Rorschach's mask was made from a dress made from a polymer sandwich with chemicals in between that would changed the pattern as body temperature changed. He cut it into a mask using hot shears and it changes constantly as a result of his temperature. Now Gibbon may have used that explanation to create wonderful graphic moments, but the mask does change constantly. It's all in the book. If I had time I'd tell you where, but it's where he explains how he got the mask. The idea that everyone sees what they want to see is nice, but it's not actually true, except as much as it was true in actual Rorschach tests.

Cheers!

Yes, it's in the book, as i recall, the fabric was made specifically for a woman or something, it had the morphing patterns and he got it from the factory, i think the factory shut down or something, hence there is no more of that fabric around. correct me if i'm wrong.

Haven't read or opened the book in over a decade. Will have to check that. Thanks for pointing that out.

It's funny when people object to issues that aren't really there i.e. moving mask. I agree as much effort should be put into making this a great move as is put into staying faithful to the comic

you haven't read or opened the book in over 10 years and you didn't bother doing so before writing this? i'll admit i haven't read it all the way through in a while, but i do remember the mask constantly changing. Kovacs made the mask from the same material that Kitty Genovese was wearing. Genovese was a real life rape/murder victim in New York City in the 70s, and is used as an example of "learned helplessness" in the way many onlookers witnessed and didn't do anything about her brutal rape/murder.

You haven't opened the book in a decade, but you've posted an article about Rorschach's "non-moving" mask. Blech. Stop wasting our time and attention.

The morphing mask is explained in the book.

Most directors DON'T follow the actual comic book, Sin City was an exception to that. 300 was pretty close in that it sought to replicated some of Frank Miller's fantastic visuals, but it wasn't "subservient" to the comic either.

Frank Miller's is also an exception, with a visual style that needs to be replicated to effectively portray it in film. IF you want to make a superman movie, you've got about 2000 stories by 500 different artists (give or take), so there's no definite "look" to replicate other than the basics... whole other story...

Zach Snyder has 2 major motion pictures... ONE of them is from a comic book, so I don't know how you've determined that he "endency to stay too close to the comic book" if you only have one example to draw from. IF you saw his other movie, a Dawn of the Dead remake, you'd note that he pretty much ignored the source material other than that it takes place in a mall.

There are many places where this film can fail, but you've argued none of them in a compelling way, I'm sorry.

Also, I'd take a look at the book Watchmen before making such bold statements.

Ben. I disagree with you on the Frank Miller thing. Style has nothing to do with storytelling. I'm not arguing here about the black and white thing and the look. I'm arguing that every shot was lifted straight from the comic book which doesn't benefit a film because the visual film language used to tell a visual story is different in a comic book than in a film.

In copying straight from Sin City, its director did not innovate on what makes a film unique. Sin City was but an animated clone of a comic book and that is not original nor groundbreaking film making.

Snyder did almost the same in 300 and that's why I think it was bad and worry he will do the same with Watchmen.

The noirish look has nothing to do with what I was arguing and there was no need to completely ape the Sin City and 300 comic books in order to make the "look" work.

Inappropriate remarks removed.

-The Editor-

Hello. Here at the Comic Book Bin, we ask that writers and visitors communicate respectfully and refrain from personal attacks. There are ways of saying you disagree with a review without name calling.

when your first complaint is proven to be completely unfounded, you replace it with a completely different complaint that apparently wasn't enough of a concern to make it into the first article.

I seems like you're looking for any possible reason to write something negative about this film. As if you've made up your mind regardless...and are scratching around for things to back up that preconceived notion.

Just seems a little early for that to me.

Actually, my complaint about the storytelling and the comic book cloning was in the first version of the article. I did expend on that now in this version. Because some of the commentators wrote that I was discussing style, which has nothing to do with my arguments.

And if you read closely, you'll notice that I'm not against the Watchmen movie. Also, I haven't made up my mind about the movie, as I have not seen it. But I do have the right, to express some concerns, and I did.

If I follow your logic, one could also blame anyone who really is excited and positive about the Watchmen movie of having positive preconceived notions...

Why is one superior to the other? Seems to me like it has become a taboo already to say anything that is not 100% supportive of The Watchmen movie.

That's kind of totalitarian thinking...

I think you have some very important things to say about the differences between comics and film and I think that it's really good that you said them because a lot of people don't seem to get it. Nice work. I don't really think they are the main reasons to be concerned about the Watchmen movie, though. 300 wasn't just a straight comic to film translation. A ton of shots paid homage to the original source but just as many had nothing to do with the book. I think it shows that Snyder understands how to take inspiration from the material but make a film as a film not just a moving comic book. All the same, I still thought the end product of the movie 300 kind of sucked. The slow motion scenes where pretty cheesy. And the scenes added on to the story didn't do much for me. I have hope for the Watchmen movie because

a) Snyder will be to busy trying to get the story down to a manageble run time to indulge in any extra stuff. And the more slow mo, the longer the movie. Sorry Zack.

b) The cast and crew seem just as passionate about making a quality film out of this and staying true to the essence of the story as the director is. We all know what amazing source material they have to work with.

c) Even if it only lives up to half of its potential, it will still be ten times more interesting than most of the crap that passes for entertainment these days anyway.

i definitely have my own reservations as to how well a book that length, with such a deep level of detail and connection between all the events and characters will translate to what's reportedly going to be a roughly 3 hour movie. But basing things on the one trailer that's been released, it at least looks to be off to a good start in terms of look/visuals. And really, two minutes of visuals are all there is to judge at this point. I'll reserve judgement on story, etc., for when I see it.