You the reader are about to find out. I think that it some ways I am kind of a stickler for certain things (see previous post), but I feel that while it can be minor gripes, I do have practical and logical reasons for these peeves. I'm going to use "Watchmen" the movie as an example.
Briefly, I will say that I really enjoyed the movie. As a fan of the graphic novel, I thought the transition was handled really well by director Zack Snyder. And the score...well: http://www.asuwebdevil.com/node/5101.
Shameless plugs aside, there are a couple bones I have to pick with the movie in terms of how things were changed. Like I said, these are minor things, but I think they do matter. Of course, I won't mention obvious things such as the removal of "Tales of the Black Freighter," which is getting its own release and will be cut back into Ultimate Watchmen, nor things I know were done in the interest of time such as the removal and/or downsizing of characters like Rorschach's psychologist and his landlady.
Anyway, here are the three things. And I won't just leave them alone so you all think I'm some kind of psycho purist. I will attempt to explain the problems I have with them.
Be warned. There are some plot spoilers coming up so if you haven't read the novel or watched the movie, perhaps you'd like to stay away. Or perhaps you'd like to read anyway. The choice is yours. I'll leave a little buffer zone of emptiness as a spoiler warning.
-- SPOILERS AHEAD --
Is this really necessary for a 20 year old novel and 2 week old movie? Oh well.
1. Jon Osterman: "If there is a God, I'm nothing like him."
This is so small, it probably went unnoticed even for people who have read the graphic novel. But the original line (I think, left my copy at home in Irvine) goes, "I don't believe there's a God, but if there is, I'm not him."
Slightly different, but I think the line in the movie makes him sound a little more arrogant whereas in the novel, he's just stating it as a matter of fact. Though people are saying he is a god, he is denying it. To me, his line in the film kind of set him up as an opposing force to a god, if one exists in his world.
It's a small, small issue, but that's all the more reason why I think they should have kept the line as it was in the original. I don't see why they changed it.
2. The watch in the lab coat
In the movie, what leads to Jon's accident that eventually turns him into Dr. Manhattan was his leaving his watch inside the intrinsic field separation chamber. This makes it seem extremely coincidental and, to me, kind of weak. It's a little more nuanced in the novel as it's Janey Slater's watch which he had left in his lab coat in the test chamber. The story goes that at the fair, a fat man stepped on and broke the watch. Jon offered to fix it, which somehow led to romantic sparks between them. Later, she asks about the watch and he realized he left it in the test chamber, goes to get it, and the rest is history.
The thing I really liked about that was it clearly shows the progression of events which led to Dr. Manhattan and that goes great with his perception of time as simultaneous. Instead of just a coincidental accident as in the movie, the novel shows a near fatal chain of events over which Osterman had no control. And that the watch was broken also set up the great "hands frozen in time" image and line in the novel.
Also, in the movie, he basically walks back into the test chamber after just having left. How could he not have known there was an impending test? That seemed a little unbelievable to me.
3. Creation of Rorschach
Rorschach's origin story with the child killer was kept pretty much the same from the graphic novel. However, there was one part that they did change. Unfortunately, it was my favorite and probably the most awesome part of the whole thing.
What's kept from page to screen is basically Rorschach finds the girl's remains in the furnace, dogs chewing her bones, then decides to kill the dogs, throw them through the windows at their owner (the kidnapper), and then handcuff him to the furnace. Here's where it got awesome in the book and not in the film.
The guy is begging for mercy as Rorschach is pouring kerosene around the house. He drops a hack saw by the man and tells him he probably won't be able to cut through the chain. The murderer realizes what he means and is terrified. Then Rorschach lights a match and sets the house on fire before walking out. He stands there, watching. No one got out.
In the movie he simply takes a butcher knife, listens to the man beg for a little bit then plants the knife in the man's head repeatedly, telling him men go to jail, dogs get put down.
The movie version is more brutal, or more bloody at least, but the book version is far, far more chilling. The image of Rorschach facing the burning house, just watching it burn, is pretty incredible. And the line (which I will butcher) that goes something like "Kovacs closed his eyes. It was Rorschach who opened them," is another one I love too.
Anyway. I probably thought about this too much. But those were the main, little things that bothered me about the movie. But it's still fantastic and I loved it, although it probably is aimed more towards fans of the book.
No comments:
Post a Comment