An Open Letter from David Hayter

[Figs]

It's not. Dark Knight has that covered for at least a year or more... then there's still number three, and I doubt it would flop so hard that it doesn't undo any damage Watchmen did.

Plus... Snyder already didn't make his film. There's how many more versions coming out?

As much of a Batman fan that I am and as much as I loved TDK as I just responded to Leenie...I still don't consider TDK that big of a risk film.

Like I said before TDK did take risks here and there but not enough to call the whole film risky...that's just my opinion of course.

 

[Gilpesh]

As much of a Batman fan that I am and as much as I loved TDK as I just responded to Leenie...I still don't consider TDK that big of a risk film.

Like I said before TDK did take risks here and there but not enough to call the whole film risky...that's just my opinion of course.

Which takes into account that WB just handed over the reigns to Nolan to make his own film and he did and they didn't mess with it at all, right? Even when it was over two hours and wasn't as happy as the usual superhero movie.

 

[Silverglade]

To add to what Gilpesh just posted..

That is also why Warner will not pursue anything other than Nolan regarding Batman. He can ask for 2-3 years and they will say "yes sir". Think about that. A director so revered and valuable he can take his time and call the shots. Poor Jon Favreau. Marvel is pushing him hard to move fast. he has no choices. I think he will deliver though. but he just does not have the power and freedom and plain old breathing room that Nolan obtains.

 

[Figs]

Which takes into account that WB just handed over the reigns to Nolan to make his own film and he did and they didn't mess with it at all, right? Even when it was over two hours and wasn't as happy as the usual superhero movie.

My mistake.

In the case of TDK I meant in the actual subject matter, what was in the film.

Sorry I forgot we were talking about risks involving the studios letting the director have free reign as opposed to risks of having a movie that is clearly not going to be for the general audience...which in my previous post I was saying TDK wasn't one of those. Meaning the material was fairly ok for the general audience to "get" and understand while enjoying it.

 

[Gilpesh]

In the case of TDK I meant in the actual subject matter, what was in the film.

Ah. But still. It's the not the usual summer blockbuster... and it delivered... and it was all because the studio gave the director free reign. Of course, the other side of the equation is that the director does not go crazy in doing everything and the kitchen sink that pops in their head.

 

[Red Mask]

Don't you worry David! I watched it twice already! Rest assured you got my money!

 

[nathaniel]

You actually bought that s--t? How many movies have flopped in the past that were out there and obscure? And they're still making movies like them.

Like what? i mean REALLY obscure Watchmen wasnt a flick featuring a main Marvel or DC character i cant think of another movie featuring an obscure hero that will have 100mill plus pumped into it for the forseeable future.

 

[laudanum09]

We'll never know if it was comic book movie bias or Weinstein or Pollack/Minghella love that got The Reader in above TDK. But it's definitely Academy self-congratulations.


You can be enamored of pieces of the film while not being blown away by the whole. Haley was THE highlight for me - the movie lost a lot of spark when he wasn't on screen. (I was in tears for Rorschach's last scene.) Except for the short shot of Dr. Manhattan appearing on Mars, that was gorgeous. Everything else barely registers for me a week later.

An article by Richard Corliss in TIME magazine says, "..this ambitious picture is a thing of bits and pieces. But oh, those beautiful bits. And wow, those magnificent pieces." I feel the same way.

Great way of putting it. I agree! But those moments just sort of washed over the entirety of the film for me. The less explosive moments (no pun intended) I still really enjoyed watching the first time through because I got to see one of my favorite pieces of literature brought to life. So in between awesomeness, these really beautiful moments, was something that was just satisfying to watch as a fan of the graphic novel in itself.

what i guess i was trying to express, was that the people i went with weren't even blown away by those moments, they didnt seem to register what was really going on or the immense ethical/philosophical implications of these scenes. im just sad my experience had to be so hermetically experienced.

 

[inflames]

a lot of things go over the average joe's head, they need to get kids reading good literature early on.

 

[laudanum09]

I think the thing that bugs me about the open letter is that the movie should speak for itself. The Dark Knight was a really risky comic book movie and it became the second-highest grossing film of all time ... And it didn't need someone to urge people to go see it.

I hear ya man, and no one is stopping me from seeing it as much as I want. It's merely disappointing to be the only one in a crowd that liked it, ya know? It makes you feel lonely in the sense that one of the best parts about watching a movie is talking about it with friends. Of course disagreement can make great conversation, but I wanted this to be something we could all talk about positively, albeit from different POV's. I was unable to do any of this which is what made me a bit disappointed, that's all.


Here's the thing with letting it speak for itself. I will give you one example. John Carpenter's the Thing is easily one of the best sci-fi horror films ever made. I think that's kind of a no-brainer in our times, but when it came it out it was just utterly TRASHED. Critically and by many of his fans. If there were a letter that came out then similar to Hayter's now, would you understand why some see it as not so bad of an idea, at least in this thought experiemnt?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

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

You see THIS is the problem. They would rather have u swallow that lie u just explained to me. If the movie doesnt do well thats going to set movies back blah blah blah. GUYS ITS A LIE. THEY WANT UR MONEY! PERIOD! So Hulk Wasnt a risk. The spirit did that set any movies back? what about wanted? hmmm? Please dont let them do that to you. It is so important that this movie does not succeed.

You really are the worst poster on this board. Every single, and I MEAN every single on of your posts is of an attention seeking nature. Summerized; you are a prick.

The fact is Hayter is right. This movie, whilst it does have faults, is the bravest movie in frickin years. If it flops the studios won't take the risk to have these "brave" movies again. We will be forever stuck in the "studio interference" era. Where execs who know nothing about the source material or actual film making try to dictate to the people who actually know what they are doing.

This film needs to succeed. Or we will never see a film with the balls, the blatant disreguard for political correctness, rules, like this again.

If you want to see films that ***** foot around the source material, directors who bow under pressure from people who don't have a scooby doo about film making, fine, that's your choice. But if that is your choice, you are a ****ing idiot.

 

[inflames]

yea, enter Batman forever era.

 

[The Riddler]

it didn't really matter how good the film was going to be; watchmen doesn't have the general appeal to be a big blockbuster hit.

even if watchmen was a marginally better film, its box office receipts wouldn't increase much, if at all.

watchmen isn't a typical movie based on typical source material, and so drawing big box office numbers wasn't likely to happen anyway.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

And don't anyone give me the spiel about TDK being brave and breaking barriers. If TDK was brave it wouldn't of been a pg-13. It would of also been a rated r/18 like Watchmen. The material called for it, but because it's Batman it had to be available for a wider audience.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

it didn't really matter how good the film was going to be; watchmen doesn't have the general appeal to be a big blockbuster hit.

even if watchmen was a marginally better film, its box office receipts wouldn't increase much, if at all.

watchmen isn't a typical movie based on typical source material, and so drawing big box office numbers wasn't likely to happen anyway.

The box office is irrelevant in this discussion IMO. It's more about the principle of the thing.

This is all about Watchmen showing that a hard r/18 comic book film has been made and can be successful.

The fact is if this film completely flops the studios will be less willing to give directors a free reign and make films as they see fit.

 

[The Riddler]

The box office is irrelevant in this discussion IMO. It's more about the principle of the thing.

This is all about Watchmen showing that a hard r/18 comic book film has been made and can be successful.

The fact is if this film completely flops the studios will be less willing to give directors a free reign and make films as they see fit.

yeah and my point is this: the hard cold fact of the matter is that a hard rated r film cannot be as big a blockbuster as you'd like and should only expect marginal box office grosses.

you'd like it to succeed for the reasons you mentioned but the truth is there's a reason films aim to be pg-13 and less edgy.

 

[laudanum09]

And don't anyone give me the spiel about TDK being brave and breaking barriers. If TDK was brave it wouldn't of been a pg-13. It would of also been a rated r/18 like Watchmen. The material called for it, but because it's Batman it had to be available for a wider audience.

certainly not groundbreaking in terms of risk, but it was brave. Considering the tripe that came before it, Batman HAS to be commercially viable, and TDK was and then some in terms of its general artistic quality. Brave for being the fifth in a relatively 'safe' franchise. But still, I feel ya. If Watchmen would be called brave then it would be hard to call TDK such. For me, I wouldn't call it that, I'd say it was a bit more than brave, It had a pretty large set of balls IMHO (what happened....didja didja bawls drop off??)

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I never said it had to be a blockbuster. I never, ever expected Watchmen to be a blockbuster. But I want it to be successful, to turn a nice profit. Because if it doesn't then we will continue to see watered down pg-13 movies when in reality, they should be rated r/18.

The studios want money for their investment. That's all they think of these movies, investments. If Watchmen shows that a hard r/18 is a worthy investment then hopefully we will see more of them in this genre.

Jonah Hex for example. That HAS to be rated r/18. And if it isn't, i won't go and see it. I'm not giving money to a watered down movie. Because then that wouldn't give the motivation to make them rated r you know? They will be like...

"Well, it wasn't true to the source material in the fact that it was watered down. But these suckers are still paying out to see it, so we will keep putting out watered down movies"

Like with TDK. Yea it was a excellent, record breaking movie. But i would of sacrificed breaking records for integrity. It could of easily been made to be a rated r/18 and it would of still been highly successful, guaranteed. It's just that no one wanted to take that risk with that film. Even if it was rated r/18 it would of been immensely successful and more importantly, probably a better film.

 

[laudanum09]

"Well, it wasn't true to the source material in the fact that it was watered down. But these suckers are still paying out to see it, so we will keep putting out watered down movies"

Like with TDK. Yea it was a excellent, record breaking movie. But i would of sacrificed breaking records for integrity. It could of easily been made to be a rated r/18 and it would of still been highly successful, guaranteed. It's just that no one wanted to take that risk with that film. Even if it was rated r/18 it would of been immensely successful.

that's exactly why im really 'proud' of snyder's work. he had so much to juggle, an entire studio's backing, the fans to satisfy, the general audience. He compromised a BIT, but really not very much. The overstylized acting is simply Snyder's style, which I accept.

If it didn't have some mark of the director on it, it would have no cinematic life to it. I love watching the work of auteurs, they have a certain stamp and it shows with this. He's still a young director but he's got his own thing going and I accept/appreciate it. Especially today with a relatively homogenous style when it comes to big budget films. Like I would have never guessed Black Hawk Down or Body of Lies was directed by you know who, but Watchmen, while still extremely faithful to the comic (which someone, I don't remember who, was critiquing watchmen and snyder for earlier in the thread) still had Snyder's style and aesthetic sensibilities.

 

[The Riddler]

I never said it had to be a blockbuster. I never, ever expected Watchmen to be a blockbuster. But I want it to be successful, to turn a nice profit. Because if it doesn't then we will continue to see watered down pg-13 movies when in reality, they should be rated r/18.

The studios want money for their investment. That's all they think of these movies, investments. If Watchmen shows that a hard r/18 is a worthy investment then hopefully we will see more of them in this genre.

Jonah Hex for example. That HAS to be rated r/18. And if it isn't, i won't go and see it. I'm not giving money to a watered down movie. Because then that wouldn't give the motivation to make them rated r you know? They will be like...

"Well, it wasn't true to the source material in the fact that it was watered down. But these suckers are still paying out to see it, so we will keep putting out watered down movies"

Like with TDK. Yea it was a excellent, record breaking movie. But i would of sacrificed breaking records for integrity. It could of easily been made to be a rated r/18 and it would of still been highly successful, guaranteed. It's just that no one wanted to take that risk with that film. Even if it was rated r/18 it would of been immensely successful and more importantly, probably a better film.

the problem is, to make a profit on a film that costs as much as it does, it has to be a blockbuster. secondly, a film may be better if it is rated r, but it well never make as much money as it could have if it was rated pg-13.

if tdk was rated r, it'd still be successful, but it wouldn't have made as much as it did.

i want watchmen to be successful for the same reasons you do, but i'm just saying it's not likely to happen.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea fair enough. And the fact that you are probably right REALLY pisses me off. I know this probably seems arrogant if you are younger than 17 or 18, but to be honest, I would feel exactly the same way as i do now even if i was under 17.

 

[Doc Samson]

Let me first say this. I am a nerd. I know it, my girlfriend knows it. My whole family knows it. With that in mind...

Nobody gives a **** about the source material for this film. Comic nerds have propelled this comic to the status of overrated. It was and still is a brilliant piece of work, but over glorifying it to the point that it is worshiped is just disturbing. Changing the presentation doesn't undermine the fundamental concepts unless you change the concepts. That is why Mark Millar was okay with Wanted. They dumped the super heroes and super villains aspect in favor of righteous assassins and murderers. The ultimate idea was present and the director and script writers managed to craft an amazing presentation from that.

If this film had used all of Hayter's script, I might have a different opinion. As it stands, this film is far too much of a tribute. General audiences are already unfamiliar with comics unless they are pop culture icons (which is a realm predominantly belonging to Spider-Man, Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman). So average people don't care about Watchmen. In the world of comic books and nerds, Watchmen may be this quasi-holy grail but the fact remains that most comic fans aren't even aware of it. How many people have popped up and said they only read the comic because they were anticipating the film?

This sense of reverence that you all hold belongs to a minority so obscure that the source material might as well not matter unless you are the most ardent fan. You all treat it as some act of sacrilege or blasphemy to modernize or reinterpret this film while upholding the main ideas. It really wouldn't. I recall a monologue given by Chris Rock in the film, Dogma. It was something to the effect of "it doesn't matter which religion is the right one, but it's the faith that's important." We can take that concept and apply it here. The underlying themes of Moore's story, are more important than being 100% true to the original telling. And history has proven this.

-Scrooged
-The Dark Knight
-Spider-Man 2
-Texas Chainsaw Massacre

What is sad, is that fandom like this, is why this movie is a sinking ship now. If Snyder would have stayed away from fanboy opinion, he could have made a much better FILM. That is the point here. He needed to make a good film, not a good translation of Watchmen. And sadly, it's weekend gross doesn't even match the opening day box for Spider-Man 3. And Spider-Man 3 had minmal if any reverance for the source material. That, if anything should sink in, because Spider-Man 3 was God awful (from a comic fans perspective). But it managed to be a fun film that did what audiences wanted. And that is crucial if your goal is to make a film that works for everyone and not just jaded fanboys on message boards who want to ego stroke themselves about a job well done with Watchmen being so faithful. Why don't you go be faithful to it, because in the coming weeks, this movie sure will need the help of such fans. Folks think Superman Returns flopped? At least that made back its money. Lets see what happens over the month and see how badly Warner gets burned on this.

Couldn't agree more. I get into this argument often, because anyone posting on a messageboard constitutes being a fanboy, but there are vastly different degrees. With this movie in particular, Snyder was in a no-win position, just like you pointed out, the average joe doesn't know or care about Watchmen, while the die-hard fans were waiting for the first indiscretion to start spewing all over it. No matter what he did he was going to alienate somebody, and actually, I think he wound up alienating both to a certain degree.

 

[J.Howlett]

"No one wanted to take a risk on The Dark Knight because it wasn't rated R?"

That's a pretty terrible analysis of the intention of the filmmakers. Just because it wasn't an R rating does not mean that that film didn't take story and filmmaking risks.

Name another property of this genre besides the terrible theatrical cut of Daredevil that blew it's leading lady all to hell in the manner to which it was done in the Dark Knight...and how that one incident changed the course of the character for future installments?

 

[chosen1]

You really are the worst poster on this board. Every single, and I MEAN every single on of your posts is of an attention seeking nature. Summerized; you are a prick.

The fact is Hayter is right. This movie, whilst it does have faults, is the bravest movie in frickin years. If it flops the studios won't take the risk to have these "brave" movies again. We will be forever stuck in the "studio interference" era. Where execs who know nothing about the source material or actual film making try to dictate to the people who actually know what they are doing.

This film needs to succeed. Or we will never see a film with the balls, the blatant disreguard for political correctness, rules, like this again.

If you want to see films that ***** foot around the source material, directors who bow under pressure from people who don't have a scooby doo about film making, fine, that's your choice. But if that is your choice, you are a ****ing idiot.

...Mwahh hahahahahahahahahaha

 

[chosen1]

it didn't really matter how good the film was going to be; watchmen doesn't have the general appeal to be a big blockbuster hit.

even if watchmen was a marginally better film, its box office receipts wouldn't increase much, if at all.

watchmen isn't a typical movie based on typical source material, and so drawing big box office numbers wasn't likely to happen anyway.

I disagree. Watchmen couldve been the next Matrix. People say that The Dark knight has raised the bar for comicbook movies. This Movie COULD HAVE raised it again. but because of who was in charge of the ship AKA Snydes it didnt stand a chance.