An Open Letter from David Hayter

[Dark Knight]

Please, please PLEASE...call out these parents for the Oblivious morons that they are.

^^Exactly!

 

[Dark Knight]

it's cool that you don't like the movie, but...why do you have to be such a prick about it?

^^^Because the guy is an obvious fan of Julia Roberts' movies!?!?

LOL

 

[TheVileOne]

Keep in mind that Fox is due like 8.5% of the gross because of the lawsuit.

 

[Nivek]

Keep in mind that Fox is due like 8.5% of the gross because of the lawsuit.

Yeah, thanks for just bringing that up like that....

 

[DACrowe]

I think Snyder took out Dan & Laurie's decision to assume a new identity because he took out the story of the detective investigating Dan, and nearly captured him in the GN. So they had to change their identity so they won't be discovered. In the movie, they weren't investigated, so they went back to their lives. I do think the movie shouldn't have ended with an upbeat song though; it should've ended on a somber note, due to Rorschach's death and his journal quite possibly reversing the new-found world peace that Ozy created.

Ah, I hate that they used a stupid cover by My Chemical Romance of a Bob Dylan song, but the song still works. It bookends the opening credits and both tie into the theme that "Times are a-changin'" and they will continue to change. The movie takes on an almost ambivalent impartial view on this. Some people live some died, just like in the opening credits. The beats of human nature and war continue. So be it.

 

[Anita18]

come again? I do think we needed to see more carnage from Veidt's attack, but I imagine that a major problem is that Dr. Manhattan's power vaporizes people and leaves not much behind. Butt they could have drawn some parallels to Hiroshima and Nagasaki by having blood smears on the walls and ground instead of ash (as we saw that happened to Rorschach anyway) and that would make Rorschach's decision not to go along with it, all the more ironic.

Did you miss the extended shot of the bloody entrails and body parts hanging from the ceiling after Dr. Manhattan blew up a mobster?

I saw the movie about a week ago and the more I think about it, the more I miss the piles of bloody bodies the book showed us but the movie, for whatever reason, shied away from. We should be struck senseless by the utter devastation and loss of humanity, but not even the characters were hit all that emotionally with the news. Laurie was a whiny brat for most of the book, but she genuinely became a blubbery mess when picking among the dead bodies in NYC.

I like and respect Hayter a lot.

While some of what he's saying in this letter is true and I believe that many fans put their heart and souls into this production,

I don't understand why Hayter felt it necessary to write this letter.

I mean what ruins the letter to me is that Hayter is ultimately . . . essentially begging fans to see the movie. There's an undertone of him saying that people were disappointed and dismayed by the reviews and are avoiding so he's begging them to see it so it will make more money.

I don't get it. Why does he need to sound so desperate? Sometimes even the most best or classic movies don't make a lot of money.

I would've found the letter a lot more sincere if Hayter just stated his case and say let the movie stand for itself for however many years.

Considering that the original graphic novel itself can be very polarizing this doesn't necessarily have to be a movie that everyone will see or like and it doesn't have to be a movie people have to see over and over again to get it.

Agreed. I think it's cool that fan and filmmaker can have open lines of communication, but it's not like Watchmen bombed Speed-Racer-like. Chill out, peeps!

 

[The Guard]

THE DARK KNIGHT was dramatic, and sort of dark, but it was also incredibly "safe". It is not at all an example of "risky" material. Risky material is at stake of WATCHMEN fails at the box office.

However, I'm more concerned about the status of the Director's Cuts if WATCHMEN doesn't do well at the box office.

As far as the ending goes...I'm not going to say I wouldn't like some bodies in the streets...but when did New York being UTTERLY DESTROYED become "nothing" to people?

Sage,

By the results of the story, no, it's not a happy ending. But, again tonally, it does feel like a happy ending compared to the graphic novel.

Dan gets the girl. That's how the film ends. That's how it feels. And then, his choice of music at the credits don't help matters much.

Compare that to the film of last summer. A HOPEFUL ending but not a happy one by any stretch of the imagination. And tonally, it doesn't feel happy one bit.

It's almost the exact same ending that the book features.

Peace based on a lie.

Shattered friendships and people.

Rorschach dead.

Dan getting the girl and going on adventuring with her. There's actually a slightly more serious vibe to the ending than the one in the book, where Dan
and Laurie are very upbeat, not at all worried, etc.

And of course...Rorschach's journal.

The choice of music is a punk version of "Desolation Row", which isn't exactly a happy, hopeful song.

 

[Showtime]

THE DARK KNIGHT was dramatic, and sort of dark, but it was also incredibly "safe". It is not at all an example of "risky" material. Risky material is at stake of WATCHMEN fails at the box office.

However, I'm more concerned about the status of the Director's Cuts if WATCHMEN doesn't do well at the box office.

I think you're even more likely to see it because they want the DVD to help turn a profit.

 

[Arach Knight]

The film was very well done. Nobody can deny that. It's adherence to the venerable source material is impressive. Sadly, adhering so ardently to the source material is the largest draw back for this film. The film was already at risk of being a niche film because of the complexity of the original comic. The film was only further hurt when Snyder violated the rule of comic to film adaption. You never...ever...ever cater directly to comic fans.

Comic books are an extremely niche market that primarily continues to exist as a means for these companies to maintain their copyrights on these characters. A hundred thousand people turn out for the one huge book of the moment, and most other titles fall away into the obscurity of 60,000 copies or less. That kind of small number is not what you want to appeal to. Millions of people line up to see movies. Only tens of thousands read comic books. Even if every comic fan who has a pull list saw this movie twice, they couldn't support it financially. So why bother ego stroking them with the nerds rendition of what is the epitome of comic to film adaption?

The reason why films like Spider-Man and Dark Knight do so well, is because they are able to tap into what is actually important: the core ideas. They then take these ideas and craft their own take on the scenario. The Nolan Batman series never takes directly from one Batman story. Nor does it adhere to the books panel for panel. The same can be said for Spider-Man. Do you know how lamented the third film would have been (more so than it already is) had they decided to go the Secret War route for the symbiote explanation? There is a reason they kept it alien (The core idea) but had him encounter it in a way that works and interprets the main point.

To that end, Watchmen failed with flying colors. The most elitist comic fan will praise the accuracy, but the average comic fan will find little reason to engage this film for a repeat session. Especially if the graphic novel is already in their library. Why pay $20 to buy the DVD, $30 for a Blu Ray and God knows how much for a directors cut (that will only include the scenes that are already in the graphic novel) or another $10 to see it in theaters when you can check out the graphic novel from your local library (for free) or spend $15 and just own it?

What makes other comic films work so well, is that they give everyone a reason to see it. Movie lovers get action and drama and comic nerds can delight in seeing their favorite fantasy figures come to life. Watchmen is admirable for its faithfullness, but droll for its lack of interpretation. Every scene in the movie left me feeling more disappointed. Nothing excited or surprised me in the movie. Iron Man had a far more witty and comical Tony Stark that made it a blast and a fun departure from the source material. Spider-Man 2 beautifully interpreted Doc Ock to be a much more tragic figure (which is why in my opinion, Spider-Man 2 is still the best comic movie). And Wanted took so many liberities with the source material, that it could have almost been its own film under a different name, if not for its reliance on the premis and core idea established by the eponymous graphic novel.

Snyder should have learned from such examples rather than relying on the same tactic he used for 300. Just because it worked once (and worked in the past for Frank Miller and Rodriguez), doesn't mean he needs to rely on that to make every comic adaption into a block buster. Somebody made the right call earlier. The man is not a visionary. And that lack of vision is why Watchmen did not add up to what it could have been.

 

[Katsuro]

And Wanted took so many liberities with the source material, that it could have almost been its own film under a different name, if not for its reliance on the premis and core idea established by the eponymous graphic novel.

Snyder should have learned from such examples rather than relying on the same tactic he used for 300.

Are you seriously suggested that Snyder should've taken ANYTHING from the movie Wanted? Jesus, I wouldn't piss on that film to put out a fire.

But really, you're complaining that this movie didn't do what every other comic book movie did and appeal to general audiences, and instead did something risky and unique. That is not a bad thing. Hopefully, in the long run, this movie (and maybe the genre as a whole) will benefit from the risks Watchmen took. Watchmen seems like the kind of movie people will remember. Wanted.... not so much.

 

[The Guard]

I really think that just taking the basic ideas of WATCHMEN would have been a horrible idea. WATCHMEN is what it is because of the specific details and the way they are layered. It's not an ongoing mythology, it's one story.

No one ever says "Just take the basics of OLIVER TWIST, it'll still be OLIVER TWIST", why is that being touted for WATCHMEN?

 

[mre]

And Wanted took so many liberities with the source material, that it could have almost been its own film under a different name, if not for its reliance on the premis and core idea established by the eponymous graphic novel.

Snyder should have learned from such examples rather than relying on the same tactic he used for 300.

But Snyder did not write the Watchmen movie script.

 

[mre]

I really think that just taking the basic ideas of WATCHMEN would have been a horrible idea. WATCHMEN is what it is because of the specific details and the way they are layered. It's not an ongoing mythology, it's one story.

No one ever says "Just take the basics of OLIVER TWIST, it'll still be OLIVER TWIST", why is that being touted for WATCHMEN?

Have you ever seen updated versions of Shakespeare? (O, Romeo + Juliet, Hamlet.... tons more..?) They were great!

My real opinon, however, is that I think that they could have made a different version of Watchmen (updated perhaps?) and still have been successful.
I'm not saying the odds of this happening are great... just that it would be possible.

It would work either way though.

I thought Watchmen was great. And there are some of my friends who have not read the comic who I did not have to hype up for. They saw the preview before TDK, and that's all it took. They saw the movie, some liked it, some didn't. Just like the fans of the comic.

And that's the same how it would be if they made an updated version of the comic as well. Because no matter what changes you make, the story is going to be layered, and dark. Mix that with the fact that most people I know go to see movies where the good guy saves the day and gets the girl.

 

[JL Unlimited]

I keep hearing how Watchmen should be praised for being "risky" and that Snyder should be commended for being nearly 100% faithful to the source material, but these aren't good enough reasons to excuse the movie for failing to resonate with audiences outside the Watchmen GN fanbase. It sounds like the majority of the GN fans love the movie. So, I don't know why Hayter wrote this. "Made by the fans, for the fans?" . Shouldn't that be enough if it's for the fans? It sounds like they're expecting a huge drop this weekend.

 

[mre]

Sorry... I just re-read my post and find my point a little redundant and, well... pointless.

I can't post this late anymore.
Goodnight.

 

[Anita18]

THE DARK KNIGHT was dramatic, and sort of dark, but it was also incredibly "safe". It is not at all an example of "risky" material. Risky material is at stake of WATCHMEN fails at the box office.

However, I'm more concerned about the status of the Director's Cuts if WATCHMEN doesn't do well at the box office.

As far as the ending goes...I'm not going to say I wouldn't like some bodies in the streets...but when did New York being UTTERLY DESTROYED become "nothing" to people?

Dark Knight certainly doesn't "feel" safe - the first time I saw it, I immediately noticed the overriding atmosphere of sheer tension. It just isn't gratuitous with gore. It lets the audience use their imaginations instead. Showing more gore doesn't automatically make things more "adult." You probably need more maturity to watch and understand TDK than to watch and understand Saw. I actually sat next to young kids a few times while watching TDK in the theater, and besides being a little restless past the 2-hr mark, they showed absolutely no sign of being distressed. They probably didn't understand what was going on in the film.

And as we've already established, Watchmen is about people. Not about symbols or buildings or cities. People. So to really get the most emotional punch out of the climax, dead people should have been seen among the destroyed buildings. This isn't a new idea - the book had it in spades and why would Snyder have scaled back on that gore when he dialed up the gore in a bunch of other scenes?

It's almost the exact same ending that the book features.

Peace based on a lie.

Shattered friendships and people.

Rorschach dead.

Dan getting the girl and going on adventuring with her. There's actually a slightly more serious vibe to the ending than the one in the book, where Dan
and Laurie are very upbeat, not at all worried, etc.

And of course...Rorschach's journal.

The choice of music is a punk version of "Desolation Row", which isn't exactly a happy, hopeful song.

I think what we're missing most is the emotional punch of Adrian's attack. Dan was most upset when Rorschach died, not that 15 million people did shortly before. Yes, Rorschach was his friend, but 15 million people. Dear God.

The film also leaves Adrian just as deluded as he was from the beginning. He doesn't think for a second that his plan will fail. In the book, it's not as Hollywood because it really does end with the feeling of, "Was it really worth it?" And the person who perpetrated the act feels it too.

Also, Laurie and Dan are on the run from the authorities, having picked up new identities. So they couldn't stay at Sally's very long at all, but the film makes as if they're all living happily under one roof.

I keep hearing how Watchmen should be praised for being "risky" and that Snyder should be commended for being nearly 100% faithful to the source material, but these aren't good enough reasons to excuse the movie for failing to resonate with audiences outside the Watchmen GN fanbase. It sounds like the majority of the GN fans love the movie. So, I don't know why Hayter wrote this. "Made by the fans, for the fans?" . Shouldn't that be enough if it's for the fans? It sounds like they're expecting a huge drop this weekend.

Exactly. I was very pleased to see that most everyone here enjoyed Watchmen, with very few outright hating the film for nitpicky reasons.

 

[BMM]

you should research audience demographics if you get a chance.

lol.

 

[블라스]

HAHAHAHA so now the screenwriter is telling people to go and watch it again?? HAHAHAHA First Flop of 2009 Watchmen.

Maybe numbers and counting are not your thing, but I'd hardly call a movie who made almost half its budget in 4 or 5 days a "flop".
What is it with you people having a hate ***** for a movie? To actually want it to flop? That's idiotic.
Actually, after reading more comments in the thread, I have to say: Jesus Christ, it's been out for less than a week and people are already calling it a box office failure and a flop? Really? Ugh, I hate idiots

 

[Leenie]

I like and respect Hayter a lot.

While some of what he's saying in this letter is true and I believe that many fans put their heart and souls into this production,

I don't understand why Hayter felt it necessary to write this letter.

I mean what ruins the letter to me is that Hayter is ultimately . . . essentially begging fans to see the movie. There's an undertone of him saying that people were disappointed and dismayed by the reviews and are avoiding so he's begging them to see it so it will make more money.

I don't get it. Why does he need to sound so desperate? Sometimes even the most best or classic movies don't make a lot of money.

I would've found the letter a lot more sincere if Hayter just stated his case and say let the movie stand for itself for however many years.

Considering that the original graphic novel itself can be very polarizing this doesn't necessarily have to be a movie that everyone will see or like and it doesn't have to be a movie people have to see over and over again to get it.

Agreed.

After reading the open letter, I'm actually less inclined to see it. I probably will, but only if my friends want to see it. Otherwise, Hayter is out of luck when it comes to me.

 

[Sandman138]

As far as the ending goes...I'm not going to say I wouldn't like some bodies in the streets...but when did New York being UTTERLY DESTROYED become "nothing" to people?

Since we never got any scenes with the men and women on the street. The real stars of Watchmen. Not that it was really possible for the theatrical cut to do. Still, there was a certain amount of humanity lacking from a movie that was supposed to be about the failures of ideologues in the face of human existential crisis.

 

[J-Sentius]

I keep hearing how Watchmen should be praised for being "risky" and that Snyder should be commended for being nearly 100% faithful to the source material, but these aren't good enough reasons to excuse the movie for failing to resonate with audiences outside the Watchmen GN fanbase. It sounds like the majority of the GN fans love the movie. So, I don't know why Hayter wrote this. "Made by the fans, for the fans?" . Shouldn't that be enough if it's for the fans? It sounds like they're expecting a huge drop this weekend.

Look it's easy. Watchmen doesn't appeal to everyone. Snyder adapted it pretty much 100%, if it doesn't do well, it's because the source material doesn't work well. Don't blame Snyder and co.
This was the best comicbook movie ever, in terms of adaptation. If reviewers rate it low, then it's clear they don't have the interests of the fans of any comic book movie in their mind.

Reviewers were expecting this movie to get great reviews, so they thought, I'll bash it. So I'll get some attention, not knowing that all the other reviewers were thinking the exact same thing.
Giving a good movie bad reviews= hits and attention.

If a good movie like this gets bashed, **** the critics,every single one of them.

 

[Nivek]

And something like The Reader gets Nominated for an Oscar...

 

[J-Sentius]

And something like The Reader gets Nominated for an Oscar...

The Oscars are created by pretentious people. What'd you expect.

 

[laudanum09]

Agreed.

After reading the open letter, I'm actually less inclined to see it. I probably will, but only if my friends want to see it. Otherwise, Hayter is out of luck when it comes to me.

only with your friends huh? and judging from your avvy, I'm assuming you liked the spider man films and it's not just for irony's sake?


this movie was awesome because it seemed to almost completely reject the binary between a low-brow action/comic flick and a high-brow art film. This was Tarkovsky avec Die Hard. It subverted the entire either/or and short circuited it. It just falls out of that entire structure. If this 'fails' at the box office, then, just as Hayter said, I don't really expect anything on this scope being done again. This is just sad that people either expected some dumb fun movie with guys and gals in suits to watch with their friends for 'awesome' action sequences or the novel.

This was a love letter to the comic fans, but it would be a complete mistake to say that the fans like the comic for the same reasons ubiquitously. I'm just really curious, to fans of the comics, how they would have pulled it off? How would one avoid making it a love letter while not alienating the core audience; make it commerically viable, something you can take your family and friends to while not totally dumbing down or betraying the density of the source material? Nothing but a detailed answer and a script would convince me.

I'm just really sad that people weren't as blown away as I was. I was nearly in tears before Rorschach gets blown up.


And I think that moment really helped Dan realize what had happened. And remember when he beat the crap out of Ozy, he says "you haven't idealized humanity, you've mutilated it." I never got the sense that it was because of JUST Rorschach's death, and that line should back that up.


Also, the sense of doubt that Ozy had in the comic as opposed to in the film. I never got the sense that Ozy was sure of himself. The overhead shot of him looking somewhat sadly at his palm....the wreckage around him...no, no, this isn't Rorschach's ethics where the Cause is greater than living, it was a subtle way of registering his own doubt, his own isolation.

IMHO.

 

[chosen1]

It's because he's what I call a super or uber nerd.

Since most of us read comics and all of us are obviously posting on a message board that's primarily for comic films...that makes us all nerds, but there are different degrees.

As for Chosen1 being a super nerd. Well, it's the kind of fanboy that fits some of the typical and true stereotypes. The main and obvious one being, he needs to get a life because in this case, he worships the graphic novel like it somehow altered his real life or fed starving children or stopped wars around the world.

It's because he worships the novel or maybe even Alan Moore that he was against this movie from the start, probably even before Snyder was on board. So he feels smarter and superior(in a typical fanboy way)by knocking a movie(since the movies are always dumbed down and simple minded )that is based on a book that him and other fanboys hold sacred mainly because the general audience/majority won't "get it".

That's my guess at least. Seen and met in real life enough of these types that they can be fairly easy to read from their rants.

I understand if someone doesn't like this film and they have good and valid reasons for it. It's when you constantly throw elbows any chance you can get to make the film or whatever it is you hate sound like the biggest pile of crap ever made, well that's godawful. Almost like the movie somehow ruined your life lol.

WOW. Man Its amazing how much u know about me. You are doing good.