Will Watchmen be watchable?

I'm re -reading Watchmen and trying to work out how on earth they are going to be able to make a film version which isn't crap. For those of you who don't know, Watchmen was a comic written by Alan Moore in the 1980s which was one of the most groundbreaking, brilliant and influential comics of all time. It subverts the superhero and comic conventions, and is primarily about what people would really be like if they were actually superheroes - and according to Moore they would be psychotic vigilantes, turned on by the thrill of being in a superhero costume.

It was recently announced that a film version of Watchmen is being made, and in the light of the appalling film versions of other Alan Moore comics (such as League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and From Hell) this is quite a worrying prospect. Whats even more worrying is that Watchmen is probably even more difficult to adapt to the big screen than the other Alan Moore comics - Terry Gilliam was interested in the project for example, but then decided that it was an impossible task and turned it down.

I think the film will end up being a watered down version of the comic, focusing more on an action/adventure plot line and neglecting the more gritty elements of the plot. They will probably make the superheroes less disturbing and more sympathetic characters. It will be interesting to see what they do with the character of Rorschach, who is basically a right- wing, psychopathic vigilante. The comic presents him in a fairly sympathetic light all things considering, but I can't imagine that the film will do the same unless they tone him down a lot.

Its encouraging that the film is going to be set in the 1980s, like in the comic. The cast also appears to be made up lesser known actors which could work well. At least they haven't drafted in Gary Oldman to play Rorschach and Nicolas Cage to play Night Owl! But what is worrying is that they are going to make the characters younger in the film, which is ridiculous considering that the whole point of Watchmen is that the superheroes are approaching middle age. The film will also need a big budget to come anywhere close to following the plot of the comic so it is likely the film makers will be looking for box office success more than anything else.

Whats most depressing is that all of these shit adaptions of Alan Moore comics are probably putting newcomers off reading them, and confirming people's mistaken view that comics can never be 'proper' literature. I, stupidly, was put off reading From Hell by the film, but when I did finally get round to reading it further highlighted how dreadful the film was and what a genius Alan Moore is.

Amy Winehouse lives in Bow...

...as do I. Maybe I'll bump into her and Dizzee Rascal down my local.

Zeroes

For a TV show that was meant to be one of the best of the year, Heroes was, in the end, a bit of a let down. I admit, I was one of those who was absolutely obsessed with it when it first started - being a complete comic book/superheroes/sci-fi geek it was, on paper, my kind of show. But, alas, like so many similar shows it never really lived up to its promises. The first half of ther series was pretty much awesome - but then it started to drag and I lost interest. The point when it started to get crap had to be when the Niki/Jessica plotline started to take prominence. At first Niki seemed like quite a cool character, a kind of David Lynch-esque blonde, and before the Jessica alter-ego side of the character started to dominate the mystery behind her sudden bursts of super-human strength was kind of interesting. But when it was explained that Jessica was in fact the spirit of Niki's dead sister it just gets ridiculous, particularly when she starts hunting her husband with a sniper. Of course, a certain amount of ridiculousness is expected in a TV show about super heroes, but come on, who wasn't irritated by Jessica's hair flicks and evil pouts at Niki's reflection in the mirror? And Peter Petrelli, who was quite endearing at first (in a gormless, floppy-haired, kind of way), became really rather a bore. His constant 'smell the fart' facial expressions when something bad happens were worthy of the William Shatner school of acting. And the whole Peter/Simone/Issac love triangle was tedious to the extreme. I think the main problem was that the series should have been condensed to 12 episodes instead of being a bloated 22 episodes long. The finale wasn't bad, but the build up to this massive explosion in New York had been going on for so long by the end I didn't give a damn whether Peter Petrelli self- combusted or not.
At the end of the day I'd rather re-watch the X-Men cartoons.

Batman Returns

Unbelievably I'd never seen Batman Returns until last night when it was shown on TV. I'd always kind of wanted to see it, but never really got round to it, instead choosing more 'high-brow' choices at the video store such as Jules at Jim - films I feel like I should see rather than I films that would actually be fun to watch. Watching Batman Returns made me realise that I'd much rather watch Danny DeVito sail around in a giant yellow rubber ducky boat, spewing black goo from his mouth, than musing on the lingering shots of cups of coffee, or the pavement, or whatever else it is they like to do in arty films.

Watching Batman Returns also made me realise a number of other things. Firstly, that it its the best Batman film, for sure (yes even better than Batman Begins). Secondly, that its actually a bit cleverer than it first appears to be. And thirdly, that maybe I'm a bit of a closet goth (why else would I love Tim Burton so much?).

So here are my 10 reasons why Batman Returns is the best Batman film and actually really rather clever.

1) It focuses on the point of view and backstories of the villains.
because, to be honest, everyone surely knows by now that Bruce Wayne/Batman is only a successful super hero because he is rich and can pay for all his crazy gadgets. And to be honest, its not the best backstory in the world, at least not in comparison to Catwoman who, according to the film, becomes Catwoman due to being pushed out of a window by her boss and is then inexplicably brought back to life by a load of cats nibbling on her hands. Pretty extraordinary huh?

2) It alludes to other classic films in quite a witty way
Well two films, at least. The first is when the Penguin shouts out 'I am not a human being, I am an animal!' in a delightful reversal of the Elephant Man's famous line. The second is at the end of the film when Bruce Wayne gets out of his car and finds a cat in an alley, kind of like the end of Breakfast at Tiffany's, except in this version he doesn't get the girl.

3) It also alludes to the Bible!
Because the Penguin is thrown into the river in a cot when a baby (like baby Moses in the bullrushes - except in this case Moses is a baby with fin hands and pointy nose who attacks small animals), and the Penguin plans to kill every first born son in Gotham (again like the Moses story).

4) Danny DeVito is awesome.
Much better than in Twins at least.

5) The sets are amazing
Typical Tim Burton. A cross between the Nightmare before Christmas and Willy Wonka, especially when the Penguin's scary circus chums all jump out of a giant christmas present box and cause all sorts of sinister havoc in Gotham City Square.

6) Michael Keaton is the best Batman
Old enough so it works, and not so attractive it makes it silly ( a la George Clooney). And he has cool eyebrows.

7) It has the best Villains
As much as I like Jim Carey and Tommy Lee Jones as the Riddler and Two Face they ham it up a little too much for my liking. Whereas Michelle Pfeiffer and Danny DeVito as Catwoman and Penguin get a good balance between sinister and camp. And of course, they are clearly better than Arnie as Mr Freeze (horrific), and scarecrow face or whatever he's called from Batman Begins (who ever read about him in the comics?).

8) Christopher Walken is in it.
Which always improves a film in my opinion. Wedding Crashers anyone?

9) The Penguin has an umbrella with cuddly toys hanging off of it.
And an umbrella which flies (like a demented Mary Poppins) and another he tries to hypnotise Christopher Walken with.

10) Catwoman and Batman make a great couple
Much better than Batman and the insipid Nicole Kidman in Batman Forever.

modern music is rubbish

I'm currently reading Rip it Up and Start Again which is, for those of you who don't know, a book about post-punk from the late 70s to 1984. It has confirmed to me what I've been thinking for a while - modern music is rubbish. Now, I know that is a rather broad sweeping statement, and of course there is some good music these days, but there is a lot less of it and, in particular there is a lot less originality. What struck me in this book was that bands could actually rip up what had come before and come up with something groundbreaking. Now it seems that there is hardly anything original left to do. Most current mainstream indie music is just ripping off old bands - The Editors, Franz Ferdinand, et al... and as pleasant and danceable much of this is its not really bringing anything new to the table.

I think this current lack of originality is not so much the case in electronic music and hip hop in comparison to guitar music, perhaps because they are fairly new mediums in comparison. For example, in my opinion, Dizzee Rascal's debut album was one of the most original releases in recent years. When I heard 'fix up look sharp' it was the first time a song from the last 5 years made me think 'wow i've never heard anything like this before'.

I dunno, maybe I'm just too picky...

oh and Rip it Up and Start again is a cracking read by the way, give it a whirl.

the circle of blog

goodness, i completely forgot I had a blog. Just like when I tried to write a diary when I was a kid- I used to make myself try and write in it everyday, and then one day you just stop and forget you ever wrote it in the first place. then you get an urge to write one again, and you write it every day, and then you forget again.

Tory marriage policy

Okay, I haven't posted on here for such a long time but this made me SO angry it has made me return to my blog. As many of you may well have noticed, the 'modernising' Tory leader David Cameron and his cronys have been banging on about the importance of marriage and are even talking about introducing financial incentives for couples to get/stay married if they (god forbid) win the next election. This is because apparantly kids are less likely to become young offenders etc if they have both parents bringing them up. Maybe overall kids whose parents are not divorced do have a better time of it than kids whose parents are divorced, but by offering financial incentives is a really oversimplistic way of approaching things.
whats the point in bringing in financial incentives for couples to stay together for their children if the relationship is a destructive and abusive one? surely that is more disturbing for a child than if their parents get divorced. And anyway, if a relationship is doomed to fail it will do so regardless of a small cash incentive.
And why must couples be MARRIED to offer a good upbringing for a child? what about long term partners who live as if they were a married couple and are doing a great job bringing up their kids - why should they be exempt from these financial incentives? And whilst Cameron says that he is not suggesting that single parents do a bad job he IS in fact saying this by implication. Its quite frankly insulting. Why dont Cameron's 'new look' Tories think of some ways to help single mothers get out of poverty, like by offering free childcare? This is more likely to make kids upbringing better, not by forcing their parents to stay married.
And why the Tories are at it, why don't they look at the amount of affairs politicians in their party have indulged in over the years before preaching about marriage?