Watchmen Trailer is up

[Wolter]

I thought his criticisms of V for Vendetta were valid--that said, it's a very entertaining film.

I meant his more general opinons, not specific criticism of the film. For example, he complains about what they do to his work but refuses to partake in the development of the films. Well... what the fuck do you expect to happen if you don't oversee the operation? People are gonna take the source material and adapt it to something they want (for good or ill, mostly ill).

His thing about how Watchmen "can't" be adapted is also stupid. Sure, it won't be the exact same thing as the comic book - but that's the point of adaptations. A different angle on things - doing something in one medium that maybe can't be done in another.

Alan Moore is a genius but he's also sort of a cranky stick-in-the-mud.

I may have to come back and elaborate when a) I have a little more time to think carefully and b) I am not completely fucking off my game, but I have a reason why he might be adamant about it not being adaptable.

is it a spoiler? for some reason i still haven't gotten around to reading watchmen

No. It's more of a commentary on Moore's persona, the general opinion of comics, and the time that Watchmen was made.

[eumaas]

I thought his criticisms of V for Vendetta were valid--that said, it's a very entertaining film.

I meant his more general opinons, not specific criticism of the film. For example, he complains about what they do to his work but refuses to partake in the development of the films. Well... what the fuck do you expect to happen if you don't oversee the operation? People are gonna take the source material and adapt it to something they want (for good or ill, mostly ill).

His thing about how Watchmen "can't" be adapted is also stupid. Sure, it won't be the exact same thing as the comic book - but that's the point of adaptations. A different angle on things - doing something in one medium that maybe can't be done in another.

Alan Moore is a genius but he's also sort of a cranky stick-in-the-mud.

I may have to come back and elaborate when a) I have a little more time to think carefully and b) I am not completely fucking off my game, but I have a reason why he might be adamant about it not being adaptable.

is it a spoiler? for some reason i still haven't gotten around to reading watchmen

No. It's more of a commentary on Moore's persona, the general opinion of comics, and the time that Watchmen was made.

Cool, looking forward to it then--been enjoying Promethea and sundry other Moore creations lately.

[Dr. Medulla]

I thought his criticisms of V for Vendetta were valid--that said, it's a very entertaining film.

I meant his more general opinons, not specific criticism of the film. For example, he complains about what they do to his work but refuses to partake in the development of the films. Well... what the fuck do you expect to happen if you don't oversee the operation? People are gonna take the source material and adapt it to something they want (for good or ill, mostly ill).

His thing about how Watchmen "can't" be adapted is also stupid. Sure, it won't be the exact same thing as the comic book - but that's the point of adaptations. A different angle on things - doing something in one medium that maybe can't be done in another.

Alan Moore is a genius but he's also sort of a cranky stick-in-the-mud.

I may have to come back and elaborate when a) I have a little more time to think carefully and b) I am not completely fucking off my game, but I have a reason why he might be adamant about it not being adaptable.

is it a spoiler? for some reason i still haven't gotten around to reading watchmen

No. It's more of a commentary on Moore's persona, the general opinion of comics, and the time that Watchmen was made.

That's another reason why I'm wary of Watchmen working. It's so rooted in a particular point of the Cold War that it risks being an anachronism, especially for those born after it was published.

[Flex]

That's another reason why I'm wary of Watchmen working. It's so rooted in a particular point of the Cold War that it risks being an anachronism, especially for those born after it was published.

Luckily for me, I was born one year before it was published... so I can totally get what it's laying down.

More seriously, I think the book holds up well in a "timeless" sort of way so it stays relevant even after the events the story is set in have become a thing of the past. That's what makes great works of fiction, well, great. I'd say Watchmen qualifies.

Of course, a poor translation onscreen might still make it seem anachronistic, but I don't think a movie adaptation is necessarily doomed to fail in that regard.

[Dr. Medulla]

That's another reason why I'm wary of Watchmen working. It's so rooted in a particular point of the Cold War that it risks being an anachronism, especially for those born after it was published.

Luckily for me, I was born one year before it was published... so I can totally get what it's laying down.

More seriously, I think the book holds up well in a "timeless" sort of way so it stays relevant even after the events the story is set in have become a thing of the past. That's what makes great works of fiction, well, great. I'd say Watchmen qualifies.

Of course, a poor translation onscreen might still make it seem anachronistic, but I don't think a movie adaptation is necessarily doomed to fail in that regard.

My effort at comparison might be James Bond. Yeah, it has a timeless aspect as excellent adventure, cloak and dagger stuff, but it's also rooted in the Cold War and that geopolitics informs the series. The farther we've gotten from the time that those Bond novels were written, the heart of the Cold War, the less effective the flicks have been.

My test for the "applicability" of Watchmen would be to give it to an eighteen year old who doesn't have much of a grounding in history and see how effective Moore's text is without that reader foreknowledge.

[Flex]

My effort at comparison might be James Bond. Yeah, it has a timeless aspect as excellent adventure, cloak and dagger stuff, but it's also rooted in the Cold War and that geopolitics informs the series. The farther we've gotten from the time that those Bond novels were written, the heart of the Cold War, the less effective the flicks have been.

Watchmen is heads and shoulders above James Bond. James Bond is an adventure story, Watchmen is about the human condition and shit (eloquent analysis, if I do say so myself). Besides that, "Casino Royale" is probably the best Bond film to date.

My test for the "applicability" of Watchmen would be to give it to an eighteen year old who doesn't have much of a grounding in history and see how effective Moore's text is without that reader foreknowledge.

That's not exactly fair though. Give that same 18 year old some Shakespeare or Tolstoy (or Faulkner or Steinbeck or whatever) and they're just as likely not to know what the hell to make of it. Having a timeless quality doesn't mean it's universally accessible to every slack jawed dumbass.

[Dr. Medulla]

My effort at comparison might be James Bond. Yeah, it has a timeless aspect as excellent adventure, cloak and dagger stuff, but it's also rooted in the Cold War and that geopolitics informs the series. The farther we've gotten from the time that those Bond novels were written, the heart of the Cold War, the less effective the flicks have been.

Watchmen is heads and shoulders above James Bond. James Bond is an adventure story, Watchmen is about the human condition and shit (eloquent analysis, if I do say so myself). Besides that, "Casino Royale" is probably the best Bond film to date.

They aren't about the same thing, no, but my point is that each is/was rooted in its time—its setting is as important as the characters or their actions.

My test for the "applicability" of Watchmen would be to give it to an eighteen year old who doesn't have much of a grounding in history and see how effective Moore's text is without that reader foreknowledge.

That's not exactly fair though. Give that same 18 year old some Shakespeare or Tolstoy (or Faulkner or Steinbeck or whatever) and they're just as likely not to know what the hell to make of it. Having a timeless quality doesn't mean it's universally accessible to every slack jawed dumbass.

Then how can you properly test the timeless thesis if you're judging those uncontaminated by historical awareness as too stupid in the first place?

[Flex]

Then how can you properly test the timeless thesis if you're judging those uncontaminated by historical awareness as too stupid in the first place?

I dunno, how do we measure anything as timeless I guess? I think it's usually that, despite the fact that something may be rooted in particular circumstance of the past, we can appreciate its lessons or views on human nature (or whatever) today. I think most things, anything, worth a damn require some basic level of intelligence and literacy. Just because you have to have a certain skillset to appreciate timeless classics doesn't mean they aren't timeless classics.

Are you positing that something can only be considered timeless if it doesn't require the reader/viewer/listener to have absolutely no knowledge or ability about anything? Because that's a tough standard to meet.

They aren't about the same thing, no, but my point is that each is/was rooted in its time—its setting is as important as the characters or their actions.

I think the difference is that Bond stories are essentially adventure stories about the Cold War. Watchmen is a story which uses the setting of the Cold War to tell a more substantive story about human nature and morality.

[Dr. Medulla]

Are you positing that something can only be considered timeless if it requires the reader/viewer/listener to have absolutely no knowledge or ability about anything? Because that's a tough standard to meet.

No, just historical knowledge. One can appreciate, for example, Shakespeare without a grounding in Elizabethan history or, for his historical dramas, the context of their settings. You can appreciate it in different ways, however, if you have that grounding, but it's not a prerequisite. Both the Old and New Testament can be interpreted without knowledge of the historical circumstance (and usually is), but an appreciation for the circumstances surrounding the various books' creation adds a new level of understanding. Other fiction relies on the reader or viewer understanding the context around the story's setting. A lot of war fiction is historically specific, such as Vietnam or Iraq, and requires a basic understanding of the context, the actors, the rationales. I'm suggesting that Watchmen might (only might, not definite) require the viewer understanding the anxieties of the Cold War in the early 80s to properly appreciate the larger story.

[eumaas]

Found temperature quickly overheating while using hydraulic system. Installed pressure gauges and found pump regulating valve sticking, allowing hydraulics and pump to go over relief.

(well, I can't delete my posts, but I can edit them into nonsense)

[Dr. Medulla]

Found temperature quickly overheating while using hydraulic system. Installed pressure gauges and found pump regulating valve sticking, allowing hydraulics and pump to go over relief.

(well, I can't delete my posts, but I can edit them into nonsense)

What's this about US F16s in Britain?

[eumaas]

Found temperature quickly overheating while using hydraulic system. Installed pressure gauges and found pump regulating valve sticking, allowing hydraulics and pump to go over relief.

(well, I can't delete my posts, but I can edit them into nonsense)

What's this about US F16s in Britain?

JAH STEPPER

[threecoffins]

Some cool character posters.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37736

[Dr. Medulla]

Some cool character posters.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37736

Damn, that's compelling advertising. They make the viewer want to know more.

[Flex]

Some cool character posters.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37736

Those are awesome. I actually got a little nerd-tingles with those.