Watchmen: The Animated Movie

[The Joker]

Evidently, WB are going forward in adapting Watchmen as an animation in the style of the comic book and release it DTV.

http://www.cbr.com/watchmen-r-rated-animated-movie/

Not to be confused with the DTV Motion Comic released back in 2009 (damn I feel old typing that).

Here's the trailer.

[thecolorsblend]

I'm not sure what purpose there is in adapting the original Watchmen series into animated format. The Snyder movie is so comprehensive that apart from seeing Dr. Manhattan walk on water or maybe give Ozymandias the "nothing ever ends" speech, I'm not sure what's left for an animated movie to adapt.

Separately, I've wondered how long it can possibly be before those other Watchmen comics get adapted into animated movies or something. I never read them (from a lack of interest) but they're absolutely viable to keep interest in the property alive.

[The Dark Knight]

After becoming familiar with the material, I'm a big fan of the Watchmen comic and movie these days. A BIG fan.

Veidt is probably my favorite non-Batman related comic character of all time. His whole plan is perfect because I love how it's so grey. It's devoid of emotion. It's basically the act of a villain but the results unite the world. It doesn't sit well with people for obvious reasons but the outcome cannot be denied. I just totally dig that. There's no stopping it either. He already did it 35 minutes ago. He's not the stereotypical Bond villain.

Sure, "it never ends", but I see Watchmen as just the one story. What happens next is up to our own imaginations.

[The Laughing Fish]

Not to be confused with the DTV Motion Comic released back in 2009 (damn I feel old typing that).

That motion comic with the one man narrating all the characters' dialogue - both male AND female - was one the funniest things I've ever heard. 

The score wasn't too bad either.

As for the topic, I think Watchmen would've worked much better as a mini-series than a featured film, whether it's live or animated. That said, I've never watched the four hour director's cut.

[thecolorsblend]

After becoming familiar with the material, I'm a big fan of the Watchmen comic and movie these days. A BIG fan.

Veidt is probably my favorite non-Batman related comic character of all time. His whole plan is perfect because I love how it's so grey. It's devoid of emotion. It's basically the act of a villain but the results unite the world. It doesn't sit well with people for obvious reasons but the outcome cannot be denied. I just totally dig that. There's no stopping it either. He already did it 35 minutes ago. He's not the stereotypical Bond villain.

Sure, "it never ends", but I see Watchmen as just the one story. What happens next is up to our own imaginations.

To me, it comes down to Veidt and Rorschach. The other characters, especially Dr. Manhattan, are all interesting in their own ways.

Veidt especially is fascinating because he was the first (only?) among the superheroes to realize superheroics are not practical. Real world challenges and conflicts are never as black and white as we might like them to be. But superheroes in the DC sense can only operate in a stark black and white world.

Veidt's rejection of modern notions of morality in favor of a more pragmatic idea is interesting, not least because it's true. Yes, evil is a very real thing. But it's not a ubiquitous commodity. There are very few examples of abject evil in all of history. Maybe one or two tops? The rest of the people we consider "evil" simply had different points of view.

And Veidt, to say the least, had a different point of view.

In retrospect, I do wish Moore could've elaborated a bit more upon the worldview differences between Ozymandias (pragmatism) and Rorschach (idealism). It is in the comic, don't get me wrong. Just not to the extent I might've liked.

Then again, the greatest compliment the audience can give is demanding more so...

As for the topic, I think Watchmen would've worked much better as a mini-series than a featured film, whether it's live or animated. That said, I've never watched the four hour director's cut.

If Watchmen had to be adapted into live action for the first time today, I wouldn't be surprised if it was done as a Netflix or Amazon original show. As you say, that's a better vehicle for Watchmen anyway.

[The Joker]

That motion comic with the one man narrating all the characters' dialogue - both male AND female - was one the funniest things I've ever heard. 

You know, it's been awhile since I've seen it, but that's true. It was hilarious at times!

As for the topic, I think Watchmen would've worked much better as a mini-series than a featured film, whether it's live or animated. That said, I've never watched the four hour director's cut.

Well, there was some talk of HBO doing something with the Watchmen back in 2015. As they even met with Snyder about it, but it wasn't especially clear if it was to be a mini-series adaptation of the the original comic, Before Watchmen, or a possible a new thing.

http://collider.com/watchmen-tv-series-hbo-zack-snyder/?utm_campaign=collidersocial&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[Silver Nemesis]

I'm with Terry Gilliam on this one: Watchmen simply doesn't lend itself to feature length adaptation. It doesn't matter if it's animated or live action. It's a textbook example of a great story capitalising on medium specificity – the way Moore incorporates EC comic book history into his alternate timeline and uses it to underscore the public attitude to vigilantism, tying it in with Fredric Wertham and the 1950s Congressional hearings on juvenile delinquency; the use of double entendres in almost every panel, with the interplay between the text and art highlighting recurring motifs throughout the story; the allusions to pre-existing Charlton Comics superheroes and the use of the new characters as deconstructionist paradigms for exploring their possible psychological hang-ups. A lot of this stuff loses its resonance when it's translated into another medium.

The only way I could see it working in live action is as a Defenders-style Netflix project. But even then, it would still lose much of its medium-specific poignancy.

[The Dark Knight]

To me, it comes down to Veidt and Rorschach. The other characters, especially Dr. Manhattan, are all interesting in their own ways.

Totally. When you're saving the world from suicide, morals don't come into it. That's why I side with Veidt.

Veidt killed all of his 'alien invasion' accomplices. He killed The Comedian. He made Dr Manhattan leave Earth by thinking he's walking cancer. He framed Rorschach on a murder charge. He has an assassination attempt on himself to throw people off the scent. And finally, he has three million people killed in New York City. The fact he is so successful in his plan make it even better for me. He's competent. He's both the villain and the hero.

Veidt has the viewpoint of 'you have to be cruel to be kind'. For him, the greater good takes precedence.

Rorschach wanted to continue the good/bad divide. In other words, he wanted to further aggravate a volatile situation. Veidt wanted to end all of that. "Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?"

As I said, emotion and morals simply don't come into it. Manhattan realized this and he acted accordingly.

I'm with Terry Gilliam on this one: Watchmen simply doesn't lend itself to feature length adaptation. It doesn't matter if it's animated or live action.

I agree with you in the sense graphic novels such as Watchmen are so complex from panel to panel that it's impossible to translate all of that subtlety. However I think Snyder's Ultimate Cut truly honors the material. I'm glad it exists. He had the guts to tackle the book and that means a lot to me.

[thecolorsblend]

Totally. When you're saving the world from suicide, morals don't come into it. That's why I side with Veidt.

Veidt killed all of his 'alien invasion' accomplices. He killed The Comedian. He made Dr Manhattan leave Earth by thinking he's walking cancer. He framed Rorschach on a murder charge. He has an assassination attempt on himself to throw people off the scent. And finally, he has three million people killed in New York City. The fact he is so successful in his plan make it even better for me. He's competent. He's both the villain and the hero.

Veidt has the viewpoint of 'you have to be cruel to be kind'. For him, the greater good takes precedence.

Rorschach wanted to continue the good/bad divide. In other words, he wanted to further aggravate a volatile situation. Veidt wanted to end all of that. "Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?"

As I said, emotion and morals simply don't come into it. Manhattan realized this and he acted accordingly.

I've always assumed that the only reason Rorschach didn't take Veidt's side is because, simply, Rorschach really isn't a Big Picture kind of guy. His best sense of the macro problem is Good vs Evil. He sees a criminal and punishes them. It's a very small scale thing for him.

For Veidt, he's way past idealism. To him it's a matter of simple survival. We can separate the good guys from the bad guys later, maybe. First, let's just make sure we're all still alive first.

They talk past each other because they don't see the same problem. But if they did, hand on heart I think Rorschach would've insisted on pushing the button himself to make sure it gets done.

As you say, when the stakes are survival, morality never enters the equation. Or if it does, "moral" is defined as "what's good for civilization". On that basis, I think Veidt secretly views his "peers" of Silk Spectre II, Nite Owl II, Rorschach and the other ships in the night as immoral for their refusal to recognize the REAL problem and do what's necessary. Even Dr. Manhattan, really, was capable of doing more than Veidt did. I think Veidt would probably resent having to do what he did when others had better access to the corridors of power and could've effected change easier and sooner than he was able to.

Anyway.

[The Dark Knight]

As you say, when the stakes are survival, morality never enters the equation. Or if it does, "moral" is defined as "what's good for civilization". On that basis, I think Veidt secretly views his "peers" of Silk Spectre II, Nite Owl II, Rorschach and the other ships in the night as immoral for their refusal to recognize the REAL problem and do what's necessary. Even Dr. Manhattan, really, was capable of doing more than Veidt did. I think Veidt would probably resent having to do what he did when others had better access to the corridors of power and could've effected change easier and sooner than he was able to.

Veidt was a genius and it can be lonely at the top. I definitely think he would've been slightly annoyed the other heroes didn't fully appreciate what he did. That they weren't willing to do what was necessary. That they were OK with doing nothing, which meant nuclear Armageddon where not even a blade of grass would've been left.

But at the core, I don't think it would've bothered him that much. He achieved his goal whether they liked it or not. And that's the satisfaction, even though killing three million people isn't something to get funky about. He knows it was the right call.

I'm not endorsing genocide, so don't get that impression. But detaching yourself from situations allows you to view problems from a different perspective. It's what I do. Every problem has a solution and people usually aren't willing to pull the trigger because of emotions. Veidt didn't have that problem.