Zack Snyder: I Made 'Watchmen' "To Save It From The Terry Gilliams Of The World"

[BroadwayJoe12]

I know RJF and others are pretty big comic and graphic novel fans and was interested to hear their take on this.  I actually really enjoyed Watchmen, although didn't read the novel until after. Admittedly, I was never much of a comics guy, other than watching some cartoons growing up and the occasional comic book here and there, so I don't know too much about the culture. Anyways, it seems that Snyder was pretty pissed at Silver. 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

 

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/zack-snyder-hits-back-says-he-made-watchmen-to-save-it-from-the-terry-gilliams-of-the-world-20140303

 

 

It looks like we now have a new, cinematic beef to follow. Sort of. Last week, producer Joel Silver declared that Zack Snyder's take on "Watchmen" was a "slave" to Alan Moore's comic, and that his proposed version that had been brewing at 20th Century Fox with Terry Gilliam, would've been better (though it would've essentially ditched Doctor Manhattan). Well, it hasn't taken long for Snyder to respond.

 

The director, along with his wife and producing partner Deborah Snyder, sat down with Huffington Post to talk "300: Rise Of An Empire," but took a moment to share their feelings on Silver-Gilliam-Watchmen-gate. And basically, Snyder asserts that fans wouldn't have been happy if Gilliam had the reins.

 

"....if you read the Gilliam ending, it's completely insane," he said." Yeah, the fans would have stormed the castle on that one. So, honestly, I made 'Watchmen' for myself. It's probably my favorite movie that I've made. And I love the graphic novel and I really love everything about the movie. I love the style. I just love the movie and it was a labor of love. And I made it because I knew that the studio would have made the movie anyway and they would have made it crazy. So, finally I made it to save it from the Terry Gilliams of this world."

 

And Deborah Snyder agrees with Zack that it was basically a no-win situation. "But it's interesting because... it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. You have people who are mad that the ending was changed and you have other people saying, 'Oh, it was a slave to the graphic novel.' You can't please everybody," she says.

 

"I feel like 'Watchmen' came out at sort of the height of the snarky Internet fanboy — like, when he had his biggest strength," Zack Snyder continues. "And I think if that movie came out now — and this is just my opinion — because now that we've had 'Avengers' and comic book culture is well established, I think people would realize that the movie is a satire. You know, the whole movie is a satire. It's a genre-busting movie. The graphic novel was written to analyze the graphic novel — and comic books and the Cold War and politics and the place that comic books play in the mythology of pop culture. I guess that's what I'm getting at with the end of 'Watchmen' — in the end, the most important thing with the end was that it tells the story of the graphic novel. The morality tale of the graphic novel is still told exactly as it was told in the graphic novel — I used slightly different devices. The Gilliam version, if you look at it, it has nothing to do with the idea that is the end of the graphic novel. And that's the thing that I would go, 'Well, then don't do it.' It doesn't make any sense."

 

So there you have it. Snyder has made his case for his version of "Watchmen," though we think the director claiming it's a "satire" is a bit much (though yes, that sex scene was hilarious). Thoughts? Is Snyder right that fanboys woudn't have liked Gilliam's take either? 

 

[RutgersJetFan]

I completely agree with his assertion of Moore's book being a statement for the concept of graphic novels. Moore has been very outspoken about trade paperbacks in the past and there's a reason that he and Gibbons made each and every panel so intricate.

On the other hand, it's a bit hypocritical to argue that you made that flick with Alan Moore's interest at heart. He practically begged DC not to let that movie happen and it's because it's impossible to capture that book in full form in any other medium.

That said, it was 100% unabashedly worth it because of Rorschach. Haley was the one thing that Snyder fired on all cylinders with and from the standpoint of a fan it was awesome to see him brought to life. The whole cast really, but especially Rorschach. Crudup was also a great Dr. Manhattan.

[BroadwayJoe12]

I completely agree with his assertion of Moore's book being a statement for the concept of graphic novels. Moore has been very outspoken about trade paperbacks in the past and there's a reason that he and Gibbons made each and every panel so intricate.

On the other hand, it's a bit hypocritical to argue that you made that flick with Alan Moore's interest at heart. He practically begged DC not to let that movie happen and it's because it's impossible to capture that book in full form in any other medium.

That said, it was 100% unabashedly worth it because of Rorschach. Haley was the one thing that Snyder fired on all cylinders with and from the standpoint of a fan it was awesome to see him brought to life. The whole cast really, but especially Rorschach. Crudup was also a great Dr. Manhattan.

 

+1

 

As I mentioned, I went into the film without having read it prior, but Rorshach was clearly the best part of that picture. Much like the Punisher, I tend to enjoy those who have no moral ambiguity, you're either right or wrong, black or white, no grey area.  

 

Also, having nothing to do with plot, I've often wondered about his nationality. Kovacs, without the s, would make me think serbian, croatian or some sort of slavic nationality, but I'm not sure if they ever mentioned it besides his mother being a hooker?

 

Crudup kills every role he's in.  Loved him in Almost Famous, him and PSH owned that movie.  

[Thor99]

I completely agree with his assertion of Moore's book being a statement for the concept of graphic novels. Moore has been very outspoken about trade paperbacks in the past and there's a reason that he and Gibbons made each and every panel so intricate.

On the other hand, it's a bit hypocritical to argue that you made that flick with Alan Moore's interest at heart. He practically begged DC not to let that movie happen and it's because it's impossible to capture that book in full form in any other medium.

That said, it was 100% unabashedly worth it because of Rorschach. Haley was the one thing that Snyder fired on all cylinders with and from the standpoint of a fan it was awesome to see him brought to life. The whole cast really, but especially Rorschach. Crudup was also a great Dr. Manhattan.

I also went into it without ever reading the book. For me, it was a little meh on the first watch. However, it gets better and better every time I watch again.

While Haley was great, I also loved Jeffery Dean Morgan.

[HessStation]

Weird bc both directors IMO, suffer from the same trait in their movies which lack a certain amount of depth and emotion, I sorta think superficial and cold when I watch either. both want to bounce around too much and try and wow you, and imo character development always suffers. I never really care about the characters in any of their movies, Gilliam too wacky and Snyder to glossed over, both want to move things along too fast. Neither I consider all that great although Time Bandits ****ed me up as a kid. Gilliam is at least orginal.

[RutgersJetFan]

I also went into it without ever reading the book. For me, it was a little meh on the first watch. However, it gets better and better every time I watch again.

While Haley was great, I also loved Jeffery Dean Morgan.

Certain parts do and certain parts don't for me. The flashback sequence for Dr. Manhattan is really great, but on the other hand I'll never get things like changing the scene with Rorscach and the dogs. That was needless change simply for the sake of change and it took away from the movie big time. That's one of the biggest moments in the book and Snyder took a hatchet to it for no reason.

[RutgersJetFan]

Weird bc both directors IMO, suffer from the same trait in their movies which lack a certain amount of depth and emotion, I sorta think superficial and cold when I watch either. both want to bounce around too much and try and wow you, and imo character development always suffers. I never really care about the characters in any of their movies, Gilliam too wacky and Snyder to glossed over, both want to move things along too fast. Neither I consider all that great although Time Bandits ****ed me up as a kid. Gilliam is at least orginal.

I don't even know how to compare the two. Gilliam's best flick is 12 Monkeys and Snyder's is either 300 or MoS. That's like trying to compare Billie Holiday to Mastodon.

[Larz]

Gilliam directed the fisher king

 

you can suck it fanboy

[T0mShane]

Certain parts do and certain parts don't for me. The flashback sequence for Dr. Manhattan is really great, but on the other hand I'll never get things like changing the scene with Rorscach and the dogs. That was needless change simply for the sake of change and it took away from the movie big time. That's one of the biggest moments in the book and Snyder took a hatchet to it for no reason.

I really liked the movie, but I think the right medium for it would have been as a BBC miniseries.

[RutgersJetFan]

I really liked the movie, but I think the right medium for it would have been as a BBC miniseries.

 

I think Snyder's really the only guy out there that was (and is) capable of capturing the visual aesthetic of Gibbons. I suppose if he'd have been given more time like a miniseries would provide he could have drawn more stuff out. However, at the time it looked like some of the shortcomings regarding the characters (Nite Owl and Silk Spectre, in particular), were the result of careless negligence and not having much to do with shaping the story.