Why "Watchmen" Was Doomed to Disappoint (...And Always Has Been)

By: Adam Quigley Posted: March 5, 2009

For months, with each new trailer, photo, and brief snippet of footage released across the web, the rants and raves of Watchmen fanboys have been getting increasingly more volatile. Everyone has something to complain about, whether it's how a certain character should look or feel, what important scenes from the graphic novel are inexcusable to cut, or what changes shouldn't have been made at all.

There's a reason why Alan Moore's graphic novel has been called "unfilmable", a comment made famous by director Terry Gilliam (Twelve Monkeys, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas) following his departure from the project. Gilliam felt that "reducing [the story] to a two or two-and-a-half hour film seemed to take away the essence of what Watchmen is about." Writer Alan Moore, who at the time was content with simply distancing himself from any film adaptations of his work*, would surely agree with that assessment, explaining that the graphic novel was "designed to show off the things that comics could do that cinema and literature couldn't."

It's no mystery that fanboys have always been passionate about adaptations remaining faithful to the source material, but Watchmen is one of the few works out there where just about every detail matters, so any attempt to make concessions for a movie would likely end in a far less effective narrative. More than that, the graphic novel has built a very large following, so if for any reason its story, themes or characters were being minimized in order to appeal to mainstream audiences, the fans would have something to say about it. At the same time though, no studio would be willing to invest $120 million in a movie if they weren't banking on it being capable of drawing in new crowds.

So here we have a movie that needs to (1) appeal to mainstream audiences while also (2) capturing every essential moment from a graphic novel that's anything but mainstream, all while (3) condensing the 416 pages of material into a running time that comes in under 3 hours.

Let's be honest, folks. This movie was doomed to disappoint from the very beginning.

You wanna know what the first comment I heard walking out of my screening for the film was? "You know, maybe they remained a little too faithful to the graphic novel."

You can't win here. A Watchmen movie was and always has been an ill-conceived concept. That's not to say that Zack Snyder didn't accomplish the task given to him the best that anybody possibly could, but rest assured, as a movie meant to stand on its own, Watchmen is kind of a mess. Now, I would argue that it's a wonderful mess, and one that understanding (read: forgiving) fans of the graphic novel are sure to love (as I know I certainly did).

Unfortunately though, most fanboys will be impossible to please. They want all the benefits of a tight, cohesive narrative, but they also want a film that's unrelentingly faithful to the source material. If you're expecting these things, you've already guaranteed yourself placement on the "BOOOO! WATCHMEN SUCKS!!" bandwagon. Because, by the film remaining as faithful to the source material as possible, it's required to forgo a traditional three-act structure (which it does), which in turn means the pacing will be all over the place (which it is). And even if fans of the material are willing to dismiss these issues, they will most certainly alienate those viewers who are unfamiliar with it.

This is a problem that a lot of adaptations go through, and every time, fanboys continue to bitch and moan about every single altered detail. Personally though, I'd argue the best adaptations are the ones where a talented filmmaker is given free reign to offer their vision of the material. With Watchmen, people didn't want Zack Snyder's vision of the material. They wanted Alan Moore's vision of the material. And therein lies the problem with adapting anything that has as much of a following as Watchmen does: people don't want some filmmaker to offer their unique take on the story, or the characters, or the themes... they just want a translation of the author's work to the big screen.

You know what you get when you do that? Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. It's a decent enough adaptation, sure, but it wasn't until director Alfonso Cuarón changed things up with The Prisoner of Azkaban that we saw how interesting the Harry Potter series could really be.

And just look at the two comic book favorites from last year, The Dark Knight and Iron Man. The only reason directors Christopher Nolan and Jon Favreau were able to make the movies they did is because they didn't have some strict story structure to adhere to. Instead, they took a variety of elements from the comics and shaped them into the best possible films they could be. The same could be said for what writers Andy & Larry Wachowski and director James McTeigue did for V for Vendetta (another adaptation of Alan Moore's work), but fans of the graphic novel would almost certainly disagree. See, there's an example of a movie that took major departures from the source material and pissed off fans to no end, but also stands on its own as a great film because of it.

Of course, the legions of Watchmen fans (which I must admit that I'm a part of, mind you) wouldn't have allowed for such a treatment of their beloved graphic novel, a fact that Snyder was very aware of. Thus, he attempted the impossible. Not only would he provide his vision of Watchmen, but he would do so while also remaining as faithful to Alan Moore's vision as the studios would allow. How successful this attempt was is up to debate, but I for one am very impressed with what he was able to accomplish.

And honestly, we should just be grateful that Watchmen was given the treatment it was, with Snyder allowed to make a movie that fans will assuredly be able to appreciate to a degree far beyond that of general audiences. And since it's an adaptation, try to view it as just that: an adaptation. Accept that not everything translates well to film, and that sometimes changes to the source material are necessary. If you're unwilling to do that, take into consideration just how badly this movie could've been screwed up. Before Snyder got ahold of the project, Hollywood wanted to set it in the present, dealing with the War on Terror and having the Minutemen duking it out with terrorists. And can you imagine if 20th Century Fox (who, if you remember that whole legal debacle, was proven to still retain the rights to produce the movie) had gone ahead with the film instead of Warner Bros.? Just look at what they did to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, another adaptation of Alan Moore's work (and the main reason his view of Hollywood has been so heavily soured).

And if, even after reading all this, the film's credits roll and you're still not satisfied, just remember that there's a nearly 5-hour director's cut on the way. You guys wanted faithful? You got it.

*In 1987, Alan Moore was actually excited about the possibility of an adaptation of Watchmen, but after countless script changes and poor experiences with studios, he quickly lost faith in the Hollywood system. Now his approach is to simply remove his name from any film adaptations of his work and ignore them completely.