In the summer of 2023, a new adaptation of Watchmennot in live-action like that of Zack Snyder in 2008 but in animation. Divided into two films of an hour and a half, the promise was to deliver a version closer to the comics ofAlan Moore et Dave Gibbons. If the first obviously remains opposed to anyone touching his work, the second has agreed to be a consulting producer. Released in 2024, these two films have, let's be honest, not made much noise, and in any case had not aroused real enthusiasm from the start. Is a new adaptation really useful or relevant? We take stock.
A concise adaptation of Watchmen
From the outset, the film deviates from the comics since it does not begin with the monologue of Rorschach but, from the launch of the logos, with audio extracts from media contextualizing the story. The message is given, there is no time to waste as the adapted work is so dense. This process will be used several times, in particular to depict the apocalyptic progression of international political issues, but also to deliver some additional information which, in the comics, was presented in documents concluding each issue.
There is thus a real desire to embrace the original work as much as possible, but without being able to really indulge in it for so much, three hours, to Watchmenit's ultimately rather short. The screenwriter Joseph Michael Straczynski is well aware of this and carries out effective work of conciseness: the adaptation process is mastered, the story holds together well, the essential is there, even if it means presenting it differently at times. Obviously, this requires remaining on the surface of the comic and does not allow for great depth, so we would perhaps have preferred to see certain choices more clear-cut.
The desire to transpose the story of mise en abîme Tales of the Black Freighter is admirable as the task is not easy, and allows us to maintain a point of meta-textual richness of Watchmenbut does not come close to what is necessary. The way of carrying out this enterprise is intended to be as faithful and organic as possible by explicitly echoing the events taking place, rather interesting in its staging, but cannot inevitably be as relevant as in the comics since the media is different.
-Even if it meant not being able to adapt all the content of the work, the film would probably have benefited from abandoning certain less essential elements of the plot (like the psychiatrist of Rorschach who only acts of presence). In just three hours, such an adaptation is in any case doomed to be incomplete and would therefore have benefited from focusing more on its main strength, the journey of its characters. These really form the heart of the film, an obvious choice, but other aspects of the work are limited such as the apocalyptic geopolitical climate, and by extension its eminently political subject.
Lack of ambition
Inevitably, we have to talk about animation. Unlike other adaptations DC Comicsthis one chooses 3D animation in “cel-shading”, in a style similar to that of the games Batman of Counting speech. The characters originally drawn by Dave Gibbons are faithfully transcribed, the rendering is quite fluid and a certain atmosphere emerges from the film that is both heavy and floating, but unfortunately too smooth for a story that wants to be so “dirty”. It is all the more regrettable when we have had the demonstration in recent years that with enough resources and ambitions, we could reach heights in animation. Watchmen would have deserved such an effort. As it stands, it clearly appears that this is an order like any other.
With this adaptation, the work aims to be more accessible than ever; we can easily imagine it being used to introduce it to a neophyte. Telling Watchmen is still relevant to the extent that its themes remain very current but in the end, the most interesting thing about today remains rereading the story or, despite the controversies, proposing a sequel. Whether it was Doomsday Clock, Rorschach or the HBO series, all three proved that the mother story was a fantastic breeding ground for telling our current world, as Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons did in their time. Repeating the same story simply to capitalize on it, on the other hand, is much more questionable.
