane's "Batman." He wanted to make TIM BURTON'S "Batman." Burton kept the familiar elements of the book, but he used it as a springboard to tell the story he wanted to tell and make the movie he wanted to make. Which is his right, of course, but it didn't endear him to readers like me who wanted to see the kind of story we were reading in the comics. Now, oddly enough, Christopher Nolan who has done an absolutely amazing job with the Batman films has deviated significantly from the "cannon" of the comics. His Joker has nothing whatever to do with the Joker of the comics, at least in terms of his backstory. But his Joker comes far closer to the SPIRIT of the way the Joker has been portrayed by writers like Miller and Moore than did Burton's, even though Burton's Joker hewed closer to the comic in terms of the character's look. I think a director like Gilliam, Arnofsky, or even Nolan, would have given us a "Watchmen" closer to the truth of the novel, even if it wasn't as faithful to the letter of the book, than that provided by Snyder. The guy's just not a very good FILMMAKER.

Bear in mind that Moore was writing for DC comics, a company that primarily publishes superhero comics. You are right, of course. Comics don't HAVE to be about superheroes. As with any medium, comics can accomidate any and all subject matters and genres. Some of the best comics are NOT about superheroes (Spiegelman's "Maus"; Satrapi's "Persepolis"; Clowes' "Ghost World"; Ware's "ACME Novelty Library" and "Jimmy Corrigan"; Bagge's "Hate"). But some of the best ARE about superheroes (Miller's "Dark Knight" and "Batman: Year One"; Loeb and Sale's "Batman: The Long Halloween"; Moore's "The Killing Joke"). While Moore cut his teeth in England writing superhero comics ("Marvel Man," "Captain Britain") a great many of his comics are NOT about heroes at all. "From Hell" deals with Victorian England and the Ripper crimes. "Lost Girls" is erotica. "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" is about the adventure heroes of Victorian literature, which prefigure the superheroes of the 20th century. "V for Vendetta" is an adventure story set in an Orwellian future. The unfinished "Big Numbers" deals with life in North Hampton during the early 1990s. Although published by DC, "Swamp Thing" was a horror comic. But Moore clearly finds a great deal to explore in the idea of superheroes, since he has returned to them so often. His unfishised "1963" miniseries for Image was a brilliant parody of Marvel Comics during that era. The ABC books each examined different facets of superheroes: "Tom Strong" gave us a pulp hero (in the mold of Doc Savage) in the modern world. "Promethea" explored mythology and magic, as well as science and fiction. "Top Ten" told the story of a police force in a city made up entirely of super heroes, where everybody - cops, criminals, and ordinary citizens - has super powers. "Tomorrow Stories" paid tribute to comic visionaries like Will Eisner and Harvey Kurtzman in stories that satirized comic books and pop culture. He is simply the greatest comic book author alive.

Oh, god...another icon fucked with? Well, not like there haven't been dozens of films, tv series, etc. Young Sherlock Holmes sticks out as a particularly non-canonical one. But reading this again, Jude Law makes sense as Holmes, but Watson??? It gets even better...Holmes will be played by Robert Downey, Jr.! I'm actually looking forward to seeing what he does with the role...

Hey, Watchmen has dogs!

I agree as well. I was very disappointed. I actually worked on this a bit when the project was set up at Universal (before it went to Paramount and ultimately to Warners, in between which it almost came back to Uni) and the last draft that I read was quite good - better, imo, than what ended up on screen. Zack was indeed much too slavish to the book, which is a fine objective - to a point - but not when it gets in the way of telling the story as a film. I also think it would have been better - and ultimately more profitable - with a PG-13 rather than an R-rating. Rather than add to the edginess of the material, I found much of the violence to be gratuitous. I really don't enjoy violence (or specifically killing) on-screen unless it is purposely unrealistic (maybe some of the Hellboy scenes). So while I would no doubt be disappointed by the film, I would probably go watch it anyway, except these reports of how so much of the violence has been moved off-panel to on-screen. Frankly, it is as if the director treats the audience as if they are idiots, compared to the relative restraint of the book. It's not enough that the whole gesalt screams this is a nihilistic, dog-eat-dog world, we've got to see the blood and have our noses rubbed in it. What a waste. A few people have suggested that Jude Law could have pulled off Ozymandias (and certainly would have been more age-appropriate). I know he isn't as charasmatic as Ledger, but he could have done the aloof genius thing pretty well. I agree. In the absense of Ledger, Law would have made a very good Ozymandias. The point of the character is that he has to be someone the audience is not merely sympathetic with, but in AWE of. Which then makes the full scope of his meglomania far more terrifying. He really is, literally, supposed to be Hitler with the face of a God.

The only actor who could have done justice to Ozymandias, in my opinion, was Heath Ledger. I think he would have really been brilliant in that role.

I urge you to consider reading the book. Even if you're not a fan of comic book heroes, I think you'd find it interesting. The thing to understand is that when Moore wrote "Watchmen" in 1985, nothing like it had ever happened in comics. Moore was basically saying that a world with super beings could not help but be effected by their existence. That's why Nixon is still POTUS in 1985. That's why (in the book) everyone drives electric cars. Even the fashions are different (something not covered in the film at all) and it's all because of the existence of one man: Jon Osterman, aka Dr. Manhattan. The world has contorted itself to suit the existence of one being. Each chapter of the book is followed by a text piece that fleshes that world out. The first three chapters tell us the backstory of Hollis Mason (the first Nite Owl) and by extention give a history of this world's costumed heroes during the late '30s through the early '60s. Other text pieces give us a glimpse into the personal history of Rorschach (via his arrest record and psychatric records from his troubled childhood). There's so much detail in the book, the film couldn't help but merely scratch the surface. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that even if Snyder succeeded in making an entertaining film, he's really done the book a disservice because a lot of people are going to see this and say, "That's IT? That's the story that people call the "Citizen Kane" of comic books? I guess if THAT'S the best they can do, there really isn't anything to it!" A little context as well: During the late 1980s, a lot of comic book publishers were trying to reshape their familiar heroes. Frank Miller had been allowed to write his groundbreaking "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" which presents a middle aged Bruce Wayne getting back into the hero biz after a ten year retirement and finding that the world has grown worse during his absence. John Byrne (very much the "in" comic creator of that period) was going to completely reboot DC's flagship character, Superman. George Perez did the same to Wonder Woman. Other properties that had been published by other companies but had been acquired by DC (such as Fawcett's original Captain "Shazam" Marvel) were given a new lease on life. Alan Moore had been asked to write a story featuring a bunch of fairly obscure heroes DC had acquired from a company called Charlton. These included Steve Ditko's The Question, Captain Atom, the Blue Beetle, and a few others. Moore took these characters and put them in a dystopian parallel present, forcing them to deal with "real world" problems. What if the people you count on to protect you are themselves morally questionable? What if someone with power decides to sacrifice unwitting lives in the name of a greater good? Who has the right to make decisions like that? It was a heavy duty story and DC knew it. The only problem was that by the time the story is over, half the characters are dead, and DC had plans to make regular use of the Charlton characters. So Moore was forced to create his own characters who would closely parallel their models. The Question became Rorschach. The Blue Beetle became Nite Owl. Captain Atom became Dr. Manhattan. And so on. So "Watchmen" had no familiar characters. It also challenged the very idea of "heroism." Can a man who rapes and murders be a hero? What sort of obligation do we have to our fellow man? Rorschach, Ozymandias, Dr. Manhattan, and the Comedian present very troubling examples of heroism. The Comedian works for the U.S. government, therefore he is a hero by virtue of the power invested in him by his nation. Rorschach is a vigilante with a very black/white views on morality ("...There is good and there is evil and evil must be punished. Even in the face of armageddon, I shall not compromise in this."); he is also a crazy street person who kills those he considers "evil." Dr. Manhattan really doesn't care at all. His view of time allows him to see the past, present and future simultaneously. He calls himself a "puppet who can see the strings." And then there is Ozymandias, the most frightening of them all. Unlike the Comedian who is an amoral mercenary who hires himself out to whomever gives him the most freedom, or Rorschach who acts out of a twisted idea of justice, Ozymandias seems to embody the American ideal: Blond, blue eyed, handsome, brilliant, wealthy, politically liberal...Ozymandias is the character who retains our sympathy and admiration throughout the narrative. He's not crazy like Rorschach or cruel like the Comedian. He's not drifting out of touch like Dr. Manhattan, nor is he a "flabby failure" like Nite Owl. He is a philanthropist and a self-made man. His only power is his iron will, which he repeatedly points out is something within the reach of any man or woman. But as you read, come to realize that what Ozymandias REALLY represents is not the American ideal so much as the Nazi ideal. And he is truely insidious because he honestly believes that he is acting in the best interests of humanity. Alarmed by what he views as an inevitable nuclear conflict, Ozymandias puts his fortune and his genius towards a plan that will save mankind by tricking it into cooperation. His plot reaches over decades and touches literally hundreds of lives. He murders millions so that billions will live...and he doesn't see himself as the bad guy. In the end (with the exception of Rorschach) the others agree. They don't see him as the bad guy either. The film turns the subtlety of the book into a couple of trite lines, and my summary doesn't do a better job. You have to read the book to see how Moore makes all of this work and work brilliantly. It was the first Alan Moore book I ever read and it turned me into a fan for life. Please, don't dismiss the book on the basis of the movie. In fact, if you have to choose between reading the book and seeing the film, read the book. It's a better use of your time.

The moment comic book fans have waited nearly twenty three years for came last night at one minute past midnight. That was when Zack Snyder's film version of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' allegedy unfilmable graphic novel - arguably the greatest piece of comic art ever produced - finally hit screens in the United States. I could get a ticket last night, but not for the Imax show which has apparently been sold out for some time. Wanting to see it in Imax, I opted to buy a ticket to the first showing today (unemployment does have its benefits). Now let's make one thing perfectly clear (as Richard Nixon, himself a Watchmen character, would say): Being a fan of "Watchmen" going all the way back to the book's initial run as a twelve issue limited series in 1986, I went into this film expecting to be disappointed. I have read and reread "Watchmen" over and over again as the years have passed. I know every nuance, ever tiny detail. I knew that no movie, however good, could capture every possible facet of the book's intricacy. Things would have to be left out. Every filmed adaptation of a book, from Danielle Steele to "Ulysses", is a compromise. Many films have managed to capture a book's ineffable spirit while losing large chunks of narrative. That's just part of the game. Alan Moore graphic novels have, for the most part, made poor fodder for films. "From Hell" was abysmal. "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" was appalling. "V for Vendetta" was decent, but deeply flawed. Something about Moore doesn't seem to translate to the screen. I suspect it has something to do with the general complexity of his work. When a film is made of one of his books, the films tend to glom onto the style of Moore's narrative, while entirely missing the substance. "Watchmen" came near to the mark, but as with the other films made of Moore's books, it missed it. By a wide margin. <<Spoiler Alert>> So what went wrong with "Watchmen"? Over the years, numerous screenwriters and directors have attempted to bring this story to the screen. One by one, they've given up and walked away (most notably Terry Gilliam, who declared that no one film to do justice to the story. It would have to be a mini-series). Finally, Zack Snyder, whose directorial credits include a remake of "Dawn of the Dead" and the uneven adaptation of Frank Miller's "300", took the challenge on. What made Snyder think he could succeed where directors like Gilliam and Darren Arnofsky had failed? I don't know. Perhaps he was high on his own sense of optimism. Perhaps such optimism is required when attempting something as ambitious as this. Snyder's heart was surely in the right place. He attempts to squeeze everything he can from the book into 2 hours and 40 minutes. The dialogue is largely taken directly from Moore's text. Many iconic panels are faithfully recreated. This should be a fanboy's wet dream. But it isn't. It doesn't work. What I'm left wondering is, why not? First of all, with only 160 minutes to tell a story as rich in detail and subtle in subtext as "Watchmen," Snyder elects to hit the highlights. This gives the film a breathless, rushed feel (ironic for a film that's already derided for being too long). In Improv we often play a game where we have to perform a well-known epic (like "The Odyssey" or "Gone with the Wind") in one minute. The result is frantic and funny, with iconic scenes and lines thrown out one after the other. That's EXACTLY how "Watchmen" feels...except, of course, it's not funny. It's as though Snyder is saying to the viewer, "Remember this part? And this part? Oh, and this part? And then there's this part here..." A fan can pick up on what's happening easily enough, but I have a feeling that a non-fan is going to sit there and go, "huh?" Too much has to be glossed over too quickly in order to get it all in. The film, based as it was on a monthly comic book, is also too episodic. Rather than spreading Dr. Manhattan's recollections of his life throughout the film, we get a "chapter" from the book (rushed through and dumbed down, of course, so it doesn't take up TOO much time). As I watched the film, I could tell you exactly which "issue" we were in. Snyder makes the mistake of trying to film "Watchmen" rather than trying to make "Watchmen" into a film. Another MAJOR mistake on Snyder's part is making the action bloodier and more violent than in the book (already pretty violent, btw. A dog gets it's head split open with a meat cleaver. "The Pokey Little Puppy" this ain't), which is simply uncalled for. A character gets his throat slit in the book? Have his hands chopped off in the film! It's not enough that Adrian's secretary is killed in a failed assassination attempt? Make sure that Lee Iacocca gets a bullet in the head as well! The ending is changed as well, although not as much as you might think. Adrian's plot is no longer to unite the world with a fake alien invasion. Now we're going to make Dr. Manhattan the new boogie man. But that's not the real problem. The problem is that all of Adrian's exposition explaining WHY he does what he does has been removed from the film. Adrian, for all of his monstrosity in the book, is still a fairly sympathetic character because we understand that he really does MEAN well. The whole point of the book is how the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Nothing of that survives in the film, partly because Snyder neutered it, but also because the actor who plays Ozymandias is horrible, underplaying that character to an absurd degree. Snyder does get the look of the book right. His Dr. Manhattan is taken right off the page. Yet he has no grandure whatsoever. he looks flat out ridiculous most of the time, in fact. This is supposed to be the most powerful creature in the universe! Why is Billy Crudup playing him as Data in Star Trek: The Next Generation? In the book, the character is shocked with it is suggested that he gave cancer to his closest friends and associates. In the film, he barely manages to blink. The performances of Nite Owl and Rorshach are quite good, as is the Comedian (who disappears from the narrative of the film for too long, however), but the actress who plays Laurie/ The Silk Spectre II is abysmal. She certainly looks good, but the girl can't act her way out of a paper bag. She and Dan are supposed to give the story its humanity. Dan does fine, but he's carrying the load for Laurie. For a film to look this good and stink this bad is a real shame. This is worse than a bad adaptation: This is a missed opportunity.

I believe the preferred term these days is "metal of color"...

Have it and like it! Lewis fits in well with the band!

He can wear all the glasses and brylcreem he wants, but he doesn't look like BG. The dude clearly AIN'T NO JEW!

I've read "Infinite Jest" (it only took me about a month to read) and I think it is definitely up there with "Gravity's Rainbow" and "Lolita" as one of the great 20th century novels. I've also read "Broom of the System" (DFW's first novel) which isn't quite as good, but is still very well done. I'm working in reading his short story collections now... Looking forward to his final novel!

Bob ran out of ideas in 1968? I'll go along with that, as long as we make an exception for "Nashville Skyline," "New Morning," "Planet Waves," "Before The Flood," "Blood on the Tracks," "Desire," the Rolling Thunder Review, "Street Legal," "Slow Train Coming," "Saved," "Shot of Love," "Infidels," the Infidels era material on "The Bootleg Series" ("Foot of Pride," "Blind Willie McTell," "Lord Protect My Child," etc.) "Oh Mercy," "Under the Red Sky," "Good As I Been To You," "World Gone Wrong," "Time Out of Mind," "Love and Theft," and "Modern Times." Oh, and the material on the most recent volume of the Bootleg Series. As long as we make exceptions for all that, I'll go along with you, Allen....

I grew up listening to him, too. Does anybody else remember Rich Hall's brilliant impression of Harvey? He did Harvey on an episode of SNL during the Weekend Update segment several times. I remember one show where Christopher Guest chastised Paul Harvey for sneaking in plugs for his radio show's sponsors (True Value, the Pep Boys, etc) and Harvey threatened to take his message to the Russians, doing the whole broadcast in mock-Russian (my favorite was when he compared Stalin, Lenin and Marx to Manny, Moe and Jack...the Pepski Boys). Did you know that Paul Harvey had been a supporter of Joe McCarthy? It's true! And now you know.... ....the rest.... ....of the.... ....story. I wonder if he ever taught drama to William Shatner?

No lie, she's been offered a million dollars by (I think) Vivid Adult Video and - yes - they were planning on calling the movie "Octopussy." No word on whether the Bond people have lodged any kind of complaint... Another adult video company has actually offered her a year's supply of cloth diapers and a cleaning service if she DOESN'T take any offers to make a porn film, essentially telling her that it would be bad for her kids if she does so. The company went on to say that just because they are pornographers doesn't mean they can't act ethically or encourage responsible behavior... Read the full story here. Note: There's nothing wrong with the story itself, but the site is probably not safe for work...

Oh, and I have since seen the first season. And it really sucked.

I refused to watch it during it's first season. I was a freshman in college and it was HUGELY popular with the fratboys and sorority girls who insisted on slapping Bart's image on every poster and flyer they printed. I watched a few episodes in friends rooms, but I didn't like it much. Somewhere around the third or fourth season, I started watching it via my girlfriend's roommate's videotapes. Around this period, the show started getting really bizarre, which I loved. I really liked when the show would start out with some mundane situation and just fly off in a strange direction. Around this time, I was also delighted to note that this "new direction" starting to lose the show its initial fans (I can't tell you how many fratboys I overheard saying things like, "I used to identify with Homer, but now they're making him REALLY stupid." or "The Simpsons is getting too strange. They used to have, like, stories and stuff. Now the shows are just strings of weird jokes." It was also around this time that they started implying that Smithers was gay, which really seemed to make the fratboys uncomfortable). I watched the show religiously up until last year. Nothing happened to make me stop. I just haven't been watching a lot of TV lately.

Sounds like you did a great deal to enrich is final years. I can't imagine doing anything more important (other than being a parent, of course)...

I don't know about the specifics, but I've found that Sonys are my preferred brand through trial and error. So I would agree that Japanese made CD-Rs seem to be the best.

"What's on the telly?" "Looks like a penguin."

Ah, yes. Left at the light.

Hey, I'd watch all of those programs...include the Jazzercize show. For some reason, I thought the women on those shows were really HOT back in the early 80s. Probably because I was hormonal...

Right. Stop this thread at once! It's very, very silly!

I have a funny broken record story. Years ago, when my wife and I lived in Boston, her parents brought up a bunch of her things from their house in Chicago. Among these was a box of LPs that had belonged to my wife as a child. Sadly, her mother had stored them near a heating vent and they were all badly warped. We didn't own a turntable anyway, and as they were warped, I suggested just throwing them away. My wife objected, and said that if we were going to get rid of them, we should at least try to sell them. I said that since they were warped, they were worthless and nobody would buy them, but I agreed to at least try. I figured that once a couple of stores said no, she would let me throw them away. So a friend and I took the box of records to a store. The funny thing was that the clerk didn't even look at the warped LPs themselves before rejecting them. It was a box of Barry Mannilow, Air Supply, and some other late-70s/early-80s soft rock albums the clerk said they already had too many copies of. I called my wife from a phone booth outside the store (which was near Kenmore Square, for those who know Boston) and told her that it was no-go and she agreed that I could chuck them. So my friend and I went looking for a trash can. There was one right on the corner of Beacon St. and Comm. Ave. (right where they cross in the square) and I dropped them in. No sooner did I drop them then a voice cried out: "Hey! That guy's throwing away records!" A crowd of twenty-somethings in shabby coats surrounded the trashcan as they began digging through the refuse. I called out, "They're warped!" One of the kids yelled back, "I don't care!" "It's Air Supply and Barry Mannilow!" I called back. "I love that stuff!" Another guy yelled. So we walked away, shaking our heads. People will truly take anything as long as it's free. I don't know what, if anything, they did with the records. Perhaps my wife's collection got a second life in some hipster's Boston apartment. Probably not.