Who Watches the Movie Makers?

For those of you who fail to recognise the image above, it is the hidden still frame featured in the trailer of Zach Snyder's 300, the film adaptation of the graphic novel by legend Frank Miller. It depicts a masked figure in the shadows, holding a yellow smiley-face badge. For those of you who do recognise the image above and the figure it depicts, four words spring to mind instantly: Who Watches the Watchmen?

The countdown on the Doomsday Clock ticks closer, and it's not to the event of an impending nuclear war. After decades of controversy, speculation and even lawsuits over copyright infringement, Zach Snyder is attempting to do the impossible and bring to the big screen what is arguably one of the most controversial and troubled graphic-novel-to-film-adaptations ever: Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ Watchmen.

Set in the mid 1980's, Watchmen takes place in a parallel United States, where the Doomsday Clock ticks ever closer to the imminent threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. It is in this parallel United States that a group of former masked vigilantes, now forced into retirement due to the outlaw of "superheroes", reside. Moore's vision of Watchmen not only challenged the hero archetype, but also questioned the perception of authority and social power, human morality and political ideology. (And of course, when it comes to Moore's work, one more or less expects the tough issues to be brought to the surface.)

Fans of the 12-part comic series Watchmen will not only argue that it is one of the greatest works in graphic novel history, but will also be familiar with the rocky journey of the comic's development - or rather, lack there of - into a Hollywood film. After some 20 years of the movie rights being swapped back and forth - not to mention the current legal issues between Fox (the company, not the man) and Warner Brothers over the rights for the film-, numerous scripts and developments turned down as unworthy, and the universal uproar of graphic novel fans expressing their displeasure, including that of Alan Moore himself, the script has been written, the actors have been cast, the filming wrapped up and the countdown to the release date of Watchmen the movie is underway.

And the comic world holds its breath.

Now any person who knows me will be all too familiar with my cynicism when it comes to film adaptations of graphic novels, particularly those that are held in high regard. And so do I cringe at the idea of a Watchmen movie? You bet I do.

It is very rarely the case that Hollywood produces a comic-to-movie production that is worthy of its title: Think Batman and Robin starring Arnie and Uma Thurman or the butchering of Venom in the movie Spiderman 3. Of course, there are the rare occasions when a film is released to that appeases fans of the original, 2-dimension work. Batman Begins and The Crow are just a couple of examples of where the original graphic novels are given justice and my faith in humanity has been restored. But let's look at this from a Hollywood perspective: Unless you're as passionate about the subject matter as, say, Peter Jackson was to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, what matters isn't pleasing the true fans of the work, but how much revenue can be made from the franchise. While geeks care about quality and precision, Hollywood tends to only worry about the funds. Just take a look at the millions made from Meet the Spartans and tell me movie makers are looking out for the fans.

Frankly, movie adaptations of graphic novels tend to suck. I attribute this to Hollywood taking a well-loved graphic novel storyline and characters that are aimed at the comic-geek demographic and either distorting the plot and people to make them more 'mainstream friendly', or toning down the storylines to make them easier to swallow without having to explain the background stories - that or inventing a completely new storyline completely out of character to the original franchise. What is the result when this happens? The comic fans feel cheated that their favourite heroes and villains were completely mutilated for the sake of a few million, and the mainstream are exposed to false information that they believe to be graphic-novel-based. An example: How many people who watched Spiderman 3 would know that Peter Parker is forever haunted by the unanswered question of whether or not he snapped the neck of his then-girlfriend, Gwen Stacy, while battling the Green Goblin? And how many times have comic fans received the naive response, "That didn't happen. I would know if it did, I've seen all the movies."?

As for when the movies don't suck? Comic fans are positively driven insane by idiotic questions or incorrect, know-it-all statements from people whose only previous exposure to the world of comics has been through watching Batman on a date purely to appease their crush at the time. If I get one more person saying that Batman Begins was "too gloomy" or the question, "But who's that Scarecrow guy? He's not even IN Batman!", I'm going to start setting fire to small children. Prior to the censorship of Batman comics due to violence and dark nature, and before the movies made the Dark Knight a walking joke in moulded nipples, Gotham was more or less a gloomy place - and considering most of the main characters have either been exposed to trauma in their youth, are suffering from some mental illness or mutation, or both, why shouldn't it be gloomy? As for Jonathon Crane, Scarecrow is one of the oldest established Batman villains, thank you very much.

But back to the Watchmen.

Part of the problem with movie adaptations of graphic novel works, particularly those with such legendary status, is that either way, the rich plot and its complex characters get slaughtered in a blur of CG, badly-written dialogue and moulded prosthetics.

Watchmen was deliberately written for the comic book medium. Translating Moore's work into a movie will more or less result in disaster. There are too many intertwining story lines, too many complex sub plots, too much history, too many clues hidden within the panels or hidden tie-ins to other DC comics (if anything else, but to delight the fans) to fit into, say, a 3-hour production. I predict a lot of detail and necessary background information being edited out completely. Secondly, the movie is at serious risk of loosing the rich depth and translation of events that hailed this work amongst the greatest graphic novels of all time. Watchmen is set during the 80's at a time where the world feared nuclear war. This panic may translate well to the graphic novel medium, but on the big screen? Chances are this movie will probably be set in the current era, damaging the social context of the original work, just so the ignorant in the audience don't argue, "But this isn't the 80's!". In addition, the psychotic masked vigilante was a novel concept at the time of Watchmen's conception and due to the passing of time, this movie will create less of an impact on the audience . And what about the controversy? What about the conspiracy theories? What about the politics? What about the death and the destruction? Will Hollywood really allow this film to grant the graphic novel justice, or will it be 'toned down' for the sake of a more family-friendly, M15+ rating?

But my greatest personal fear in regards to the making of this movie? Two words: Raw shark. Hollywood has a tendency to destroy some of the greatest characters of all time, not just from comic books and famous novels, but even from previous movies through the production of shonky remakes. Of all the characters to be depicted on the silver screen, Rorschach is not the sort of figure that would be easy to reproduce. By far one of my favourite characters, Rorschach is arguably one of the grittiest antiheroes presented in DC Comics. He's ugly, anti-social, messy and stubborn, and if portrayed just right in this movie, will be elevated to pop-culture-icon status. Personally, the anxious tension regarding Rorschach's character brought to life in a movie is even worse for me than the release of The Dark Knight.

Comic geeks are generally children stuck in adult bodies with paychecks to spend on toys an coffee. So, naturally, graphic novels are packed with cool gizmos, such as Rorschach's ever-changing ink-blot mask and the Nite Owl's Owlship. But how will that translate to film? Special effects are a bit of hit and miss. They can either bring the imagination to life, or make a film incredibly cheesy. Everyone remember what happened when those money-hungry tycoons tried to revamp the special effects of the original Star Wars trilogy to horrific results? Although I desperately hope Hollywood realises the potential of Watchmen to render some spectacular special effects, I maintain my skepticism.

And now we come to the most important point: Alan Moore doesn't approve. That's right, the legendary Alan Moore, creator of countless graphic novel gems, has spoken his disapproval, saying that Watchmen should never, ever, ever be make into a film. Need I elaborate on why it is a good idea to listen to the writer of the original graphic novel and one of the great names in comic history?

Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ Watchmen is too valuable to be butchered by Hollywood as a means to make millions at the box office. To manufacture this comic masterpiece into a movie could go two ways: Completely gutting the comic book community, or alerting the mainstream out there that graphic novels actually do hold some substance, rather than just being drawings of men in tights.

Let us pray that someone is watching the movie makers.