Just saw this film last night on satellite. Yeah, I meant to see it in the theaters in IMAX, but missed my opportunity.
I had read the GN years ago and enjoyed it tremendously, as did many, so I had been looking forward to seeing this on the screen for many years now, though I had done so with the fear that this would be turned into a less-than-faithful represenation. As much as I would like to punch Zack Snyder in the nose, I have to admit that I enjoyed the screen version, and felt that it was much more faithful to GN than I had thought it would be. I also felt the characters, particulary Rorschach, were fleshed out very well, though like some here I think the dude playing Veidt was miscast - a bit too wussy looking and Rob Lowe like for my tastes.
Criticisms and spoilers follow below:
In spite of what I thought worked in the film, I have to say that a lot of plot elements were needlessly telegraphed in a manner which did not appear in the GN. For instance, when reading the novel, I had no idea until later in the story that Veidt was a villian, however, my wife who knows nothing about the original novel sees Veidt the first time he appears on screen and points out that he is obviously the bad guy. Same thing with the Commedian being Silk Specter's father - had no idea in the novel until Manhattan reveals this to her on Mars, yet my wife comes to this conclusion early on. Talking to her later, she mentioned that these were not unique revelations, but something that was telegraphed so obviously to her by the filmmaker that she thought she was supposed to know these things at those points in the story. She did enjoy the movie, BTW, and now wants to read the GN, but she said that the assumes that the GN was superior in storytelling to the film because of the obvious plot elements.
As to how much of what worked on the screen can be attributed to Snyder, I can speculate here but since I really don't like this dude I think that this hatred of his punchable face makes it difficult for me to be fair and objective. I can say, though, that Snyder has yet to do a film that he personally wrote or came up with, and that - fair or not- I am assuming that a lot of the reason why the film worked was because it was based on good source material and followed that source material rather faithfully.
Zack Snyder has shown that he is capable of putting together a movie that works, I will admit, but I do stop short of referring to him a visionary. If I was, for example, to take Orson Welles' "CITZEN KANE" (Yojimbo presents, Orson Welles' CITZEN KANE, a graphic novel) and hire a good graphic artist and ink team to make a frame by frame GN version, would I then be lauded as a great visionary, or would I deserve praise from those who liked the story in my graphic novel? Being the systems manager guy on this Citizen Kane GN project, would I be deserving of any credit beyond just hiring the right staff and materials (the best artist and ink man that I can find, the best letterer, the best printing facility, the best legal representation, the best publisher, the best promo team, etc) and shouldn't then love of the story be attributed more to Orson's vision than my own. And what more "vision" could I lay claim to with the exception of having the vision to make the good film into a comic book with my name on it?
In this way, I am left wondering how much of what worked in Watchmen the film was due to Snyder, and whether or not he simply served as a "systems manager" to a very talented group of people - Director of Photography, costume designers, digital artists, set designers and dressers, soundtrack coordinator, composers. In fact, by what folks are saying here on this thread the sequence that worked best for me (title sequence montage) was actually outsourced.
Again, I fear that I cannot be fair to Zack Snyder, but as of yet he has not reached the level Speilburg, Truffaut, or Kurosawa, let alone George A Romero by a long shot. And though it may not be fair, I suspect that any film school graduate with proper funding and a good crew backing him or her up would have been able to pull off what Snyder did in this film - possibly without the heavy handedness that telegraphed those plot points prematurely.
Last edited by Yojimbo; 27-Jul-2009 at 05:24 PM.
Originally Posted by EvilNed As a much wiser man than I once said: "We must stop the banning - or loose the war."
Just saw this film last night on satellite. Yeah, I meant to see it in the theaters in IMAX, but missed my opportunity.
I had read the GN years ago and enjoyed it tremendously, as did many, so I had been looking forward to seeing this on the screen for many years now, though I had done so with the fear that this would be turned into a less-than-faithful represenation. As much as I would like to punch Zack Snyder in the nose, I have to admit that I enjoyed the screen version, and felt that it was much more faithful to GN than I had thought it would be. I also felt the characters, particulary Rorschach, were fleshed out very well, though like some here I think the dude playing Veidt was miscast - a bit too wussy looking and Rob Lowe like for my tastes.
Criticisms and spoilers follow below:
In spite of what I thought worked in the film, I have to say that a lot of plot elements were needlessly telegraphed in a manner which did not appear in the GN. For instance, when reading the novel, I had no idea until later in the story that Veidt was a villian, however, my wife who knows nothing about the original novel sees Veidt the first time he appears on screen and points out that he is obviously the bad guy. Same thing with the Commedian being Silk Specter's father - had no idea in the novel until Manhattan reveals this to her on Mars, yet my wife comes to this conclusion early on. Talking to her later, she mentioned that these were not unique revelations, but something that was telegraphed so obviously to her by the filmmaker that she thought she was supposed to know these things at those points in the story. She did enjoy the movie, BTW, and now wants to read the GN, but she said that the assumes that the GN was superior in storytelling to the film because of the obvious plot elements.
As to how much of what worked on the screen can be attributed to Snyder, I can speculate here but since I really don't like this dude I think that this hatred of his punchable face makes it difficult for me to be fair and objective. I can say, though, that Snyder has yet to do a film that he personally wrote or came up with, and that - fair or not- I am assuming that a lot of the reason why the film worked was because it was based on good source material and followed that source material rather faithfully.
If I was, for example, to take Orson Welles' "CITZEN KANE" (Yojimbo presents, Orson Welles' CITZEN KANE, a graphic novel) and hire a good graphic artist and ink team to make a frame by frame GN version, would I then be lauded as a great visionary, or would I deserve praise from those who liked the story in the graphic novel? Being the systems manager guy on this project, would I be deserving of any credit beyond just hiring the right staff and materials (the best artist and ink man that I can find, the best letterer, the best printing facility, special heavy & slick cardstock media to print on, etc) and shouldn't then love of the story (remember, nearly visually identical to Orson's movie shot for shot, frame for frame) be attributed more to Orson's vision than my own. And what more "vision" could I lay claim to with the exception of having the vision to make the film into a comic book.
In this way, I am left wondering how much of what worked in Watchmen the film was due to Snyder, and whether or not he simply served as a "systems manager" to a very talented group of people - Director of Photography, Costume Design, digital artists, soundtrack coordinator, composers)
Again, I fear that I cannot be fair to Zack Snyder, but as of yet he has not reached the level Speilburg, Truffaut, or Kurosawa, let alone George A Romero by a long shot. And though it may not be fair, I suspect that any film school graduate with proper funding and a good crew backing him or her up would have been able to pull off what Snyder did in this film - possibly without the heavy handedness that telegraphed those plot points prematurely.
No, there's no doubt about it. You can't be fair to him.
FEAR IS THE OLDEST TOOL OF POWER. IF WE ARE DISTRACTED BY THE FEAR OF THOSE AROUND US THEN IT KEEPS US FROM SEEING THE ACTIONS OF THOSE ABOVE US.
I DIDN'T KILL NOBODY. I DIDN'T RAPE NOBODY. THAT'S IT. ~ Manny Ramirez commenting on his use of a banned substance.
"We kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong" ~ Unknown
"TO DOUBT EVERYTHING OR TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING ARE TWO EQUALLY CONVIENIENT SOLUTIONS: THEY BOTH DISPENSE WITH THE NEED FOR THOUGHT"
"All i care about is money and the city that I'm from, imma sip until I feel it, Imma smoke it till' it's done, I don't really give fuck and my excuse is that I'm young,and I'm only getting older, sombody shoulda told ya, I'm on one !"
I never really considered it because I had read the novel years before....but now that you mention it, those plot points are pretty obvious. I guess Snyder forgot to keep it sneaky for the people in the audience that weren't familiar with the GN.
I never really considered it because I had read the novel years before....but now that you mention it, those plot points are pretty obvious. I guess Snyder forgot to keep it sneaky for the people in the audience that weren't familiar with the GN.
Very good point actually.
I've still not read the GN (I will do one day - any thoughts on the version with the cleaned-up artwork?) ... but yeah, those elements were pretty damn obvious.
I saw the 'comedian is the dad' thing a mile off, and the 'Veidt is a bad dude' was pretty clear early on too - he just looked like a bad guy, he sounded like a bad guy, so when he was the bad guy I was so not surprised.
I saw the 'comedian is the dad' thing a mile off, and the 'Veidt is a bad dude' was pretty clear early on too - he just looked like a bad guy, he sounded like a bad guy, so when he was the bad guy I was so not surprised.
Almost like a comic book bad guy, right?
Except here the comic book villan wasn't as obvious as the movie villan. Funny thing, is it Zack or in spite of Zack?
Might as well have been directed by Tim Burton, but then he would have cast Helena Bonham Carter as the Silk Spectre and that would have been sad.
Originally Posted by EvilNed As a much wiser man than I once said: "We must stop the banning - or loose the war."
Was going to write that I enjoyed the film "in spite of" Zack Snyders direction, but realize that it would not be fair.
Don't really respectthe man, but enjoyed the film. Whether or not he is a decent director or in any way a visionary, I need to be fair and acknowledge even though it pains me to say that I enjoyed the film and Snyder may have had something to do with it.
Hope that is fair enough for you all. For the record, I still think he is a pompous hack, and would still like to pop him in the nose on principal.
Last edited by Yojimbo; 27-Jul-2009 at 08:22 PM.
Originally Posted by EvilNed As a much wiser man than I once said: "We must stop the banning - or loose the war."
Ok maybe "hate" is going too far. Still think he is a hack, though I will edit my response since my language was a bit too strong.
Oh, Yo, don't edit yourself for us, man. I know it's the internet exerting it's evil hyperbole effect to allow you to let the hate flow and not real hate.
Real Zack Snyder hate is reserved for MZ, who has a Zack Snyder voodoo doll under his bed and burns bits of Zack Snyder hair as an offering to Astarte to curse him and who punches Zack Snyder's kids in their noses--all six of them!
By the way, is Zack Snyder a Mormon or something? Six kids? Jesus.
Last edited by AcesandEights; 27-Jul-2009 at 08:37 PM.
"Men choose as their prophets those who tell them that their hopes are true."--Lord Dunsany
The specs for the "Ultimate Cut" have been released. As rumored, this is just the extremely long cut of the movie with Tales of the Black Freighter edited in, so if you want the directors or theatrical cut it won't be there. This just seems like overkill to me...
The specs for the "Ultimate Cut" have been released. As rumored, this is just the extremely long cut of the movie with Tales of the Black Freighter edited in, so if you want the directors or theatrical cut it won't be there. This just seems like overkill to me...
Well, the theatrical cut is included as a "digital copy"
Indeed, this package is wholly lame in general, in fact, the DVDs of Watchmen have been a bit of a bugger up in my view.
R1 2-disc - Theatrical & Director's Cut, few extras
R2 2-disc - Theatrical Cut ONLY, more extras
R1 5-disc - Big-ass cut, no real choice otherwise, cartoon version of the comic book (why do you need that when you've got the movie and/or the book in your possession already?), no director's cut, barely anymore extras at all (possibly nothing new either) and that's about it.
So you're screwed no matter which package you pick really.
When I get the DVD at some point, it'll be the R1 2-disc probably, but I object to losing out on extra features that are in the R2 disc, but with that one I object to not being able to have the two different cuts of the movie.
Speaking of the Blu-ray, I finally got a chance to watch the film in Maxium Movie Mode, and it was a really great experience. It is kind of like Infinifilm on steroids. Anyone else check this out yet? I can't wait for more films to employ this.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Yojimbo
Bookmarks