The Republic of Heaven

This is a comic i suppose, but for what it's worthit pretty much reads like a book.
Has anyone read it?

This is a comic i suppose, but for what it's worthit pretty much reads like a book.
Has anyone read it?

Yes. It's good - outstanding when it first appeared. A teensy bit dated now, though.

Alan moore... talk about a good comic guy
I have to read v for vendetta now, i saw the film and it was brillo...

I got it at my birthday a couple of weeks a go and it is absolutely fantastic. I had never read a graphic novel before, but it's a hell of a good place to start. I'd maybe put it in my top 10 books.

This was the first graphic novel I ever read, having been attracted by the odd cover...

I guess I made a good choice because it made me a fan of the medium. I bought it, thinking it would be just a long comic book, but it's much more than that.

It's such a deep story with wonderful characters, Rorschach, The Nite-Owl and the random side story the kid at the new stand reads made it such a great story.

I was rather pleased to hear that they're making it a movie, the photo's they've released look awesome:

Watchman Images

The one thing I've found odd about the Film adaptions of Alan Moore's GN is his refusal to have anything to do with them, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and V for Vendetta do not credit Moore at all after he asked from to exclude his name. He's a bit of an eccentric.

Yes. But who can blame him>? He has little choice in whether or not his works are adapted. Dave Gibbons (illustrator) supports the film wholeheartedly, he even drew up a teaser poster. And Moore is giving his entire share from the film to Gibbons, which is pretty damn nice. He says the book isn't at all cinematic, but it bloody is. The first few panels would translate perfectly to film and that's just the start. It's a film i'm really looking forward to and if Snyder proves he can be an intelligent film maker, it could turn out fantastic. And the aforementioned comic book will be made into an amine style cartoon for the DVD. Also, have you seen the video journal?

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?nid=22320

I totally agree, it's definately built as a cinematic story. I mean it basically provides the directors with a complete set of story boards to base the film off.

I hadn't heard about the anime adaption before, sounds good.

I'm excited already for the film, but I gotta keep reminding myself that it wont come out until march next year.

Watchmen is great, but call it a comic for pete's sake. Graphic Novel is such an apologist term. Still whatever you call it it's one of the best works of illustrated fiction there is. I love the complexity of it and the intelligence. At the time it was a pioneering work, and many trends we see in superhero films today can be traced back to it (i.e. the deconstruction kind of stories; this is the person behind the mask). Also Rorschach is in a way the original Fox Mulder.

Anyhow, I have to agree with Alan Moore, Watchmen maybe a visually told story that doesn't make it cinematic.
It's simply too complex a story to be turned into a film. There are so many important details, so much conversation that is essential for a proper understanding of the story. To put it all in a movie would require more than 4 hours probably. Terry Gilliam was the first director to try adapting it, and he found that by cutting it down it stopped being what it was. You ended up with normal superheroes again. He said it was better suited for television.

Also Moore said something which is important, he didn't make Watchmen to show how much comics can be like films, he made it to show what comics can do and films can't. The reader has control of the story. You can flip back and suddenly see a little detail you hadn't before, or understand something that's only obvious now that you know something else. Things like that are impossible in films,
and to make an audience understand everything they need to understand, they are probably going to simplify a lot of things or make them ridiculously obvious.

And I'm not pleased as punch with any of the adaptations. They always altered the ending. They don't put in .
In the Gilliam one, the masterplan was to go back in time and kill Doc Manhattan before he becomes a superhero. The reasoning behind that was that it was his presence that escalated everything. And in the later adaptations, including this one I think, Which betrays the whole spirit of the book I think.
I do think Zach Snyder has gotten things right so far. He's kept the period setting at least, which I think is right. The Greengrass version was going to be updated, to make it relevant for today, in our post-9 11 society, but I always thought that was stupid. At the time the comic it was relevant in a way it isn't now, but that doesn't mean we don't get it anymore. It's still a powerful book with an important message, updating it would have only dated it.

I prefer Graphic Novel, it sounds more serious. Comic just sounds really childish. That is of course, my amateurish opinion, so I’m no seasoned pro.

There is the possibility that Watchmen will turn out very weak, skimping on details, story and character and seeming rather empty. There is also the possibility that it will be a masterpiece. Only time will tell. It all comes down to how clever Zack Snyder turns out to be. The changes he has made may be for the better, but as he is a huge fan, I doubt they will be too drastic.

Thinking about it, the ending of Watchmen isn’t v In short, yes, it is a very intelligent and complex book that will lose something in it’s translation to film. But everything presented thus far, the character images, the video on set design, have all been fantastic and point towards a great film. To repeat myself, only time will tell.

Ressurecting thread, hasn't been too dead for too long anyway. I just finished reading the book yesterday, and... omg. My usual literary fare, for most of my life, has been good-vs-evil fantasy and teenage girl realistic fiction and some historical stuff thrown in. Only recently, with Stephen King's Dark Tower and borrowing the copy of V for Vendetta that my boyfriend read for a class, have I been exposed to such darkness in writing (or in much of anything). I think I'm more strongly affected because it's new to me, but for hours after reading the last few pages (and then select ones back in the middle of the story, and then the entire wikipedia article on the subject), I felt all somber and thoughtful and like I needed to live up to the image of maturity which such a story must assume in its readers. Or something. I didn't even want to play video games because Nintendo is shiny and happy and cartoonish.
I've regained my senses a little since then, remembering that it's just a work of fiction, but still, just, wow.

My thoughts about the end and various things that include the end: Also, apparently I "obviously dont visit most, no, all of the internet" since I didn't know how it ended before reading it. I get criticism for respecting spoiler warnings and going where people respect the idea of using spoiler warnings. Pah.

I can thank Watchmen for alerting me to the fact that the comic books I loved as a child had grown up and become something I could enjoy without having to make allowances.

Graphic Novel - pah! File next to Speculative Fiction on the Literary Apologia shelf!

Doesn't Comic imply humour? It's hardly a laugh a minute.

Anyway, I read Watchmen after reading Frank Miller's Dark Knight books and Warren Ellis' Transmetropolitan (Now that's a comic!) series and it ranked right up there with them. It was a very enjoyable read and I wish I could unread it!

Watchmen was the first... adult I think would be the word, comic I encountered and, is a real masterpiece. I was surprised and enthused by the amount of depth you can put into a superhero, seeing as at the time I was onto a "superheroes are stupid and childish" type thing. But watchmen renewed my faith in the genre and spurred me on the read the Dark Knight Returns, The Killing Joke, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, V for Vendetta and the many other works that i would put under "Adult" comics. Watchmen is also a great introduction into the wonderful mind of Alan Moore, who has become one of my favorite writers over the years. Dunno about the film though, the pics of the backdrop and the characters all look pretty true to the comic... but I suppose in the end it's the story and the pacing that really matters. And of course if they mess with the ending in any of the ways Green Ink listed, it would severely lower the clout of the story... I would like my hopes to be high for the film, but it's difficult to see this one panning out. Perhaps it's another adaptation that should have been let lie.

Doesn't Comic imply humour? It's hardly a laugh a minute.

It tells you where the medium began and that's why I prefer it. "Don't forget where you came from." "Graphic Novel" sounds soooo pretentious.

Going to have to disagree on this one Pooter.

I just find it difficult to put the Beano in the same bracket as Watchmen but I guess in the medium of comic books I'd have to unwillingly conceed the point.

At the risk of going on, we're content to call both Carry on Camping and Lawrence of Arabia films (or movies, if you prefer). We don't feel the need to call LoA a "Cinematic Novel".

It's the defensiveness of "Graphic Novel" that bothers me, the "Look sir, I'm all grown up, sir" of it. I think Sandman, Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns et al stand on their own merits and doesn't need a fancy new label to describe them.

There. Now I'll shut up

I think (I don't know) the term graphic novel came from the fact that people had to come up with a name for a full collection of comics. Transmetropolitan (Please read) for example is made up of comic books. What would you call a complete series of comic books in one book?

Edit: The yearly Beano for example, I'd call that the Beano annual....oh god I loved the Bash Street Kids.

At the risk of going on, we're content to call both Carry on Camping and Lawrence of Arabia films (or movies, if you prefer). We don't feel the need to call LoA a "Cinematic Novel".

It's the defensiveness of "Graphic Novel" that bothers me, the "Look sir, I'm all grown up, sir" of it. I think Sandman, Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns et al stand on their own merits and doesn't need a fancy new label to describe them.

There. Now I'll shut up

Well the term is nothing but apologist. Will Eisner came up with it when he wanted to sell A Contract with God to publishers. The 'comic book'-people thought his book was too serious, so he tried the 'real' publishers. But he knew that if he said it was a comic they wouldn't be interested, so he called it a graphic novel. So it's essentially pretentious, but I still think it's an apt description. And a good distinction.

The trouble to me seems to be that the English language just doesn't have the right words for the products. Comic is just too wound up in pulp, spandex and an audience of children, teenagers and sad men, to really serve as a good word for the entire medium. What comics need is a word as neutral as book. One that doesn't immediately imply a certain style, level of sophistication, etc.
Graphic novel has also become too ubiquitous a term to be replaced by comic these days. And although it's a bit of an annoying phrase, it's probably the best one there is. (definitely less pretentious than Eisner's term for the entire medium: sequential art)

What's more annoying is that it's now also adopted in dutch.While we've always had a perfectly neutral word for it, which has now become tainted because some people think they have to make a distinction.

It seems to me that this one of the few things in the world where the French have got it perfectly sorted, with their Bandes dessinées.

It may not be the place for it but the Watchmen trailer has been released. I likes. David Hayter, the guy who does the voice of solid snake wrote the screenplay.

When did Zach Snyder turn into 'visionary director'?
Not that this doesn't look ten kinds of sleek, but in my opinion he doesn't get to be called visionary just because he shot a film in copper tones about men subliminating their homoerotic desires by wearing large beards and pointing swords in each other.
At any rate, it's not hard to make a film of Watchmen look spectacular, the question remains if he can do the story justice.