<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics: Comments on Aronofsky Takes On <i>The Watchmen</i></title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2004 19:14:08 EDT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Comment by Nyx</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/23/093032.php#comment-75883</link>
<description>I thought Moore never sold the rights to that. Am I wrong? I thought he never wanted it made into a movie after what they did to Swamp Thing. </description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">75883@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2004 19:14:08 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Jim Carruthers</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/23/093032.php#comment-75751</link>
<description>Alan Moore might disagree with you about a &quot;big-screen&quot; version of &quot;Watchmen&quot;
&lt;blockquote&gt;
 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.salon.com/books/int/2004/07/22/moore/index4.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Culture today predisposes us&lt;/a&gt; to receive our information predigested and prepackaged, and most, as a rule, tend to shy away from anything which hasn&#039;t been simplified to the level where anyone could understand it. That is not the job of an artist or a creator, yet all too often in the mainstream you&#039;ll find that is what people are doing in order to remain popular. They know their audience, and they know if they push the right buttons in the right order that they can create another bestseller or whatever. I&#039;m very content with this kind of strange, underground ghetto that I&#039;ve been shunted into. It&#039;s a wonderful place and you meet a much nicer class of people.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">75751@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:14:30 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by mike hollihan</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/23/093032.php#comment-75716</link>
<description>I&#039;m still not sure of this, though Aronofsky will at least respect his source material appropriately.

Both &lt;i&gt;Pi&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;Requiem&lt;/i&gt; are good movies, but they are also filled with camera and editing tricks, directorial flourishes that draw attention away from the story. &lt;i&gt;Watchmen&lt;/i&gt; seems to call for more of a widescreen cinematic treatment. I think it would be better for audiences to be drawn into this not-quite-like-ours world, to sink into it fully, than to be constantly jarred out of the story by all the little bits of business he used in &lt;i&gt;Requiem&lt;/i&gt; -- like the heroin injection montage. It unsettles the audience and increases their alienation, which was fine in that movie, but I don&#039;t think is quite right for &lt;i&gt;Watchmen&lt;/i&gt;. Also, is Aronofsky going to be able to handle the huge moments, like the monster at the end or Dr. Manhattan on Mars? Again, I dunno.

I understand the desire of a lot of folks to see this made into a movie. I used to share it. But the whole movie making process will result in &lt;i&gt;Watchmen&lt;/i&gt; becoming something that the book wasn&#039;t, and I&#039;m not sure I like that.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">75716@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:30:22 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>