How Zack Snyder (Just Barely) Got ‘Watchmen’ to the Screen

[[A]]

hey, I missed a lot of talk here but.. someone called Dr Manhattan an alien?

 

[Mercurius]

That's a filmmaker taking the time to elaborate on a few lines from the graphic novel that few filmmakers would even have remembered. How is that offensive?

Because they bother to show what happened in a montage of "key historical events"?



Exactly. The scene in which Blake mentions JFK no longer exists. There's no longer an appropriate place for it. They chose to pay homage to it nontheless. That's a heck of a commitment to the material.

And as was pointed out, it doesn't exactly take a lot of intelligence to figure out what was going on with the Comedian/JFK's assassination in the book.

WATCHMEN is subtle. But it's not THAT subtle.

And no, it's not a subtle version of events. You know what it is, though? About a hundred times more interesting and satisfying as an event, an idea, and a performance.

That part is subtle indeed. For those who know Blake the joke is a very sordid one. It's quite likely he did it, but that's the smart thing about it.

Changing it for a scene that shows what he said, without the possibility of having it both ways is lack of imagination, and a heavy handed usage of the information in the book.

 

[The Guard]

I'm sorry, the but the whole "It's left open to interpretation" thing is nonsense.

Maybe if you feel like ignoring the obvious subtle "wink" in the writing, you could go "Gee, maybe he DIDN'T kill Kennedy even though it sounds like he did". The point of the moment, however, is not for Alan Moore to scream "Look how subtle I can be". The point of the moment is CHARACTER related. It's that Blake did kill Kennedy, has no regrets about it, and feels comfortable, in the political environment, talking about it relatively openly. These are the subtleties in the scene, not whethere he killed Kennedy or not.

The intent of the statement is clear.

I can't wait to hear your explanation for how putting more imagination and time and relevance into the sequence is "lack of imagination".

The filmmakers have taken what is in the book and bothered to elaborate on it.

This element in the book was never really all that subtle, Mercurius (especially since it occurred at least three times), and if you think it is, the weight of your opinions on subtlies is considerably lessened, methinks. It's blatantly obvious what the writer means in the book. There's very little in the way of subtlety in revealing The Comedian's connection to the death of JFK.

Now, true subtlety could exist, and that would be showing the Comedian as a government agent, hinting at Nixon taking over, etc, subtly hinting at The Comedian's role in his political career, and NOT having obvious hints about where The Comedian cracks wise about not asking him where he was when JFK was assassinated.

Because that would make people actually have to think about how Nixon came to power in this alternate reality, what role The Comedian had in it as his close confidante/agent, etc. Which I did, when I first read the book, wonder about. The "he's shaking hands with Gerald Ford", that's a bit of subtlely, actually. "Between you and me, a job like this isn't his style", that's subtle. It's also wonderfully ironic.

The book's doesn't make you think to come up with this connection, it just gives it away. The book's scenario requires very little intelligent exploration to uncover the connection. Moore just hands you the scenario in WATCHMEN. Several times, via Blake, Veidt and Hollis Mason.

 

[Mercurius]

I'm sorry, the but the whole "It's left open to interpretation" thing is nonsense.

Maybe if you feel like ignoring the obvious subtle "wink" in the writing, you could go "Gee, maybe he DIDN'T kill Kennedy even though it sounds like he did". The point of the moment, however, is not for Alan Moore to scream "Look how subtle I can be". The point of the moment is CHARACTER related. It's that Blake did kill Kennedy, has no regrets about it, and feels comfortable, in the political environment, talking about it relatively openly. These are the subtleties in the scene, not whethere he killed Kennedy or not.

The intent of the statement is clear.

I can't wait to hear your explanation for how putting more imagination and time and relevance into the sequence is "lack of imagination".

The filmmakers have taken what is in the book and bothered to elaborate on it.

This element in the book was never really all that subtle, Mercurius (especially since it occurred at least three times), and if you think it is, the weight of your opinions on subtlies is considerably lessened, methinks. It's blatantly obvious what the writer means in the book. There's very little in the way of subtlety in revealing The Comedian's connection to the death of JFK.

Now, true subtlety could exist, and that would be showing the Comedian as a government agent, hinting at Nixon taking over, etc, subtly hinting at The Comedian's role in his political career, and NOT having obvious hints about where The Comedian cracks wise about not asking him where he was when JFK was assassinated.

Because that would make people actually have to think about how Nixon came to power in this alternate reality, what role The Comedian had in it as his close confidante/agent, etc. Which I did, when I first read the book, wonder about. The "he's shaking hands with Gerald Ford", that's a bit of subtlely, actually. "Between you and me, a job like this isn't his style", that's subtle. It's also wonderfully ironic.

The book's doesn't make you think to come up with this connection, it just gives it away. The book's scenario requires very little intelligent exploration to uncover the connection. Moore just hands you the scenario in WATCHMEN. Several times, via Blake, Veidt and Hollis Mason.

Dear Guard, that post of yours is much ado about nothing.

But you got fine points, and your fine points I'm not discussing below, evidently. I'm just addressing that useless argument on Blake.

If you can't accept that throwing a direct image of Blake with a rifle, in loco, after the fact, is less subtle than spreading the rumor here and there in the novel (your "wink" word is a good one to describe it), then there's not much to be done.

See: that part isn't subtle in the sense that you have to melt your brains to get the point, but subtle in the sense that it is stupid to change hearsay (even if it is pretty obvious) for a direct scene showing it.

But oh weeeeellll, you like to play the blind monkey.

That's ok, but it isn't a discussion: it's already your addiction in getting into an argument.

 

[TheBatman072]

hey, I missed a lot of talk here but.. someone called Dr Manhattan an alien?

I think figuratively he's an alien.

 

[magicangel1989]

One more month!!!!!!I can't believe its almost here! Too bad my city does not have an Imax. The closest i have to an Imax theater is Galaxy Cineplex Odeon. When i go to see Watchmen, that will be the theatre i watch it in! THE WATCHMEN COMETH!

 

[TheVileOne]

While Zach Snyder is very careful about his comments on Alan Moore, Alan Moore is very open about his comments on Hollywood:

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/exclusive-why-alan-moore-hates-comic-book-movies#comments

I love Alan Moore, and strangely found myself agreeing with about 90% of what he said here.

 

[TheVileOne]

edit DP

 

[The Guard]

If you can't accept that throwing a direct image of Blake with a rifle, in loco, after the fact, is less subtle than spreading the rumor here and there in the novel (your "wink" word is a good one to describe it), then there's not much to be done.

Sigh...

Did anyone ELSE get the idea that I somehow thought that the movie's version of events is more subtle than Blake's line in the book?

Mercurius, if you read closely what I have written:

Exactly. The scene in which Blake mentions JFK no longer exists. There's no longer an appropriate place for it. They chose to pay homage to it nontheless. That's a heck of a commitment to the material.

And as was pointed out, it doesn't exactly take a lot of intelligence to figure out what was going on with the Comedian/JFK's assassination in the book.

WATCHMEN is subtle. But it's not THAT subtle.

And no, it's not a subtle version of events. You know what it is, though? About a hundred times more interesting and satisfying as an event, an idea, and a performance.

I think it's pretty obvious I am aware which is more subtle.

And, as I've pointed out, I care more about which is more interesting and relevant.

 

[Mercurius]

Sigh...

Did anyone ELSE get the idea that I somehow thought that the movie's version of events is more subtle than Blake's line in the book?

Mercurius, if you read closely what I have written:

Exactly. The scene in which Blake mentions JFK no longer exists. There's no longer an appropriate place for it. They chose to pay homage to it nontheless. That's a heck of a commitment to the material.

And as was pointed out, it doesn't exactly take a lot of intelligence to figure out what was going on with the Comedian/JFK's assassination in the book.

WATCHMEN is subtle. But it's not THAT subtle.

And no, it's not a subtle version of events. You know what it is, though? About a hundred times more interesting and satisfying as an event, an idea, and a performance.

I think it's pretty obvious I am aware which is more subtle.

And, as I've pointed out, I care more about which is more interesting and relevant.

A small correction: what you yourself THINK is more interesting and relevant.

I, for instance, think it is precisely irrelevant, and appreciate Moore's version of it.

 

[Solidus]

A small correction: what you yourself THINK is more interesting and relevant.

I, for instance, think it is precisely irrelevant, and appreciate Moore's version of it.

Because it was out first?

You have not really seen the movie yet. But it is clear you will walk in with pre-determined ideas how it is less subtle because its a movie. I'm not going to get full bore into it with ya tonight I'm too tired to sword fight

But sometimes I think some get the psychological irking that "since it was out first....automatically its better deeper and more powerful"

Moore did wonders with Watchmen, my fav novel. But some one could easily improve some things.

But I will allow you back to the fight. I'm going to sleep lol.

 

[Solidus]

One more thing. Today I watched a interesting video with Adam Sessler, the game critic, I use to like his show back in the day, but he had a great rant with gamers and the "console wars" and how some X-Box fans and Vice versa PS3 fans can't handle that maybe both systems have good games on it. That only ONE can.

It is just like with this. Some people on these forums, they think ONLY ONE medium of the story can be superior. And that is it. Period. Only one can be intelligent, only one can be the best.

This is not true. The two mediums can use their strengths to bring the same story to life, in other ways. And I think some just can't handle that. Some just blindly follow Moore, and I admit some do follow just Snyder.

Both can be just as incredible. Case in point? I will never stop using it, but LOTR, a book that no one thought could be taken outside of the medium of paper. And some one did it, and made differences that fit it to the new medium, and in doing so, he made another amazing classic. Some can always claim, no the book only has the upper hand. Its a pissing contest with some. Some believe still that only people that read books, have more intelligence in the world. Because its not as "often done" anymore. And hence a movie that many will watch, cannot match it, not because it can't. Because some just don't want it to. They want to be an elite group, that has higher understanding, and just claim only the book can be the best because we found it first.

And of course there can be some with legitimate claim that the book possibly in their opinion, or really may be better. But I think in today's egotistical society, that is not always the case. Some just can't handle that other will see this in another medium. They just don't want others trying to discuss it with them. And again I'm not saying this is 100% how it always happens. But a lot of times it does.

I read this book so many years ago. And I will give it the chance, from what we have seen *mainly waiting for the DC* but its been pretty good. Some changes, but some take them out of the context, and yell at them, for the sake of doing so. That is all. I guess this is where I grow weary of this. It happens every damn time a book is adapted. The book fans have this superiority complex sometimes and its annoying. I read the book, and if the movie is smart and good, I will enjoy it the same, just in different mediums. If not well of course that's another story. But no matter what some will just hate it, because its not the book. And they can throw out their fancy excuses sometimes, but possibly in the end....its just because its not the book.

To put it simply.

Yes it is possible the Book will remain better, and the movie will suck.
Yes it is possible the Book will still remain awesome, and the movie will be good
Yes it is possible the book will be good, and the movie could exceed it.

But to me in the end, I think some should just at least ponder, with out letting their jealousy that the film is being made ect, and say maybe both will be good, and just as deep, in some different ways, but still be Watchmen.

Okay now throw rocks at me Peace and Love hehe.

 

[DACrowe]

While Zach Snyder is very careful about his comments on Alan Moore, Alan Moore is very open about his comments on Hollywood:

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/exclusive-why-alan-moore-hates-comic-book-movies#comments

I love Alan Moore, and strangely found myself agreeing with about 90% of what he said here.

Gotta' love Moore. Crazy conspiracy theories galore. His comment on the more money is in a movie the less imagination and risk there is, is very true.

However, his crack pot ideas about America (and lumping all of America's history foreign and domestic into W.'s ideology) and especially the SCARILY moronic **** about claiming the US supplied the Nazis with most of their ammunition...

well let's just say the guy is off his ****ing rocker.

 

[Katsuro]

Gotta' love Moore. Crazy conspiracy theories galore. His comment on the more money is in a movie the less imagination and risk there is, is very true.

However, his crack pot ideas about America (and lumping all of America's history foreign and domestic into W.'s ideology) and especially the SCARILY moronic **** about claiming the US supplied the Nazis with most of their ammunition...

well let's just say the guy is off his ****ing rocker.

What I wanna know is if what he said about Sean Connery's contract is true. Every subsequent movie he's in needs to have a larger explosion than the last one? That can't be true. If it is, he totally could've done Indy 4. He coulda hid in the fridge with Indy when the nuke went off.

 

[Mercurius]

Because it was out first?

You have not really seen the movie yet. But it is clear you will walk in with pre-determined ideas how it is less subtle because its a movie. I'm not going to get full bore into it with ya tonight I'm too tired to sword fight

But sometimes I think some get the psychological irking that "since it was out first....automatically its better deeper and more powerful"

Moore did wonders with Watchmen, my fav novel. But some one could easily improve some things.

But I will allow you back to the fight. I'm going to sleep lol.

Not fighting. The guard-cop around here is not Mercurius.

Anyway, if you are sure that I say what I say only cause the novel came first, you haven't read a single line of what I've been writing.

I've been comparing the two versions, with the info. we have so far. When there is some considerable difference, Moore's version have been better, more complex, more layered.

I'm not just coming and saying: "Moore is the one, the rest can go to hell".

But of course you aren't interested in this part. It's easier to dismiss a oneliner.

"Yes it is possible the book will be good, and the movie could exceed it."

No, it's not possible. Here you go beyond the obvious limits.

To exceed the book, the movie should be:

a) more complex in its structure;

b) more complex in detail and in subtlelty;

c) address all the genres and inside jokes;

d) be itself a revolution in filmmaking as the book was a revolution for graphic novels.

It's impossible, insane and purely delirious.

And Snyder should be Kubrick, or Welles, or Fellini, or even David Lynch.

If you think this movie with questionable ending, slo-mo techniques, and some minor flaws already detectable will be THE movie, we can bet.

I bet it will be a nice movie to see, but quite behind the book.

 

[I Am The Knight]

What I wanna know is if what he said about Sean Connery's contract is true. Every subsequent movie he's in needs to have a larger explosion than the last one? That can't be true. If it is, he totally could've done Indy 4. He coulda hid in the fridge with Indy when the nuke went off.

HAHA. Yeah. I'm not sure but his last film was LXG? I think he retired in shame...Probably thought Indy IV was not a good idea...

Anyway, Moore was entertaining as always. Spewing vitriol left and right.

 

[Mercurius]

While Zach Snyder is very careful about his comments on Alan Moore, Alan Moore is very open about his comments on Hollywood:

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/exclusive-why-alan-moore-hates-comic-book-movies#comments

I love Alan Moore, and strangely found myself agreeing with about 90% of what he said here.

Hehe, Moore. Living in this world and knowing what it is made of.

As a side note it's just such a fun when he mentions Cocteau's movies. Spot on example.

 

[Solidus]

The thing is, it is to me already showing that the movie has some different subtleties that the book does not. I mean even that little viral of "The Keene Act and You." It is touches like this that show the film medium, can add its own mix, and continue/make more subtleties. Now of course I see you say "all" the ones from the book need to be in there. I don't think so. Especially if some other ones are focused on more so or what have you.

Film can actually bring about many more subtleties. Even Phillip K Dick thought so with Blade Runner, he loved what Ridley did, and the ability that film can bring more subtlety sometimes then books can, because its all being seen/heard and there is much more to soak in with films if they keep to the story of what it may be adapted from.

But see I disagree on what it will need to be to exceed the book. Do I think the movie will exceed the book? Probably not. Will it match it? I very much think so. Especially the Directors Cut. Well to me only the directors cut will be able to match it.

But I guess it will always be opinion, and we will have to wait. Especially wait longer for the DC which kinda stinks.

 

[Mercurius]

The thing is, it is to me already showing that the movie has some different subtleties that the book does not. I mean even that little viral of "The Keene Act and You." It is touches like this that show the film medium, can add its own mix, and continue/make more subtleties. Now of course I see you say "all" the ones from the book need to be in there. I don't think so. Especially if some other ones are focused on more so or what have you.

Film can actually bring about many more subtleties. Even Phillip K Dick thought so with Blade Runner, he loved what Ridley did, and the ability that film can bring more subtlety sometimes then books can, because its all being seen/heard and there is much more to soak in with films if they keep to the story of what it may be adapted from.

But see I disagree on what it will need to be to exceed the book. Do I think the movie will exceed the book? Probably not. Will it match it? I very much think so. Especially the Directors Cut. Well to me only the directors cut will be able to match it.

But I guess it will always be opinion, and we will have to wait. Especially wait longer for the DC which kinda stinks.

Never said "all" needs to be there, and it really amazes me where would you find that in my posts.

In fact, I said quite the contrary a number of times.

Dick's book could of course be much improved on. It was no masterpiece at all. Good sci-fi, but no masterpiece.

Viral "Keene Act" is advertisement.

Until now, I have seen no subtlelty in the movie translation. I've seen a great care with the visuals, a great casting job.

But I have seen more than one example of a smart scene in the book that has become something obvious and rather blunt in the movie.

For the movie to be onpar with the book it must manage to become a revolucionary cinema experience.

Simply not gonna happen.

Will it be a nice ride for almost three hours? Yep, I think it will be.

 

[BestGirl]

Never said "all" needs to be there, and it really amazes me where would you find that in my posts.

In fact, I said quite the contrary a number of times.

Dick's book could of course be much improved on. It was no masterpiece at all. Good sci-fi, but no masterpiece.

Viral "Keene Act" is advertisement.

Until now, I have seen no subtlelty in the movie translation. I've seen a great care with the visuals, a great casting job.

But I have seen more than one example of a smart scene in the book that has become something obvious and rather blunt in the movie.

For the movie to be onpar with the book it must manage to become a revolucionary cinema experience.

Simply not gonna happen.

Will it be a nice ride for almost three hours? Yep, I think it will be.

I'll take it.

 

[Solidus]

Never said "all" needs to be there, and it really amazes me where would you find that in my posts.

In fact, I said quite the contrary a number of times.

Dick's book could of course be much improved on. It was no masterpiece at all. Good sci-fi, but no masterpiece.

Viral "Keene Act" is advertisement.

Until now, I have seen no subtlelty in the movie translation. I've seen a great care with the visuals, a great casting job.

But I have seen more than one example of a smart scene in the book that has become something obvious and rather blunt in the movie.

For the movie to be onpar with the book it must manage to become a revolucionary cinema experience.

Simply not gonna happen.

Will it be a nice ride for almost three hours? Yep, I think it will be.

Here's my problem.

I try and speak with an opinion. You have this problem of speaking "matter of fact" that is where I kinda draw the line. Yea dude, its your opinion that is cool. But it aint iron law. And your word is the final say. Because it is not. hehe

If you do that, we can't continue to duel.

And the subtle thing. To me I know you have made up your mind which dissapoints me. Regardless of anything I think you have made it up. Me, I have really not. I was so hyped for Spidey 3, and I fessed up that it was horrible.

Moore did not have ONLY ONE way he wanted people to take the book. Some people on here act as if that is so. You read the book, and YOUR imagination brought out what subtle things you liked and felt were important while others did differently. And that goes with movies and books alike, some will take things out of it. To me you found small instances of some subtle things taken out, or changed, and you feel that now the whole movie is just an action film hah. To me that is extreme but what ever. You take that out of the book I guess.

You do have to realize though that your imagination is not universal, nor better, nor worse.

And to add more. I think nothing less of your opinion. I truly do not. And I guess my hope is, that even though you may feel this way, you will go into the film try to measure it on its own grounds, not holding a book of Watchmen up while you watch the movie comparing everything.

And in the end, I hope that as I respect your opinions, you will not degrade to Elitism or so forth and try to kinda talk down to those who loved the movie and the book, and found both to be as intelligently invigorating. And hopefully just peacefully be fine with that. Because I will not talk down to those who did not care for it.

But sorry if I misinterpret anything you say my friend. Please do not take it that way. Cuz I likes ya lol.

 

[Mercurius]

Here's my problem.

I try and speak with an opinion. You have this problem of speaking "matter of fact" that is where I kinda draw the line. Yea dude, its your opinion that is cool. But it aint iron law. And your word is the final say. Because it is not. hehe

If you do that, we can't continue to duel.

And the subtle thing. To me I know you have made up your mind which dissapoints me. Regardless of anything I think you have made it up. Me, I have really not. I was so hyped for Spidey 3, and I fessed up that it was horrible.

Moore did not have ONLY ONE way he wanted people to take the book. Some people on here act as if that is so. You read the book, and YOUR imagination brought out what subtle things you liked and felt were important while others did differently. And that goes with movies and books alike, some will take things out of it. To me you found small instances of some subtle things taken out, or changed, and you feel that now the whole movie is just an action film hah. To me that is extreme but what ever. You take that out of the book I guess.

You do have to realize though that your imagination is not universal, nor better, nor worse.

And to add more. I think nothing less of your opinion. I truly do not. And I guess my hope is, that even though you may feel this way, you will go into the film try to measure it on its own grounds, not holding a book of Watchmen up while you watch the movie comparing everything.

And in the end, I hope that as I respect your opinions, you will not degrade to Elitism or so forth and try to kinda talk down to those who loved the movie and the book, and found both to be as intelligently invigorating. And hopefully just peacefully be fine with that. Because I will not talk down to those who did not care for it.

But sorry if I misinterpret anything you say my friend. Please do not take it that way. Cuz I likes ya lol.

You do misinterpret, and there is no need of it.

See: in the post you said I use the matter of fact style, I said "I think".

Part of what you say is "matter of fact" too. And it's ok for me.

When we have a fact, we must say so. My only fact is: this movie is not gonna be: a) better than the comicbook; b) the same level.

More misinterpretation: I haven't made my mind on anything beyond that. Like everybody else here, I judge what is already there to be seen. I compare.

And I anticipate fun. I'm even very curious to see glam Veidt. I said the Comedian and Silk II will rock. As Rorschach will.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves and say something absurd as supposing it can have the power the book has.

As I said, and it's indeed a fact (you can call me on that after the release): not-gonna-happen.

Not because I'm "elitist" or any other rubbish (who can be elitist talking about such a popular art?), but because it simply has no basis whatsoever.

I'd like the movie to be a full work of art like the book is, but I'm won't be displeased with near three hours with the characters around. t:

The shooting. It is very simple: one cannot change hearsay and jokes for a scene, in loco, rifle in hand, and expect it has the same quality. One goes for the obvious against the functional hearsay and evil jokes.

I haven't heard a good point in favour of it yet.

And do not worry, Solidus, I won't talk down to others. I like all of you, too. How can we not like people who still read in this world?

 

[Solidus]

You do misinterpret, and there is no need of it.

See: in the post you said I use the matter of fact style, I said "I think".

Part of what you say is "matter of fact" too. And it's ok for me.

When we have a fact, we must say so. My only fact is: this movie is not gonna be: a) better than the comicbook; b) the same level.

More misinterpretation: I haven't made my mind on anything beyond that. Like everybody else here, I judge what is already there to be seen. I compare.

And I anticipate fun. I'm even very curious to see glam Veidt. I said the Comedian and Silk II will rock. As Rorschach will.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves and say something absurd as supposing it can have the power the book has.

As I said, and it's indeed a fact (you can call me on that after the release): not-gonna-happen.

Not because I'm "elitist" or any other rubbish (who can be elitist talking about such a popular art?), but because it simply has no basis whatsoever.

I'd like the movie to be a full work of art like the book is, but I'm won't be displeased with near three hours with the characters around. t:

The shooting. It is very simple: one cannot change hearsay and jokes for a scene, in loco, rifle in hand, and expect it has the same quality. One goes for the obvious against the functional hearsay and evil jokes.

I haven't heard a good point in favour of it yet.

And do not worry, Solidus, I won't talk down to others. I like all of you, too. How can we not like people who still read in this world?

Hehe we can always agree to disagree About Watchmen I mean hehe. I agree with the other stuff though

 

[Relampagonegro]

 

[CelticPredator]

Fail.