comment #1

KevinTC says ...

Hey Zack...

Easy way to solve this problem: not every scene needs to be in super-slow-motion. Just a suggestion.

comment #2

Rich S. says ...

To do justice to the source material (and be halfway intelligible), the movie would probably have to run at least three hours. It should have been presented as a miniseries on HBO.

I suspect Snyder will do what Peter Jackson did. Cut it down to 140 minutes for the suits and then put it all back in the DVD for the fanboys.

comment #3

HoopersX says ...

Comparing The Dark Knight and the Watchmen seems a bit absurd to me. Batman had a built in awareness and audience. 2 1/2 hours wasn't going to hurt it's box office one way or the other.

I've seen the Watchmen trailer several times now and while the visuals are pretty outstanding, I have absolutely no idea what the movie is about, not having read the graphic novel. Zack's statement seems a bit presumptuous for a movie that at this point looks an awful lot like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen on steroids to the uninitiated.

comment #4

Ponderer says ...

Well, it's already gonna have a bunch of extraneous stuff, so that's planned for. Like, they're shooting the pirate comic and will release it separately, period media interviews are being shot, etc. So for pure intelligibility purposes, I think they can get the story in at three hours. But that's it...the story is just too big for anything less than that.

comment #5

Captain MonkeyPants says ...

Why is this not being split into 2 films. I don't even think a single 3 hour film would be enough- especially with it all being in super slo-mo. :)

comment #6

Richardson says ...

I wish that Zack Snyder knew how to tell a story. Hollis could easily have been excised at a script level, but once you shoot a bunch of stuff around him being there, of course he can't be cut out.

The movie somehow feels the need to include Hollis, the aged old Nite Owl, and Silk Spectre I in addition to Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II... does anybody really think that will make for a better movie?

comment #7

breadlymoore says ...

WATCHMEN is going to be SNAKES ON A PLANE 2009.

comment #8

thevisceral says ...

What is this movie even about? Who is Zack Snyder? Why am I naked and covered in vomit?

comment #9

MilkMan says ...

I'm re-reading Watchmen right now and I don't see how it can be anything less that 3 hours. And I wonder what Snyder is going to do with Tales of the Black Freighter. I read watcmen when I was a teenager and I didn't really "get" it, but I think that had to do with the fact that I kept skipping the book excerpt sections, thinking they really played no part in either my enjoyment or understanding of the overall story. I was wrong of course. The guy who turned me on to Watchmen also turned me on to The Things They Carried, which, after I read it (18 years old) was my favorite book ever. This is the same guy who moved in to my apartment six years later after he was kicked out of his Lower East Side fire hazard/studio apartment, refused to pay rent, and brought home drunk aspiring models, who he would then ball (I've always liked that euphemism) on a makeshift mattress next to the bricked-up fireplace. Sometimes when you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes back into you. Or some shit like that. Whatever.

comment #10

Gabriel says ...

"Easy way to solve this problem: not every scene needs to be in super-slow-motion. Just a suggestion."

Exactly. If Snyder's "300" rules are in effect, he probably already has cut out half the comic and then slowed it down to reach 3 hours.

comment #11

BurmaShave says ...

Far as I know Tales of the Black Freighter is a short film that's going to be on the DVD starring Gerry Butler. Also MilkMan as usual that was better than any short story I've read in the last 5 years.

comment #12

Hallick says ...

"'I'm not ready for that yet," Synder says. 'If Dark Knight got two and a half hours, Watchmen should get fifteen minutes more. I'm trying to be reasonable."

The Dark Knight had a highly successful predecessor with a lead character who's a worldwide icon. I love the Watchmen comic, but that ain't the case now, is it? Of all the reasons why Watchmen should get fifteen more minutes, many if not most of which I'm sure I'd second in a heartbeat, pointing at The Dark Knight like some fucking baby who thinks his older brother got a slightly bigger piece of birthday cake than he did qualifies you for the stupidest quote of the day.

comment #13

bluefugue says ...

Watchmen really would work best as a TV miniseries, given the length and density of the source material.

The trailer is encouraging in that it seems to show a lot of fealty to the comic, both in character design and in shot composition. (Although the "precisely mimic a frame from the comic" thing can feel gimmicky.)

As Watchmen is by far -- by *far* -- the best written superhero comic I've ever encountered -- I hope the movie does some justice to the source material. Still, even if it stinks, the original will still be there unsullied.

comment #14

p.Vice says ...

Where's the outrage over potential running time that Inglorious Bastards got a few weeks ago?

comment #15

Chase Kahn says ...

If Snyder thinks WATCHMEN needs to be 3 hours, so be it.

As for SNAKES ON A PLANE comparisons, I really don't see the similarities in potential box-office bust. Just the fact that the trailer says, "Made by the visionary director of 300" ensures it will do pretty well.

comment #16

NivekJ says ...

"300" outgrossed "Batman Begins" both domestically and worldwide, on a budget less than half of Begins. If "Dark Knight" can get 2 and a half hours; if "Superman Returns" can get 2 hours and 45 minutes, then "Watchmen" can get three hours. I can understand Snyder's reasoning there.

Now, I love "Watchmen". A friend of mine lent me the original 12 issues, bagged and boarded. I never kept my hands so clean as I was flipping those pages. I get why Snyder went all fanboy on this, but he has to think like a suit.

In order for "Watchmen: The Motion Picture Adaptation" to succeed, it has to be agreeable to the masses. This is their only exposure to this story. If they want, they go out and buy the TPB if they want. Snyder has to sell the three-course meal, not the smorgasbord. Otherwise, he may find himself booted out of the kitchen, if I may extend the metaphor.

comment #17

Joel says ...

I'm not an industry expert, and I get that he's saying it has to reach beyond the hardcore fans...but if it misses both targets, doesn't it bomb completely? Let Snyder release it at 3 hours if it's that's the best movie. People will see a movie that long if it's good.

That said, I know next to nothing about the Watchmen.

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

'If Dark Knight got two and a half hours, Watchmen should get fifteen minutes more. I'm trying to be reasonable.'

And TDK was already slower than it needed to be at 2 1/2 hours. A three-hour Watchmen would end up being as slow and gratuitous as the first Hellboy. He really should just be glad it's happening at all, since, even if this sucker makes money, they'll never do one like it again anytime soon.

Rich: "It should have been presented as a miniseries"

I hear that's what Gilliam suggested.

Hooper: "Zack's statement seems a bit presumptuous for a movie that at this point looks an awful lot like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen on steroids to the uninitiated."

Now, now. Let's not go that far. I'd say Dark City's a more apt comparison.

breadlymoore: "WATCHMEN is going to be SNAKES ON A PLANE 2009."

I'm betting Spirits Within myself.

Hallick: "The Dark Knight had a highly successful predecessor"

You mean moderately successful. The only reason TDK's 2 1/2 hours is because of the success of "The Prestige". If that flick disappointed, then Warner would be the one calling the shots.

comment #19

cjKennedy says ...

When Snyder compares Watchmen to Dark Knight and asking for 15 more minutes, he's not talking about bankability and he's not acting like a "fucking baby who thinks his older brother got a slightly bigger piece of birthday cake."

Watchmen deserves 15 more minutes than Dark Knight because the story demands it and it's heartening to know that Snyder realizes this.

I hated 300 and I groaned when I heard Snyder was tackling Watchmen, but everything the guy has said, including his fight for an R rating, has felt right to me.

I agree that a miniseries was the only way to go, an R rated Showtime miniseries, but I'm encouraged that Snyder will do it up right.

comment #20

btwnproductions says ...

Past generations argued over how classic novels should be adapted for the screen. This generation argues over how classic graphic novels should be adapted for the screen. Times change.

comment #21

JapAdapters says ...

WATCHMEN is not a "graphic novel," it's a trade paperback.

A graphic novel is a comic story told and sold in one, long, "book," like A CONTRACT WITH GOD. A trade paperback is a series of single issues collected into a book, sans the original ads. Watchmen was a maxi-series that was eventually collected into one book.

That is all.

comment #22

Reynoldz says ...

Thanks for the condescending crash course in graphic novel terminology. A CONTRACT WITH GOD is also a trade paperback. (as well as a hardback). Trade paperback does not mean collection of comics bound into one volume. It is a type of book binding. Oversized paperbacks are called trade paperbacks, but the term has nothing to do with comic books.

Also, are Dickens novels not novels because they were first published as serials?

comment #23

hatchetface says ...

This is driving me crazy. Can we just agree to call these things comics or comic books, instead of trying to camouflage what they are? 'Graphic Novel' is a term coined by a marketing person embarrassed to call the thing by its proper name in order to sell more units. Everyone seems afraid of the word, now that there's shit loads of box office dollars to be raked in. It's like they were these dirty little things that are only now being legitimized by being gutted and skinned before cramming them into movie shaped boxes. Another thing: why call anything adapted from a comic book a 'comic book movie' regardless of its genre? Why does nobody call Ghost World a 'comic book movie' like these others? Because there's no one in tights?

As for Snyder, I think making this film is a mistake. I have seen his remake of Dawn of the Dead, but haven't seen 300 - which is better?

comment #24

JapAdapters says ...

Reynoldz, that sounds like publishing industry jargon, so it's entirely too grown and and factually correct for my tatstes.

I'm referring to comic store definitions, so you'll have to step down to your local shop and run your Dickens question by the dude behind the counter.

comment #25

frankbooth says ...

I will admit that the trailer -- which looked fakey-digital-cut-and-paste on a computer screen -- was far more impressive in IMAX. But what isn't?

If Snyder stays out of the way and doesn't actively screw up, this could be fun to watch. But it also has the potential to be as lifeless and pointless as the Psycho remake.

D.Z.: I would offer rebuttals to your silly points if I didn't have to cut my toenails right now.

comment #26

MovieBob says ...

Hollis Mason (Nite Owl I,) and Silk Spectre I are fairly integral characters - half the story takes place in flashbacks, with the heroes earlier forebears essentially creating most of the situations the new guys now find themselves in. You could PROBABLY lose Mason (though without him Nite Owl II has no backstory to speak of) but the original Silk Spectre is pretty damn important given how much of the story revolves around Comedian and the other characters' principal reason for despising the guy.

comment #27

BurmaShave says ...

This has to be one of those pointless times when I throw my hands in the air and ask D.Z. what the fuck he's talking about.

What the fuck are you talking about?!

comment #28

Undercover Brother says ...

I'm reading "Watchmen" again and after just 80 or so pages I'm realizing this is likely going to be a "Speed Racer" like failure. The film may very well wind up being excellent on its own terms, but the more likely scenario is that the material is too dense and into it's own ideas to work as a film. I can understand why Moore will have nothing to do with it. It seems liks Snyder is setting out to make his own "Dune." Something that should probably take 5 or 6 hours at least to tell faithfully as a film. Two, or even three hours, is a fools errand. And more importantly, there is absolutely nothing here for the unwashed masses to grasp onto. It's all unfamiliar, it's all perplexing, and it all ends badly for just about everyone. The ending in particular isn't going to play. I love the fact that they're really trying, but I hope they're bracing themselves for absolute failure. This film has a future as a historical oddity no matter what.

comment #29

K. Bowen says ...

Question from a non-comic guy ..... what the hell is The Watchmen? And why would I want to spend three hours with it?

OK, OK, I know a little about it. But really, not much, and not nearly as much as Batman. Which makes you wonder, how many non-comics fans are going to pay to sit through three hours of it?

comment #30

Yves says ...

I'm with Alan Moore on this one. I think it was a mistake to make it at all. Watchmen was a comic about comics, told through the medium of the comic. How you can translate that accurately to the screen, I don't know. I'll probably see it, but the trailer didn't raise the hairs on my skin, and I grew up when this came out monthly (or rather, semi monthly, as the final issues took forever to be released). Moore's the writer, in case you didn't know, and he has sworn off any film adaptations of his work, instead asking that film royalties are sent to the artists only. Zach Snyder has said he wants to make a film that Alan would be proud of, that is an exact replica of the comic. Unfortunately, that type of thinking does not serve the story. IMO the studio is usually on the right side of these battles.

comment #31

D.Z. says ...

My point is that TDK only got its desired running time, because Nolan had two profitable movies in a row. If that weren't the case, Nolan would be in Snyder's position in regard to Watchmen. But that time didn't really improve the movie any more than Watchmen's desired time would improve the integrity of its source material. Snyder either needs to capture the essence of the comic, like he did in 300, or he's just summarizing. That's why I like Akira, because Otomo didn't try to insert every friggin' detail of the manga into the movie.

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

Oh yeah, if someone's going to argue that I hated V for Vendetta for doing the same thing as I suggest Snyder do, it's because: 1)The Wachowskis chose to modernize it to reflect our current political problems, 2) They made the agents one-dimensional, and 3) They took away the motivation for most of the characters and the explanation of the setting.

comment #33

frankbooth says ...

Snip...snip...damn! Hangnail.

comment #34

Rev. Slappy says ...

MilkMan: The Things They Carried is a great book. The part about the GI who smuggles his girlfriend over to Vietman and the girlfriend goes native is one of the only things I've ever read that really scared me.

comment #35

Rich S. says ...

"This is driving me crazy. Can we just agree to call these things comics or comic books, instead of trying to camouflage what they are?"

See: "Action figures" (because they knew pre-teen boys would never play with "little dolls).

comment #36

MDOC says ...

DZ as usual your argument is built on a faulty premise. The Prestige grossed 53 million, not a hit according to anyone's definition (but probably your it was a hit because David Bowie was in it and it was about magic). The suits probably consider it an underperformer if anything. Batman Begins grossed 200 million, WB was thrilled with the gross.
Instead of trying to defend your position with more nonsense, take a few minutes and try to educate yourself so you can possibly make a cogent point someday.

comment #37

Reynoldz says ...

D.Z. also claims that Nolan got the running time he wanted because he had two profitable movies in a row. (I am ignoring the fact that The Prestige wasn't a big hit). But, Snyder has had two hits in a row which were bigger domestically than Nolan's. So your premise doesn't hold up.

comment #38

CinemaPhreek says ...

"Oh yeah, if someone's going to argue that I hated V for Vendetta..."

I get to start my day with this chuckler, as if any of us are keeping track of anything D.Z. writes.

Sir, you are a boil on the ass of HE and your only contribution is to inspire people to pop you.

comment #39

D.Z. says ...

MDOC: "The Prestige grossed 53 million, not a hit according to anyone's definition"

It cost $40 million, though, and made at least double that world-wide.

"(but probably your it was a hit because David Bowie was in it and it was about magic)."

No, but then Batman Begins wasn't a hit because of Michael Caine, either.

"Batman Begins grossed 200 million, WB was thrilled with the gross."

No they weren't, actually. They were just elated it didn't tank, because of the initial weak opening.

Reynolds: "D.Z. also claims that Nolan got the running time he wanted because he had two profitable movies in a row. (I am ignoring the fact that The Prestige wasn't a big hit)."

It wasn't a big hit, but it did make Nolan a name, and not just the guy who directed the latest Batman movie.

"But, Snyder has had two hits in a row which were bigger domestically than Nolan's."

You could argue that, like the Bay Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie, the Dawn of the Dead movie made money, because it was a horror movie, and a remake.
But even if that weren't the case, Nolan's proven he can be profitable with artsy films like Memento, while Snyder might end up being disappointing on Watchmen.

comment #40

Filthy Rich says ...

I still agree with HoopersX saying Watchmen looks
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen on steroids to the uninitiated.

Even to the initiated. I read Watchmen years ago and loved it. When I saw the trailer I was extremely let down. The cheese factor and the genericness of the characters, the costumes, production design and cinematography makes it look like Fantastic 4's slightly more expensive cousin. A huge letdown at least at this juncture.

The entire run-time dispute is another red flag because it doesn't matter WHAT story you're adapting the key word is ADAPTING. You're not filming the comic book you're making a movie version of that book and you are supposed to approach it like a movie and pare down any extraneous material.

Wisdom most filmmakers discard these days. To wit: Lord of the Rings (long and borrrrring), Harry Potter (long and more borrrrrring).

Figure out WHICH story to concentrate, trim everything else. Don't put everything in because it's in the comic book.

And yes I said comic book because come on - it's not a graphic NOVEL - it's a long ass fucking comic. A comic book is a medium unto itself. So is a novel. So is a stage play.

A movie isn't a filmed play. It's a movie.

comment #41

Reynoldz says ...

DZ, I like that while arguing that WB wasn't "thrilled" with the gross of BB you say that they were "elated." Is your problem just with the synonym choice?

comment #42

Reynoldz says ...

DZ, I like that while arguing that WB wasn't "thrilled" with the gross of BB you say that they were "elated." Is your problem just with the synonym choice?

comment #43

Reynoldz says ...

DZ, I like that while arguing that WB wasn't "thrilled" with the gross of BB you say that they were "elated." Is your problem just with the synonym choice?

comment #44

Reynoldz says ...

Tri-comments not my fault.

comment #45

D.Z. says ...

Filthy: Actually, LOTR *did* get a lot of extraneous material out of the final product. What's left is probably what Jackson needed to tell the story. [Though I'll admit that the second movie's a waste of time...]

Reynoldz: "DZ, I like that while arguing that WB wasn't "thrilled" with the gross of BB you say that they were "elated." Is your problem just with the synonym choice?"

I'm actually downplaying the meaning of the word by implying that the studio chose to aim low after building such high expectations of the film's potential success.

comment #46

D.Z. says ...

*downplaying the meaning[I.E. using it an ironic context]*

comment #47

Legowombat says ...

Strange choice of music for the trailer. It's a B-Side remix of 'The End Is The Beginning Is The End' by Smashing Pumpkins. You know, their stab at the never-emerging 'Electronica' craze from the 'Batman & Robin' soundtrack. Seems an odd choice to associate yourself with one of the worst comic book movies of all time.

comment #48

D.Z. says ...

Lego: Maybe he's hoping he can fight one curse with another one.

comment #49

Krillian says ...

I'm reading Watchmen now, and I'm glad Snyder is fighting to be faithful. If only he'd been aboard the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, maybe he could have saved that from the turkey it became.

And I liked Dawn of the Dead a little more than 300. 300 was a really cool trailer that couldn't sustain itself as a full movie of non-stop stylization.

comment #50

Krillian says ...

I'm reading Watchmen now, and I'm glad Snyder is fighting to be faithful. If only he'd been aboard the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, maybe he could have saved that from the turkey it became.

And I liked Dawn of the Dead a little more than 300. 300 was a really cool trailer that couldn't sustain itself as a full movie of non-stop stylization.

comment #51

cjKennedy says ...

WB must be thinking Comic + Snyder + March release = 300's $200+ million. If so, they're sorely mistaken. As a fan of the comic and as someone who has hope Snyder just might manage to do it justice, I don't think it's going to get many people interested beyond the nerd niche.

Unless Snyder totally screws it up and turns it into a flashy hyperactive action picture, in which case it could be a hit.

comment #52

Mgmax says ...

You know, I think the best movie of 2008 just might be the Watchmen trailer.

Makes you wish they wouldn't spoil it by actually making the movie.

comment #53

cjKennedy says ...

Have you seen Man On Wire yet, Mgmax?

comment #54

Hallick says ...

"You know, I think the best movie of 2008 just might be the Watchmen trailer."

to each his own. I'm pretty sure it's yours and yours alone.

"Makes you wish they wouldn't spoil it by actually making the movie."

I think you've stumbled onto the next step in Mr. Wells' evolution as a film-goer. He wouldn't have to waste all that time waiting to leave a great movie 15 minutes before it's over.

comment #55

Mgmax says ...

"Have you seen Man On Wire yet, Mgmax?"

Hasn't opened in Chicago, but I can't wait; I've always loved the story (I remember, vaguely, when it actually happened).

The Watchmen trailer is sort of like Guy Maddin's Heart of the World, it does all the things he does so well in a couple of minutes, why would you need to see them done less well over a much longer running time?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DWmrWfPTmI

comment #56

Gnome de Guerre says ...

Legowombat:It's been suggested elsewhere that the trailer using "The Beginning is the End is the Beginning" represents some type of commentary on B&R, mirroring somehow how the Watchmen comic is a commentary on superhero comics, and hopefully hinting at the movie commenting on other superhero movies in the same way.

comment #57

Legowombat says ...

Gnome:

I haven't read 'Watchmen', but know it's usually cited as a deconstruction of the superhero comic format, so one possible interpretation i had was what you suggested, it's commenting on superhero movies like "Batman & Robin".

If it is, it's taking a hell of a risk with the mainstream audience, who won't understand the subtext and will just like remember a truly terrible film, and possibly wonder if 'Watchmen' it's somehow related.

The issues this brings up are surprisingly similar to the Michael Nyman / Man On Wire discussion on here.

comment #58

Nicanor says ...

This isn't the Watchmen. This is the Watchmen interpreted by Snyder. The Watchmen comic changed comics. Will the Watchmen movie change comic book movies? We shall see. Will the movie deconstruct the themes put forth by previous comic book movies? We shall see. If the previous comic movies were faithful to the source material, and if Snyder's interpretation is faithful to the source material, then perhaps it will deconstruct. Snyder's challenge is on many levels, though. He must deconstruct the comic book movie based upon the comic book, and he must also deconstruct the movie based upon a comic. I am sure it is not an easy task. Moore and Gibbons did the work to take a comic book apart, put it back together, and show the reader something new. Snyder, now has to do that with with film. How does one deconstruct the comic book movie? If Snyder stays true to the source material then he has to fight for a three hour movie, and a trailer that is very flash, or let the studio cut it however they want and release the deluxe Watchmen DVD set. Snyder isn't going to lose. The studio isn't going to lose. The casual movie goer isn't going to lose. The comic fans may lose.

I am curious if he can pull it off in the theatrical version, or the extended DVD version. He may fail. I can only hope he fails nobly.

comment #59

Mgmax says ...

Watchmen isn't that great. I'll be happy if the movie's fun to watch.

comment #60

Nicanor says ...

Legowombat says ...

...

If it is, it's taking a hell of a risk with the mainstream audience, who won't understand the subtext and will just like remember a truly terrible film, and possibly wonder if 'Watchmen' it's somehow related.

See, that's the thing. I view "Miller's Crossing" as a great deconstruction of the gangster movie but it is also a great gsangster movie, and yet I never thought anything less of Dashiell Hammettt's 'Glass Key,' or 'Red Harvest.'

comment #61

Nicanor says ...

Mgmax says ...

Watchmen isn't that great.

Wow. Are you too cool for school, too?

comment #62

Mgmax says ...

I read it, oh, 15 or so years ago.

Sorry, I just don't see what blows everyone away about it.

Maybe you have to have read it at a certain age and with a certain level of comics obsession to get the impact of it blowing the lid off the whole genre, man. And I was already too old, and just never that obsessed.

It could make a pretty good movie, though. We'll see.

comment #63

Rich S. says ...

"You know, I think the best movie of 2008 just might be the Watchmen trailer.

"Makes you wish they wouldn't spoil it by actually making the movie."

Have you seen The Onion Online's take on the Iron Man trailer? "Will the movie adaptation of the trailer be faithful?" Priceless.

comment #64

alan says ...

I was excited about Zack Snyder as a director after Dawn of the Dead. Then I saw 300, the most racist, homophobic, xenophobic motion picture I've ever encountered -- and, perhaps even worse, just an all-around poorly made, sucky movie.

Couldn't be less interested in Watchmen. Wait, yes I could, if turns out to be 3 hours long.

comment #65

hcat says ...

"Then I saw 300, the most racist, homophobic, xenophobic motion picture I've ever encountered -- and, perhaps even worse, just an all-around poorly made, sucky movie."
Hated 300 as well but the aforementioned title is still held by Freebie and the Bean.

comment #66

Legowombat says ...

, that's the thing. I view "Miller's Crossing" as a great deconstruction of the gangster movie but it is also a great gsangster movie, and yet I never thought anything less of Dashiell Hammettt's 'Glass Key,' or 'Red Harvest.'

Unfortunately, you're giving the mainstream audience far more credit for intelligence than I'd give them. For this to be a hit, it needs to reach the morons who watch Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy movies as well. The trailer offers no stars, and no plot for those types - the only thing they might recognise is the B&R music.

This is my explanation for the success of 'The Dark Knight' that I don't think anyone's considered - they reached the mouth-breathing, sideways-chip-eating trailer trash tabloid market who would never normally see a superhero film, but checked it out purely because FOX News kept running "OMG Heath Ledger is teh dead!" stories. You really think any of them saw "Brokeback Mountain" or "Monster's Ball"?