just getting this out there guys, y'know... for a thread about a movie where pretty much all of you already know how it will play out (and that you would probably have to read the comic book to be excited about it anyway) you guys are really concerned about spoilers...

The only thing im thinking about is the "codumentary" about this whole damm mess that someone is going to slide in the DVD for this movie...

I mean, it's all nice and pretty when Warner and Fox are like this, both caught in a Double headlock at the same time... just wait untill the actors and their lawyers go "Dude where the fuck is my monies?"... then we'll see fox and warner going from "it's mine!! Gimme!" to "It's yours man! Take it!"

Well it is an upcoming movie and we all know the ending therefore we don't want to spoil it.

On top of that the movie, if they change anything, could be very easily spoiled by us since we've been scouring for the information and discussing it.

Better just to be safe.

To go off on a tangent completely unrelated to everything else we've been talking about, I really hope they keep Bernard and Bernard in. Even if the Black Freighter doesn't make it into the theatrical cut, I think the two of them are necessary for grounding part of the movie in "ordinary people" and to really enhance the effect of the ending event on the audience/readers. If they aren't really in the movie, nobody the audience has a connection with will die as a result of Ozy's plot.

I apologize if it came off as insulting, I was trying to express sympathy. To Snake and all the people without the imaginative fortitude and willpower to withstand another's picture of their favorite works, it sucks for you, and I'm sorry. But I think you can try harder and get better if you really want to.

You know, as a more difficult but more effective alternative to complaining on the Internet.

...I mean the thing is, Stephen King has complained about the effect terrible movies have on the perception of the original literature. (Of course this hasn't stopped King from releasing crappy versions of his own novels, but anyway.) I'm pretty sure Alan Moore has a similar opinion because otherwise, why bother opposing the movie release of Watchmen? Are you telling me these authors have terrible imaginations?

I don't think there's necessarily any correlation whatsoever between one's ability to conjure images independently of "interference from a recently viewed movie adaptation" and the objective merit of one's imaginative ability. I can write pretty nifty short stories and novels, but it doesn't stop me from conjuring Viggo Mortensen when anyone mentions the name "Aragorn" to me. For that matter, I don't remember ever saying my original imaginative interpretation of Aragorn outright disappeared -- it's more like the more inherently visually detailed nuances of Stephen Jackson's cinematography superimposed itself on my own comparatively vague imaginings, to the point where I see my own perceptions and Jacksons' as intertwined.

I'm pretty sure this is also an entirely common phenomenon -- I mean type in "movie adaptations ruining novels" into google and you'll get tons of results, including http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218...21818445ws.pdf, a two-hundred plus page book debating the subject.

There seems to be a rather rigorous debate among academics as to the merit of film adaptations and to what extent an interpretation of the quality of a novel is affected by the quality of a film -- is everyone who takes an opposing position someone with a "poor imagination?"

Finally, your "more difficult but more effective alternative to complaining on the Internet" quip just reeks of crossing an absolutely unnecessary line. You can make your points without resorting to that.

See, now that's still condescending. In fact, it seems intentionally so. Honestly, I can't see how this line was intended to be anything other than insulting. "I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to agree with me."

Anyway, the problem isn't that fans of the original work have their perceptions of it ruined by adaptations, but that an adaptation affects the popular perception of the work, thereby affecting any future interpretations.

What about the prison psychologist and his wife? It has been awhile since I read Watchmen but I thought they were there too.

C.S. Lewis didn't want any of his works turned into movies and I think both of those have been very good at capturing not just the plot but also the theme of the movie. I know a lot of people who went out and read Tolkien after the movies came out. I am not talking about just the trilogy either but a lot of his other works. Not all of them became fans but it was still a good thing. I am hoping the same thing happens with Watchmen.

That said Watchmen in some ways is even more complicated. I am very worried that it will be easy to screw up even by people who are trying hard to keep it as close to the original as possible. I don't see how you can fit everything that needs to go into Watchmen in a 3 hr. movie.

They are in the movie. The first pictures released were all dealing with the smaller, non-cape characters.

No, just the ones who feel that they lose something from watching a movie adaptation.

Yes, but there is a very good chance that those shots are very brief, only for the end of the movie, or just for the dvd release (which should have the black freighter)

And Snake, I definitely understand where you're coming from, the same thing happens to me with Lord of the Rings, but the difference is that Watchmen is a graphic novel. I'm not going to imagine Nite Owl as Patrick Wilson when there's a picture of Nite Owl right in front of me. The worst the movie can do in this sense is make me imagine Dr. Manhattan sounding slightly like Billy Crudup, and that's something I can live with.