An Open Letter from David Hayter

[Ace of Knaves]

Whilst Mel Gibson is one of my favourite directors, I don't think he could do the job for Superman. Gibson would probably think it is beneath him anyway.

 

[Showtime]

Let's put it this way, if Gibson did the scene in Superman Returns where Superman was getting his ass handed to him by Spacey and his goons, it would have been 2 hours long.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Let's put it this way, if Gibson did the scene in Superman Returns where Superman was getting his ass handed to him by Spacey and his goons, it would have been 2 hours long.

LOL!

 

[stargazer]

Let's put it this way, if Gibson did the scene in Superman Returns where Superman was getting his ass handed to him by Spacey and his goons, it would have been 2 hours long.

Bwhahahaha!!!

'Showtimed'

 

[TheVileOne]

How did this become about Mel Gibson on Superman? Are you f'n kidding me?

 

[X Knight]

How did this become about Mel Gibson on Superman? Are you f'n kidding me?

all roads lead back to Superman, dontcha know.......

just like all roads in the Superman Sequel board lead back to SR.......

it.....is.....inevitable.......possibly a curse......must investigate further......

 

[Showtime]

How did this become about Mel Gibson on Superman? Are you f'n kidding me?

Welcome to The Hype?

You've been here since 2002, probably shouldn't even need to ask that.

 

[The Guard]

Hayter did not say this movie IS BLADE RUNNER and APOCALYPSE NOW. He said "Is it?" Hayter wrote his letter because he's passionate about

WATCHMEN. More creators should be so passionate about their projects and the characters involved.

Hayter's already been paid, so I doubt this is for money. He was off this project years ago. He probably doesn't stand to make much percentagewise from your couple thousand dollars if every WATCHMEN fan here goes to see it again.

And he was blunt in places in the script, because this is cinema, not a comic book. There were also places where he and the other writers were not blunt, where he was, in fact, even more subtle than the novel was.

WATCHMEN is indeed the bravest, most ambitious, and most interestingly rendered and layered superhero movie in a long time, most likely ever.

No, it doesn't appeal to everyone, just like superheroes and their real life issues don't appeal to everyone. Hell, moral and thematic exploration doesn't appeal to everyone.

This movie not cleaning up at the box office simply means that it's not got the broad appeal of a SPIDER-MAN or a THE DARK KNIGHT. And it never did.
But to say no one cares about WATCHMEN's source material is absurd.

If you've read the book, of course you know what's going to happen and what's going to be said...you can say that about almost ANY adaption, even the classics.

And if some of you were "bored" because you know what's going to happen...

Really?

If you're more interested in the story of WATCHMEN than in the actual meat of it...kind of wonder if you appreciate it that much to begin with.

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

Of course I have. I've also seen updated versions of The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Great Expectations, A Christmas Carol, Oliver Twist, and a number of other classics and fairy tales, some relatively obscure. None of them are as good as the originals, or good enough to be called fine adaptions of the original source material. The only reason they work on any level is the sense of nostalgia we have for their original stories, and because adaptions of those stories have been done, and done well, many times already, making room for new versions.

But WATCHMEN was never adapted before this.

Can you imagine, had Shakespheare's stuff never been done right, in it's original sense, how upset people would be if they just made a "modern/changed" version of it?

Can you imagine if A CHRISTMAS CAROL had not been made 20 times and someone made SCROOGED and tried to pass it off as an adaption of the source material?

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.

I'm sure it could have been fantastic. WATCHMEN has timeless themes, it could have worked. I think it took some bravery to stay in the 80's, actually.

Dark Knight certainly doesn't "feel" safe - the first time I saw it, I immediately noticed the overriding atmosphere of sheer tension.

Horror movies have tension. That doesn't make the movie any less "safe" overall.

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."

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?

Use your common sense here, and you will arrive at "Hmm...maybe it wasn't SNYDER who mandated no gore in the climactic sequence".

And...I thought that "showing more gore doesn't automatically make things more "adult."

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.

That's. The. Point.

Dan could barely process what had happened in the book, and this is reflected in the movie. He went and had sex with Laurie in the book. He was worried more about how Jon felt about them being together, not about what just happened to New York. There wasn't much mourning from him for the people in NY at all. Only Rorschach and Laurie, and on some level Veidt, truly cared about what had happened, in terms of the loss of life. Even in the book, Dan cares more about the fact that he thinks Adrian simply "couldn't do it", and when he finds out it's actually happened, about their own moral quandries than the possibility that millions of innocents died.

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.

After Dan's diatribe to him, you simply cannot look at that final shot of Veidt amidst his shattered palace and broken friendships, and tell me on any serious level that Adrian is not likely questioning himself and his plans merits.

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.

They're not on the run because they're not on the run. And so what?

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.

That's less impact. Not nothing.

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.

Fair enough. What story and filmmaking risks did they take?

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.

That blockbuster budget is necessary to make an adequate large scale version of WATCHMEN. One of the reasons the project stalled a few years ago was that 80 million simply wasn't enough money to make a decent Watchmen movie with, and no director wanted to risk it.

Had they not utilized this marketing style, WATCHMEN, which, as you said, is from a niche market, would not end up making ANY money. It was marketed aggressively because they knew they would pretty much have to in order to even break even. And they were apparently correct.

I suspect WB knew they'd be looking at a loss or a break-even picture on this. Hence the additional DVD releases and massive amounts of merchandise on an already risky R-rated film venture.

 

[Mercurius]

Mercurious, what the hell are you talking about?

Yea obviously the money is the motivation. But the reason still stands. If this film flops big time, we won't see another director be able to do whatever the **** he wants again. It will give the execs the excuses they need to micro manage and interfere. How can you not see that?

Snyder was the perfect guy to make this movie. No other director would think "**** the general audience, I'm making this true to the source material".

Sure some parts weren't delved into, but remember, there is a extended cut coming out.

Not talking about Snyder, but Hayter.

A real uneven script and now this rotten letter making a bum of himself, for the studio's sake.

This fellow has no respect for himself, let alone the daring vision he helped in watering down.

Also, as Anita pointed out, his bad taste (to say the least) and ill comprehension of many aspects of the book (to say it all) in that letter, appealing for money for them, rich people, that's way too much.

A mercenary usually knows when his job was off the mark.

This guy never deserved Watchmen.

 

[chosen1]

Not talking about Snyder, but Hayter.

A real uneven script and now this rotten letter making a bum of himself, for the studio's sake.

This fellow has no respect for himself, let alone the daring vision he helped in watering down.

Also, as Anita pointed out, his bad taste (to say the least) and ill comprehension of many aspects of the book (to say it all) in that letter, appealing for money for them, rich people, that's way too much.

A mercenary usually knows when his job was off the mark.

This guy never deserved Watchmen.

Truth!

 

[TheVileOne]

I appreciate Hayter's passion and respect. But I feel he overdid it with the letter.

Listen. People want to compare this to Blade Runner, but the movie will never achieve Blade Runner status.

People keep forgetting that Blade Runner when it was released was a flop.

Now I know this movie isn't making the 300 money that WB wanted, and I think some of that ambition was their own fault, but this movie is going to finish with probably around $110-120 million. Probably some more worldwide. So by that alone you can't really put it in a similar box as Blade Runner.

I think Hayter really just should've embraced that a lot of people might not understand the movie now and it could take them a while to come around.

I also think Hayter and others need to admit that this is not a movie or story for everybody even though WB highly marketed it to the masses including the teens. I think for many young male teenagers WB tried to market this movie and appeal to, this is still too complex of a story to wrap your head around, hence all the debate about Manhatten's blue dong.

 

[Anita18]

I appreciate Hayter's passion and respect. But I feel he overdid it with the letter.

Listen. People want to compare this to Blade Runner, but the movie will never achieve Blade Runner status.

People keep forgetting that Blade Runner when it was released was a flop.

Now I know this movie isn't making the 300 money that WB wanted, and I think some of that ambition was their own fault, but this movie is going to finish with probably around $110-120 million. Probably some more worldwide. So by that alone you can't really put it in a similar box as Blade Runner.

I think Hayter really just should've embraced that a lot of people might not understand the movie now and it could take them a while to come around.

I also think Hayter and others need to admit that this is not a movie or story for everybody even though WB highly marketed it to the masses including the teens. I think for many young male teenagers WB tried to market this movie and appeal to, this is still too complex of a story to wrap your head around, hence all the debate about Manhatten's blue dong.

The filmmakers of Blade Runner certainly didn't suggest that their film would be viewed how it is now. The general audience did, over time.

Now, Hayter didn't say that Watchmen is the next Blade Runner or Apocalypse Now or Kubrick or Starship Troopers. (Although he did invoke something by mentioning them. ) But he did say that "despite having run the movie in my head thousands of times, my two viewings still don’t' allow me to view the film with the proper distance or objectivity."

Um, Hayter will NEVER view the film with proper distance or objectivity. Because he wrote it. It's not up to him to gauge what the film is - it's the general audience. All he can do, as a filmmaker, is let the movie out into the world, like a baby bird leaving the nest. Whatever happens, happens, but at least on its own terms.

 

[TheVileOne]

I pretty much agree with that sentiment. But I think Hayter goes overboard begging fans to see it again or else the studio executives will make more crap and not take chances.

Hey, if Watchmen did better it wouldn't have prevented that. Tom Rothman is still in charge of Fox.

 

[X Knight]

it also doesn't help those of us who are still on the fence about seeing the movie.

Personally, I kind of find this whole open letter a turn off. It comes across as begging and desperate.

Especially when it comes during the 1st week. I mean.....jeez....that's kinda early to start pleading, isn't it?

 

[Anita18]

it also doesn't help those of us who are still on the fence about seeing the movie.

Personally, I kind of find this whole open letter a turn off. It comes across as begging and desperate.

Especially when it comes during the 1st week. I mean.....jeez....that's kinda early to start pleading, isn't it?

To be fair, the second weekend drop is what most box office pundits look at, to determine how strong a movie's legs are going to be and how good WOM is. Like, BB's opening weekend was about as good as Watchmen's (BB's Wednesday opening makes it impossible to do a direct comparison), but its legs showed early on and it made it to $200 million pretty handily despite a lackluster opening weekend.

But...yeah. It's cool having open communication between fan and filmmaker, but it isn't a filmmaker's place to write a letter begging fans to see the film. Heck, I don't think such a tone would be appropriate even at a talk show where one is supposedly hawking said movie.

 

[Seditionary]

I think it'll be fine. DVD and Bluray will certainly help.

 

[Mercurius]

But I think Hayter goes overboard begging fans to see it again or else the studio executives will make more crap and not take chances.

I think this "cause and consequence" speech many are taking is clearly absurd.

TDK was a great movie and made tons of money, but most good art is made in spite of what is hailed as good.

Crap may know some suckcess, but it doesn't endure. It's forgotten.

Watchmen was uneven, and Hayter acts as a bum. A tasteless one, to be sure.

Even pinhead execs know that a great movie will always bring money in: different editions, anniversary editions, cultural references always mentioning that movie through the years, and so on.

Great stuff is a goldmine. They don't need emergencial BO to tell them that. They have History.

 

[MadAnthonyWayne]

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.

honestly people, this is exactly what happened. This is why the film had no emotional punch, and why it didn't resonate with the audience. Everyone is saying that the film was so undeniably faithful to the graphic novel, but it wasn't at all. It took about 50% of the graphic novel, and copied it just about panel for panel. But thats still only 50% of the graphic novel! Wouldn't it have been better to have seen a movie that took 100% of the graphic novel and adapted it in a truly faithful way? Wouldn't Watchmen have been even riskier, if instead of playing up the gore and blood, it played up the intellectual aspects of the graphic novel? Wouldn't Watchmen have been riskier if instead of watching an overly violent film, packed with action sequences and slo-mo, from a director who specializes in that, we saw the Bernie's talking outside the newsstand, if we saw Dr. Long realize the existential horror of life, if we saw the drama of the lesbians love, and tension of their fight before all of those people died, unwittingly "for peace"?
Because that is the Watchmen I would rather have seen.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

honestly people, this is exactly what happened. This is why the film had no emotional punch, and why it didn't resonate with the audience. Everyone is saying that the film was so undeniably faithful to the graphic novel, but it wasn't at all. It took about 50% of the graphic novel, and copied it just about panel for panel. But thats still only 50% of the graphic novel! Wouldn't it have been better to have seen a movie that took 100% of the graphic novel and adapted it in a truly faithful way? Wouldn't Watchmen have been even riskier, if instead of playing up the gore and blood, it played up the intellectual aspects of the graphic novel? Wouldn't Watchmen have been riskier if instead of watching an overly violent film, packed with action sequences and slo-mo, from a director who specializes in that, we saw the Bernie's talking outside the newsstand, if we saw Dr. Long realize the existential horror of life, if we saw the drama of the lesbians love, and tension of their fight before all of those people died, unwittingly "for peace"?
Because that is the Watchmen I would rather have seen.

I actually found the movie very emotional, so in that respect, I think Zach nailed it, sure, plenty of stuff was missing, but honestly, NO director could ever adapt this story 100% IMO.

 

[MadAnthonyWayne]

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.

Other movies just as brave:

Inglorious Basterds
Waltz With Bashir
JCVD
Synecdoche, New York

and that's just within the past year

and I know no director could copy Watchmen 100% but I'm not saying that, I'm saying adapt 100% of it. and if no director could do that, than none should. for example, I can't paint like Da Vinci so I shouldn't copy his paintings, maybe silk screen them not quite as well, and think they should stand on their own.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^But do those movies even have close to the budget or exposure Watchmen has? JCVD was straight to DVD for crying out loud, so wont reach half the people Watchmen does. The other 2, I havent even heard of, so that also tells you something.