Are fans right or wrong to criticise the direction of this movie?

[War Party]

Honestly, the point of a forum is that it caters to all viewpoints equally and fairly. This place has just become so one sided. There ARE people who do not like this production and its direction so just deal with it like adults. The attacks for anyone who has anything negative to say is just ridiculous. How can an entire forum promote one point of view???? Unless of course SHH et al. are an arm of Warner lol.

Come on guys, just appreciate those who do not agree with you as NON morons who see things differently.

I didn't insult you in anyway. I respect your viewpoint. I just think it's unfair to criticize the movie as a whole before even seeing it or getting any concrete details. The only things we have to gone are the costumes and three set pics. I gave my opinion on those before, but I never said the movie itself is going to good or bad, because I don't know enough to make that statement. Everything else is just speculation, in regards to the story, the characters, the ending, etc...

 

[IKnowSomeJudo]

Come on now. "Horrible"? How so? The script isn't the most amazing construction, but the best moments are intact, the script put the relevant bits in, and left the irrelevant bits out. It was pretty much uber faithful, with some added action beats. What makes you think Tse didn't get it, and by extension, Snyder?

What, you mean aside from the ending?
The characters: they turned Veidt into an obvious, mustache-twirling villain. Only thing missing is a loud "mwahahaha" ending each sentence.

"Mr Veidt, President Pinochet is on the line."
"Chilean Spanish -- such a bastardization of the language."

I felt like shooting myself after reading that.

Rorschach, like in Hayter's draft, is a pale, watered-down version of his comic book counterpart. His signature syntaxe is gone. All those great tidbits from his diary, the dark, disturbed poetry he writes, like the opening monologue, or stuff like "This city is dying from rabies. Is the best thing I can do to wipe random foam from its lips?", you know, all the stuff that makes him an unforgettable character we know and love, is missing. Sure, the Rambo-esque one-liners like "You're locked up in here with me" are still there, any ****** can appreciate that, but it takes a bit more to realise why "I'm sure she cheats on welfare" is far more essential to the character.
To add insult to injury, Tse has Walter Kovacs walking around in a "F**k Communism" T-shirt.
F**k Communism? F**k you, Alex Tse.

Good bye Minutemen and Crimebusters, hello The Watchmen/The New Watchmen. Someone loves their Sam Hamm.

The visual symbolism and the overlapping dialogue, primarily cinematic storytelling techniques, are missing in scenes such as The Comedian's funeral, and Doctor Manhattan's interview/Dan&Laurie's fight with knottops and so on and so forth.

All this points to the likelihood that this script was written by someone who understands Watchmen on the most basic and superficial level. Watchmen the Movie deserves better than that.

 

[War Party]

Is the '06 script the latest one people have read? Because I wouldn't be surprised if it has been revised since Snyder has been attached.

 

[Prefix]

Well we already know the ending will be different from the one in the script, because they hired the Cloverfield guys to design an alien creature.

 

[Shmoil]

I admire that you have your own viewpoint. I respect you for being willing to argue it. And I am sorry that you don't like the way the movie is going. I'm also sorry if my arguments come off as personal attacks. I don't mean it that way. I'm happy that we have this forum to argue in.

That said, I feel like you just want to be spoonfed everything there is about this movie. You won't accept anything unless the director tells it to you, verbally. Sometimes in movies you should think for yourself. When you read Watchmen, none of the psychology, the politics, or the themes were stated beforehand in a preface. You read it, you look at it, and you get it (hopefully). I don't see why you expect differently of the movie. Remember, this movie is also being made for the public. For people who haven't read the book. Why would he go on explaining everything before those people have a chance to see what it's about?

I don't think you're a moron. I just think you're waiting to be spoonfed details that should instead be ingrained in the movie itself. I for one applaud Snyder for not doing the usual.

 

[The Guard]

What, you mean aside from the ending?

So because the ending was studio mandated, and the plot deviates in relation to Veidt and Dan, the entire script is horrible?

The characters: they turned Veidt into an obvious, mustache-twirling villain. Only thing missing is a loud "mwahahaha" ending each sentence.

Veidt's an obvious villain the second he becomes a villain, even in the comics. But his motivations and psychology remain intact.

"Mr Veidt, President Pinochet is on the line."
"Chilean Spanish -- such a bastardization of the language."

What bearing does this have qualitywise for WATCHMEN?

I felt like shooting myself after reading that.

Why? Talk about overreacting.

Rorschach, like in Hayter's draft, is a pale, watered-down version of his comic book counterpart.

He's a bit watered down, and I do mean "a bit". Because he's still really violent and really obsessed and a hypocrite. But what I really think you mean is that "Not every little thing that makes Rorschach such a great character is in the script".

His signature syntaxe is gone.

His signature syntax comes and goes even in the graphic novel. Yeah, the Tse draft changed it a bit.

All those great tidbits from his diary, the dark, disturbed poetry he writes, like the opening monologue, or stuff like "This city is dying from rabies. Is the best thing I can do to wipe random foam from its lips?", you know, all the stuff that makes him an unforgettable character we know and love, is missing. Sure, the Rambo-esque one-liners like "You're locked up in here with me" are still there, any ****** can appreciate that, but it takes a bit more to realise why "I'm sure she cheats on welfare" is far more essential to the character.

Explain to me why any ****** can't appreciate "This city is dying of rabies". Some of the lines are missed. That's the nature of it being an adaption. And btw, Snyder has stated that the opening monologue will be in the film.

To add insult to injury, Tse has Walter Kovacs walking around in a "F**k Communism" T-shirt.

Who cares? The man HATES Communism, and his first few sentences uttered show us this. As opposed to being a random sign wielding homeless person?

F**k Communism? F**k you, Alex Tse.

So rather than realize that he put what he could to show you insights into Rorschach's character when the monologue wasn't used for whatever reason, you just ***** about it and overreact.

Good bye Minutemen and Crimebusters, hello The Watchmen/The New Watchmen. Someone loves their Sam Hamm.

Because if Alan Moore didn't come up with, the concept is terrible, right?

A name change certainly doesn't ruin anything overtly. Because god knows, the proposed group-that-never-exists being called "Watchmen" VS "The Crimebusters" makes a world of difference.

The visual symbolism and the overlapping dialogue, primarily cinematic storytelling techniques, are missing in scenes such as The Comedian's funeral, and Doctor Manhattan's interview/Dan&Laurie's fight with knottops and so on and so forth.

When you say "missing", you must mean "some of it isn't present", because as I recall, quite a bit of it was still there. And let me get this straight. You're upset because some elements of "visual symbolism" is missing in a script?

All this points to the likelihood that this script was written by someone who understands Watchmen on the most basic and superficial level.

No, that's just your assumption. Clearly you don't forgive the script for being an adaption. Does the end with Veidt suck compared to the book's take on it? Yes. But aside from that, Tse's draft is very faithful, albeit a bit modern.

Watchmen the Movie deserves better than that.

Based on what Snyder has said and what we've seen...pretty sure it's gotten it.

 

[IKnowSomeJudo]

So because the ending was studio mandated, and the plot deviates in relation to Veidt and Dan, the entire script is horrible?

It's far from being the only reason why the script sucks. If the script were a superb adaptation of the source material (which it isn't) up to that point, that would make it even worse. It's equivalent to someone taking a dump on a Degas' painting. At least one can learn to accept the consistent crappiness of a work, whereas the Degas example comes off like a kick in the nuts.

Veidt's an obvious villain the second he becomes a villain, even in the comics. But his motivations and psychology remain intact.

Whereas in Tse's script, he's a villain from the very scene he first appears in.

What bearing does this have qualitywise for WATCHMEN?

Other than being unsubtle name-dropping (the script's full of those), Adrian Veidt, a known liberal in the graphic novel, here makes business deals with a notorious fascist dictator over the phone.

Why? Talk about overreacting.

Talk about (deliberate?) obtuseness. Seriously. It's hyperbole, dude.

But what I really think you mean is that "Not every little thing that makes Rorschach such a great character is in the script".

Well, you think wrong. Obviously, not every little thing is going to make it into an adaptation, that much should be accepted. However, here you can spot the pattern that shows which aspects of the character were left in and which were left out. Hardassness stays, dark melancholy doesn't.

His signature syntax comes and goes even in the graphic novel. Yeah, the Tse draft changed it a bit.

But there is always a reason why it comes and goes in the graphic novel. Tse gives off the impression like he didn't bother finding out why.

Explain to me why any ****** can't appreciate "This city is dying of rabies". Some of the lines are missed. That's the nature of it being an adaption.

Again, that argument doesn't fly. Note how any passage from Rorschach's journal that portrays his twisted world view are conviniently absent, whereas just about any pedestrian piece of dialogue remains intact.
Another example
Dialogue in the novel: "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not god who kills the children, not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to dogs. It's us, only us."

In the script: "It's not god who kills little children. It's us."

In other words, another case case of KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.

And btw, Snyder has stated that the opening monologue will be in the film.

Like I said, my beef is with this particular script, I don't pretend to know what the shooting script is like. By the way, you have a link to that interview? Must have missed that one.

Who cares? The man HATES Communism, and his first few sentences uttered show us this. As opposed to being a random sign wielding homeless person?

I care. First of all, it's a reference to Garth Ennis' Preacher series that does not have a place in Watchmen. Secondly, it goes against Kovacs' character. Not even once do we see him use profanities in the novel, coupled with his sexual repression, him wearing a shirt with an F-bomb sign is extremely out of character.

So rather than realize that he put what he could to show you insights into Rorschach's character when the monologue wasn't used for whatever reason, you just ***** about it and overreact.

I realise that he'd rather resort to quoting other comic books than, you know, actually using material from Watchmen. **** him.

Because if Alan Moore didn't come up with, the concept is terrible, right?

You know, that's actually quite true. Not as a universal rule, of course, but in terms of previous Watchmen scripts, that theory holds water; best parts of the scripts are the ones that follow the comic to its letter, whereas all the needless, arbitrary changes range from terrible to f**king terrible.

When you say "missing", you must mean "some of it isn't present", because as I recall, quite a bit of it was still there. And let me get this straight. You're upset because some elements of "visual symbolism" is missing in a script?

I mean "missing" as in "there's barely any" (both visual symbolism/symmetry and overlapping dialogue). David Hayter actually did a pretty good job with this in his script.

No, that's just your assumption. Clearly you don't forgive the script for being an adaption. Does the end with Veidt suck compared to the book's take on it? Yes. But aside from that, Tse's draft is very faithful, albeit a bit modern.

I think it's a fairly safe assumption, however if he's an actual hardcore fan, that makes it even worse.
Once again, there's a difference between adaptation and bastardization. This script leans heavily towards the latter.

Based on what Snyder has said and what we've seen...pretty sure it's gotten it.

Which I am not denying the possibility of.

 

[Sandman138]

Gaurd, Tse's script missed the point of the story and just about everyone who has read it agrees on that. The only reason most of us hold out hope is because Snyder's interviews seem to imply that they more or less dropped that script in favor of a script of higher fidelity.

 

[IKnowSomeJudo]

I just don't get Guard's borderline-OCD habit of defending things that virtually noone sane is willing to defend. He does this all the time on all boards for nearly every movie. I'm guessing he's either a lawyer who does this thing for practice or maybe he just gets off on it.

I like him otherwise, as a poster.

 

[Sandman138]

I think he just likes to argue.

 

[NEWAGE]

I admire that you have your own viewpoint. I respect you for being willing to argue it. And I am sorry that you don't like the way the movie is going. I'm also sorry if my arguments come off as personal attacks. I don't mean it that way. I'm happy that we have this forum to argue in.

That said, I feel like you just want to be spoonfed everything there is about this movie. You won't accept anything unless the director tells it to you, verbally. Sometimes in movies you should think for yourself. When you read Watchmen, none of the psychology, the politics, or the themes were stated beforehand in a preface. You read it, you look at it, and you get it (hopefully). I don't see why you expect differently of the movie. Remember, this movie is also being made for the public. For people who haven't read the book. Why would he go on explaining everything before those people have a chance to see what it's about?

I don't think you're a moron. I just think you're waiting to be spoonfed details that should instead be ingrained in the movie itself. I for one applaud Snyder for not doing the usual.

Okay now this is a better post and is the kind of argument I thought we can all appreciate.

I do not wait to be spoonfed. I look at a man's CV and his attitude in interviews for the new film and see someone who has NEVER done ANYTHING remotely deep with ANY of his work. In fact all his work are noted for being remarkably shallow and focused on gloss and glam. I have NO reason to think he will suddenly have an epiphany for Watchmen and deliver a Kubrick esque movie.

The comic was written by a man that was REKNOWNED for depth and subtext in his work (moore). You read anything he writes EXPECTING it to have layers and be somewhat sophisticated. Even if you knew nothing of him, from the first page of Watchmen you know the deal. Nothing Snyder has released has done anything but re inforce this man's penchant for style over substance, and in a movie like this, that could not be further from the essence.

 

[NEWAGE]

I think he just likes to argue.

That explains it because he seems to just argue every single point of how Watchmen by Snyder is without flaw regardless of what anyone says. How you can disregard every single alternative argument is beyond me. He or She must enjoy arguing. No other explanation for the line by line post after post rebuttals even with the weakest of evidence to support them.

 

[NEWAGE]

It's far from being the only reason why the script sucks. If the script were a superb adaptation of the source material (which it isn't) up to that point, that would make it even worse. It's equivalent to someone taking a dump on a Degas' painting. At least one can learn to accept the consistent crappiness of a work, whereas the Degas example comes off like a kick in the nuts.

Whereas in Tse's script, he's a villain from the very scene he first appears in.

Other than being unsubtle name-dropping (the script's full of those), Adrian Veidt, a known liberal in the graphic novel, here makes business deals with a notorious fascist dictator over the phone.

Talk about (deliberate?) obtuseness. Seriously. It's hyperbole, dude.

Well, you think wrong. Obviously, not every little thing is going to make it into an adaptation, that much should be accepted. However, here you can spot the pattern that shows which aspects of the character were left in and which were left out. Hardassness stays, dark melancholy doesn't.

But there is always a reason why it comes and goes in the graphic novel. Tse gives off the impression like he didn't bother finding out why.

Again, that argument doesn't fly. Note how any passage from Rorschach's journal that portrays his twisted world view are conviniently absent, whereas just about any pedestrian piece of dialogue remains intact.
Another example
Dialogue in the novel: "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not god who kills the children, not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to dogs. It's us, only us."

In the script: "It's not god who kills little children. It's us."

In other words, another case case of KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.

Like I said, my beef is with this particular script, I don't pretend to know what the shooting script is like. By the way, you have a link to that interview? Must have missed that one.

I care. First of all, it's a reference to Garth Ennis' Preacher series that does not have a place in Watchmen. Secondly, it goes against Kovacs' character. Not even once do we see him use profanities in the novel, coupled with his sexual repression, him wearing a shirt with an F-bomb sign is extremely out of character.
I realise that he'd rather resort to quoting other comic books than, you know, actually using material from Watchmen. **** him.

You know, that's actually quite true. Not as a universal rule, of course, but in terms of previous Watchmen scripts, that theory holds water; best parts of the scripts are the ones that follow the comic to its letter, whereas all the needless, arbitrary changes range from terrible to f**king terrible.

I mean "missing" as in "there's barely any" (both visual symbolism/symmetry and overlapping dialogue). David Hayter actually did a pretty good job with this in his script.

I think it's a fairly safe assumption, however if he's an actual hardcore fan, that makes it even worse.
Once again, there's a difference between adaptation and bastardization. This script leans heavily towards the latter.

Which I am not denying the possibility of.

Man, this Guard guy's arguments are plain astonishing. I can't believe I was actually trying to reason with him. You basically just nullified everything he said yet I bet he comes back to argue each point of his you destroyed.

 

[Sawyer]

To be honest, the people who are criticizing the movie and are against it already, are idiots. I mean what do they have to go on? Five in-costume pictures, two seperate Rorschach pics and pics of the city set.
And you know what?
They are all perfect. How can you possibly say otherwise about The Comedian and Rorschach? They're taken right off the page!!! And as for the other three...Ozymandias' costume is perfect for the movie, sorry for those of you who cant see past the comic page. Nite Owl looks great. They made a few small changes to it, so what?! And the Silk Spectre, I'll agree is a big change from the comic, but it makes sense for a movie.
The actors, while they may not have been my first choice, or any of our first choices, seem like they are taking their roles seriously.
Zach Snyder takes his movies seriously, and while Watchmen is a completely different animal from 300 and Dawn of the Dead, I'm sure this will be no different.

And, for God sake, Dave Gibbons approves!!!

 

[Katsuro]

Okay now this is a better post and is the kind of argument I thought we can all appreciate.

I do not wait to be spoonfed. I look at a man's CV and his attitude in interviews for the new film and see someone who has NEVER done ANYTHING remotely deep with ANY of his work. In fact all his work are noted for being remarkably shallow and focused on gloss and glam. I have NO reason to think he will suddenly have an epiphany for Watchmen and deliver a Kubrick esque movie.

The comic was written by a man that was REKNOWNED for depth and subtext in his work (moore). You read anything he writes EXPECTING it to have layers and be somewhat sophisticated. Even if you knew nothing of him, from the first page of Watchmen you know the deal. Nothing Snyder has released has done anything but re inforce this man's penchant for style over substance, and in a movie like this, that could not be further from the essence.

So far all Snyder has done are adaptations of other works, and so far they've all been dead on. Was his 300 full of depth and complexity? No, but was Miller's book? Snyder knows how to keep an adaptation faithful to it's source material.

You act as if Snyder's going to somehow just sap all the psychology and philosophy out of the story. As if he's just gonna think all that stuff is stupid and he just wants the action and explosions. He wouldn't be a fan of the book if that's the kind of person he was. Nobody reads Watchmen, enjoys it, and adapts a film version with as much care for the source material if they dont care for the deeper themes in it.

And like I said, it doesn't matter if Snyder isn't capable of that amount of depth, he doesn't need to be. Moore already wrote the book. All the political and philosophical messages are already there. If Snyder's as faithful to the book as he says he's going to be, and as he is in past adaptations, then all of that should still be there (or at least as much as he can fit in a 2.5 hour movie)

 

[escobar2248]

To be honest, the people who are criticizing the movie and are against it already, are idiots. I mean what do they have to go on?

They have a script from 2006, which has certainly gotten revised, interviews from Zack Snyder, some vague set reports, 5 photos of the characters that have had some serious photoshop color work done to them so we really don't know what they are going to look like on the screen and some misc. photos of the different sets.

I've just come to learn that some people are alarmists and like to make noise on here just for attention. And want to argue until they are blue in the face. It's a "look at me, I'm trying to be smarter than everyone else kind of thing." After we see a couple trailers or clips and things look grim, then I'll start to worry and lose some sleep. Is there going to be some mistakes, sure there is always things in each movie I see that bothers me. It's very hard to cater to everyone that fits a films demographics. I'm sure that some of the things that go on in the movie Snyder may not have a say in due to the studio?

This book has so many layers and meanings to it, that it's going to hard to cover everything in 2-2.5 hours. Regardless, it'll be interesting to see our characters we love come to life on the big screen.

I'm a big fan of this book, and I can't justify getting this passionate about things such as this. If I do, it won't let me enjoy this as a hobby. I've had many hobbies before and gotten very emotionally involved to the point that it's ruined them. I refuse to let it happen to comic books and their movies.

 

[Shmoil]

Okay now this is a better post and is the kind of argument I thought we can all appreciate.

I do not wait to be spoonfed. I look at a man's CV and his attitude in interviews for the new film and see someone who has NEVER done ANYTHING remotely deep with ANY of his work. In fact all his work are noted for being remarkably shallow and focused on gloss and glam. I have NO reason to think he will suddenly have an epiphany for Watchmen and deliver a Kubrick esque movie.

The comic was written by a man that was REKNOWNED for depth and subtext in his work (moore). You read anything he writes EXPECTING it to have layers and be somewhat sophisticated. Even if you knew nothing of him, from the first page of Watchmen you know the deal. Nothing Snyder has released has done anything but re inforce this man's penchant for style over substance, and in a movie like this, that could not be further from the essence.

Okay, I will definitely agree that Snyder has zero worthy credentials to his name. However, I don't think that in itself is a reason for thinking that it's impossible for the movie to be good. I mean, who would have thought that the guy who made 'Duel' and 'Jaws' could go on to make 'Schindler's List'? Or that some random zombie movie director could go on to make 'Lord of the Rings'. Or even that the guy who made 'Pirhanna 2' would go on to make the Terminator series. Sometimes a director just needs his chance to shine. I was against Snyder too, when he was announced. But there have been plenty of reports of him having the book on set, and using it just as much as a script. that fact that Dave Gibbons is so excited is a good thing. He would know what to keep intact, and wouldn't be as happy if those things weren't still there. Also, I really feel that the pics have shown that Snyder does know what he's doing.

Plus, remember that the director doesn't write the script. He might have a hand in it, but he doesn't write it. Often times directors don't even get to pick their own project. They have to direct **** scripts to get to a project they really want. So let's say that 'Dawn of the Dead' and '300' were Snyder's **** script movies (and boy were they), that he made to suck up to the studios (and it worked), all so that he could get to make the project he wanted, 'Watchmen'. I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm just saying it's a possibility that shouldn't be discarded. You're jumping to assume that he's a **** director based on the fact that his past two movies have been flash and not substance. Take 300. He didn't write the script. But I do think that his style is the only saving grace of that movie. It's not his fault the dialogue was god awful. It's not his fault everything was over-the-top with cliches. That was the way it was written. The look, and the style, are the only things that made it interesting.

Now he has a movie that potentially has a fantastic script. Plus, he's carrying the book around on set as a script! Suppose Spielberg had never been allowed to direct Schindler's List, because up until then he had been known mainly for Jaws, Indiana Jones, and Jurassic Park. All flashy fun popcorn movies with not so much substance. Same with Jackson, same with Cameron, same with many others. I'm not calling Snyder the next Spielberg, I'm just saying that we'll never get another great director if we don't take risks and give great scripts to promising but unproven directors.

 

[Doc Destruction]

So let's say that 'Dawn of the Dead' and '300' were Snyder's **** script movies (and boy were they).

You just lost all credibility right there. Both of those movies are fantastic. And wildly received as such.

 

[NEWAGE]

You just lost all credibility right there. Both of those movies are fantastic. And wildly received as such.

One guy states his point of view, and the Doc weighs in with his customary cut down. Nice.

I don't agree with the guy's stance but lost all credibility because of an opinion? I could just as well say you calling both those movies fantastic loses YOU all credibility. Stating widely recieved means JACK. Armageddon when it was released was widely recieved EXTREMELY well. Is that now considered a fantastic film? Transformers was widely received well, but is THAT a fantastic film? You make one point then within the same sentence show your hypocrisy. If you can't argue like an adult, keep your stuff to the Snyder loving threads. This thread is for debate for and against with respect for each others opinions. I for one have not once called you guys idiots or fools even though I totally disagree with you.

 

[DoctorJones]

So let's say that 'Dawn of the Dead' and '300' were Snyder's **** script movies (and boy were they), that he made to suck up to the studios (and it worked), all so that he could get to make the project he wanted, 'Watchmen'. I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm just saying it's a possibility that shouldn't be discarded. You're jumping to assume that he's a **** director based on the fact that his past two movies have been flash and not substance. Take 300. He didn't write the script. But I do think that his style is the only saving grace of that movie. It's not his fault the dialogue was god awful. It's not his fault everything was over-the-top with cliches. That was the way it was written. The look, and the style, are the only things that made it interesting.

Now he has a movie that potentially has a fantastic script. Plus, he's carrying the book around on set as a script! Suppose Spielberg had never been allowed to direct Schindler's List, because up until then he had been known mainly for Jaws, Indiana Jones, and Jurassic Park. All flashy fun popcorn movies with not so much substance. Same with Jackson, same with Cameron, same with many others. I'm not calling Snyder the next Spielberg, I'm just saying that we'll never get another great director if we don't take risks and give great scripts to promising but unproven directors.

1) Snyder made DOTD so he could make 300. 2) Jaws, Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park deal with deep subject matters (man vs. nature, spirituality, fatherhood) albeit in a less dark manner than Schindler's List. I understand that you're not trying to denigrate those movies, but the record, the depth was there before Spielberg went black and white.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

1) Snyder made DOTD so he could make 300. 2) Jaws, Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park deal with deep subject matters (man vs. nature, spirituality, fatherhood) albeit in a less dark manner than Schindler's List. I understand that you're not trying to denigrate those movies, but the record, the depth was there before Spielberg went black and white.

Well, DoctorJones, I'm sure we have no reason to think you're a Spielberg fan who might be a tad biased?
(Just ribbin' ya.)
Spielberg aside, perhaps, Cameron and Jackson are good examples. Especially Jackson, because the sheer nitpicky fanboy factor of LOTR is about the only thing that outweighs Watchmen's nitpicky fanboy factor.



What my opinion boils down to is that just about every piece of information we get about this movie makes me more optimistic. Everything's either something I would have done, or something I wish I'd thought of. Case in point: he's actually filming/making Under the Hood and the Black Freighter--not ignoring them, not just giving them a mention (although do tell me if either of those have been canned). To me that shows devotion to the material. As it was with Peter Jackson, the director's simple fanboyish love of the original story might just prove essential. Maybe not everything is perfect, but overall, to me, it looks to be shaping up nicely. I've given what I feel are valid reasons about why the costumes don't bother me or give me the impression that this movie will be unfaithful, without (I hope) insulting anyone.

 

[The Guard]

How did Tse's script miss the "point" of the story, and what do you think that the "point" of the story is?

Have to be honest, that is not the Tse script I remember reading. The one I remember reading had most of that stuff you're "missing" in it. Maybe I read a later draft, because the person I got it from no longer has access to it. Anyone have an electronic copy of the script in question that they can send me?

 

[The Guard]

It's far from being the only reason why the script sucks. If the script were a superb adaptation of the source material (which it isn't) up to that point, that would make it even worse. It's equivalent to someone taking a dump on a Degas' painting. At least one can learn to accept the consistent crappiness of a work, whereas the Degas example comes off like a kick in the
nuts.

I think you're overreacting, or I think you read a different script than I did. Hard to say. If you want to whine about every little change to the source material, and defy the script as "sucking", I don't know what to tell you. In the script I read, the themes, psychology, story and character points, and even most of the relevant and "beloved" dialogue was intact.

I hate the Veidt ending as much as anyone else, but I think that we all know that "approach" didn't spring from the mind of Alex Tse or Zach Snyder.

Well, you think wrong. Obviously, not every little thing is going to make it into an adaptation, that much should be accepted. However, here you can spot the pattern that shows which aspects of the character were left in and which were left out. Hardassness stays, dark melancholy doesn't.

I don't remember that being the case at all in the script I read. Starting to wonder which one I read.

Whereas in Tse's script, he's a villain from the very scene he first appears in.

Elaborate.

Other than being unsubtle name-dropping (the script's full of those), Adrian Veidt, a known liberal in the graphic novel, here makes business deals with a notorious fascist dictator over the phone.

The source material has unsubtle name dropping and character appearances, too. I fail to see why this is really that big of an issue. Obviously they want the world of WATCHMEN to feel "real". True, Veidt is a known liberal, so maybe there's meant to be some "change" in Pinochet, given the different worlds. How do you know he's still a fascist in the world of the script?

But there is always a reason why it comes and goes in the graphic novel. Tse gives off the impression like he didn't bother finding out why.

Don't remember that either.

Again, that argument doesn't fly. Note how any passage from Rorschach's journal that portrays his twisted world view are conviniently absent, whereas just about any pedestrian piece of dialogue remains intact.

Dialogue in the novel: "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not god who kills the children, not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to dogs. It's us, only us."

In the script: "It's not god who kills little children. It's us."

In other words, another case case of KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.

Ok. I can see that you miss the inordinately clever "metaphor" of "dogs and butchery" there, but the point behind it and theme remains intact. And in context, it works, because the scene brings out the themes, the dialogue only reinforces it.

Yes, the scripts have excised a lot of the wordiness of the dialogue. Probably due to length. Although, again, in the script I read, that whole bit was intact. They shortened his "looked up at the sky" speech, but honestly, not much.

I care. First of all, it's a reference to Garth Ennis' Preacher series that does not have a place in Watchmen. Secondly, it goes against Kovacs' character. Not even once do we see him use profanities in the novel, coupled with his sexual repression, him wearing a shirt with an F-bomb sign is extremely out of character.

To each his own, I guess. I think you're making assumptions about it's reason for being there.

realise that he'd rather resort to quoting other comic books than, you know, actually using material from Watchmen. **** him.

Have you had a conversation with Alex Tse about why he put it in the script? No, you just seem to assume that it's a PREACHER reference. Seems to me it's obvious he wanted to display an element of Rorschach's character, but didn't (or wasn't allowed to) put the opening monlogue into the script.

You know, that's actually quite true. Not as a universal rule, of course, but in terms of previous Watchmen scripts, that theory holds water; best parts of the scripts are the ones that follow the comic to its letter, whereas all the needless, arbitrary changes range from terrible to f**king terrible.

Based on what? Because you personally feel that a deviation in tone or dialogue equals "terrible"? How do you approach Batman adaptions?

I mean "missing" as in "there's barely any" (both visual symbolism/symmetry and overlapping dialogue). David Hayter actually did a pretty good job with this in his script.

Elaborate on what you think is missing, in the context of a film script.

"Dark enough for my purposes", "The birds could be in the air right now" and so forth?

Gaurd, Tse's script missed the point of the story and just about everyone who has read it agrees on that. The only reason most of us hold out hope is because Snyder's interviews seem to imply that they more or less dropped that script in favor of a script of higher fidelity.

How did it miss the point of the story (other than Veidt), and what do you think the point of the story is?

Show me these "most who have read it". Most people hated Veidt, and would have preferred more slavish faithfulness, and that's about it. I've seen very few say that it missed the point. That said, the script I read was a lot more faithful than the one you are describing.

I think some of you want to be spoonfed on a literary level in a FILM. I don't think that's the approach Snyder will take, though he will not get rid of all the relevant dialogue. He will let what exists in the story bring out the themes, rather than bashing you over the head with them at every turn.

 

[Mr.Clay]

Because you personally feel that a deviation in tone or dialogue equals "terrible"? How do you approach Batman adaptions?

I keep seeing Batman being brought up in rebuttals against those who criticize Watchmen. The Batman argument holds no water because Batman has seen countless story adaptations and countess visual interpretation. Batman is a character with no one clear defining source.

However Watchmen is one story, with this movie being the only interpretation. Therefore the stakes are extremely high to get the film adaptation spot on. People have very high expectations for what Watchmen should be, and those expectations are also not unrealistic nor should they be ignored.

To be honest, I haven't read any of the Watchmen scripts, so straight up I have no idea what this thing is about the ending being changed (if someone could clue me in though, I'd very much appreciate it). Whatever the change is, it's obviously a strain on the expectations of those who would want the absolute best for the story. Can you really blame them? Changing something around for something like Batman is perfectly fine, again as he's had 69 years of consistently released material that constantly varies in story and image. But Watchmen is still only one story, and people just don't want it to be plundered of just what is instantly gratifying about it. It might not be, but try and understand where that viewpoint is coming from. V for Vendetta was a great movie, but honestly it is a watered-down interpretation of its source. That cannot be denied, and for some people who really really love that story, that's kind of a drag.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

I personally feel that V the movie was actually very faithful to the source material, except with some subplots trimmed for digestibility's sake. Everything that stuck out at me from the book was there in the movie, it had all the same messages, and the portrayals of V and Evey were spot on. The only thing I missed was a more developed Leader. (I will say though, I actually didn't like V the book very much-hey, it's no Watchmen-, and to me the movie was a pleasant surprise)