What Director would you have wanted?

[StorminNorman]

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 thos especific things in the panels that can only be appreciated in the nmedium it was created for-that would get lost in the film , even if it was done shot for shot.

Thats a fine view point, however if thats where you are coming from - than no director would suit you.

 

[silentflute]

Thats a fine view point, however if thats where you are coming from - than no director would suit you.

Yeah pretty much.

But like I said, I think a Kubrick Watchmen film would have been interesting.

 

[StorminNorman]

The way I view it, the only type of a director that can nail Watchmen is a true Watchmen fanboy.

I think Snyder fits that bill, the fact he is a kickass director with proven success is just icing.

 

[silentflute]

The way I view it, the only type of a director that can nail Watchmen is a true Watchmen fanboy.

I think Snyder fits that bill, the fact he is a kickass director with proven success is just icing.

What can i say? I hope you're right.I won't judge it until I actually see it, but...I don't think it's possible to do well.

On another note, I'm hoping he uses some good 80's music.Just off the top of my head:

Russians-Sting
Invisible Sun-The Police
We Do What We're Told- Peter Gabriel


Also would like to hear All Along the Watchtower(Hendrix) and Somewhere over the rainbow(Ray Charles), but I digress.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

What can i say? I hope you're right.I won't judge it until I actually see it, but...I don't think it's possible to do well.

On another note, I'm hoping he uses some good 80's music.Just off the top of my head:

Russians-Sting
Invisible Sun-The Police
We Do What We're Told- Peter Gabriel


Also would like to hear All Along the Watchtower(Hendrix) and Somewhere over the rainbow(Ray Charles), but I digress.

Just because Snyder is setting this in the 80's, that doesn't mean he has to hit us over the head with it by using all those songs. Talk about overkill.

 

[logansoldcigar]

Mr Dick?

It's armando ianucci

I fail to see a distinction




actually, the comment was because in that picture, and at that angle, he looks remarkable like balding scottish ex vocalist of ropey 80s prog rock band marillion, Fish. whose real name is Derek Dick

 

[logansoldcigar]

The Joker.

The Prestige.

Not that it wasnt a very enjoyable movie, but there were plenty of changes from the book. Some necessary, some not.

 

[silentflute]

Just because Snyder is setting this in the 80's, that doesn't mean he has to hit us over the head with it by using all those songs. Talk about overkill.

Overkill?

These songs thematically fit with the source material.Also, it would be good to actually have some 80's references as opposed to just stating that it's set in the 80's.

 

[logansoldcigar]

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

Thats all well and good, but there are people that feel that things such as not getting the setting just right (amongst other elements) does affect the narrative adversely. who is to say who is right, and who is wrong, until we see the finished product. Snyder might shag it completely. but that doesnt mean that Greengrass wouldnt have. Look at the mess that Joel Schumacher (who had made same decent movies before he did batman) made of Batman.

Sometimes, no matter how talented (or untalented) a director or writer may be, they just get a feel for the material , a handle on it that others dont.They dont have to be a rabid fanboy of it.

btw, although I havent seen united 93, i fail to see how that could show Greengrass's passion for Watchmen. Its not something i felt watching his Bourne Movies.

The feeling i do get from Greengrass's movies (a couple of UK TV ones and the two Bourne movies) is that he sees himself as an anti-establishment figure,(even if its subconcious) and by changing the setting to present day and the war on terror, i wonder if he would have been able to stop himself from making a critique of the west foreign policy where the mid east is concerned.

 

[jnmx2000]

wow, i feel like this is lord of the rings all over again lol i think watchmen can really be compared to something like lord of the rings. now would anyone have thought peter jackson could of made a lord of the rings triliogy based on his previous work? i wouldn't have, i probably would have said he's the wrong director to do this, and look how that turned out. if you don't like them then you don't like them, i'm not arguing with LOTRs. my point is, look how good those films are (if you like them, if you don't, then it's the exact opposite), and look how many changes jackson made to the films compared to the books. now i've never read the books but the films work with the changes jackson made, i know about them because i've read about them and talked to others that have read the books. Synder will do the same thing, things will be changed to make this work on film. now there will be a difference between the book and the film, but whats important to me, is that the film stands on it's own just as LOTRs. you don't need to read the books to trully love the movies or to trully understand the film, because they are different and seperate from each other. which is what the watchmen is going to be, i just hope it can be seperated from the book and doesn't depend on the book in order for it to work. as long as everything they change stands to work within the film they are making then i will be happy. as long as the story and themes are there, with the changes they need to make to make this work, then i'll be very happy. i would rather have a film like batman begins and spider man 2 that remains focused than spider man 3 which is anything but focused. if changes must be made to make this film strong and focused, then snyder should make all the changes he feels like he should to achieve that. and i think snyder will do just that.

 

[silentflute]

wow, i feel like this is lord of the rings all over again lol i think watchmen can really be compared to something like lord of the rings. now would anyone have thought peter jackson could of made a lord of the rings triliogy based on his previous work? i wouldn't have, i probably would have said he's the wrong director to do this, and look how that turned out. if you don't like them then you don't like them, i'm not arguing with LOTRs. my point is, look how good those films are (if you like them, if you don't, then it's the exact opposite), and look how many changes jackson made to the films compared to the books. now i've never read the books but the films work with the changes jackson made, i know about them because i've read about them and talked to others that have read the books. Synder will do the same thing, things will be changed to make this work on film. now there will be a difference between the book and the film, but whats important to me, is that the film stands on it's own just as LOTRs. you don't need to read the books to trully love the movies or to trully understand the film, because they are different and seperate from each other. which is what the watchmen is going to be, i just hope it can be seperated from the book and doesn't depend on the book in order for it to work. as long as everything they change stands to work within the film they are making then i will be happy. as long as the story and themes are there, with the changes they need to make to make this work, then i'll be very happy. i would rather have a film like batman begins and spider man 2 that remains focused than spider man 3 which is anything but focused. if changes must be made to make this film strong and focused, then snyder should make all the changes he feels like he should to achieve that. and i think snyder will do just that.

I understand where you're coming from jnmx.However, there's a fundamental difference between Watchmen and LOTR.Watchmen was distinctly created and meant to be told in the comic medium.The way Moore and Gibbons told the story (with all those little details in the background, the symmetry of each panel and page in issue#5 etc) was specifically done to take advantage of the strengths of the comic medium- as oppsed to film or novels.

Peter Jackson doing a good job with LOTR, is easier to do- as it is a prose novel.As opposed to Watchmen, which is very visully oriented.I've said this before and I'll say it again:Watchmen is very cinematic in it's own right as a book.To try to translate that to film, you'll lose a lot of that things that make it what it is.Basically it's heart and soul.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I would want a director that doesn't let his ego and "his vision" corrupt the material. A true fan of the material. A guy that has proven than he can not only faithfully adapt a comic book story, but a comic book feel and visuals into his work.

I wish Watchmen could get a guy like that

I think Zach Snyder is that to a fault

I think he let the fact he didn't want to corrupt 300 hurt the movie, 300 is a kick ass action movie but it is the one movie that actually feels like a comic book cause the shots are so condensed due to being filmed on all green screen, it feels almost claustrophobic as snyder tried to literally go panel for shot with the comic book

I think he will do a decent job with the movie, if it is somewhere between or better than V or 300 I will be more than happy

I like V, they do a bit of a rape of the story but they do it to make the movie flow better, and it works, its a great movie better than 300

I would have liked a director like Nolan, but not necessarily Nolan, just someone who isn't afraid of making a choice on something that may need to be cut, or added to, or write a new scene in so the movie works, but still remains about 80-85 percent faithful to the comics

Alan Moore is correct, comics are made to be comics not films, so when you adapt a certain story certain liberties have to be taken, but not to the extent a Bryan Singer, or Tim Burton takes them

Frank Miller may have actually been a good choice to be honest cause he has been apart of both mediums for awhile

I think maybe the Cohen Brothers could have made a sweet movie out of this they have made some of the best noir movies of the last 20 years also Paul Thomas Anderson is excellent at handling multiple stories and characters

 

[sethpixar]

Im fine with the director now but I think Ridley Scott would have been great as well!

 

[Noir]

See Se7en and Zodiac. David Fincher would have been a great choice.

Watch the scenes with "John Doe" at the end of Seven and tell me it doesn't feel like a Rorschach moment.

 

[Nivek]

I like V, they do a bit of a jew job on the story...

I'm not one to call this kind of thing out, but why would you use that kind of tact-less comment?

 

[Compi716]

I like V, they do a bit of a jew job on the story but they do it to make the movie flow better...

What the **** does THAT mean?! Are you implying something antisemitic? You do know that some of the best filmmakers EVER were/are Jewish - including your boy Snyder.

 

[Captain Carnage]

In the words of one A. Veidt, "The man was practically a nazi."


Holy $hit, dude.

 

[StorminNorman]

I think Zach Snyder is that to a fault

Thus my sarcasm

 

[IKnowSomeJudo]

In the words of one A. Veidt, "The man was practically a nazi."


Holy $hit, dude.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

What the **** does THAT mean?! Are you implying something antisemitic? You do know that some of the best filmmakers EVER were/are Jewish - including your boy Snyder.

that was an innapropriate statement-i didn't mean it like that, or ment to write it I apologize sorry

 

[L0ngsh0t]

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 think if United 93 wasn't one of the worst movies I have ever seen, I might agree with you

it may have handled a sensitive subject well or what not but that doesn't free it from being one of the absolute borefests of 2006

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I understand where you're coming from jnmx.However, there's a fundamental difference between Watchmen and LOTR.Watchmen was distinctly created and meant to be told in the comic medium.The way Moore and Gibbons told the story (with all those little details in the background, the symmetry of each panel and page in issue#5 etc) was specifically done to take advantage of the strengths of the comic medium- as oppsed to film or novels.

Peter Jackson doing a good job with LOTR, is easier to do- as it is a prose novel.As opposed to Watchmen, which is very visully oriented.I've said this before and I'll say it again:Watchmen is very cinematic in it's own right as a book.To try to translate that to film, you'll lose a lot of that things that make it what it is.Basically it's heart and soul.

I don't think it is any different, making LOTR and Watchmen are literally the same thing, way to much to fit in one movie-Jackson was able to do a good job, and it isn't like he did anything spectacular before LOTR

Dead Alive and Meet the Feebles where great no budget horror movies, and heavnly creatures was a good movie so was frighteners, but I wouldn't say any of those 4 are all that much better than the Dawn of the Dead remake and 300 that Synder did

I don't see why Snyder can't make a good watchmen movie, however he wouldn't be my first choice-I just don't see this project being made if he didn't step up