Anyone else feel ZS isnt the man for the job?

[Sandman138]

It was almost as bad.

 

[Punch]

After seeing The Bourne Ultimatum, I don't think Greengrass would have been the right choice anyway. I'm sure it would be interesting and a good movie, but he was ready to change too many things. I'm not usually a fan of staying 100% faithful when it comes to iconic characters, but Watchmen is a very specific thing.

That's not to take anything away from The Bourne Ultimatum. It kicked ass and is the best action movie I've seen in a very long time. I'd love to see a Greengrass Year One.

 

[toddly6666]

Concerning the fear of screwing up the story and ending, I can't imagine Snyder changing around WATCHMEN. He didn't change around Miller's 300. (By the way, before 300 came out, were people concerned that the movie would be different from the book and changed around?) WATCHMEN is a superhero film that is supposed to be different from all the other superhero films. If Veidt dies or if the story is all changed around too much, it's going to lose it's uniqueness of being different. The WATCHMEN book is filled with one big "WTF?" scene after another all the way to the original climaxes of:

1. a huge dead alien suddenly appearing in a city, killing half a city. This is just pure genius, because that's never been done in any alien movie before. Aliens are usually attacking earth with ray guns "Independence Day" style.

2. Superhero-mate Dr. Manhattan killing fellow superhero-mate Rorschach.

3. Nite Owl and Silk Spectre making love after a huge deadly disaster.

4. Veidt living and feeling like a shmuck after talking to Dr. Manhattan

5. Finding out that Sally Jupiter loves her abusive rapist Comedian.

6. Seymour possibly getting the truth out to the world from the diary.

This movie is supposed to be different, just as the graphic novel was. I can't imagine Snyder or the producers screwing that up. It's the same when we all saw the trailer for "300." It was obviously a cinematic reinvention of what we've been used to seeing with Gladiator, Troy, etc. Snyder will reinvent the superhero film with Watchmen. At the time of the cinema releases of Mystery Men, X-Mens, The Incredibles, etc., we thought "oh, these superheros are different and have issues." That's nothing in compared to what we are gonna see with Watchmen the movie. After the release of the Watchmen film, I hope people will say "that was the most *****ed up superhero film i've ever seen," but it's gonna make tons of money and sell tons of DVDs a la 300, especially if it doesn't have a hollywood ending or if it's R-rated.



Although it is common for directors for their 2nd superhero movie to not be good:
1. Mark Steven Johnson did a great job for both versions of DAREDEVIL. Tried to do GHOST RIDER and it stunk.
2. Ang Lee did a great job with CROUTCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON (based on book). Tried to do HULK and it stunk.
3. Bryan Singer did a great job with X-Men 1 and 2. Tried to do SUPERMAN RETURNS and it stunk.
4. David Goyer is one of the best comic book writers. Tried to direct BLADE 3 and it stunk.

And then there are the directors that can work second and three times a charm:
1. Sam Raimi's SPIDERMANs are all pretty good. The third one is really not that bad for a superhero movies.
2. Guillermo Del Toro did a great job with BLADE 2. He followed up with an excellent HELLBOY.
3. Tim Story's FANTASTIC FOURs aren't that bad as reviewed - these are based on comic books. But the second one was better than the first. And if he does do a third FF4 film and shows an accurate depiction of Galactus, it's gonna rock. He did get Silver Surfer to the big screen. Gotta give him credit for that.

 

[RDK]

3. Tim Story's FANTASTIC FOURs aren't that bad as reviewed - these are based on comic books. But the second one was better than the first. And if he does do a third FF4 film and shows an accurate depiction of Galactus, it's gonna rock. He did get Silver Surfer to the big screen. Gotta give him credit for that.

Yeah, sure, keep giving him Fantastic Four movies to direct. I'm sure one of these days he'll get one right.

 

[ToddIsDead]

He didn't change around Miller's 300.

Yes he did. A lot.

 

[toddly6666]

Just watched the extras on 300, and I really doubt that Snyder will screw up the WATCHMAN film. He was using Millar's book the whole time for reference and he used Miller himself. He seems to have a really good relationship/understanding of Miller as well. I wouldn't be surprised if Snyder asked Miller for help if that's legally allowed. One of the last scenes in one interview was Miller telling Snyder "How in the world are you going to film the Watchmen movie?" And Snyder said "carefully."

 

[Captain Carnage]

One big difference betwixt the two: Miller coulda pulled the plug on 300 anytime he wanted if he weren't happy with how they were treatin' his creation. In fact, if he didn't like what the film makers were planning right from the outset, permission to use his work would've been denied full stop before a single scene was wrapped. This is the right of veto that exists when you legally own all the rights to your own original work and which tends to ensure maximum ass kissage/fidelity from the studio, producers, writers, director et al.


No such dice with WATCHMEN, though. If it were, then I wouldn't be adding this post to a WATCHMEN movie discussion board right now, on account of what woulda been Moore's refusal to let 'em use his story in the first place.

 

[toddly6666]

CAPTAIN CARNAGE: Isn't Snyder going to be working closely with Gibbons? If so, since Gibbons and Moore worked closely together on Watchmen, won't Gibbons basically be a good representative of the "story", eventhough Gibbons didn't write it?

 

[Captain Carnage]

Another arty David (Lloyd) worked closely with the makers of V for Vendetta whereas Moore chose not to - nuff said. Yes, I've heard all the arguments about it being a brave movie, atypical of most of Hollywood's standard brain candy output which is, admittedly, largely the case... but as an adaptation of Alan Moore's story and the characters, situations, and topics for debate he created, it falls waaaaay short of the comic book. Positively pales, shrivels up and dies by comparison.

Do folks really want a WATCHMEN movie to be as faithful to its original source as V for Vendetta was? I'll put it another way: quite so far removed from the source material as V for Vendetta turned out to be? I suspect not.

I've said it before - Zack 'n' Co. will do a bang up job of faithfully recreating Gibbons's major input on WATCHMEN up on screen i.e. in the visuals department. This movie will visually kick all kinds of ass, of that I'm sure. What comic book artist wouldn't be enthused, thrilled, and supportive of their work being brought to glorious, moving 3D life up on the big old silver screen to the point where they wanna join in and play on the production? That's gotta be quite a buzz, no?

But you said it yourself. You've essentially answered your own question. Dave Gibbons did not write WATCHMEN. And he's already gone on record to state, specifically with regard to WATCHMEN and what Snyder has planned for it, that comic book movie adaptations involve a degree of compromise. He thinks Snyder is a talented film maker, enthusiastic certainly. He thinks WATCHMEN has the potential to make a good movie (immediately putting him at odds with Moore). He hopes these two facets combined together will make for a good WATCHMEN movie... but find me a quote where he emphatically states that he believes this to be the inevitable case, beyond doubt. Like us all... he's just gonna have to wait 'n' see what happens.

Snyder, understandably, is keeping schtumm about plot deviations and any changes to the story. We're gonna have to wait for the inevitable set leaks and clandestine photos to hit the net to get any kind of confirmation, I guess. Remember when sneaked pics of the massed, masked V army from the closing scenes of V for Vendetta arrived? I'm sure I'm not alone in having thought at the time "...the f uck? That doesn't appear in my copy of the book!" The rest, of course, is regrettable history. Bah.

Ponder this: do folks generally leap to the conclusion that Eddie Campbell got seen off with the From Hell movie? That Kev O'Neill was screwed on LXG? That the aforementioned Mr Lloyd was bent over a table and royally f ucked in the ass by V for Vendetta on film?

Only one creator is universally acknowledged as having been buttf ucked time and again by Hollywood plundering his back catalogue. Thus far, I'm not convinced that the WATCHMEN movie is gonna buck this trend.


And when it's all over, it won't be Dave Gibbons soothing his sore sphincter once more, I'm sure... and that's even despite the fact that we'll never get to see his magnificently gloopy tentacled 'alien' up on screen.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

The WATCHMEN book is filled with one big "WTF?" scene after another all the way to the original climaxes of:

1. a huge dead alien suddenly appearing in a city, killing half a city. This is just pure genius, because that's never been done in any alien movie before. Aliens are usually attacking earth with ray guns "Independence Day" style.

2. Superhero-mate Dr. Manhattan killing fellow superhero-mate Rorschach.

3. Nite Owl and Silk Spectre making love after a huge deadly disaster.

4. Veidt living and feeling like a shmuck after talking to Dr. Manhattan

5. Finding out that Sally Jupiter loves her abusive rapist Comedian.

6. Seymour possibly getting the truth out to the world from the diary.

Apart from the alien, all the other things are in the movie. And they were in the Tse version that Greengrass was going to shoot, too.

 

[Captain Carnage]

Hayter version that Greengrass was prepped to shoot.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

Hayter version that Greengrass was prepped to shoot.

Greengrass was going to shoot the Tse draft, the one without Slingshot and her magical mirror.

 

[Captain Carnage]

No, that was one of the later David Hayter drafts (NOT the universally available third draft from 2003 widely available online and featuring Sling Shot; Hayter got rid of that particular dumb concept himself in subsequent revisions).

Alex Tse was brought onboard by Snyder himself once he was hired to direct by Warner Bros in June 2006, obviously after they reacquired the rights from Paramount Studios who were behind the aborted Greengrass attempt of the previous year. Tse's remit was to amalgamate several of Hayter's previous efforts, his most significant initial alteration being dispensing with Veidt's death ray satellite/black box plot and replacing it with faked Dr Manhattan lightning as the means of mass destruction. Tse's second draft then returned the setting to the alternate 1985 of the comic, all of Hayter's scripts having been of a contemporary post 9/11 setting. Common to both throughout, however, has been Dan killing Veidt - only the manner of Ozy's demise has changed (Hayter having him mortally impaled by a flying Owl-a-rang thrown by Dreiberg, whereas Tse has always employed a remote piloted Owlship controlled by Dan to crush the life outta Ozy).


Your turn.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

Your turn.

You may be right, but Tse was on board before Snyder got the director's chair, while the movie was changing studios.
Btw, the movie rights are still in the hands of Gordon and Levin.

 

[Captain Carnage]

I suspect that between the two of us Ant, we got there eventually!

Anyoldhoo, Tse's script still sucks regardless. Which may, in part, be as a direct consequence of Gordon and Levin being in overall charge of the movie rights, as you quite rightly state (my bad). This fact alone gives them a helluva clout as far as dictating how the final movie pans out, and they ultimately set the tune that the writer and director dance to.

And I wonder just how many copies of the comics, TPB, Absolute Edition et al those huge fanboys Larry 'n' Lloyd have got through, huh? Forgive me if I'm not entirely convinced that we're in completely safe hands with this. No offense Zack... but it ain't 100% your baby, man.

 

[StorminNorman]

Although it is common for directors for their 2nd superhero movie to not be good:
1. Mark Steven Johnson did a great job for both versions of DAREDEVIL. Tried to do GHOST RIDER and it stunk.
2. Ang Lee did a great job with CROUTCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON (based on book). Tried to do HULK and it stunk.
3. Bryan Singer did a great job with X-Men 1 and 2. Tried to do SUPERMAN RETURNS and it stunk.
4. David Goyer is one of the best comic book writers. Tried to direct BLADE 3 and it stunk.

And then there are the directors that can work second and three times a charm:
1. Sam Raimi's SPIDERMANs are all pretty good. The third one is really not that bad for a superhero movies.
2. Guillermo Del Toro did a great job with BLADE 2. He followed up with an excellent HELLBOY.
3. Tim Story's FANTASTIC FOURs aren't that bad as reviewed - these are based on comic books. But the second one was better than the first. And if he does do a third FF4 film and shows an accurate depiction of Galactus, it's gonna rock. He did get Silver Surfer to the big screen. Gotta give him credit for that.

Hulk was fantastic, Tim Story is a talentless hack. If you believe that either Fantastic Four is better than either Hulk or Superman Returns your opinion can be dismissed as the rantings of an idiot.

 

[StorminNorman]

I suspect that between the two of us Ant, we got there eventually!

Anyoldhoo, Tse's script still sucks regardless. Which may, in part, be as a direct consequence of Gordon and Levin being in overall charge of the movie rights, as you quite rightly state (my bad). This fact alone gives them a helluva clout as far as dictating how the final movie pans out, and they ultimately set the tune that the writer and director dance to.

And I wonder just how many copies of the comics, TPB, Absolute Edition et al those huge fanboys Larry 'n' Lloyd have got through, huh? Forgive me if I'm not entirely convinced that we're in completely safe hands with this. No offense Zack... but it ain't 100% your baby, man.

But Snyder has said that ever since he stated the movie will be R, he has received no notes from the higher powers that be. I believe him, after all - if this movies fails to meet fans expectations, wouldn't he want the ability to through others under the bus to save himself?

 

[Captain Carnage]

Mmm. It's a point certainly worthy of consideration.

My concern is that Lloyd and Levin have held the producerly reigns (and movie rights) on this for so long now that they resigned themselves to the fact that realistically, this was gonna wind up being an R a long time back (what with all the attempted rape, execution of child abductors, and mass death 'n' all). Greengrass was speaking in terms of this having to be R rated over at Paramount a full two years ago; this isn't some previously unheard of new concept that Snyder has come up with all by himself.

This explains why when it comes down to it, there aren't actually that many changes in terms of storyline between the various Hayter scripts they were courting over at Paramount and the polishes that Tse went and made now that the production has found a home once again at WB. This was always going to be pitched as an R and the script was written accordingly from the outset in terms of the doom and gloom it featured. And once WB were convinced that this would need to be the case and that a PG-13 just won't do, they replied with a greenlight and a budget nowhere near the $150M Snyder originally spoke of (enter competent but nonetheless cheap 'n' cheerful cast).

Just the fact alone that Snyder has received no notes from higher powers since confirmation of his R doesn't automatically guarantee fidelity to the source. The latest Tse script, with all of its deviations from the comic (MIA aliens, dead Veidts, etc.) is STILL pretty full-on R rated in content believe me, as I'm sure it was when it was initially delivered to the studio; Hayter's was, so there's no reason to believe otherwise. And Zacky gets to keep his fanboy backlash get outta jail free card IF it all goes horribly wrong by being able to say Hey, that's the movie the studio and the guys who own the actual rights wanted made... I fought for changes but got slapped down.

 

[toddly6666]

STORMIN NORMIN,
there is general consensus that HULK and SUPERMAN RETURNS were boring and just plain sucked, and did not capture the true essense of their comics - just because the HULK movie had those annoying comic book panels, it does not make it a comic book movie. And yes, everybody sure loved that dark Nick Nolte cloud, well it was so dark, maybe it was Galactus? I don't remember the HULK comic/cartoons focusing on Bruce whining to his papa. SUPERMAN RETURNS was so original, eh? A boring rehash of the first one played by an uncharistmatic christopher reeve look-a-like acting like a humorless, stalking Bizarro. HULK and SUPERMAN always had action and fighting in the comics/cartoons. Didn't see any of that in HULK or SUPERMAN RETURNS. Oh yeah, Hulk beat up a tank. At least, The Fantastic Fours retained the fun, entertainment, and essence of the original comics. The FF4 movies got Dr. Doom, Silver Surfer, hints of Skrulls, and sort-of Galactus to the silver screen within just two movies. What did HULK bring to the screen? Poodles and Nick Nolte! I'm sorry, but the sequel is going to kick ass - they are bringing Abomination and Leader in there. What did SUPERMAN RETURNS bring to the screen? Lex Luthor again! No Darkseid, no metallo, no braniac, no Mr. Mxyplixic, etc.

 

[StorminNorman]

STORMIN NORMIN,
there is general consensus that HULK and SUPERMAN RETURNS were boring and just plain sucked, and did not capture the true essense of their comics - just because the HULK movie had those annoying comic book panels, it does not make it a comic book movie. And yes, everybody sure loved that dark Nick Nolte cloud, well it was so dark, maybe it was Galactus? I don't remember the HULK comic/cartoons focusing on Bruce whining to his papa. SUPERMAN RETURNS was so original, eh? A boring rehash of the first one played by an uncharistmatic christopher reeve look-a-like acting like a humorless, stalking Bizarro. HULK and SUPERMAN always had action and fighting in the comics/cartoons. Didn't see any of that in HULK or SUPERMAN RETURNS. Oh yeah, Hulk beat up a tank. At least, The Fantastic Fours retained the fun, entertainment, and essence of the original comics. The FF4 movies got Dr. Doom, Silver Surfer, hints of Skrulls, and sort-of Galactus to the silver screen within just two movies. What did HULK bring to the screen? Poodles and Nick Nolte! I'm sorry, but the sequel is going to kick ass - they are bringing Abomination and Leader in there. What did SUPERMAN RETURNS bring to the screen? Lex Luthor again! No Darkseid, no metallo, no braniac, no Mr. Mxyplixic, etc.

The General Consensus? Really? Well generally Americans are stupid and ignorant - so I am not that concerned really.

Hulk was a fantastic film that looked into the effects of child abuse and anger and how rage is can be incredibly destructive. At its best, Hulk addresses these same issues. Yes, it wasn't mindless Hulk Smash garbage like I guess you wanted - instead it was a good film that used a comic book movie to delve into a much deeper and meaningful theme.

Did I ever call Superman Returns original? Its not. It doesn't need to be original to be a beautiful and fantastic film. It was a film that made Superman, a God among men, mortal. It made us feel for a character that it is hard to relate to. Lex Luthor was spot on as well. Now was it a direction that some did not want? Sure, it was not a shallow summer blockbuster. If anything Hulk and Superman Returns suffer from having fans that wanted mindless actions (like Transformers) and instead got credible, well made films.

Now you bring Fantastic Four up and dare to compare it. Dr. Doom was far from his comic book incarnation. Galactus never made an appearance, thus hurting Silver Surfer as a character. It was poorly written and nothing more than a kiddy popcorn film. After Batman Begins, Hulk, Superman Returns and to a lesser extent Spider-Man, that isn't enough any more.

Fantastic Four is not dissimilar to Batman Forever - which I also consider one of the worst comic book films ever made.

 

[toddly6666]

STORMIN NORMIN,
Here's your Hulk movie broken down in poor filmmaking terms:
1. not a good sign when director relies heavily on flashbacks to establish and reveal key plot points.
2. no chemistry between Bruce and Betty.
3. A comic-book superhero has never spent so much screentime being conflicted about his heritage and destiny.
4. I like Bana as an actor, but it's not a good sign when the green CGI'd counterpart has more soul and humanity than the Bruce Banner character.
5. Ang Lee does not understand comics if he makes a comic-book adaptation that becomes obsessed with its own translation of flat panel art into moving pictures. Those annoying split screens was just a plain bad choice. It's almost like a Joel Schumacher type move - "yipee, i'm making a comic book movi,e so in order to make it seem like a comic book, i'm going to put comic book squares in the film - it will be so artistic, yipee!"
6. The film has no clear narrative or emotional arc.
7. It's a comic book character originally for kids, but how could any kid watch this film?
8. Crappy dialogue.
9. The entire first act, their protagonist's origin, is the entire 138-minute movie. Poor writing again.
10. Even when interviewed, Lee had said, “I don’t know how to make a superhero movie, but I do know how to make a Greek tragedy.” So that’s all we got.

Don't get me started on Superman Returns.

So are you going to be the one "critic rebel" that's automatically not going to like the fun, action-focused Hulk sequel, because you are still going to be standing up to this Ang Lee piece of crap one? Have you already decided, before even seeing this sequel, that you don't like it?

 

[Mr. Socko]

Looks to me like this is Snyder's chance to prove he is capable of adapting many different kinds of graphic novels.