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

[CaptainGenerica]

That's cause arguments aren't strong when you have to argue with the entire board that is all Snyder crazy... "Hurrah, he kept Comedian shooting a pregnant woman! What's that about losing all the important significance of that an alien is the only thing that could stop humanity from fighting or it showing just how brilliant Veidt is to think of this random plan that actually works in the short term like cutting the knot?"

If you think that this stuff hasn't been brought up, debated, and supported, then you just haven't been paying attention.

 

[the_tortel]

[/b]

Could you care to explain why this is the case?


You think it's random?

Yeah, try the plot of every other 50s sci-fi B-movie..

 

[JAK®]

That's cause arguments aren't strong when you have to argue with the entire board that is all Snyder crazy... "Hurrah, he kept Comedian shooting a pregnant woman! What's that about losing all the important significance of that an alien is the only thing that could stop humanity from fighting or it showing just how brilliant Veidt is to think of this random plan that actually works in the short term like cutting the knot?"

I'd just like to let you know that I admire you for your courage. You're really distancing yourself from the herd. It must be hard to be so brilliant among these philistines.

Spoiler

 

[Katsuro]

And I'm skipping the whole changes rant again to just say, V For Vendetta. That's what Watchmen is going to be.

There is absolutley no basis for that comparison. None at all. I'd love for you to explain that one, because aside from being based on a book by Alan Moore, the two projects couldn't be more dissimilar.

 

[Evil Twin]

The only thing I can think of is that Snyder's adaptation isn't "gritty" enough for Gilpesh. Otherwise, the V For Vendetta comparison is ludicrous. Thematically, based on what we know, Watchmen is intact. Particularly, it's main themes and character arcs. Who Watches the Watchmen?, power distancing one from humanity, Rorschach's objectivism, Dan's impotence, the kinkiness of costumes, Veidt's ego, etc. This isn't the "Yeah! Democracy!"/"Boo! Bush!" version of Watchmen, squid or no squid.

This isn't a movie that has a couple of Easter Eggs for the fans so they can go, ohh the Director is one of us, but a movie that's trying to adapt the majority of the book. Frankly, the biggest issue with the squid subplot is likely that Veidt spends most of an issue monologuing about it to his dead servants. That's both uncinematic and something that doesn't serve the structure of a film that's headed towards a climax well. One big info dump right before the climax isn't a classic structure.

That too me seems to be the driving force behind streamlining the subplot. The setup isn't very cinematic. I think it's telling that if Snyder had all the time he could possibly expect, 3 hours plus, the Black Freighter would make it back in well before the squid.

 

[Mercurius]

Yeah i think Blade Runner would of been a much better comparison. A film that deviates heavily from the source material but has gone on to be seen as a classic in its own right.

If movies deviate heavily from the source they can also, of course, be cult classics, IF the director has a vision for it (as Scott had, or Kubrick many times).

Now, that's not the case with Watchmen. Snyder is trying to remain as close as possible.

AND, suddenly, he changes it at the ending for studio pressure and a debatable opinion on what the GA can take or can't.

That's the crux of the discussion as I see it.

 

[Keyser Soze]

V For Vendetta. That's what Watchmen is going to be.

A ponderous, meandering doorstop converted into a slick, streamlined machine of a movie? I could think of plenty of worse adaptations than V For Vendetta.

 

[JAK®]

If movies deviate heavily from the source they can also, of course, be cult classics, IF the director has a vision for it (as Scott had, or Kubrick many times).

Now, that's not the case with Watchmen. Snyder is trying to remain as close as possible.

AND, suddenly, he changes it at the ending for studio pressure and a debatable opinion on what the GA can take or can't.

That's the crux of the discussion as I see it.

Yes and no. This is what the interview in the first post is about. He realises the quality of the book and wishes to replicate it the best he can, but he also says that we shouldn't focus on "what he left out, but what he put in".

And I don't think Snyder removed the squid because of studio reasons. Thats not the reason he gives, anyway.

 

[Mercurius]

Yes and no. This is what the interview in the first post is about. He realises the quality of the book and wishes to replicate it the best he can, but he also says that we shouldn't focus on "what he left out, but what he put in".

And I don't think Snyder removed the squid because of studio reasons. Thats not the reason he gives, anyway.

Leaving things out is not reinventing the story.

Kubrick has always done this reinvention, for instance. That's not the case with Snyder's Watchmen: he's trying to stay as close as possible, but obviously adapting it.

As to the grand finale: his "reasons" not to put the whole Ozymandias' plot in (including the squid) is a bad excuse.

He says about more 30 min to get all that plot in. Well, so what? Do you remember LOTR? Each episode had three and a half hours.

People coming out of the show wanted more. So, it's a very weak excuse.

My take on it: studio thinks the plot is way too much for the GA, and is really chickening with the possibility of small BO.

Thus, they cut the movie under 3 hours (DVD will be extended) and leave out the bizarre finale of Ozymandias' twisted invention (the island, the artists and psychics, the squid, etc).

 

[Keyser Soze]

Leaving things out is not reinventing the story.

Kubrick has always done this reinvention, for instance. That's not the case with Snyder's Watchmen: he's trying to stay as close as possible, but obviously adapting it.

As to the grand finale: his "reasons" not to put the whole Ozymandias' plot in (including the squid) is a bad excuse.

He says about more 30 min to get all that plot in. Well, so what? Do you remember LOTR? Each episode had three and a half hours.

People coming out of the show wanted more. So, it's a very weak excuse.

My take on it: studio thinks the plot is way too much for the GA, and is really chickening with the possibility of small BO.

Thus, they cut the movie under 3 hours (DVD will be extended) and leave out the bizarre finale of Ozymandias twisted invention (the island, the artists and psychics, the squid, etc).

Yes, some films have been successful at north of 3 hours. But movies of this length are still comparatively rare. I'd say a 2 and a half hour running time is still VERY generous.

Cutting out extraenous content from the source material in order to produce a film of a palpable length is a common practise in cinematic adaptation, and has been since long before Watchmen was ever writtern and published. It's funny you should mention Lord of the Rings and its trilogy of 3 hour films. That 3 hours still came in the wake of massive cuts, including - yes - the story's ending. Hardcore fans of the source material might cry about how ingenius and essential the scene where the Hobbits have tea and scones at Tom Bombadil's house is, but objective, sensible people made the perfectly valid decision that what works in literature would hurt the pacing and structure in film. And it's the same thing happening here with Watchmen.

 

[Mercurius]

Yes, some films have been successful at north of 3 hours. But movies of this length are still comparatively rare. I'd say a 2 and a half hour running time is still VERY generous.

Cutting out extraenous content from the source material in order to produce a film of a palpable length is a common practise in cinematic adaptation, and has been since long before Watchmen was ever writtern and published. It's funny you should mention Lord of the Rings and its trilogy of 3 hour films. That 3 hours still came in the wake of massive cuts, including - yes - the story's ending. Hardcore fans of the source material might cry about how ingenius and essential the scene where the Hobbits have tea and scones at Tom Bombadil's house is, but objective, sensible people made the perfectly valid decision that what works in literature would hurt the pacing and structure in film. And it's the same thing happening here with Watchmen.

I'm one hardcore LOTR fan who has never bothered about Bombadil.

It's a very nice scene in the book, but it could obviously go. I also liked the more animal Uruk-hai.

I've always thought that all the chatting in front of the wall in a war situation seemed really absurd.

Anyway: as to Watchmen, it's not the same.

Moore's writing is far more precise and entangled than Tolkien's. He is really attentive to structural details, in order not to let anything as a loose end.

I have discussed before how much is out when Ozymandias plot is out.

I think it will be the great problem of the movie, and it can prevent it from being the masterpiece it should be (and had everything to be).

 

[Keyser Soze]

I'm one hardcore LOTR fan who has never bothered about Bombadil.

It's a very nice scene in the book, but it could obviously go. I also liked the more animal Uruk-hai.

I've always thought that all the chatting in front of the wall in a war situation seemed really absurd.

Anyway: as to Watchmen, it's not the same.

Moore's writing is far more precise and entangled than Tolkien's. He is really attentive to structural details, in order not to let anything as a loose end.

I have discussed before how much is out when Ozymandias plot is out.

I think it will be the great problem of the movie, and it can prevent it from being the masterpiece it should be (and had everything to be).

I think the real genius of the end, however, is the aftermath of the attack on New York. The way Ozy actually succeeds in averting world war and bringing about a new era of peace. The conflict between the heroes, the moral conundrum they face. That's what makes the ending work so powerfully well.

What's the difference between Ozy convincing the world they are under alien attack by utilising high-tech weaponry that blows up New York, and Ozy convincing the world they are under alien attack by utilising high-tech weaponry that transports a big alien squid into the middle of Manhattan that sits there for 3 seconds, then explodes, blowing up New York? Well, other than losing a translation of that single great panel with the dead alien remains, you lose about half an hour's worth of exposition explaining the alien, involving characters totally seperate from the actual protagonists we care about, whose identity we only even knew about in the graphic novel because of all the groundwork laid by the supplementary prose material, which you would then also have to work into the film.

 

[Doctor Jones]

What to me stuck out to me the most and I hope they kept this in was when we last see Manhatten leave earth and says to Viedt, "Nothing ever ends."

I love the irony here. The supposed smartest man in the worl dcouldn't see something so simple in his complex plot, even though he wanted to create utopia by uniting the world that doesn't mean it can stay that way or it will go back to the way it was.

I love that look that Viedt give in his last shot. It's so much more fulfilling instead of him dying. Because now, he ponders at his mistake and living with that for him is worse than what he thought it would do.

 

[the_tortel]

Leaving things out is not reinventing the story.

Kubrick has always done this reinvention, for instance. That's not the case with Snyder's Watchmen: he's trying to stay as close as possible, but obviously adapting it.

As to the grand finale: his "reasons" not to put the whole Ozymandias' plot in (including the squid) is a bad excuse.

He says about more 30 min to get all that plot in. Well, so what? Do you remember LOTR? Each episode had three and a half hours.

People coming out of the show wanted more. So, it's a very weak excuse.

My take on it: studio thinks the plot is way too much for the GA, and is really chickening with the possibility of small BO.

Thus, they cut the movie under 3 hours (DVD will be extended) and leave out the bizarre finale of Ozymandias' twisted invention (the island, the artists and psychics, the squid, etc).

Yeah, you're right, he should've done that, because, you know, he had complete and total control of this film with the running time and all that...

What a *****e Snyder is, screw Manhattan on Mars, I want me some freaking SQUID!!!

 

[JAK®]

Leaving things out is not reinventing the story.

Thats not what I said, and not what Snyder said either. You have completely misunderstood the meaning of "not wondering what he left out, but what he put in".

Snyder has put his own spin on the story. His version, as it currently appears, is far more about superheroes effect on the 20th Century than the original novel is. The Comedian is blatantly shown shooting JFK. Dr. Manhattan was there for the moon landing. This is the whole point of the opening montage.

 

[Mercurius]

Snyder has put his own spin on the story. His version, as it currently appears, is far more about superheroes effect on the 20th Century than the original novel is. The Comedian is blatantly shown shooting JFK. Dr. Manhattan was there for the moon landing. This is the whole point of the opening montage.

That Comedian scene was heavy handed, of course.

It was directed exclusively to people who can't get anything but a straight forward message, who can't get anything but the offensive obvious.

That's a corolary of my argument, and not opposed to it. It stresses the fact that Snyder is trying to please the GA, and not the viewer that can think.

There is nothing of a "spin" to it.

 

[redhawk23]

the whole thing with manhatten on the moon and jfk and everything is that it adds more to one of my favorite elements of watchmen, showing how the existence of costumed adventurers would effect a world that we thought we knew. Its our world, the 20th century we knew knocked off course and twisted around, like you know us winning nam, nixon becoming president but no watergate, listening to bob dylan, or dub music-in your electric car. And I think Snyder did have a vision, for instance just as the GN comments on comics its seems snyder is using the opertunity to comment on comic book media that came out since then. I believe that nightowl II's suit and even the nipples on ozmandias costume are direct digs at the batman movies, hes even talked about it.

and though i do love calamari, the squid was just a means to an end.

And also framing the doc lends a certain sense of irony Mahatten kills Mahatten.

nothing ever ends

 

[Katsuro]

That Comedian scene was heavy handed, of course.

It was directed exclusively to people who can't get anything but a straight forward message, who can't get anything but the offensive obvious.

That's a corolary of my argument, and not opposed to it. It stresses the fact that Snyder is trying to please the GA, and not the viewer that can think.

There is nothing of a "spin" to it.

You really think that's it? You think they did it because people couldn't get that "dont ask me where I was when JFK died" means "i killed JFK"?

Isn't it much more likely that, with the addition of a montage sequence showing world events and how they've changed, that they thought it would be easier to put the reference there instead of in that scene which might not even be in the movie anymore?

But really, did you pat yourself on the back or something when you read the book and knew what The Comedian meant? "Haha, he means he killed JFK. Man, that was so subtle but I caught it cuz i'm the smartest!"

 

[The Guard]

That Comedian scene was heavy handed, of course. It was directed exclusively to people who can't get anything but a straight forward message, who can't get anything but the offensive obvious.

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"?

You really think that's it? You think they did it because people couldn't get that "dont ask me where I was when JFK died" means "i killed JFK"? Isn't it much more likely that, with the addition of a montage sequence showing world events and how they've changed, that they thought it would be easier to put the reference there instead of in that scene which might not even be in the movie anymore? But really, did you pat yourself on the back or something when you read the book and knew what The Comedian meant? "Haha, he means he killed JFK. Man, that was so subtle but I caught it cuz i'm the smartest!"

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.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

That's a heck of a commitment to the material.

Agreed.

 

[inflames]

isn't there a clip of comedian with the rifle after shooting JFK somewhere?

 

[Evil Twin]

I have to say that the alternate history montage is one of the things that I think really justifies the adaptation as it's own viable entity. It's an instance where Snyder isn't merely being a fan, but supplying honest artistry.

I feel the same about the viral stuff floating around. It adds to the experience in a way that's unique to its medium, but honors the spirit of the work.

 

[The Battousai]

isn't there a clip of comedian with the rifle after shooting JFK somewhere?

In the japanese trailer

 

[inflames]

In the japanese trailer

yes, thank you

 

[Mercurius]

You really think that's it? You think they did it because people couldn't get that "dont ask me where I was when JFK died" means "i killed JFK"?

Isn't it much more likely that, with the addition of a montage sequence showing world events and how they've changed, that they thought it would be easier to put the reference there instead of in that scene which might not even be in the movie anymore?

But really, did you pat yourself on the back or something when you read the book and knew what The Comedian meant? "Haha, he means he killed JFK. Man, that was so subtle but I caught it cuz i'm the smartest!"

Oh, Katty, you make things seem so difficult.

Look and try to understand: when a character says something like that, in a situation like that, the thing is opened to interpretation.

Was he kiddin' in his own morbid fashion? Was he telling the truth? Because Blake plays with that mystery of "who killed JFK", he is in a social situation, etc.

It's rather blunt to undertand that by its face value, translating a morbid joke (that could be more than that) into an image that erases the ambiguity.

So, I wouldn't pat myself on the back (that would be weird) but you could save all of us some time, thinking before saying something.