Watchmen series is being developed by Damon Lindelof for HBO

[Jay 37,322]

He'll be back in flashbacks set before the first episode

[crocodile 7,990]

I watched the show. Overall, it was alright. Some of the ideas were pretty good actually. Some of the ideas were bit dubious. And while it kept me engaged throughout I kept thinking that the very idea this "sequel" even exist is a proof that Lindelof and co don't get what Watchmen was about. My impression was that the original was supposed to "end" the superhero genre. Ultimately, it is pointless and not as brilliantly disciplined as the Moore's original but much more enjoyable than expected. And some of the newer elements and characters they introduced I liked quite a bit. If you don't give a shit about Moore and how DC treated him after publication then it is perhaps a solid recommendation.

 

How does it compare against Snyder's film, you ask? Well, it is nothing like it really. While the film was much more interesting visually it is also less creative everywhere else. So whatever floats your boat.

 

Karol

[Jay 37,322]

If you listen to the official Watchmen podcast you can hear Lindelof explain how important the original comic was to him growing up, and how he only agreed to do the show (after turning down HBO twice) when he thought he had a good enough story to tell using this world and these characters.

 

I thought it was one of the best shows of 2019 easily.  Wasn't really familiar with Regina King before but she was excellent as was Irons, Gosset Jr, really most everyone else.  I even liked the score by Reznor and Ross.  

[crocodile 7,990]

I don't doubt he's very fond of it. I could already tell that from Lost which steals heavily from it. I'm not even saying what he did was bad as such. As I said above, sone of the ideas are really intriguing. But the very idea of doing it is bad. And yes, probably bit unethical as well as its very existence disrespects an artist whom Lindelof supposedly respects so much. Watchmen is a self-contained work and one of the most important piece of fiction I've read in my life. It did actually end my love for superhero comics as nothing after it came even close. So my feelings towards any extension will remain ambivalent at best.

 

Let's put it this way: Let's assume you wrote a book and then someone swindled you out of the rights and then created additional content against your wishes. Would it matter to you whether this new material was any good?

 

Karol

[Jay 37,322]

Sure but Moore wasn't swindled he knew he wouldn't own the work.  And you should listen to Lindlelof on that podcast, he explains it much better than I could possibly attempt to summarize

[crocodile 7,990]

4 minutes ago, Jay said:

Sure but Moore wasn't swindled he knew he wouldn't own the work.

He was told the rights will go back to him after the book goes out of print. In those days book never remain  in print after the initial run. Unfortunately, it ended up being a huge success. From the legal point of view it is all clear. From the moral point...not so much.

 

I know the story quite well. It is well documented.

 

Karol

[KK 3,307]

3 hours ago, Jay said:

I thought it was one of the best shows of 2019 easily.  Wasn't really familiar with Regina King before but she was excellent as was Irons, Gosset Jr, really most everyone else.  I even liked the score by Reznor and Ross.  

 

You should check out The Leftovers sometime. She's absolutely brilliant there, especially when she goes toe-to-toe with Carrie Coon.

 

And I agree with Jay. I think it's a very fine work on its own legs. But I can understand how it might perturb devotees of the Moore material. Many of us would be similarly touchy and skeptical when such liberties are taken with Tolkien.

[Jay 37,322]

The Leftovers has been on my "to watch" list for a while, need to be in the mood to watch something moody and depressing though and lately I've wanted more optimistic viewing

[crocodile 7,990]

2 hours ago, KK said:

Many of us would be similarly touchy and skeptical when such liberties are taken with Tolkien.

I think it's not "would" anymore, but "will".

 

Karol

[Koray Savas 2,251]

7 hours ago, Jay said:

Sure but Moore wasn't swindled he knew he wouldn't own the work.  And you should listen to Lindlelof on that podcast, he explains it much better than I could possibly attempt to summarize

He wrote an open letter about it years ago when it entered production. It’s somewhere in this thread. 

[Jay 37,322]

That too

[A24 4,327]

23 hours ago, crocodile said:

 

How does it compare against Snyder's film, you ask? 

 

 

Both work on a different level. While Snyder's Watchmen is like music for the eyes, Lindelof's Watchmen is regular conventional TV. 

 

On 2/3/2020 at 3:57 PM, Jay said:

He'll be back in flashbacks set before the first episode

 

Great, I think he's quite charismatic in it. If not, there's still Louis Gosset Jr. The casting is quite good.

 

[A24 4,327]

Episode 3: More good casting with Jean Smart as Silk Spectre:

 

 

I guess the best part of this series is the casting, and the writing, which is couple of notches above the other hero series.

[Jay 37,322]

Definitely

[KK 3,307]

Yup. For once, the writing/characters is what makes the world really rich.

[crocodile 7,990]

We now only need @Stefancos to bow before Lindelof. I'm actually pretty confident he would enjoy the show.

 

Karol

[Jay 37,322]

It's very easy to enjoy, there's so much fun and comedy intermixed with the interesting story

 

When Jean Smart whipped out the giant blue dildo, I knew this would be a special show.  That or when lubeman showed up, whichever happened first

[A24 4,327]

Episode 4: Ah, and so the middling kicks in. Sorry, but no highlights to report this time. Perhaps it's the typical mediocre episode that always appears halfway?

 

[Quintus 5,399]

So does Alex think this is as good as The Boys or what? 

[A24 4,327]

Episode 5. More or less a solo episode about Looking Glass, and fortunately, it makes up for episode 4. Tim Blake Nelson is an unusual but fascinating actor.

 

 

 

[bruce marshall 1,315]

On 5/8/2019 at 11:19 PM, SnowyVernalSpringEternal said:

Based on what? Lost? Star Trek Into Darkness? Prometheus?

PROMETHEUS

[heh..heh!]

 

Curse...cuss...curse...expletive..expletives...cuss...curse...expletives...

Curse ...cuss..

And the Emmy for Best screenplay goes to....

 

 

 

 

[Koray Savas 2,251]

So I finally started this the other day. About halfway through. It’s even convinced me to give the Snyder film a shot. 

[Jay 37,322]

The show is a direct continuation to the original graphic novel, so reading that before watching the show would be the best course; A second best option is to watch Snyder's film (make sure to watch the Director's Cut or Ultimate Cut, and not the theatrical) because it more or less tells the same story, but just know that the show continues on from the original novel's climax (giant squid) and not the film's climax (Manhattan)

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Well I’m going backwards cause I’m starting with the show first 

[Jay 37,322]

I know, but you could watch the movie now then resume the show 

[Romão 2,274]

Or just read the graphic novel and get the best possible iteration of this story

[Jay 37,322]

Do you actually think there's a chance he'd do that 

[Romão 2,274]

I have no idea, but it's a piece of literature that cannot be recommended enough

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

Snyder's movie is trash.

 

The graphic novel is absolutely fantastic.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

I know, but you could watch the movie now then resume the show 

Will it really make that much of a difference? I understand some the basic plot points already. 
 

1 hour ago, Romão said:

Or just read the graphic novel and get the best possible iteration of this story

I’ve never read a comic before. Never understood the appeal. 

[A24 4,327]

I like Snyder's Watchmen but I'm pretty convinced that Koray will hate it (style over content, blah, blah). No really, you guys are way too much into Lindelof. Personally, I didn't care for the TV show. To me, it was just kind of okay. I didn't see much value in what it had to offer.

 

2 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

I’ve never read a comic before. Never understood the appeal. 

 

I did read comics but at a certain age you grow out of it.

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

2 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

 

I’ve never read a comic before. Never understood the appeal. 

 

Me neither. Literally the first comic I read was until after I was 20 I think. But Watchmen is definitely brilliant.

 

I love my Doestevsky and Tolstoy and Eliot and Dickens and Flaubert and Turgenev and Austen and what have you and I still think Watchmen is amazing.

 

I don't use the M word often but I would call Watchmen a masterpiece.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

1 hour ago, AC1 said:

I like Snyder's Watchmen  I but I'm pretty convinced that Koray will hate it (style over content, blah, blah). No really, you guys are way too much into Lindelof. Personally, I didn't care for the TV show. To me, it was just kind of okay. 

I saw about 30 minutes of Watchmen years ago around the time it first hit home media. I didn’t like it at all, but that’s all I really remember. I’m willing to give it another try with an open mind, because I do like the mythology of the world. 

43 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

Me neither. Literally the first comic I read was until after I was 20 I think. But Watchmen is definitely brilliant.

 

I love my Doestevsky and Tolstoy and Eliot and Dickens and Flaubert and Turgenev and Austen and what have you and I still think Watchmen is amazing.

 

I don't use the M word often but I would call Watchmen a masterpiece.

I might just give it a shot then. 

[A24 4,327]

58 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

 

I don't use the M word often but I would call Watchmen a masterpiece.

 

I don't see it:

 

 

For an artistic and visual medium, it looks like nothing special and even uninteresting.

[crocodile 7,990]

Oh Alex, you're so impressed with the superficial. Sometimes things are not all about flashines, you know.

 

Karol

[Holko 9,499]

Even so, many spreads or even whole chapters have some flashiness. Even that page shows a pretty cinematic approach.

[Romão 2,274]

7 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

I’ve never read a comic before. Never understood the appeal. 

 

The english word for the medium does it a great disservice, lumping in the same category you run of the mill super hero story next tomore  layered and profound storytelling.

 

You must understand, Watchmen is not a story that was told in the comic format for convenience sake or commercial appeal. The way it was conceived, it can only be really trully told in this format.  It takes full advantange of the unique narrative and visual possibilities of the medium in a way I had never quite seen before. The blend of narrative and visual metaphor. The intertwining of different of different narrative formats even within the work itself. 

 

The comic medium is inexorably linked to the story being told. It would've been a different story had it been conceived for a different medium. So I really think those who have not yet read this work, still haven't really been fully exposed to this story.

 

If you like reading books and if you like visual storytelling, there is absolutely no reason, in principle, why you wouldn't enjoy reading Watchmen, if spite of your reservations with the medium, which I understand given what has been produced on the mainstream

[A24 4,327]

11 minutes ago, Romão said:

If you like reading books and if you like visual storytelling, there is absolutely no reason, in principle, why you wouldn't enjoy reading Watchmen, if spite of your reservations with the medium, which I understand given what has been produced on the mainstream

 

But, that is exactly my problem with the style of the Watchmen comic book. It looks mainstream! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Do they show the blue guy's dong in this show?

[Romão 2,274]

4 minutes ago, AC1 said:

 

But, that is exactly my problem with the style of the Watchmen comic book. It looks mainstream! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 It's not so much about visual style per se, but rather the visuals work in conjunction with the text. The art is probably not what you would hang on your wall, but Moore purposely didn't intend to make the superheroes look flashy or cool, but rather a bit decadent and pathetic, living in a real, grimy, tangible world.

 

You can't simply flip through some pages and judge the art style without experiencing how it serves the story

[A24 4,327]

4 minutes ago, Romão said:

 The art is probably not what you would hang on your wall ...

 

Exactly! And for a comic book masterpiece, that's precisely what is missing, IMO. 

[Romão 2,274]

2 hours ago, AC1 said:

 

Exactly! And for a comic book masterpiece, that's precisely what is missing, IMO. 

 

But my point is precisely the opposite. The art is not stand alone. Remove it from the framework of the text and the precedent and subsequent pages, and it does not really hold up. How could it? It's not a tableau. It needs the context of the narrative flow, it is part of a much greater whole. In the same vein, it would like judging the graphic novel's script without the accompanying illustrations. Each is incomplete without the other. If the art could stand on its own, in this case, it would be to its own detriment.

 

You need the narrative framework to properly judge what the art is trying to achieve.

 

In a way, this discussion kinda legitimizes Alan Moore's views against adaptations of his work. People watch the movie adaptation, which absolutely will be radically different work from the source material, and think they have had their fill  of this narrative, without any need to resort to the medium for which it was integrally conceived. And I'm not making any judgements on the comparative merits between the two. But if you remove Watchmen from the illustrated page and it becomes, much much more that with other works, a completely different work

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

7 hours ago, AC1 said:

 

I don't see it:

 

 

For an artistic and visual medium, it looks like nothing special and even uninteresting.

 

I am praising it as a novel - as a piece of architecture and construction and story-telling and theme and character. The density of detail is (to me) absolutely unusual for a graphic novel. It isn't just some pretty pictures slapped on with some text. Everything is so deliberate and economical, every cell conceived with item and delivering an idea and moving the story along. There is so much ancillary material, and text in each issue to expand the world.

 

It is gloriously constructed and tells a story on a grand scale. There is juggling of so many characters and subplots and narratives and time periods, it is superbly done and achieves a complexity which is again not seen in graphic novels.

 

It fully stakes the claim that graphic novels are a serious medium for telling large complex stories about the human experience.

[A24 4,327]

Having not read the comic book, I can't argue on the things you guys are praising it for. My critique (or beef) is entirely based on the visual style, which appeal is indeed lost on me. And somehow I get the feeling that you guys see 'style' as something cheap, unimportant or standing in the way of things that really matter. However, "cool", "pretty pictures" or "flashy" is not why I would hang a Van Gogh on my wall. Style is emotion and expression and that is not what I'm getting from this particular way of drawing.

 

Anyway, it's an interesting topic! 

[Holko 9,499]

9 minutes ago, AC1 said:

My critique (or beef) is entirely based on the visual style, which appeal is indeed lost on me.

Maybe because you're judging it on first sight completely out of context?

[Jay 37,322]

13 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

Will it really make that much of a difference? I understand some the basic plot points already. 

 

Well, yes and no.

They definitely made the show as a direct continuation of the original novel: Everything that happened in the novel happened in the world of the show, and we are now catching up with the same world and characters 34 years later.

 

For example, the stage play Jeremy Iron's character puts on in episode 2 is Dr Manhattan's origin story, who was one of the main characters of the original novel.  Jean Smart's character is another one of the main characters from the original novel.  Beyond big things like that, they reference smaller things too, like the flying car thing they use in episode 1 as being designed by Night Owl II, Rorschach's journal, Nixon being president under Robert Redford took over, the USA winning the Vietnam War because of Dr. Manhattan, and Vietnam becoming the 51st state, etc; All of which you'd already know and understand when it gets referenced on the show. 

 

I can't exactly remember off the top of my head how many of these types of things they explain to the audience and how many are just casually referenced and unexplained, and you only get if you read the original novel (or saw the original movie in most cases).  If you're already enjoying it and not feeling like you're missing out, then you can definitely just continue.

But I would say if you've decided you definitely want to watch the movie, watch it now before any further episodes instead of only watching it after.  A lot of stuff later in the show will be more satisfying if you know more about the original story.  And I swear they poke fun at Snyder's directing style he used for the movie in the TV show version of events some of the characters watch in this show (can't remember what it was called)

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

2 hours ago, AC1 said:

Having not read the comic book, I can't argue on the things you guys are praising it for. My critique (or beef) is entirely based on the visual style, which appeal is indeed lost on me. And somehow I get the feeling that you guys see 'style' as something cheap, unimportant or standing in the way of things that really matter. However, "cool", "pretty pictures" or "flashy" is not why I would hang a Van Gogh on my wall. Style is emotion and expression and that is not what I'm getting from this particular way of drawing.

 

Anyway, it's an interesting topic! 

 

The articulation and communication of ideas is most important.

 

You can tell a good story with puppets or with $400 million dollar CGI. If the story is good and strong, it will be engrossing and compelling in either medium.

 

The drawing style of Watchmen is of a particular period. The drawing style itself is not the artist's expression, it is how it used is the artist's expression.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

If I were to check out the graphic novel, what would be the best medium to do so? Is there a definitive print of it I should pick over others?

[Jay 37,322]

Nah, it doesn't matter

[Romão 2,274]

Yeah, you'll be fine with any edition, you really don't need one with all the bells and whistles. It has been continuously been kept in print, to the chagrin of Alan Moore