Why did Alan Moore consider Watchmen unfilmmable?

Why did Alan Moore consider Watchmen unfilmmable?

I mean, regardless of regardless of your personal opinion on Snyder's adaptation (and with the exception of the ending), the translation seems basically one-to-one.

>one-to-one
sure, if you ignore the prose sections. and the fact that the pages don't turn themselves. and the film doesn't change frame size in order to emphasize important moments.

It's not JUST a story. Sure, you can adapt the story, but you can't adapt the comicbook.

>what is subtext

No it doesn't. It doesn't have the cut outs of articles, books, journals or other comic books. It also doesn't have the page layout of the original. It doesn't feel similar at all and only a brainlet would say otherwise.

Unfilmable was less Moore's own take on it than the general consensus, for reasons already stated in this thread.
This is a stupid thread, btw.

Gilliam said it was unfilmable, not Moore.
Moore just believes that the adaptation and translation to live action devalues the original’s medium

Because movies are for brainlets and you have to have a very high IQ to understand Watchman.

What made it a great comic wasn't the story, it was the use of the medium.
It's like if you took a Jimi Hendrix guitar solo and just reproduced the notes on a piano. You would be missing all of the little guitar / amp distortion details that gave it its character.

>Why did Alan Moore consider Watchmen unfilmmable?
Probably because a lot of what Watchmen does could only be done in comic book form in terms of the visuals. As for the story, way too much would need to be cut in order to fit an average film's runtime so any film would suffer quite a bit in that regard.

As for the Snyder film... I thought it was just ok. It did some cool stuff but it also did a lot of stupid shit and Snyder didn't really understand the source material that much.

I was going to say that the comic is good for the world building that takes advantage of the medium is printed to tell the story with the numerous in universe articles and the comic inside the comic.

But pretty much nailed it.

Wubba lubba dub dub!

Those... those pages aren't even in order.

>the translation seems basically one-to-one.

Except Snyder framed moments that were supposed to be sad or pathetic or scary as "badass" because that's the only way he can relate to the story.

You can't make a good Watchmen adaptation of you think Rorschach is cool or admirable, and and egotistical Randian like Snyder obviously thinks he's both.

MUH SCARE COW

"Watchmen's less about the story being told and more about the way it's told. It's a comic about comics."

>Why is it unfilmable?
>Because a movie would lose all these important bits
>SACRED COW SACRED COW
Are you retarded?

It's just too fucking long and dense.
The complete edition of the snyder verison is proof. Its like 4 fucking hours long, ultra dense, and still left stuff out.

I expect the HBO adaptation can probably be more faithful, since they got like 10 hours for it.

He didn't. He just got so fed up with Hollywood that he was convinced they could never get a decent movie made.

Don't bother, he's a braindead Cerealfag.

Jut cause Moore uses cinematic "techniques" doesn't mean it would make a good translation into a movie

>Why did Alan Moore consider Watchmen unfilmmable?
He famous said something of the opposite, he said
>If we only see comics in relation to movies, then the best they'll ever be are films that don't move.
Looking at how practices like synergy, terminology (Logan showing up in "post credit scenes", recent Avengers event likened to a weekly "blockbuster") and books that are more or less stealth pitches for a TV or movie are becoming more common over actually making a comic taking advantage of the medium's unique conventions, it seemingly becoming the case.

The medium is the message. It's a comic *about* comics. Even the squid works bc it's so purposely outlandish and can only exist or make sense on the page, the absurdity confined to the medium. So a movie about a book about books can't tell the same story.

Every medium that's not moving pictures IS a medium with less features though.

that's not what Moore was saying

I mean there are things you can do in comics that wouldn't really work in movies without looking really odd. Panel composition is a big one and one of the "unadaptable" elements of Watchmen.

>Why did Alan Moore consider Watchmen unfilmmable?
Because he's a bitter old man who doesn't understand film as a medium.

because films typically are directed by people who a) don't read comics, b) want to stylize it in their own idiom out of arrogance or ego, c) edit vast swathes of a story, and d) present it with completely different ambiance that what was intended by the author

>alan moore doesn't understand film as a medium
>alan moore is bitter

this is an ad hominem attack. not a contradiction to any assertion

>had to change chunks of the story in order to make it into a movie

Turns out he was right

Actually after the graphic novel came out, Hollywood started filming Watchmen in 1987-88, but after filming one scene, they had already went over budget. The joke in the industry was that Watchmen was The Million Dollars A Page Movie Script.

I thought the final film adaptation was horrible, and the graphic novel was much better. That's twelve dollars, and three hours of my life I'll never get back.

>Moore just believes that the adaptation and translation to live action devalues the original’s medium

He was all for adaptations back before he lost Watchmen

he never truly had Watchmen, though

*BRAP*
>what's happening, forum?

But he factually is cool in a scary way in the comic just as Batman is and he absolutely is admirable in his goals & reseliance.

>Except Snyder framed moments that were supposed to be sad or pathetic or scary as "badass"
Examples?

Exactly this. Moore scorns any attempt to adapt his writing because he believes his fake intellectualism is superior. His sycophantic sheep follow his cue in ass worshiping him by adopting his attitude which this thread is a fine example of. You never see them voicing the same kind of criticism against Marvel or DC films, funny that. Sheep.

>the translation seems basically one-to-one.
no it wasnt
Zack turned a critique of capeshit into capeshit

Fearful symmetry.
That is all.

It is unfilmable in a one to one adaptation but an adaptation is meant to adapt. A central component of Watchmen is the paneling which is impossible to emulate in film but a skilled director could use the artistic potential of movies to accomplish comparable effects. Instead we got a Zack Snyder.

watchmen to me was an excercise in using the medium perfectly. So I didn't really see the point in turning it into a movie.

10 years later I watch the movie and... I love it. IT works as a companion to the book