Anyone else feel ZS isnt the man for the job?

[Captain Carnage]

Then you're in luck. One satisfied customer, at least.

And whilst I unfortunately can't be there myself, I know a few guys who will be trying their damndest to indeed ask that very question of Snyder at Comic Con on the 27th... along with Why are you killin' Adrian Veidt?

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

I hope they change the ending in the film; Moore's ending was the worst part of the comic!

...excuse me?

Okay. I can tolerate difference of opinion. Please explain yourself. What was wrong with the original ending and what would you do differently?

 

[Slipping_Halo]

Uh oh...

 

[logansoldcigar]

...whilst changing the attack at the end, making Dr Manhattan the scapegoat, and killing off Adrian Veidt.

Can't have everything, I guess...

I dont think making Dr Manhattan the scapegoat is such a massive change in the concept and the idea: yes, i would prefer the ending as written by Moore, but I look at it like this:

Comedian discovers a plan by Veidt to bring about World Peace by a hoax attack. realises Hoax attack will kill Billions. has problems dealing with this, leading to his murder. Murder of comedian leads to involvement of other former masked adventurer's.

Its essentially the same thing.Further than that, i think that DocM is ultimatley responsible anyway: he could have stopped Veidt with a thought, and yet he sided with him. think of the Comedians exchange with DocM in Vietnam when he were bottled by the woman and then killed her, in front of DocM

whats important to me, about the end, is 2 things (allowing for the fact that a hoax attak is a must):

1) Veidt must not die. thats paramount. His last exchange with Doc M is highly important:

I did the right thing, didnt I? It all worked out in the end.

suggesting the man the man brought about World Peace never achieves it on a personal level.

In the end? Nothing ends Adrain..Nothing ever ends

the final Panel is the cover of issue one. for me, this is why they should open with, and end with, the smiley face and the stain on it. because it ties directly into that statement, making Watchmen a circular device. If it were up to me, the film would open with that picture, fading to black and then into whatever sequence they open with, and end with a slow zoom onto the pin badge, before fading to black and into the credits.

2)Rorscach must die, at DocM's hands.

Although Veidt is forced to kill millions of people in order to implement his vision of world stability, he is rebuffed by none except Rorschach. The person for whom, more than any other character, the end justifies the means, refuses to accept that this end is justfied by this means. therefore he has to die. Being killed by DocM, and prevented from spilling the beans, is the real signal that DocM accepts what Veidt is doing and wont stop it, which circles back to the point about him being ultimately responsible.

 

[Steelsheen]

wait..... what script are you guys basing this all on?

i have so many script versions of this thing i dont even know which one we're following

 

[logansoldcigar]

never seen one.
what Ive said is based on what Ive seen on this board, and on what I feel and think when I read the Graphic Novel.

 

[Iglius]

No. The ending must go as written.













Never compromise.

 

[Slipping_Halo]

No. The ending must go as written.













Never compromise.

Haha friggin fantastic. I agree whole-heartedly.

 

[Sandman138]

I dont think making Dr Manhattan the scapegoat is such a massive change in the concept and the idea: yes, i would prefer the ending as written by Moore, but I look at it like this:

Comedian discovers a plan by Veidt to bring about World Peace by a hoax attack. realises Hoax attack will kill Billions. has problems dealing with this, leading to his murder. Murder of comedian leads to involvement of other former masked adventurer's.

Its essentially the same thing.Further than that, i think that DocM is ultimatley responsible anyway: he could have stopped Veidt with a thought, and yet he sided with him. think of the Comedians exchange with DocM in Vietnam when he were bottled by the woman and then killed her, in front of DocM

whats important to me, about the end, is 2 things (allowing for the fact that a hoax attak is a must):

1) Veidt must not die. thats paramount. His last exchange with Doc M is highly important:



suggesting the man the man brought about World Peace never achieves it on a personal level.



the final Panel is the cover of issue one. for me, this is why they should open with, and end with, the smiley face and the stain on it. because it ties directly into that statement, making Watchmen a circular device. If it were up to me, the film would open with that picture, fading to black and then into whatever sequence they open with, and end with a slow zoom onto the pin badge, before fading to black and into the credits.

2)Rorscach must die, at DocM's hands.

Although Veidt is forced to kill millions of people in order to implement his vision of world stability, he is rebuffed by none except Rorschach. The person for whom, more than any other character, the end justifies the means, refuses to accept that this end is justfied by this means. therefore he has to die. Being killed by DocM, and prevented from spilling the beans, is the real signal that DocM accepts what Veidt is doing and wont stop it, which circles back to the point about him being ultimately responsible.

I agree with this for the most part. I'm just a little unsure about how using Doc M as the hoax works in terms of his allegory for the arms race. I thought that what made his character so great is that he could create Armageddon, not by his own hand, but simply by leaving and upsetting the balance of power in the political map. I guess I can live with him being framed so long as the more important themes you mentioned stay intact, but I would really prefer it to not be Doc M. It doesn't even have to be the Cthullu alien, I just want the commentary on America's policy of Nuclear superiority to stay intact.

 

[logansoldcigar]

Dont get me wrong: I would prefer for it not to be DocM. Its acceptable to me, but wouldnt be my choice.

I think, allowing for the fact that the fake alien in new york isnt ever going to happen, the idea that Hayter allegedly used of a weapon in space would be best: just expand on it a wee touch, as in Veidt took all the artists and scientists ect to come with the concept of the weapon and a craft to carry it: one that was obviously otherwordly.

But if it comes down to it, i can live with DocM as the hoax attacker. He is hardly likely to say "it wasnt me", he is hardly likely to care enough to deny it.

The one worry i have is that, although it may bring humanity together, would it only bring them together for as long as it takes to develop a weapon that can kill him?

 

[Johnichi Chiba]

To me the Doc Manhattan hoax just seems really dumbed down. It seems like they're trying to make it more obvious to the audience that Adrian wants the world to come together after the attack by having Doc Manhattan's voice basically explaining that to the masses during the disaster. It'd just be better done and less forced feeling with the Alien hoax (or something equally as gruesome; the attack has to be violent a gory to be effective).

 

[Lobster Charlie]

I didn't like the version with the Dr. Manhattan hoax, but at the same time I think the alien invasion thing is just a bit too much to try to jam into a big screen adaptation. We need something in the middle. I forget what was in Hayter's script, but I do remember feeling it wasn't a bad idea. Anyone care to refresh my memory?

 

[toddly6666]

The main positive about Zach Snyder is that his vision most likely won't be compromised, such as producers telling him to tone down the violence. His previous movies DAWN OF DEAD and 300 were violence overloads, and were extrememly financially successful. It's not that the focus of WATCHMEN is on violence, but if a director has free reign to show any type of sick violence on screen, that means they can usually do other things. The WATCHMEN movie would have been ruined if the producers were breathing down a director's back to try and make it a PG-13 film.

 

[Katsuro]

If they don't keep Veidt alive and end it the way the book did then the movie and story will lose all its coolness. Everything that made that story great to me was the Volume 12 and the ending.

1.Veidt has to live

2.Psychic Alien has to blow up New York killing some and puting fear of aliens in the survivers

3.Rorshach has to die

4.Dr. Manhattan has to be the one that kills him

5.Night Owl and Silk Spectre have to **** and go with the flow of Veidts plan

6.The threat of nuclear war has to end and the world has to find world peace

7.Rorshachs Journal has to be the last shot for revealing the truth of what the heroes did to bring world peace

Number 2 is the only one I disagree with. I see absolutley no reason why the method of the attack is important, as long as it's non-human in some way. What does a psychic alien offer that a giant space laser doesn't? Leaving out the psychic alien will save them an entire subplot that really doesn't offer much.

 

[AhabTheArab]

snyders a purist i have faith. and come on though, watchmen did not originate as a gn... it was a comic by a failed comic company which was bought... dont make this mistake again.

 

[Sandman138]

Check your facts. Watchmen was an original story using characters that had recently been bought by DC from Charlton as the basis for it's own. Watchmen was always a graphic novel/limited series.

 

[miltonh]

For me, Snyder is definitely the wrong choice for this movie.

 

[jamieroberts1]

Check your facts. Watchmen was an original story using characters that had recently been bought by DC from Charlton as the basis for it's own. Watchmen was always a graphic novel/limited series.

Your right about Charlton characters but Watchmen was originally a 12 issue comic series

 

[Sandman138]

Your right about Charlton characters but Watchmen was originally a 12 issue comic series

You missed the limited series part.

 

[toddly6666]

Who would be the right director then, Paul Greengrass (Mr. Shaky reality cam, I-have-no-idea-what-I'm-watching-director)? Which director would be free from criticism before the movies filmed?

 

[Caliber]

Before Snyder was set to direct this, I thought Christopher Nolan would have been a great choice to direct Watchmen.

 

[Sun_Down]

I don't know if Snyder's really up for such a deep and complex story, but I'm hoping he is. Above all else, I hope they don't compromise the ending. Yes, changes will have to be made (because otherwise this thing would be 5 hours longs), but there's no reason to mess with one of the best endings in all of comic history.

 

[Flexo]

I'm conflicted on his involvement.

I hate, HATE his Dawn of the Dead remake. However, I really enjoyed 300.

 

[Compi716]

No. The ending must go as written.













Never compromise.

Agreed.

Even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise.

 

[logansoldcigar]

Who would be the right director then, Paul Greengrass (Mr. Shaky reality cam, I-have-no-idea-what-I'm-watching-director)? Which director would be free from criticism before the movies filmed?

anmd thats the crux. Greengrass is probably a better diredtor that ZS. But his plan was to set the story now, to make it contemporary, war on terror instead of cold war and that guff, was it not.

Its actually impossible to say who the best director for something would be, but we do know that there are certain directors we can say wouldnt be a good choice (ie Mr Ratner, who admits he doesnt like scenes that could be considered dialogue heavy)

I think Chris Nolan would be interesting, but I also thing that cos BB was a good movie, there is a fanboy instinct to say "Chris Nolan" to almost any property that is comic based.
Maybe someone like Fincher would be an interesting choice, and Im sure the bleakness of the whole thing would appeal to him.

But sometimes, the best choice is the completely left field one, the one no expects.
The problem is that even mid budgeted movies are now 60-70 million, and thats a huge investment. Studios are less and less likely to take a risk, and thats why the same names always crop up.