Why I actually think 'Watchmen' will suck

This started out as a response to Hysan in the comments, but I'm going to flip it over here. I've posted here before about why I am not looking forward to the film adaptation of 'Watchmen', but there it was about 'Watchmen' being perfect for the medium of comics and so forth, and about me not wanting to see it made. Now, I am going to come down from on high and give my position on why the movie will actually suck.

First, the plot is now cultural old hat. For all intents and purposes, it has already been seen in 'Unbreakable' and the first season arc on 'Heroes'. It doesn't matter if 'Watchmen' did it first, all audiences will see is something that they've seen before. By the very nature of film and adaptations, it is the plot that has to work, that the film is built around. Yes, there are exceptions, but this is a very big budget film, so it will be about plot, and the plot doesn't really hold up all that well. It only resonates in the graphic novel because of the characters involvement and the vast amount of world building detail built into the comic, into the text pieces, into the asides, into Gibbons' art and slice of life digressions. All of the things that have to be the first to go when you make it into a film. Plus it isn't the eighties anymore. The cultural resonance is not there. The point of Ozymandius' plot is to bring the US and USSR together. Except the USSR disintegrated almost two decades ago. So what is the point of the plot?

And as an action movie, there is almost no action. There are no super-villains. Rorschach fights some cops. Night-Owl and Silk Spectre help put out a fire. Someone tries to shoot someone else. Dr. Manhattan goes to Mars to ruminate via internal monologue what it is like to be God. Exciting stuff! Most comedies these days have more action than 'Watchmen'.

Of course, in the comic, the plot is almost secondary to the character development and exploration. It is a character study, and there are a lot of characters to study, but at close to four hundred pages, it has room to do it. In most character films, you don't have a minimum of five characters that need exploration, you have one to three, and if you do have more, you don't have an action/adventure framework to throw it on to. That is where the film will have to succeed, in getting the characters and their relationships interesting. Now I know super-hero movies are big right now, but that is because they are full of adventure and spectacle. Do you want to see a movie about super-heroes having issues? Super-heroes treated realistically? Isn't that the exact opposite of the point of the genre? Maybe this is what audiences have been waiting for, people in stupid suits talking about their feelings.

'Watchmen' is the best comic book ever put to page, it is the pinnacle of the super-hero genre, but all the reasons that make is such a great comic are very likely going to make it a deeply flawed stinker in the cinema. It will be stylish, it might even feature great drama, but my money says the tone is going to be a mess, the action will be contrived, the characters won't get the development they deserve and the film is going to tank.

And that is my review of a movie that they haven't finished making yet. Good luck too 'em, maybe Zak Synder will overcome the fact that he is making a $100 million art house film.

Although I am very curious how he will handle Dr. Manhattan's penis.