An Open Letter from David Hayter

[Agentsands77]

Oh really? and why is that? (just asking please dont attack me)

Oh, I won't attack you.

I think THE DARK KNIGHT and WATCHMEN both have their share of flaws, but I think WATCHMEN is ultimately a more audacious work than THE DARK KNIGHT, and while it may have some hiccups along the way, ultimately achieves more than THE DARK KNIGHT in terms of narrative and thematic complexity (even if it does pale in comparison to the graphic novel, and ultimately, I'm not sure it does).

There's also a sense in which I believe cinema's true power is to work on that visual/auditory level. It's a visceral, immersive medium. I think WATCHMEN functions on that level beyond THE DARK KNIGHT (though THE DARK KNIGHT is also visually striking in its own way).

 

[Arach Knight]

No one is denying that man. Well, I'm not.

It's not as though this film has completely flopped yet anyway.

And the reason I wanted it to be successful is because it is basically a director sticking his middle finger up to the execs like Tom Rothman.

My apologies. I did not mean to make it seem as though I was responding to your post. My statement was merely sequential to yours. I was actually referring to posts generally made after my other previous post. So it was not directed at you sir.

As for Superman Returns...the movie was terrible. The acting was pretty much up to snuff. The action scenes (wait, there was action???) were done pretty well, but were far to scarce. Otherwise, Superman Returns was as much of a steaming pile as Batman and Robin. Batman & Robin is guilty of not taking itself seriously. Superman Returns took itself too seriously. They tried to make him this pitiful and sympathetic guy...it just doesn't work. I mean actually laughed when he got kryptonite shanked.

The whole movie was about how lonely he was without Krypton. How lonely he was without Lois. Then you had all of these supposed sad moments like discovering that he has a child and he wasn't there for him, or how he was beaten to a pulp and shanked by Luther and his henchman. That stuff was such a snooze fest. His most heroic display (at least in regards to the films intentions) was him lifting a giant rock into space. Then the hospital scene? Please...stop. I know Superman is supposed to save the day, but I think I needed someone to save me from Superman.

Now don't get me wrong. I own this film on DVD, just for the plane scene and the fact that I love comic movies, for better or for worse. But don't sit here and tell me that Superman Returns was decent or passable. If it was, then DC/Warner wouldn't be trying to a pull an Incredible Hulk and reboot this franchise. The fact remains that

1)DC has made some bad films and recovered from them...so that means that

2)This film not being a box office success won't mean that nobody will take a chance on obscure properties. In fact, Warner Bros (prior to The Dark Knight) was on a streak of success with their obscure properties, while their mainstream stuff was craptastic.

3)People can't make excuses about theme complexity, obscurity or any other excuse they wanna throw at this. The cold hard fact is, that this film was based on niche material, designed only to appeal to that niche audience, but utilized a blockbuster budget and hype engine. This is entirely Warner Bros' fault. Does it make Snyder some kind of martyr for being ardently faithful to the material rather than trying to compromise and appease all fans, like every other successful comic film franchise? That is a subjective view. But ultiamtely, this film will pay that price for trying to translate the comic rather than interpret it.

There is a reason Spider-Man didn't fight a secret war on an alien planet to get his symbiote. There is a reason why the X-Men traded in spandex tights for leather combat suits. Even The Dark Knight flipped off continuity by having The Joker create Two Face. But some how, it worked (especially given that two and a half hours was not enough time to cover two very deep antagonists in the Batman Rogues gallery).

I have said it before and I will say it again. There is a reason why this film is getting such poor reviews and a rapidly declining box office draw. Interpretation doesn't bastardize a piece of work. It often makes it function on screen. Some things naturally have to change in order for a film to be more believable or accessibl to more people. But if you all want to decry the usefulness of interpretation, because it will mar the legacy of your idolized "Watchmen source material" then at least stop complaining about the bad reviews and the expedient drop in revenue. They didn't make a film that works on screen, and this is the result. Plain and simple. And for those wondering about the current performance...still lackluster.

Thursday, March, 12, 2009 Watchmen
WARNER BROS.
Thtrs: 3611 / Gross: $2.60M
Total: $67.93M
http://showbizdata.com/

 

[Anita18]

LOL I don't think he meant it like that.

I think he means people are naturally intrigued by the horrific and the strange.

Yes, but as a writer, he should have been aware of all the implications that paragraph meant, especially in joking about rape. He even had the forethought to mention the fangirls too.

The fact remains that just like Superman Returns, Snyder chose to take a route that just didn't work, no matter how faithful. Plain and simple.

I think it worked for the most part. For whatever reason, it didn't resonate with the general audience as much as they would have liked. It isn't like Superman Returns where the fandom was drastically polarized. And I'm more frustrated with SR's issues than I am with Watchmen's issues.

 

[Arach Knight]

Superman Returns suffers from a different set of problems that I am more willing to forgive. Superman Returns follows the logical course for the universe it was based on (The Donnerverse). After all, he did have relations with Lois Lane in the Donner films...so a child isn't out of the question. It is offensive to comic fans, but to the general audience, it probably makes sense if you have seen the previous four films. What mainly turned away audiences (much like Watchmen) is the tremendous lack of action or meaningful villain.

Watchmen suffers those last two issues, but it is mostly the victim of its faithfulness to the source material, which is a highlight of most professional and non-professional reviews. It put too many themes into one film. Especially for a 2 and a half hour time frame. And that is with the removal of minor nuances (Black Freighter, The Bernies, Explaining Bubastis, Hollis' death etc). Really...they should have just went with Hayter's script.

Nobody alive right now (for the intended audience of the film) is going to give two ****s about a story set during the cold war unless the name Tom Clancy is attached. That alone made this movie so irrelevant as a film and as a story. That is why the graphic novel worked. It was actually written during that era. It is representative of the era. The film should never have aspired to that, because the film belongs to now, so it will be viewed that way. Why do you think Hayter shifted the setting to modern times? But Snyder and the new writer weren't quite astute enough to catch on to that. I'm sure most movie goers were confused by the inclusion of Nixon alone.

 

[DACrowe]

Oh, I won't attack you.

I think THE DARK KNIGHT and WATCHMEN both have their share of flaws, but I think WATCHMEN is ultimately a more audacious work than THE DARK KNIGHT, and while it may have some hiccups along the way, ultimately achieves more than THE DARK KNIGHT in terms of narrative and thematic complexity (even if it does pale in comparison to the graphic novel, and ultimately, I'm not sure it does).

There's also a sense in which I believe cinema's true power is to work on that visual/auditory level. It's a visceral, immersive medium. I think WATCHMEN functions on that level beyond THE DARK KNIGHT (though THE DARK KNIGHT is also visually striking in its own way).

I prefer TDK, but you made some really strong points about Watchmen. Glad to see someone who is not judging the movie solely in comparison to the novel.

 

[Gilpesh]

You know, another reason this letter is complete bulls--t is:

David Hayter changed the ending because of 9/11 over implied studio pressure.

So here's a guy that changed part of the story even before the studio pressured him to, telling everyone that if Watchmen doesn't do good, that movies in the future will be ruined because the studio will want them changed.

 

[echostation]

can someone tell me some of the major changes and what the ending in the David Hayter script was? How was it different? if it wasn't a cold war? who was America against? Islamic terrorists??

 

[TheVileOne]

I think Hayter had the movie set in present day instead of the 80's with Nixon.

I know Paul Greengrass was big on pushing this as kind of an anti-Iraq war type of movie when he was on the project.

 

[echostation]

after doing much research just now on the scripts that are out there I think that ultimately Snyder did a fantastic job, all the other scripts had Veidt dying or some nonsense like that.

I think much of the criticism towards the film is just bizarre and I didn't see or feel any of it when watching this excellent film!

I hope Snyder directs the next Superman film

 

[X-Maniac]

I think most of the choices made with regard to the timeframe (ie same as the book) and the broad outline of the story (including changed ending) were fine. It was more the structure - not always linear, lots of flashbacks - of the story that seems to have baffled the mainstream. The other issue is the violence - but the film did have an adult rating.

Alan Moore was going to hate it anyway (though I bet he has seen it) so they might as well have interpreted/adapted it more heavily to make it more accessible. This should have included making things more obvious, maybe with an opening prologue or on-screen dates to make it clear to the mainstream trash what they were about to watch. The basic themes can be still be preserved even if structure is changed.

 

[dilby]

Quite frankly I'm tired of all the whining. It was a great movie, applicable to the source material, giving as much of the graphic novel as the director could. The amount of money it will make matters little in my mind. I will purchase the DVD, all versions, and enjoy it repeatedly. Please go see it if you can for this weekend and forget about the general publics reaction. OMG if Ronnie Ray-gun would have been the President or >gasp< Clinton, it would have made boot loads of cash hand over fist. The movie's done, this weekend elevates or damns it, relax and enjoy the show. Cheers, and thanks to the guys for finally letting me back on the boards.

 

[Camisado]

This summed up exactly how I felt about the movie.

Ok, Ok, thats complete ********, I don't go that deep but it actualy touched me as a Watchmen fan. Not in the pedofile way, but in the emotional way. Thank you Dave!

 

[chosen1]

after doing much research just now on the scripts that are out there I think that ultimately Snyder did a fantastic job, all the other scripts had Veidt dying or some nonsense like that.

I think much of the criticism towards the film is just bizarre and I didn't see or feel any of it when watching this excellent film!

I hope Snyder directs the next Superman film

You want Snyder to do the next Superman Film???? wha... I mean wha. Oh gawd...

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Superman is crap anyway

 

[chosen1]

Superman is crap anyway

Well I wouldnt go that far. But someone saying they want Snyder to do Superman is absolutely ridiculous. We need a director who can equate and Take out Chris Nolan. To put Superman Back on Top where he belongs. And you dont do that by throwing in all this action and visuals. You have to get people to CARE about superman. Thats how you bring this character back. SO in my opinion the only person that can do that. Is Mel Gibson.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Well I wouldnt go that far. But someone saying they want Snyder to do Superman is absolutely ridiculous. We need a director who can equate and Take out Chris Nolan. To put Superman Back on Top where he belongs. And you dont do that by throwing in all this action and visuals. You have to get people to CARE about superman. Thats how you bring this character back. SO in my opinion the only person that can do that. Is Mel Gibson.

:facepalm

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I think he was joking there majic

 

[Arach Knight]

It is obvious that he is joking. His comment about getting people to care about Superman, relates to Bryan Singer's approach. And commenting that you don't accomplish that with action and visuals, again satirizes Singer and his interpretation of Superman. It was also one of the chief complaints about Superman Returns. A lack of action.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I can't honestly judge Superman Returns, because I hate the character. But I know when a movie has faults, and it had a lot more faults than just a lack of action.

 

[Nivek]

You want Snyder to do the next Superman Film???? wha... I mean wha. Oh gawd...

I agree, I would love to see him tackle some classic DC characters, you dont like it, bunk on you.

 

[Nivek]

I think he was joking there majic

Yeah, alot of "jokers" here, especially ones who vote 1/10 but still complain every single day about the movie. wah wah wah...

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea. If the jokes were funny I wouldn't mind. But they are not funny, usually.

 

[Nivek]

"teh suck, I hatez Blue cockadoodles, and girlz were bad actrezz"

LOLOLOL. Um, no.

 

[chosen1]

Whoa Whoa Whoa.

Let me clarify. Sorry guys.
I actually wasnt joking. The comment I made about the action was in response to Singer coming out with a statement saying that he was going to go all "Wrath of Khan" in the Man of steel. Implying that he was going to overload the sequel with action. Like that was going to fix the problem of superman. Guys there is a fundamental problem with a superman film. and that problem is. How do u care about a guy that the only way to harm him is with Kryponite. People are neglecting the fact of how difficult it is to make a good superman film. It is far easier to make a good batman film than superman. WIth batman he only has one rule. He wont kill. You cna take the character so many places. You can have him lie. Manipulate and even torture. Superman is a boyscout. He wont do any of those things. Supermans life is about Morality. Because he is a Man that can do anything. He grew up on a farm with wholesum parents so hie life is about MORALITY. Batman Had NO parents. He grew up in a massive masion with a butler. Where does his morality come from? he is low. batman uses low methods to clean up that dirty city called Gotham. As good as the Dark knight was, Chris Nolan did NOT get the get the CHARACTER of batman. Thats his problem. But Mel Gibson WILL GET superman guys. I promise you. You give him that contract He will take it HOME.

 

[Showtime]

This is the Watchmen thread, and Mel Gibson isn't going to be doing Superman.