Watchmen

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Something for your consideration- 80% of great movies are some sort of adaptions. What do they all have in common, though? They're loose adaptions, not carbon copies. There is a very, very significant difference between the two; what great filmmakers do is take the general plot and themes of a novel and interpret them into a cinematic creation. Not copying it page-by-page.

While 80% may be an exaggeration, looking at IMDB's top 250, a huge amount of the supposed best films ever were adapted from books... Goodfellas, The Godfather, Shawshank, Fight Club, Raging Bull (I think), Casino, etc.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Honestly, how would you've adapted Watchmen then, if you had to? Because you seriously could NOT just take Watchmen's themes/motifs and make a loose adaption successfully, that would be utterly terrible and every fan in existence would be pissed, because it WOULDN'T BE WATCHMEN.

The directors understand the film language, not the 'fans'. Fans who care more about getting everything "EXACTLY RIGHT" than actually creating a solid cinematic interpretation of the graphic novel should be completely ignored: they have no understand of film and should stick to their beloved source material.

Now, I don't know how I would've adapted Watchmen, being that I'm not a scriptwriter or a director... that's definitely a question to ponder. Ultimately, I think Watchmen simply can't be adapted.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
I'm not saying Snyder's Watchmen was perfect, it had plenty of flaws, but to say that it should've been adapted in a looser manner is just wrong imo. The whole "loose adaption" concept does indeed work for many novels, etc. though I'll grant you that. And Snyder didn't just copy the novel page by page.

Did Snyder add his own interpretation of the novel, or did he just carbon copy the dialogue and themes (with, of course, the mandatory dumbing down for the mainstream audience)?

I don't have an answer as to what SHOULD be done, though.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
While 80% may be an exaggeration, looking at IMDB's top 250, a huge amount of the supposed best films ever were adapted from books... Goodfellas, The Godfather, Shawshank, Fight Club, Raging Bull (I think), Casino, etc.

Out of ImdB's top 10, 6 are adaptions of novels, and 1 is an adaption of a play. Quite impressive statistics. Unless the novels are the best things ever made, then the movies must have done something in order to transcend the source material, don't you think?

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
I'm not sure if you have any knowledge on film direction, but you're simply wrong. As a matter of fact, if there is ONE thing Snyder is talented at, it's technical direction. Saying that there is nothing cinematically interesting about this movie is fvcking stupid; I mean fine you didn't like it, but honestly, that doesn't give you an excuse to be totally illogical. And since the screenplay was largely taken from the graphic novel, you're also saying that Moore's dialogue/exposition sucked, so...

And finally, I don't know who you're talking about but a boatload of people dislike Watchmen (the film), not everyone thinks that it's great like you claim.

PS: Spider-Man 1 and 2 are great.

Well it seems to me that the person here who is lacking in any knowledge of film direction is you. Because if you had any knowledge of filmmaking at all, you would know I am not wrong. How does copying a book page for page show any kind of understanding in cinematic techniques, artistic talent in film direction or filmmaking? The answer is... it doesn't! Tell me when or give ma an example of when Zach Snyder show any signs of technical direction or artistic interpretation. Show me where he decide, "I want to put my own spin on this". I didn't see it anywhere. What I saw was Dave Gibbons art come to life. What's illogical is your statement.

About the screenplay. The book was great. Alan Moore did a wonderful job in creating an original and classic story. However, the reason that the screenplay didn't work for the film was because it works for the book and only the book. Meaning the book needed to use every word that was written to help illustrate what Dave Gibbons could not draw. Film is a visual art form. Therefore, you do not have to over explain things in dialogue, just show it. The whole sequence with the origin of Dr. Manhattan, could have been a lot shorter, simpler, and direct. Unfortunately, it was drawn out and boring.

And I know that there are a boatload of people who do like the film. But if you had read the forum, there are a lot people who think this is the greatest comic movie ever made. Which, unfortunately it is not.

Sorry, the Spiderman movies suck also. But my reasons for that is for another forum.

Originally posted by jcvaldez
Tell me when or give ma an example of when Zach Snyder show any signs of technical direction or artistic interpretation. Show me where he decide, "I want to put my own spin on this". I didn't see it anywhere.

Spoiler:

-Fight scene with Ozzy
-Prison fight scene
-Rorschach getting his costume back
-Dr. Manhattan being framed
-assassination attempt on Ozzy
-Nite owl's reaction to rorschach's death
-Rescuing people from burning building
Then he changed most of the costumes as well.

Originally posted by Menetnashté

Spoiler:

-Fight scene with Ozzy
-Prison fight scene
-Rorschach getting his costume back
-Dr. Manhattan being framed
-assassination attempt on Ozzy
-Nite owl's reaction to rorschach's death
-Rescuing people from burning building
Then he changed most of the costumes as well.

There was likely more but that's all that sticks out at the moment. How you didn't see any of this is beyond me.

And all of those scenes were inferior to those in the comic...

That isn't waht you asked for . . .

Originally posted by Kovacs86
And all of those scenes were inferior to those in the comic...

Originally posted by jcvaldez
Well it seems to me that the person here who is lacking in any knowledge of film direction is you.

This (and your entire post) demonstrates exactly why I shouldn't waste time articulating an argument. 😉

Originally posted by Menetnashté
eh, I preferred that they fought against Veidt some more and that someone actually cared about what happened to Rorschach instead of them completely ignoring it. But whether the scenes were better or not is irrelevant.

There are definitely things in the movie that surprisingly I thought they did better than the comic.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
This (and your entire post) demonstrates exactly why I shouldn't waste time articulating an argument. 😉

That's because you do not have an argument to argue about.

I don't want to go over my resume, but I have over 8 years of professional experience in the industry and 3 years of teaching filmmaking.

What makes you so experienced that my knowledge and opinion is a waste of time to you?

He has taste.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
There are definitely things in the movie that surprisingly I thought they did better than the comic.

Most of the Symbolism was removed. Sadly enough. Then again, The General public would not understand some of it. Seeing as it went quite deep.

Then again, A lot of the general public still did not understand the movie even tho it was significantly made more accessible to the general public.

Basically, People are stupid.

Originally posted by DarkDethbringer
Most of the Symbolism was removed. Sadly enough. Then again, The General public would not understand some of it. Seeing as it went quite deep.

Then again, A lot of the general public still did not understand the movie even tho it was significantly made more accessible to the general public.

Basically, People are stupid.

Originally posted by DarkDethbringer
Most of the Symbolism was removed. Sadly enough. Then again, The General public would not understand some of it. Seeing as it went quite deep.

It's a risk Snyder should've taken. Just look at "The Matrix", "The Godfather", "American History X", and "2001: A Space Odyssey" just for a few examples.

Originally posted by jcvaldez
Tell me when or give ma an example of when Zach Snyder show any signs of technical direction or artistic interpretation. Show me where he decide, "I want to put my own spin on this". I didn't see it anywhere.

And moment of gratuitous violence, or any violent/sexual scene from the comic glorified for the film.

And let's not even get into the slow motion.

About the screenplay. The book was great. Alan Moore did a wonderful job in creating an original and classic story. However, the reason that the screenplay didn't work for the film was because it works for the book and only the book.

I disagree. You just need someone who can do it right.

Originally posted by jcvaldez
That's because you do not have an argument to argue about.

Real mature.

Originally posted by jcvaldez
I don't want to go over my resume

Don't then.

Originally posted by jcvaldez
What makes you so experienced that my knowledge and opinion is a waste of time to you?

Like I said, your post was a waste. It spoke for itself; life experience has really got nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Like I said, your post was a waste. It spoke for itself; life experience has really got nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by Nephthys
He has taste.

Bad Taste

You're constantly one-upping yourself in the immaturity department, sir. And if we're applying life experience, let me just say that I've been a member here for close to 5 years and I've learned what people are worth debating with; judging by your posts here you're not one of them. If you can't debate without resorting to childish logic and meaningless insults, then what's the point?