Watchmen

>>91757394
>Can someone explain to me why some people think watchmen can't be anything else than a comic
It's not that it "can't" be, it's just that as a result of Moore and Gibbons' construction of the text and visuals specifically for comic format; whatever else blooms from that would be a branch of the tree, not the tree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oltd-Jsi2I

It's dense as all fucking hell, there'd be no really good way to introduce the audience to the supplementary material (Hollis' book, Rorschach's papers, not to mention the fucking Pirate comic).

Also pretty much what >>91757565 said. The 9 panel layout of the comic flows so fucking well while the movie had scenes that just dragged and dragged.

>>91757781
I actually think the movie did close to the best translation it could have done, but inevitably something was going to get lost in changing format

>>91757565
>>91757781
>>91757814
I agree with all of you.
>Say what you will about the movie, those costume designs were GOAT

>>91757814
Yeah it was probably the best version that'll ever happen (unless Cary Fukunaga gets to take a crack at it). But still, certain shit's just jarring if you're not prepared for it. Hell, Bubastis shows up with no introduction or backstory just so the panel of her and Manhattan being can be replicated, yet it's still treated as an emotional death for Veidt.

A maxi series is really the only way Watchmen's ever going to be done justice.

>>91757394
I don't get it either Flex Mentallo did the same thing as watchmen (only better) and he exists in main continuity.

>>91758077
>Morrisonfag
>Unable to read the OP
Yeah, seems about right.

>>91757814
The movie was like a focus on making Watchmen the comic into a movie, which is actually not how you want to do an adaptation. Especially because Watchmen the comic does so much in being a comic, so you're always going to have a lesser impact.

>>91757394
There's a lot that can only be done in comic book format. For example, the 3x3 panel uniformity is used as a metaphor for the plot. You'll notice that the more things fall apart in the story, the less uniform the pages are.

>>91757814
>inevitably something was going to get lost

Like the ending.

>>91757394
I think it's less a question of "can it be" and more "should it be." The comic is damn near flawless. There's not really a lot to be added by making a movie except spectacle. Snyder added a bunch of spectacle and made a perfectly adequate movie. It just didn't need to exist in the first place.

>>91757394
Fearful Symmetry

>>91762492
Eh, this can still be copied within any form and I'd be amazed if their weren't already a few films that have done this.

I think it's primarily that a lot of the important information of the story is told in those letters/articles between the actual comic and that information is really dense but also really vital to painting the full world. Sure you can make a movie on the basic plot, but you're missing the richness that makes the comic notable to begin with. Without all the context and subtleties it's still a good story but it loses a lot.

My question is: as someone who has read and loves the comic, what would I gain from watching a 3-hour movie that is, in the end, an incomplete version of a story I already know?