An Open Letter from David Hayter

[bunk]

How about u explain it to me.

No.

 

[Nivek]

Ho-hum.... I think some people are very confused by the very definition of words like opinion, conjecture, and box office failure....

 

[Raiden]

What you tools don't realize is, what he said is true.

If this movie doesn't do well it's going to be a big setback again for studios to take chances with non safe material.

So as much as you hated this movie(Squid aside, it was accurate to the book)the fact that you are laughing that it may bomb is incredible stupidity. Especially coming from people with the nerd mindset that the book is untouchable and you feel smarter than others for having read and understood it. It's like you don't care when risk films like this bomb and the studios go back to financing unintelligent films again.

Well-said. If Watchmen failed, superhero movies will continue to be made, but they will be more reluctant to fianance movies that are no-holds-barred, pulled-no-punches, kind of risk-takers like Watchmen. While I understand that some people don't care if they get their superhero movies if they were cheesy and campy like Batman & Robin and Catwoman, or serious and thought-provoking like Watchmen and TDK, I for one would love to see more movies that take its source material more seriously than not. Watchmen is a fine movie, but it's definitely not as easily swallowed as other, less cerebral fares.

 

[J.Howlett]

Do people really think a serious sequel to The Dark Knight WON'T get made because Watchmen burns out at the box office...?

Spin....

 

[protoctista]

What you tools don't realize is, what he said is true.

If this movie doesn't do well it's going to be a big setback again for studios to take chances with non safe material.

So as much as you hated this movie(Squid aside, it was accurate to the book)the fact that you are laughing that it may bomb is incredible stupidity. Especially coming from people with the nerd mindset that the book is untouchable and you feel smarter than others for having read and understood it. It's like you don't care when risk films like this bomb and the studios go back to financing unintelligent films again.

First of all, don't be insulting.

Secondly, you're wrong. A certain batman film (the name of which I have been told is inflammatory) did pretty well last summer and it's pretty obvious that it's success originated from the fact that it was inventive, bold and very, very high quality. There's Avatar on the horizon, which is the definition of non-safe material considering the hitherto lukewarm reception to 3D films and the ludicrous amount of money it's costing to invent new technology. Then we've got gay films like Milk and Brokeback Mountain making loads of money; an avante-garde R-rated fantasy (oh, with child-abuse) - Pan's Labyrinth making ridiculously high profit; documentaries starting to become very successful - Inconvenient Truth, Man On Wire, Waltz With Bashir. Sweeny Todd showed that an R-rated film can be a blockbuster (It cost 50 million and made back 150 million).

At the moment we're seeing films get the Batman Begins Syndrome - remakes of franchises for more edgy, more creative and more exciting new territory - Terminator Salvation, Star Trek.

Studios will also see that the attraction to Watchmen for a mainstream audience was that it was edgy, new, inventive, original, fresh, stylish - and that the reason a larger percentage of the mainstream audience aren't going to be drawn in for next weekend is because the film itself doesn't resonate with them - that it only resonates with fans of the material.

So, in terms of future film productions taking note, studios are going to realise that the reason Watchmen is a financial disaster is not because it's edgy and original.

 

[J.Howlett]

Hollywood will take chances on adult comic books...for the right price. Example: Sin City. Made for basically peanuts compared to Watchmen and it's made a bundle of cash since its release.

 

[Figs]

Do people really think a serious sequel to The Dark Knight WON'T get made because Watchmen burns out at the box office...?

Spin....

That's not what is being said or thought.

A sequel to TDK will get made regardless.

As for movies the general audience hasn't heard of(like Watchmen, seriously most people never heard of it 'til the movie came out, comic fans are a tiny % of the majority)that are serious and even ones for mature audiences, they have a less chance of being finances if the studios are afraid to take that risk.

You want a movie like Watchmen to do well to show the studios that just because it's not an action fest and makes you think and isn't dumbed down for the kids or massess that these films/risks should be made. I don't know about you but I'm tired of all the cliche "safe" and run of the mill films that Hollywood has been pumping out over the years.

 

[J.Howlett]

Figs,

Again, for the right price....example Sin City.

Watchmen had no business costing as much as it did, if Snyder had come at the material correctly, instead of doing a panel for panel TRACING job on the thing.

Rodriquez did, but it was how he did it that made that film profitable.

 

[chosen1]

figs,

again, for the right price....example sin city.

Watchmen had no business costing as much as it did, if snyder had come at the material correctly, instead of doing a panel for panel tracing job on the thing.

Rodriquez did, but it was how he did it that made that film profitable.

thank you thank you

 

[J.Howlett]

I still don't understand how a film, with NO STARS, cost upwards of 150 million to make?

 

[Nivek]

But Watchmen looks so much better than Sin City in so many respects. I love Sin City, but the lack of detail in Franks books helped them do everything as green screen. Also, it looks cheap, and thats coming from a fan.

 

[Figs]

First of all, don't be insulting.

Lol, sorry Chosen1 has been a typical nerd/fanboy who needs to get a life since he obviously worships the graphic novel. I can't stand those types since they make the rest of us look bad. The kind that spaz out over a few changes in something and literally act like their life is over.

Secondly, you're wrong. A certain batman film (the name of which I have been told is inflammatory) did pretty well last summer and it's pretty obvious that it's success originated from the fact that it was inventive, bold and very, very high quality.

Once again, TDK wasn't nearly as risky as Watchmen(I'll say again, a film most of the general audience had never heard of until release). With TDK it has Batman a worldwide icon of pop culture, second it had the most talked about performance in a longtime.

There's Avatar on the horizon, which is the definition of non-safe material considering the hitherto lukewarm reception to 3D films and the ludicrous amount of money it's costing to invent new technology. Then we've got gay films like Milk and Brokeback Mountain making loads of money;

Um...what does that have to do with risky/mature comic films, or fantasy films that make you think. Both of those films weren't that risky considering how liberal Hollywood is and how more and more people are finally being more accepting of homosexuality.

an avante-garde R-rated fantasy (oh, with child-abuse) - Pan's Labyrinth making ridiculously high profit; documentaries starting to become very successful - Inconvenient Truth, Man On Wire, Waltz With Bashir. Sweeny Todd showed that an R-rated film can be a blockbuster (It cost 50 million and made back 150 million).


Excluding Pan's Labyrinth and Sweeny Todd, what do those documentaries have to do with comic/fantasy films that take risks and that are for mature audiences?

At the moment we're seeing films get the Batman Begins Syndrome - remakes of franchises for more edgy, more creative and more exciting new territory - Terminator Salvation, Star Trek.

Studios will also see that the attraction to Watchmen for a mainstream audience was that it was edgy, new, inventive, original, fresh, stylish - and that the reason a larger percentage of the mainstream audience aren't going to be drawn in for next weekend is because the film itself doesn't resonate with them - that it only resonates with fans of the material.

So, in terms of future film productions taking note, studios are going to realise that the reason Watchmen is a financial disaster is not because it's edgy and original.

I agree if it fails it wasn't because it was edgy and original, it was partly due to as a lot of people I've talked to(that make up the general audience) as well as read other fan's reviews where they mention the general audience's talking as they are leaving the film...it was boring and too much talking. They wanted more action instead of trying to use their brains.

 

[chosen1]

I still don't understand how a film, with NO STARS, cost upwards of 150 million to make?

All the Marketing and special effects. I would guess. I know they didnt pay the actors much...They just shoveled something up. Tried to hype it so aggresively and hoped they would have another Dark knight situation. SORRY Not happenin

 

[J.Howlett]

Nivek,

But, does Rodriquez's film not accomplish its mission in RECREATING the comic its based on? It does. Snyder could've done the same thing with Watchmen at a much lower cost.

I mean X2 was made for 110 million in 2003 and both films look relatively the same in a lot of respects....

 

[J.Howlett]

chosen1,

That 150 price tag was BEFORE marketing. You can add another 60 to 100 million on the price tag AFTER marketing.

 

[rogue trooper]

Hayter has a very solid point. For my part, I've already seen the film twice and it gets even better the second time.


Regarding more edgier films like Watchmen, V For Vendetta, and The Dark Knight being made; there's the Judge Dredd reboot that's being made. This one, supposedly, will have the uneasy, strong social commentary that the comics have. If this one does well, hope is not lost.

Next, we could see a film of American Flagg or a Swamp Thing movie based on Alan Moore's run.

 

[Figs]

Figs,

Again, for the right price....example Sin City.

Watchmen had no business costing as much as it did, if Snyder had come at the material correctly, instead of doing a panel for panel TRACING job on the thing.

Rodriquez did, but it was how he did it that made that film profitable.

LOOOOOL!

Then the fans like Chosen1 would be screaming bloody murder even more than they are now.

So your saying it was better that he butcher the book and not try to make it as accurate as possible for the sake of budget?

 

[Nivek]

I still don't understand how a film, with NO STARS, cost upwards of 150 million to make?

It's called not filming 95% of your movie in front of a green screen, and having numerous shots.

 

[J.Howlett]

Figs,

What I'm saying it that Snyder should've figured out a way to translate the material and stay true to the essence and spirit of the thing, without doing a panel for panel recreation. I mean, if that was his only goal, then why go see the flick anyway? If we don't get anything new out of it going to a different medium, why not just read the book again?

 

[J.Howlett]

Nivek,

No excuse for it to be 150 million. A VISIONARY director could've made that flick for 100 million and probably done more with it than Snyder...and this is coming from someone who loved 300....

 

[rogue trooper]

What I'm saying it that Snyder should've figured out a way to translate the material and stay true to the essence and spirit of the thing, without doing a panel for panel recreation.

I thought he achieved this quite well, but to each his own, I guess.

 

[Figs]

Figs,

What I'm saying it that Snyder should've figured out a way to translate the material and stay true to the essence and spirit of the thing, without doing a panel for panel recreation. I mean, if that was his only goal, then why go see the flick anyway? If we don't get anything new out of it going to a different medium, why not just read the book again?

What I said still stands though J.Howlett.

If Snyder would have changed more than just the squid so as not to be 'boring' by giving us basically what we can read in the novel(which is what most of us fans wanted anyways)and to give us something new as you put it, fans would have *****ed so much more.

It was because it was so accurate that most of the fans like/loved it.

You ask what's the point though and why not just read the book again. The reason is, a lot of us just wanted to see it come to life, like what a filmed version of the book would be like.

I can see doing changes like what Nolan did in BB and TDK or even changes Favreau had in Iron Man but those are comic characters that have lasted decades with so many stories to pull from.

Watchmen was a one time and one shot kind of thing. Why alter and make up stuff for the film version? Isn't that what most fans hate?

That's also one of my main points about comic films that take risks. Snyder in multiple interviews said under any other studio this would have gotten typical Hollywood treatment. Meaning, they would have butchered it to make it safe for the masses. I'm glad Snyder fought for the Mars scene and so much more and even happier WB took those risks being the ones laying the money down to let Snyder make this film as accurate as possible.

 

[BeserkerHilf]

does the $150m price tag include the how many years of development hell?

 

[Spider-Who?]

i find it disgustingly funny how there are two main arguements for not liking Watchmen, and yet both these arguements strongly contridict eachother:

1) The movie took too many liberties/wasn't close enough to the source material.
2) The movie was too similar to the source material/they should have made it different then the book.

HAHAHAHA.

I also love how a bunch of fan boys who most likely never leave their room think they know enough about a complex industry like filmmaking to know how much a director SHOULD have made a movie for. Get over yourselves, everyone. You know less then half as much as you think you do.

 

[J.Howlett]

Figs,

Films and books are different mediums. Something that works on the page may not work on the screen..hence the word: adaptation. Snyder's film may have faithfully recreated the comic but for the entire second act, it just sits there with nothing going on. That's not a good thing for film because of the limited amount of time you have to get your points across in a film. It just doesn't work.

There was a way to make Watchmen for the lovers of the books and for the general audience. Snyder choose not to because, quite honestly, he's no visionary.

And as for Snyder's comment about the typical Hollywood treatment, how does he explain, no matter what he says, the happy ending to his film compared to the comic?