The Official Zack Snyder Thread

[MAN O STEEL]

Depends on how you look at 'handle'. The choice of doing such a literal translation...without reshaping it more as a screen story...is what I didn't quite like. I felt it either needed to be reinterpreted for a feature film, or spread out over a miniseries to sink in better. In being so close to the comic in one film, it kind of emphasized why it, in particular, works better as a comic. So even though those 'serious themes' were there, they weren't quite as accessible in that format as they could have been....especially for those who didn't read/know the original comic.

If it was reinterpreted for film, you & many others would have complained it wasn't faithful to the comic & is typical Hollywood trash. There is no win win situation here. Snyder did the right thing, he respected the fact that the comic did a great job & thought, ya know what?, why would I change what ppl have clearly taken to & disrespect someone else's work by butchering it?. & proceeded to just make a Kick ass cinematic representation for those that don't read & have no interest in reading comics. Look whats happened to Michael bay. he changed stuff for transformers & has got nothing but crap for it. Changing thing's isn't always for the best, Snyder understands that & respects it. I don't see the problem.



Steve

 

[The Guard]

I don't get the complaints about WATCHMEN not being reshaped. Snyder altered huge portions of the book to make it more film accessible. He trimmed and restructured many elements, and added and cut all kinds of things. It wasn't just the book onscreen. It was relatively faithful to the book, but there were a ton of changes for the story to be translated to film.

 

[KalMart]

If it was reinterpreted for film, you & many others would have complained it wasn't faithful to the comic & is typical Hollywood trash. There is no win win situation here. Snyder did the right thing, he respected the fact that the comic did a great job & thought, ya know what?, why would I change what ppl have clearly taken to & disrespect someone else's work by butchering it?. & proceeded to just make a Kick ass cinematic representation for those that don't read & have no interest in reading comics. Look whats happened to Michael bay. he changed stuff for transformers & has got nothing but crap for it. Changing thing's isn't always for the best, Snyder understands that & respects it. I don't see the problem.



Steve

I've never complained about a film 'not being like the comic' if it results in a good film. It's one of the things I liked about XMen and Nolan's Batman. Reshaping isn't automatically a sign of disrespect, either.

I don't get the complaints about WATCHMEN not being reshaped. Snyder altered huge portions of the book to make it more film accessible. He trimmed and restructured many elements, and added and cut all kinds of things. It wasn't just the book onscreen. It was relatively faithful to the book, but there were a ton of changes for the story to be translated to film.

Still wasn't enough...and also, there's the possibility that it just wasn't something that should be translated to film. Doesn't make it any less of a comic in its own right. I'm not trying to dismiss everything he did with it, but overall, it just wasn't a good movie viewing experience. he basically took a similar approach with 300, and that came out better.

 

[Project862006]

^watchmen is different it is like a domino effect you change 1 thing it affects another thing and so on and so on

so many things are connected with each other and if you tried to reinterpret it you would just ruin the themes and message

thus crapping on the material

 

[Octoberist]

I don't know if it's crapping really. No matter what you would have to change things in the novel to make it filmable. The problem with Watchmen (as a comic) is the structure: You obviously shouldn't change it but the first half of the book is mostly flashbacks. And in the film, that's where you get the most character development. But it also slows the momentum of the plot and pacing too. It's almost like a paradox, really.

 

[JAK®]

It's completely irrelevant what he did or didn't change, the point is he tackled some pretty heavy themes in the film which required serious directing, and he pulled it off. He got fantastic work from the actors, if he was really such a visual director with no substance the film would have been a disaster.

The biggest problem with the film is that it was a comic written to be a comic and nothing else, other than perhaps a live-action miniseries.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I think it works absolutely fine in it's own right. All the basic themes are there. Some layers may have been lost in the adaptation process but If I hadn't read the GN I would have been able to follow it just fine and appreaciated what was in front of me. The pace and the material is not for everyone though.

 

[Kurosawa]

I just can't see complaining about Watchmen not being close enough to the comic. It was extremely close and treated the source material with complete respect. This is why I have hope for Snyder's Superman, that is if his taste is Superman comics themselves is any good, and not steeped in the last 25 years of decline, but in the first 50 years of triumph. But I strongly suspect he will go with the current approach, which is a hodgepodge of classic, successful ideas and later, failed ones. That will not do. The script needs as much Maggin and Waid influence as it can get.

The three things that I most want to feel coming out of the theater after seeing a Superman movie are optimism, wonder, and a feeling of altruism.

 

[Dark Knight]

I just can't see complaining about Watchmen not being close enough to the comic. It was extremely close and treated the source material with complete respect. This is why I have hope for Snyder's Superman, that is if his taste is Superman comics themselves is any good, and not steeped in the last 25 years of decline, but in the first 50 years of triumph. But I strongly suspect he will go with the current approach, which is a hodgepodge of classic, successful ideas and later, failed ones. That will not do. The script needs as much Maggin and Waid influence as it can get.

The three things that I most want to feel coming out of the theater after seeing a Superman movie are optimism, wonder, and a feeling of altruism.

Watchmen received overall solid reviews when released.

I remember it receiving many 3 star ratings.

I think the fanboys who didn't like it were just looney Alan Moore disciples!

 

[Kurosawa]

Yep. It was every bit as faithful and respectful as Peter Jackson's LOTR films were to Tolkien. Not that I personally put Snyder in Jackson's league (or Moore in Tolkien's either).

If Snyder gives Jerry Siegel the respect he gave Alan Moore, then I will be ecstatic.

 

[RustyCage]

The only thing wrong with the Watchmen film was that there simply wasn't enough runtime to fully portray everything that I personally thought should be in it. That character density the book is so renowned for.

As was said before, it'd likely have been better suited to a mini-series for that reason. Though it wouldn't garner the audience it deserved, I don't imagine. It probably would have also seemed shorter in scale.

What Zack did manage to squeeze in, though, I thoroughly loved. He did the best anyone could have done really, and it's awesome (if a bit skimpy in places). I'd like to see him do something more like Wolverine than Superman, but I guess I can't see Supes going poorly either.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I see the film as more of a tribute to the comic.

 

[Sawyer]

The only think I didn't like about Watchmen was the idiotic audience I saw it with. Some dumb broad sitting behind me actually laughed when Rorschach died. I was, honest to God, yearning to tell her to shut the **** up.

The movie itself was great.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I don't get the complaints about WATCHMEN not being reshaped. Snyder altered huge portions of the book to make it more film accessible. He trimmed and restructured many elements, and added and cut all kinds of things. It wasn't just the book onscreen. It was relatively faithful to the book, but there were a ton of changes for the story to be translated to film.

Exactly, while some scene's were word-for-word, plenty were not, they were similar to the book, but not exactly the same, personally I dont see how anyone else could have given us a better on screen interpretation of Watchmen.

 

[terry78]

He had to do to Watchmen what directors had to do with Harry Potter. Trim that fat while still maintaining the substance.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

He had to do to Watchmen what directors had to do with Harry Potter. Trim that fat while still maintaining the substance.

And he did it as well as anyone could have with Watchmen IMO.

 

[Micah12345]

Just saw owls of gahool. Wasn't so great, though I'm thinking that probly had more to do with the source material than the direction. I mean it's a serious movie about talking owls. I wonder if it's something he sought out to do or if it was done as a favor to the studio.

 

[elgaz]

I loved 300, loved Watchmen, loved Dawn of the Dead. They're all very watchable and anytime they're on TV, I'll watch them.

Contrast that with Superman Returns, where I tend to skip the emo bits and watch him catching the plane/lifting New Krypton/etc.

Say what you like about Snyder, but his moves are vibrant, colourful, fun and engaging - a lot of things which people complained were lacking from Superman Returns.

And as far as Watchmen goes, most of the complaints about that film still stem from the fact that it mirrored the comic so closely (too closely for some). Whilst the Superman movie may be inspired by some classic Superman novels, it doesn't appear that the film is going to be a movie version of any particular Superman story, so I can't wait to see what he does with this blank slate.

 

[KyleDW2]

and not steeped in the last 25 years of decline, but in the first 50 years of triumph. But I strongly suspect he will go with the current approach, which is a hodgepodge of classic, successful ideas and later, failed ones. That will not do. The script needs as much Maggin and Waid influence as it can get.

Picture says it all. I have no idea what comics you read, but the ones from the 50's and 60's (all the Showcase so far, plus Jimmy Olsen) I've read are just...no. Those should not be the movie. At all. Keep that era of Superman far, far away from the new movie.

Besides, isn't that basically what we got with Donner's movie? I want the new Superman, the post-Crisis Superman, the Superman I grew up with. I don't know how anyone could possibly see adding actual character to Clark Kent as "decline," but whatever.

 

[JAK®]

Picture says it all. I have no idea what comics you read, but the ones from the 50's and 60's (all the Showcase so far, plus Jimmy Olsen) I've read are just...no. Those should not be the movie. At all. Keep that era of Superman far, far away from the new movie.

Jimmy Olsen was a humour book. You should read some Bronze Age Superman stories instead of browsing Superdickery.

Besides, isn't that basically what we got with Donner's movie?

No. The Donner Movie is actually closer to the Byrne era, as it was one of his influences. The bumbling Clark Kent was also an invention of the Donner movies, and not present in Pre-Crisis comics.

I want the new Superman, the post-Crisis Superman, the Superman I grew up with. I don't know how anyone could possibly see adding actual character to Clark Kent as "decline," but whatever.

Clark Kent is Peter Parker now. It's a shame the original superhero has resorted to copying other characters.

 

[KyleDW2]

Clark Kent is Peter Parker now. It's a shame the original superhero has resorted to copying other characters.

You mean a character with a personality? Yes, I do much rather prefer a character with a personality than the bland disguise the Silver Age Clark (and Superman really) was.

 

[JAK®]

You mean a character with a personality? Yes, I do much rather prefer a character with a personality than the bland disguise the Silver Age Clark (and Superman really) was.

And yet, Superman is more boring than ever. In the Silver Age, he was a bestseller. Not anymore.

 

[KyleDW2]

And yet, Superman is more boring than ever. In the Silver Age, he was a bestseller. Not anymore.

And yet you seem to ignore the fact that comic sales since then have fallen across the board.

 

[craigdbfan]

That's true comics don't really sell like they used to in general.

I'd say that the merchandising and various medias attatched to these superheroes is what keeps them alive at this point.

 

[JAK®]

And yet you seem to ignore the fact that comic sales since then have fallen across the board.

But he should still be a bestseller in comparison to current sales trends.