What Director would you have wanted?

[Chains]

If it couldn't be Snyder (I haven't lost hope in him yet) I would prefer to see Fincher do it. Though I also think Tarantino would do the best at making the film look right. I doubt Tarantino could handle the content, but I would bet he could do a great job at handling all things visual.

 

[bdsproductions]

Tim Burton done Watchmen would be horrible as Tim Burton is one of the worst directors of his generation.

From that list, hmm, probably Arfonsky.

I really like Snyder, my only real beef with how he's doing it is the absloute best scene is cut and Rorschach is a less...loathsome/pitiful.

 

[Gilpesh]

Tim Burton done Watchmen would be horrible as Tim Burton is one of the worst directors of his generation.

That's too far. Burton is one of the worst directors of a property. As in if you gave him something that was already written out (Watchmen, Batman, etc...) he would just make it into the Nightmare Before Scissor-hands...

He does good movies, just not good movies that were based on a property. (Yea, I know Big Fish and Chocolate Factory were books... but I can't judge the quality of them compared to the books, so I won't.)

 

[Compi716]

Tim Burton done Watchmen would be horrible as Tim Burton is one of the worst directors of his generation.

From that list, hmm, probably Arfonsky.

I really like Snyder, my only real beef with how he's doing it is the absloute best scene is cut and Rorschach is a less...loathsome/pitiful.

Which scene are you talking about? For me, the scene that I'm missing (according to the Hayter/Tse drafts) is the COMPLETE Rorschach origin sequence. And, of course,

Spoiler

Dreiberg killing Veidt. Uch.

 

[Iglius]

...

















Scorsese.

 

[Acid Snowman]

Kubrick would've been interesting were he alive, because where Dave an Alan were great with the use of still image for storytelling, Kubrick was amazing with light, sound camerawork. It would take an equally amazing filmaker to translate Moore and Gibbons book to cinema. Chances are we'd get a six hour scene with Doctor Manhattan on Mars to classical music, though.

 

[Sandman138]

You know who I would really want? David Cronenberg. I have no doubt that he and his team could totally nail Watchmen.

 

[sad lieutenant]

Did you see Greengrass's designs for Doc Manhattan?

Yup. And they were poo-tastic.

 

[sad lieutenant]

Mark-Paul Gosselaar! He's got the chair!

Sure, according to IMDB, he hasn't "directed" "anything" (and that his nickname is "M-P"!). All I'm sayin' is give the kid his shot.

 

[sad lieutenant]

Kubrick would've been interesting were he alive, ...

And yet one could make the argument that a dead Kubrick directing would've been even more interesting.

 

[BubbaGump]

I'm content Zack Snyder's doing this. He has a good visual sense and sticks pretty close to the material.

 

[WalterKovacs]

well, all the directors being mentioned are very artsy and whatnot, and therefore would take a LOT of liberties with the materiel. the one reason i have faith in snyder is because he seems to really want to stick to the materiel. I mean he might be killing veidt and using a death ray instead of an alien, but if kubrick or tarantino or scorsese or burton were at the helm, they would make those changes and so much more.

 

[WalterKovacs]

although judging from how feverishly gilliam tried to adapt it correctly, i think he would have done a fine job. 12 monkeys was very layered and complex and detailed and showed me what he is capable of. he also sticks to his guns about what it takes for a movie to stay true to what it should be, like descisions in 12 monkeys or his battle with universal over Brazil show that he would totally keep veidt living or the alien.

 

[hippy fascist]

Okay well I'm glad Zack Snyder is doing this film, and I know he is very capable of doing so, but what Director would you have wanted if Snyder wasn't chosen?

as much as I hate Tim Burton, I think he could have done a wonder job.

What the **** is wrong with you?

Zack Snyder is a ****ing awful director

Tim Burton would make no sense whatsoever

Paul Greengrass would have nailed the film

[/thread]

 

[logansoldcigar]

What the **** is wrong with you?

Zack Snyder is a ****ing awful director

Tim Burton would make no sense whatsoever

Paul Greengrass would have nailed the film

[/thread]

The same Paul Greengrass that wanted (apparently) to relocate the setting to the modern day, change the cold war to the war on terror, and still planned the same ending we currently have...(concerning the dreiberg/veidt incident)

He might have made a better film than Snyder, but he wouldn't have nailed it.

BTW...Nice Picture of Mr Dick in the kennel

 

[hippy fascist]

Mr Dick?

It's armando ianucci

 

[hippy fascist]

The same Paul Greengrass that wanted (apparently) to relocate the setting to the modern day, change the cold war to the war on terror, and still planned the same ending we currently have...(concerning the dreiberg/veidt incident)

He might have made a better film than Snyder, but he wouldn't have nailed it.

BTW...Nice Picture of Mr Dick in the kennel

I son't care whether the film is a carbon copy of the book. The book is unfilmable in it's current form so certain changes do need to be made

Yes he would have made changes but he's also a fantastic director who could have given the film a bit of heart. Zack snyder is all flash and no substance. The themes of watchmen can be told in any time period and are extrememely applicable to the war on terror.

Watchmen lives and dies by the complexity of the narrative, the characterisation, essentially it's great story-telling

Zack snyder is not capable of any of these things based on what I've seen of his work.

You don't have to set it in the cold war for that to work. It's filled with fantastic reflections of the world around us that go beyond a simple timeframe. That's what made it so good in the first place. Ultimately it's a story about human nature.

If you've seen United 93 you'll know that no-one is better suited to telling that kind of story, or has as much passion for the source material, as paul greengrass

I expect a lot of fanboy rage when this film comes out

 

[StorminNorman]

I son't care whether the film is a carbon copy of the book. The book is unfilmable in it's current form so certain changes do need to be made

Yes he would have made changes but he's also a fantastic director who could have given the film a bit of heart. Zack snyder is all flash and no substance. The themes of watchmen can be told in any time period and are extrememely applicable to the war on terror.

Watchmen lives and dies by the complexity of the narrative, the characterisation, essentially it's great story-telling

Zack snyder is not capable of any of these things based on what I've seen of his work.

You don't have to set it in the cold war for that to work. It's filled with fantastic reflections of the world around us that go beyond a simple timeframe. That's what made it so good in the first place. Ultimately it's a story about human nature.

If you've seen United 93 you'll know that no-one is better suited to telling that kind of story, or has as much passion for the source material, as paul greengrass

I expect a lot of fanboy rage when this film comes out

I don't know how you can base anything on Snyder based on his line of work. He didn't serve as writer on Dawn of the Dead, and it was his first film, so using that film against Snyder isn't fair.

Now 300 is. Snyder had much more control over this project, it was essentially his baby. And I don't see how any fan of graphic novels could at all find one thing to complain about. It was what every fan hopes to see in a movie about their beloved novels - a scene by scene recreation.

Was it the deepest movie in the world? No. However was 300 the deepest graphic novel? No. What do you want Synder to do, pump it full of propaganda? Impose his will on Frank Miller's work? No. 300 proved that Snyder is a director that can take his ego out of the equation, and provide a fantastic, high quality, faithful product.

Isn't that EXACTLY what you want with a Watchmen director?

 

[Sandman138]

Now 300 is. Snyder had much more control over this project, it was essentially his baby. And I don't see how any fan of graphic novels could at all find one thing to complain about. It was what every fan hopes to see in a movie about their beloved novels - a scene by scene recreation.

There were no monsters in the graphic novel, there was no Leper tongue rape in the graphic novel, there was no Queen propaganda in the graphic novel. There were penises in the graphic novel.

 

[silentflute]

And yet one could make the argument that a dead Kubrick directing would've been even more interesting.

t:

 

[Caliber]

Christopher Nolan, he sticks to the material. Plus his style suits it.

 

[Sandman138]

Christopher Nolan, he sticks to the material. Plus his style suits it.

Please don't make me laugh, I have a cold.

 

[silentflute]

but if kubrick or tarantino or scorsese or burton were at the helm, they would make those changes and so much more.

I disagree, I don't think Kubrick would have needed to make changes- at least major ones.In many ways,Watchmen is very Kubrickesque in both tone and visuals.

 

[StorminNorman]

Christopher Nolan, he sticks to the material. Plus his style suits it.

The Joker.

 

[silentflute]

Isn't that EXACTLY what you want with a Watchmen director?

Yes, but it's not going to happen.The movie would need to be at least 4hrs if you are using 300 as a template.

I'm of the opinion that Watchmen should never be filmed.Even if it was 4-6hrs long.My point, is why would I want to see a shot by shot recreation of the book?The book is cinematic and perfect the way it is.Furthermore, there are those specific details in the panels that can only be appreciated in the medium it was created for -that would all get lost in the film , even if it was done shot for shot.