1. While it's great that DC has decided to make a logical "Final Crisis" Hardcover with "Superman Beyond" and all, what you may not realize is that DC hardcovers involving the addition of 3D glasses, well, they suck. Big time. Check out the "Superman: Last Son" hardcover from last year. The cardboard with the 3D pop-out glasses is glued into the center of the binding. Glued. You can't remove it the way you can remove the 3D glasses holder from a regular comic.
So you're stuck with three choices: leave the glasses in the cardboard, and have a really annoying giant piece of cardboard in the middle of your hardcover, making it literally hard to read because the pages flip open to the middle constantly. Or, you can pop out the 3D glasses, leaving a hideous piece of cardboard-sans-glasses that still has the same problems but now looks worse. Or, you can take a razor and slice out as much of the cardboard as you can, leaving a hacked apart slice of cardboard in the center of your book.
It's a lose-lose-lose situation, and unless DC changes the way they include the 3D glasses with "Final Crisis," the problem will be just as bad with that hardcover. So if you are one of those people who think you convinced DC to add "Superman Beyond" to the hardcover, then you should fight for a better way to include the 3D glasses as well. Otherwise, you'll just end up with a really crappy collected edition. Why are people not complaining about this?
2. I haven't seen the "Watchmen" movie, but I've heard good things from people whose opinions I don't necessarily respect, and terrible things from people whose opinions I generally do respect. And a lot of thoughts in between. So I won't go into the movie with high expectations.
BUT, I don't understand the backlash against a possible "Watchmen" sequel or prequel. Yes, I would assume such a sequel or prequel would be terrible. Yes, it would miss the entire point of the comic. But when people compare the "Watchmen" comic to some great work of literature and then say, "How ridiculous a 'Macbeth' sequel would be! How could you make a sequel to 'Moby Dick'?" Well, that's just silly. I would LOVE to see a "Macbeth" sequel. I would love to see "Ishmael's Revenge!" I think they would be glorious misguided failures, but at least they would be more interesting than, oh, pretty much anything that's playing at the theaters now.
So bring on "Watchmen: The Minutemen," bring on "Watchmen: Nite Owl's Lament." They will probably be terrible, but so what? It doesn't make Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons's comic any less wonderful.
13 comments:
I don't quite understand your logic here. Granted, the Watchmen film is bad enough to ruin the public's image of comic and Moore in itself (not quite League of Extraordinary Gentlemen-style horribleness, but then it's a much bigger film), but why ask for more? Why not get cracking on that Youngblood trilogy?
1) maybe they'll do what they did with the Black Dossier, and put the glasses in an envelope on the book jacket.
2) just imagine Morrison once and for all attacking the anxiety of his influence by pitching & writing a Watchmen film sequel...
You heard it here first:
Coming Summer 2011: Grant Morrison's "Watchmen: R.I.P."
Shecky, the logic is that while a Watchmen sequel might be terrible, it would certainly be more fun at the movies than pretty much anything else that came out recently. Would you rather see a bad Watchmen sequel or Fired Up, a Friday the 13th remake, another Steve Martin Pink Panther movie?
A terrible Watchmen sequel would be sweet relief from such dreck.
I got that much, but why try for terribleness? I'd argue that that's part of the reason why Hollywood is where it's at. The sort of "oh, the original did all well, the fanboys will go and see a sequel"-mentality that doesn't even seem to factor in quality at all.
That said, I would pay money to see a Grant Morrison-scripted Watchmen-sequel. Although, I'm not sure I would elevate Snyder's Watchmen above dreck-ness.
Philip José Farmers "The Wind Whales of Ishmael" is sort of a Moby Dick sequel.
Ishmael is brought to the far future where he fights flying whales.
Now, see. Turn that into a movie, and I'm there!
Can I just copy and paste your thoughts on the Watchmen movie? Only I haven't heard any feedback (I've been pretty much avoiding it as much as possible), but yeah, this certainly won't be changing my thoughts on the comic.
Speaking of Watchmen, I had been going on the assumption for awhile that I'd get to nerd it up at a mindnight showing (because I am really trying to cling to my hope that it'll be at least a little good), but the Berkshire Mall has decided to deny me. As I said to the guy working there when I called to ask, "Oh, lame."
http://uploads.ungrounded.net/485000/485797_Watchmen.swf
I am going to see it in Imax with a large group. Making it a fun Dinner & Movie event will get me past the mediocrity I expect of this movie. Even as a potentially pale shadow of the original, it is still better than the last few films I've seen written out of Hollywood. I think the comic store is the answer to where all the good writers are gone (sic).
I saw the movie as part of an early preview the other night and I was also approaching it expecting the worse. It was good though, pretty faithful to the graphic novel but I would never say that it is the one true adaption if that makes any sense. Basically it's Synder's vision of the story, and while he did meticulously use the original material in a respectful manner, it still feels more like his movie rather than an adaptation of Alan Moore's story. The fight scenes were definitely amplified, but not necessary at the sacrifice of the overall narrative so that shouldn't be a concern. Basically I saw it as a Watchman movie but not THE Watchman movie, but it was definitely good considering all its expectations.
Post a Comment