What Director would you have wanted?

[Noir]

no i get it, i understand that he was just trying to make money off of a cult classic movie by stealing it's title and general concept and making a piece of trash. i get it. but you didn't address his goat headed guy or mongoloid immortal from 300. that still is a show of his inane sense of creation. if he just adapts watchmen he could probably handle it. but if he adds anything from his own mind, it will be something awful.

Dawn of the Dead was not a piece of ****, it was a very entertaining awesome movie.

And I also found the Goat-heads and Mongoloids to be a nice addition to 300 they're very Frank Miller.

I think you just hate Zack Snyder.

 

[Johnichi Chiba]

no i get it, i understand that he was just trying to make money off of a cult classic movie by stealing it's title and general concept and making a piece of trash. i get it. but you didn't address his goat headed guy or mongoloid immortal from 300. that still is a show of his inane sense of creation. if he just adapts watchmen he could probably handle it. but if he adds anything from his own mind, it will be something awful.

I understand what you're trying say. I don't think Zack Snyder's current body of work has much to offer in terms of the same level of depth and complexity that Watchmen has, but they were never intended to. Just because he made some fun and somewhat shallow movies doesn't necessarily mean he's incapable of adding anything to a film adaptation of Watchmen. I think he's instilled confidence in a lot of fans primarily because of the things he's had to say about his plans for the film and what he's shown so far. Everything he's said to date implies that he "gets" Watchmen. Ultimately though, we'll just have to wait and see if that translates into the film.

 

[Luchastyle]

Dawn of the Dead was not a piece of ****, it was a very entertaining awesome movie.

And I also found the Goat-heads and Mongoloids to be a nice addition to 300 they're very Frank Miller.

I think you just hate Zack Snyder.

i think if you read my other posts you'll find i don't hate zack snyder. i liked 300 a lot. and dawn was a good action movie. and i was very entertained by it. i just call it sh-tty when i compare it to the original. but 300, despite the couple things i don't like about it, i loved. so i don't hate zack snyder. i think he is very capable as far as directing goes. he makes good looking movies.

I understand what you're trying say. I don't think Zack Snyder's current body of work has much to offer in terms of the same level of depth and complexity that Watchmen has, but they were never intended to. Just because he made some fun and somewhat shallow movies doesn't necessarily mean he's incapable of adding anything to a film adaptation of Watchmen. I think he's instilled confidence in a lot of fans primarily because of the things he's had to say about his plans for the film and what he's shown so far. Everything he's said to date implies that he "gets" Watchmen. Ultimately though, we'll just have to wait and see if that translates into the film.

yeah, i agree. thus far, he appears to understand watchmen. and he seems to understand what needs to be in the movie to please the fans and to keep it what it is. i have a fair amount of confidence in him. and i'm not of the belief that watchmen can't be made into a film. i think it can. i find it to be very cinematic, despite what alan moore says. and yes, i'll reserve full judgment until i see footage and learn if more integral plot points have been kept intact.

 

[cookiva]

I have a question for everyone. What would you prefer, a director who is honestly giddy with joy over the project, but is lacking in experience in films with depth, or an experienced director who has no idea what the product should be. Granted, we have had both before. For every Chris Nolan, we have a Mark Stephen Johnson.

 

[Noir]

I'd rather have experience, hiring a kid who loves the book but doesn't have the chops would be like letting MSJ direct it.

 

[cookiva]

I agree, but there are also perks to having the other type. More easter eggs for the fans, and having that type of director doesnt put the nails into the potential good film coffin.

 

[Noir]

Again, its not really completely up to the directors, The background of the scenes are more in the department of Set-Dressers.

The thing that will make a good Watchmen film:
A Good Script (The complexity of the story comes from this part)
A Good Set-dresser (The hidden easter-eggs come from this)
A Good Costume Designer (The comic feel comes from this)
A Good Cinematographer (This is were most of the work is, deciding which Camera and which film stock to use can make or break the film)
A Good Cast (They have be able to pull of the attitudes and emotions of the characters)
A Good Director (The Director must decide which angles to use, how the actors should present dialouge and such)
A Good Editor (This is the most important, this will make or break a film, this man is responsible for the entire film and how it will play out)

If the director is bad, or doesn't know how to direct a subtle movie it doesn't really matter, the complexities come from the script, and there are more things that play into how this movie will turn out than just the Director.

 

[cookiva]

Like i said earlier, i agree 100% with you on this one, and your post just now confirms that position....

 

[StorminNorman]

I'd rather have experience, hiring a kid who loves the book but doesn't have the chops would be like letting MSJ direct it.

MSJ did a great job with his vision of Daredevil. Great job.

I have no defense for Ghost Rider.

 

[Luchastyle]

MSJ did a great job with his vision of Daredevil. Great job.

I have no defense for Ghost Rider.

i always thought DD was a lot more decent than people give it credit for. it wasn't great or anything, but it wasn't so bad. ghost rider was kind of a hunk of garbage. but that could probably be because of the script and nicolas cage's acting. i always find with nic cage, if there's a good director, they will focus his energy and he'll give a great performance, but a bad director will let him do his thing, and he'll be pretty bad.

 

[david icke]

no i get it, i understand that he was just trying to make money off of a cult classic movie by stealing it's title and general concept and making a piece of trash. i get it.

Considering that there had been no major studio zombie movie released into the market in almost 20yrs, (not counting 28days later which in fact was embarrassed to call itself as a 'zombie' movie in case folk were turned off by the concept nowadays imo), there's no way he couldve known it was gonna be a surefire hit, not to mention zombie/Romero fans couldve boycotted the thing if they had the same attitude as you. Snyder ,imo, just saw the chance to make a good movie, someone else wouldve done it anyway, probably a hell of a lot worse, it was offered to him, he didnt seek out a 're-make'.

 

[StorminNorman]

i always thought DD was a lot more decent than people give it credit for. it wasn't great or anything, but it wasn't so bad. ghost rider was kind of a hunk of garbage. but that could probably be because of the script and nicolas cage's acting. i always find with nic cage, if there's a good director, they will focus his energy and he'll give a great performance, but a bad director will let him do his thing, and he'll be pretty bad.

Honestly I consider MSJ's Daredevil to be the best Marvel movie out there.

Avi Arad's Daredevil that most saw isn't horrible, but it lacks much of the greatness of Johnson's vision.

 

[Penismightier]

...which pretty much sums up the argument over Znyder's credentials to film WATCHMEN. He was, by and large ('cept for the cliched dreck he added himself to pad it out to feature length) faithful to Miller's braindead subtle-as-a-kick-in-the-balls one trick pony of a story 300, which in no way grants him the unquestionable capability to tackle WATCHMEN in my book. Unfashionable, I know, and not what most would seem to subscribe to; you know the kinda thing - Look how faithful His Geek Worshipfulness Zack was to 300 so of course WATCHMEN will be EXACTLY like the book he's using it for the storyboards and everything so why don't you just f uck off and die you hater.

Usual stuff.



The Frank Miller thing was a joke incidentally, hence the little winky smiley face.

I'm not a particular fan of Miller either. I loved when Alan Moore told him to read an actual book after Moore read 300. I'll give Snyder a chance since he seems to love the comic and wants to be faithful, but yes, the director of 300 should cast doubt on whether or not he can handle a subtle story like Watchmen.

 

[Luchastyle]

Considering that there had been no major studio zombie movie released into the market in almost 20yrs, (not counting 28days later which in fact was embarrassed to call itself as a 'zombie' movie in case folk were turned off by the concept nowadays imo), there's no way he couldve known it was gonna be a surefire hit, not to mention zombie/Romero fans couldve boycotted the thing if they had the same attitude as you. Snyder ,imo, just saw the chance to make a good movie, someone else wouldve done it anyway, probably a hell of a lot worse, it was offered to him, he didnt seek out a 're-make'.

actually, the reason they say it's not a zombie movie is because it is not. there are very key differences. i used to think the same thing, but the differences are that the infected change almost immediately, they are completely ravenous and aggressive, and they are fast (although, like snyder's dawn some modern zombie movies have running zombies, but the other differences are vital in making the 28 days later "infected" not zombies.) but romero fans boycotting dawn (which some have since disowned it) wouldn't have made a difference. that's like batman fans boycotting TDK because they don't like the make-up on joker. it would barely make a dent in the box office.

 

[Noir]

actually, the reason they say it's not a zombie movie is because it is not. there are very key differences. i used to think the same thing, but the differences are that the infected change almost immediately, they are completely ravenous and aggressive, and they are fast (although, like snyder's dawn some modern zombie movies have running zombies, but the other differences are vital in making the 28 days later "infected" not zombies.) but romero fans boycotting dawn (which some have since disowned it) wouldn't have made a difference. that's like batman fans boycotting TDK because they don't like the make-up on joker. it would barely make a dent in the box office.

You act as if there is a set rule for Zombies.

Zombies like Vampires change over there years, there is nothing set in stone except for 2 things: Brainless and They Crave human flesh.

 

[Luchastyle]

You act as if there is a set rule for Zombies.

Zombies like Vampires change over there years, there is nothing set in stone except for 2 things: Brainless and They Crave human flesh.

well to me, romero's zombies are the real zombies. i don't like the "return" zombies that crave "brains" and in fact say "brains! brains!" i think it's no good. i go with the romero rules. and i'm just stating what the 28 days later filmmakers say to add to their claim that it is not a zombie film. and if you go by romero rules, which make sense, they aren't brainless per se, but rather they have very primitive brains. basic motor functions and some vague memories exist. it is all explained in day of the dead. and besides noir, it's not like you have to pick apart every post i make. =D

 

[david icke]

actually, the reason they say it's not a zombie movie is because it is not. there are very key differences. i used to think the same thing, but the differences are that the infected change almost immediately, they are completely ravenous and aggressive, and they are fast (although, like snyder's dawn some modern zombie movies have running zombies, but the other differences are vital in making the 28 days later "infected" not zombies.) but romero fans boycotting dawn (which some have since disowned it) wouldn't have made a difference. that's like batman fans boycotting TDK because they don't like the make-up on joker. it would barely make a dent in the box office.

Yeah, I meant to say this(bold highlight) in my other post, I wouldnt have brought up Romero/zombie fans at all if you hadn't said he was 'trying to make money off a cult classic', which implied to me that you thought there was a group of people out there who would automatically be attracted to the title 'DoftD' when in the general public's minds there's probably no diff between the titles 'Night of..' , 'Day of..' 'Dawn of' or any of the lesser derivatives(non Romero) never mind that for all Snyder knew folk thought zombie movies were a joke these days and his movie wouldn't do very good B.O. wise. There have been plenty of jokes about how easy it is to get away from them in the past 20 or so yrs since Romero's classics were released, remember 'Sean of the Dead' came out coincidentally at the same time. For example, Comic book writer Mark Miller said in an interview that he went to see 'Sean of..' but it was sold out so he begrudgingly went to see Snyder's 'Dawn of..' at the same theatre and was totally shocked at how good he thought it was, there were probably a few folk who didn't expect a decent 'serious' zombie flick.
As for 28days later...yeah they can say whatever they want after the fact but imo that movie wouldn't exist or would be a very different beast indeed if the zombie genre didnt exist, it was very heavily influenced to say the least I'd say. Even so, it wasnt the biggest hit in the world, did ok, still wouldn't gurantee Snyder a big turnover at the B.O. when doing a zombie movie if he was looking around at how similar movies were doing(of which this is the only one i can think of coming b4 DoftD in the 00's or 90's).
I get your point of view now, if you're going by Romero's rules you must be a bit of a purist, and that's fine, but similar to what NOIR said, sometimes these things have got to evolve a bit beyond the original template or the flicks arent going to offer anything new to audiences, as I said , the whole 'slow zombies being terrifying' thing had become a bit of a joke in the public mind leading to a flick like 'Sean of..', I think the concept needed a bit of a shake up. I know a lot of folk had problems with running zombies but that doesnt stop someone else making a good 'slow' zombies flick at some point after.

 

[StorminNorman]

I can't believe the thread has become this...

Not that I am complaining - I mean sometimes threads go through periods of interesting and mentally invigorating off-topicness, I am simply bewildered there are people debating, quite seriously, the various rules of zombies.

 

[Noir]

Actually if you people want to talk Zombies I've got a Zombie thread around here were me and Kritish discuss our views and insights as the foremost Zombie experts.

 

[Noir]

Here is the Link:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=279574

 

[Luchastyle]

Yeah, I meant to say this(bold highlight) in my other post, I wouldnt have brought up Romero/zombie fans at all if you hadn't said he was 'trying to make money off a cult classic', which implied to me that you thought there was a group of people out there who would automatically be attracted to the title 'DoftD' when in the general public's minds there's probably no diff between the titles 'Night of..' , 'Day of..' 'Dawn of' or any of the lesser derivatives(non Romero) never mind that for all Snyder knew folk thought zombie movies were a joke these days and his movie wouldn't do very good B.O. wise. There have been plenty of jokes about how easy it is to get away from them in the past 20 or so yrs since Romero's classics were released, remember 'Sean of the Dead' came out coincidentally at the same time. For example, Comic book writer Mark Miller said in an interview that he went to see 'Sean of..' but it was sold out so he begrudgingly went to see Snyder's 'Dawn of..' at the same theatre and was totally shocked at how good he thought it was, there were probably a few folk who didn't expect a decent 'serious' zombie flick.
As for 28days later...yeah they can say whatever they want after the fact but imo that movie wouldn't exist or would be a very different beast indeed if the zombie genre didnt exist, it was very heavily influenced to say the least I'd say. Even so, it wasnt the biggest hit in the world, did ok, still wouldn't gurantee Snyder a big turnover at the B.O. when doing a zombie movie if he was looking around at how similar movies were doing(of which this is the only one i can think of coming b4 DoftD in the 00's or 90's).
I get your point of view now, if you're going by Romero's rules you must be a bit of a purist, and that's fine, but similar to what NOIR said, sometimes these things have got to evolve a bit beyond the original template or the flicks arent going to offer anything new to audiences, as I said , the whole 'slow zombies being terrifying' thing had become a bit of a joke in the public mind leading to a flick like 'Sean of..', I think the concept needed a bit of a shake up. I know a lot of folk had problems with running zombies but that doesnt stop someone else making a good 'slow' zombies flick at some point after.

i agree with you completely. i'll just always have a preference. i always felt that slow zombies weren't necessarily terrifying but could be used to prove a social point in many different ways. the zombies themselves could represent something or the people's reaction to the zombies. i don't think i need to explain that. the social commentaries dealt with in zombie movies over the past 4 decades has been analyzed to death (no pun intended) but i think that there is still room for it's use, especially in today's society. and everyone knows, one slow zombie isn't scary at all..but there is never a shortage of the dead, and that's where the terror comes in.

and i'm sorry this thread got off topic. but to be fair, which director we would have chosen for this movie is a kind of difficult subject to discuss. and much like your favorite zombie or vampire style, it is solely a matter of opinion. but...stanley kubrick, before he was dead obviously. he would have made a great watchmen movie that was renowned the world over, however he would have strayed greatly from the source material. but i still can't help but think he would have made a powerful, and oscar worthy watchmen.

 

[david icke]

I can't believe the thread has become this...

Not that I am complaining - I mean sometimes threads go through periods of interesting and mentally invigorating off-topicness, I am simply bewildered there are people debating, quite seriously, the various rules of zombies.

Yeah man, sorry , just had to say though, that last sentence you typed up had me laughing good. BTW right there with you on Daredevil, great adaption, Ghost rider, not so much..back to Watchmen!
Thanks for the reply Luchastyle and the thread link NOIR!

 

[TheDarkLight]

It would have been interesting to see what Gilliam did, although it might have been a very weird film.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

After seeing "I'm not there" I'm convinced that Todd Haynes would have been a great director for the Watchmen movie. There's the same complexity, richness and care in this movie that Moore and Gibbons put in their book. Go see it, it's really great.

 

[The Chris]

What about David Fincher?