Exclusive: Zack Snyder Talks About Why People Didn't Watch WATCHMEN - Page 2

True. I witnessed walkouts of Pan's Labyrinth because "I didn't know it had fucking subtitles!" and Sweeney Todd "I didn't know it was a fucking musical!" Both these morons felt the need to yell that out as they left...

What's sadder, that people are so scared of anything that isn't exactly like every other turd Hollywood slings our way, or that in the 21st century, people STILL don't research films before the go to see them via a quick google?

These same fuckwits will tell you all about how amazing Slumdog Millionaire was provided someone "important" on TV told them to go see it.

Last summer we had two blockbusters that were so good that they arguably deserved best picture nominations. We're paying for it this summer due to the writer's strike. There's no arguing that TRANSFORMERS 2 may be the stupidest blockbuster yet, but I think we're still a ways off from the death of cinema.

Am I the only one that didn't like the Lord of the Rings? The first one was good, the second one okay, but the last one was just horrible. it is a shame, but blockbusters almost always suck. For every Jaws and Star Wars we get mammoths building pyramids and a giant anaconda trying to burst J-lo's bubble.

Would you guys really say that Transformers 2 is that much dumber than Godzilla98 or, outside of summer, 10,000 BC?

I'm picking solely on Emmerich for some reason.

It was a double edged sword. The horror fans walked out when the singing began.. the musical fans walked out when the blood began.

I think a lot of Devin/Snyder's points have a lot of bearing on the opening weekend. I'm not the biggest fan of the film either, but I don't think bad word of mouth had much to do with the opening weekend. Now the later weeks, sure.

And I'm not making a definitive comment on the film's quality itself. But it's a fact that there was a hell of a lot of piss poor word of mouth after it's opening weekend (and during it as well).

But most of the blame does surely lie with its story/characters being inherently unconventional, challenging and unknown.

Final step? You're much too kind. It's only gonna get worse, and Bay's gonna be leading the way.

Though I still feel that in terms of stupidity, it was all there in the first movie you admit to enjoying. Whether it was because of charm (like Star Trek) or good pacing (I didn't think so), you were much more forgiving of the stupidity of the first Transformers movie. From there, it was only gonna get stupider because sequels give you more of what you apparently liked before. Couple that with a ton of exposition for half-assed mythology and terrible pacing, and you become much less forgiving of the same stupidity.

EDIT: And I completely forgot that this isn't a TF2 thread...

It's what the people want obviously.

I completely agree. If anything, I guess we can just sum up those reports as lazy journalism. What's funny is that I remember one of those articles mentioned that the two films had almost nothing in common, yet, comparing their opening weekends was still somehow relevant.

Watchmen failed because it was a niche property with a very small built in audience that didn't attract the larger movie going public.

Sometimes I think many of us live in our own worlds too much. We tend to apply what we love as the standard to everyone else. One of my favorite films is John Ford's The Long Voyage Home. The reaction I got showing it to a friend of mine who counts Ford's The Searchers as one of his Top 5 films? "Boring and tedious". I was kind of like "what the fuck man! Are you 'tarded?" at first but then I came to realize what he gets out of a film is totally different than what I do.

Some people go to the circus, some people go to the Strip Club during the day shift on a Tuesday to count the C-Section scars and some people go see Transformers 2 because they want to see giant robots who change into cars and planes fight each other and that was right in the wheelhouse of their 8 year old. Some people go to see a Watchmen because it strikes them as something they want to see or they have a love for the source material. Those people are lucky because they get to see a great piece of filmmaking and not just some populist entertainment piece that midly amused them for a couple of hours.

I don't begrudge them for it. I save my begrudings for the people who equate box office performance with quality or lack thereof. Those people can get fucked.

Here we go again. Why did Watchmen (arguably) didn't do so well?

First, my personal opinion is that it did about as well as possible. Sure, I'd love seeing it do 300m but it was always a longshot. Anyway, on to its perceived under-performance. It wasn't for lack of quality. While not without flaws, it was better directed, better shot, better acted and better scripted than the huge majority of the more 'successful' genre films. To narrow the scope even more, if you believe that Watchmen made less money than 300 or Spider-Man 3 because it was a worse movie your opinion on movies should be ignored from now on. Even as an adaptation of a property as hugely revered as Watchmen it was very good. An opinion that considering what I'm hearing about the director's cut will be further strengthened.

And as for the LOL boobies, LOL penis, LOL songs brigade, they don't even deserve an answer.

So what about "Watchmen"? I think its this generations "Blade Runner" or "A Clockwork Orange". Like those two movies, it underperformed at the box office. Also, all three of these movies were based on books that many said were unfilmable. Look at how many critics and fans love BL and ACO now. I can see the same happening to "Watchmen", which btw I'm a big fan of both the book and the movie.

I think WATCHMEN is this generation's DICK TRACY.

This.

I'm usually with Devin 100% but I think he's grossly overestimating the quality and life of the product. In two decades time all that you're gonna have are dated effects and over stylisation that robs the life out of most of the film.

All this makes me want to do is watch that uncut BD of this.

I remember enjoying it thoroughly. I'd rather have more Watchmen-inspired failures coming out than another Transformers.

I think this didn't really take off was because most of the mainstream public couldn't wrap their minds around a film that was more drama and ideas then action and fluff and yet was a 'super hero comic movie'.

Its just too big a divide for many to comprehend. Plus hyping it via 'The Director of 300' didn't help because thats what a lot of people went in expecting.

I really think this things going to get some serious legs on dvd when people can just sit down and really give it a chance without a lot of preconcieved notions.

Nuanced doesn't automatically mean good. Most people found the film unwatchable, no amount of profound nuance is going to cover up the movies extensive flaws. And are we still actually complaining "why do the big dumb blockbuster make all the money?" I mean seriously guys.

And if Zack Snyder didn't want the press to have the wrong preconcieved notions of the movie Watchmen, maybe he shouldn't have been trotting around the world showcasing every slick action scene from the movie, to every entertainment journalists, for months preceding its release. Hes only got himself to blame.

Fuck that generalised bullshit, who the hell are 'most people' exactly? I watched the film with two non-geeks who'd never read a comic book in their lives and only knew what a superhero was from the movies and they both said while being unlike anything they'd seen before they thought the film was brilliant. Stop projecting your response onto 'most people' it's not worth a pound of piss.

Jesus it's called 'studio controlled marketing', you may want to look it up.

I understand the appeal of referring to yourself as "most people." It makes you feel like you're part of something important. It's a good ego boost.

Without condoning... Or condemning... I understand.

A lot of people seem to be treating this film's inaccessability as a kind of badge of honour, but I'm not sure that's such a great idea when we're dealing with a graphic novel that is one of the great crossover successes of the medium. People seem to have no problem 'getting' the book even without a background interest in comics or superheros, which makes me suspect the rejection of the movie by those outside (and many inside) the hardcore faithful is really a sign of some shortcomings of the film.

Personally I've always felt the real strengths of the book weren't so much in the narrative but in how Moore and Gibbons brought the narrative, characters and world to life with innovative techniques very specific to the medium they were using - all those background details, visual motifs, juxtapositions and contrasts, the prose chapter endings and so on. Much of that stuff is inevitably lost with the change of medium and by going for such a literal translation the film only tends to get the narrative skeleton across, and I don't think that skeleton is substantial enough to justify the film's length and wealth of characters and subplots. I can't say I didn't enjoy it but on the whole it just felt like an overblown, occasionally impressive movie about fucked up superheros with some pretensions to making cultural and political insights that, again, I'm not convinced have all that much substance to them. It made me want to revisit the book to remind myself why I used to think it was so clever.

That doesn't account for "why people didn't watch Watchmen" as much as "why people didn't like Watchmen." And even then, it leaves out the considerable segment of the audience who went in knowing full well what to expect, yet left heartbroken.

Good job. Better films have suffered a worse fate at the box office, but really, WATCHMEN just wasn't a good film, nor was it the best film that could have possibly been made from the material.

Edit: I went a bit too democratic with the "WATCHMEN wasn't a good film" nonsense and I wish to say directly what I think, what I've come to feel. It's a bad movie. Not in comparison to any other superhero film or adaptation or whatever, it's just on its own, in purely filmic terms, bad.

Hate to burst your bubble but the sharp drops in the box office point to the direction of Watchmen having really bad word of mouth.

The greatest proof that this is not Blade Runner redux but Dick Tracy Lite, is the fact that it's less than four months since its release and yet it feels like it's been years. It never became part of the zeitgeist, a critical darling or material for a vocal minority to obsess over.

It was well-made but soulless. I had a good night out, watching it but I'll dare predict that it won't influence shit.

Problem with this is the ending of the graphic novel is supposed to be ultra serious, you are supposed to take it seriously despite the ridiculousness of the situation.

I'm just wondering for all chewers. How do you go about explaining to someone with this type of opinion that he's an idiot? How do you formally go about it? How do you explain to him that he lacks any form of intelligence. That his opinion is laughed at, his mentallity is laughed at. I've always wondered how to get it through some people's heads but either don't know what to say or just blurt that they are an "idiot".

10,000 bc?

Watchmen was not great filmmaking. if the film was made with more quality and thought, word of mouth would have been good. Badly structured and paced.

Then why does something like The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford die at the box office? The theater I saw it in was packed with people who despised it... Did it deserve its "bad word of mouth" too?

This is a good point. I don't think Watchmen was ever going to be for everyone, but part of the point of the original comic was to humanize and ground in reality a genre that had gotten really stylized and inaccessible. The movie seemed to work hard at distancing the audience whereas the comic worked to draw them in. And questions of quality aside, that's something that legitimately might have helped the movie's word of mouth--to see the human side of these semimythical beings.

Of course, a lot of this humanizing has already been done at the movies--I'd argue that Nolan's Bat-movies work hard at trying to apply reality to the superhero genre, and of course the Marvel movies, particularly Spider-man, have made that their specialty. That's why some of the punch of Watchmen was bound to be lost.

The title of the article is "Zack Snyder Talks About Why People Didn't Watch the Watchmen". The whole point of the article is why the movie didn't connect with people, and why it's perceived so poorly, yet Raindog, is arguing this is simply not the case. I guess Devin made up the whole interview in his head.

And if we should follow your line of poignant thinking to not generalize anything, then how infinitely stupid is it, to then decide to base the reception of a film upon two of your 'friends'.

Projecting? Yes, you're correct, I'm projecting the whole existence of Devin's article, I'm projecting Snyder's open disappointment, I'm projecting the dramatic drop off from opening weekend, I'm projecting the terrible word of mouth.

But, opps, sorry, two of your 'friends' liked it, so none of this must be true in any way.

Yes, because saying a movie has extensive flaws, is neither condoning nor condemning. I'm taking a wild guess, dyslexia?

Referring to myself as 'most people', is an ego boost? That's quite possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this forum. Leave psych to people who know what they are talking about.

But I understand the urge to create a post, when you have nothing interesting to add... Or intelligent... I understand.

Yeah, I'm not as blown away by Nolan's batman efforts as most of the rest of the world but his approach of applying old superhero tropes to otherwise realistic crime movies did seem to make a similar splash in that movie genre as Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns did for comics back in the day, and their success with that approach kind of disproves Snyder's assertation that no one wants to see dramatic superhero movies.

Thing is, I don't think it was impossible for a Watchmen movie to have made a real impact; taking the realist attitude and adding in a truly epic scope and political relevance. But Snyder steps back and sets everything in a camped up hightened reality, deferring all political considerations to the Alan Moore of the mid-80's. Moore hated the V for Vendetta script for the way it co-opted his story as a vehicle for modern day political commentary, but frankly I think their eagerness to actually say something with the material helped make that film the more vital of the recent Moore adaptations.

Also, re: this popular idea that this might become 'The New Blade Runner'. Is is actually possible in this day and age for a movie in this genre, that was this widely seen (lets remember, the only reason it's considered a disappointment is cos it cost so much - at a more modest budget passing 100m would've been a triumph) to *not* have found its audience? They were ready and waiting for this thing. Unless the directors cut dramatically changes things, whatever reputation it currently has is likely to be the one it's stuck with.

I think it's clear that Watchmen was an unpopular movie in the mainstream sense of the word. No one is arguing against that. It didn't get the word of mouth that, say, Star Trek got - it was never meant to.

Throwing in that it got bad word of mouth and people didn't like it as a barometer of its quality is not an intelligent argument. It's fine if you didn't like it, but just because millions of other people agree with you doesn't make you right or wrong.

I didn't like Brick, for example. I have my reasons. And the people I saw it with disliked it as well... I asked around... Many didn't enjoy it.

But you won't get me to put that as evidence that it's a "bad film." The only thing I can say is it didn't connect with me and go about my day.

I have to agree. I also think some of the casting was off.
And I still maintian that Synder is brilliant when it comes to visuals, but still has a problem with narrative and characters.
I just cannnot see this becoming a "Blade Runner".
BTW someone said "Clockwork Orange" was a flop when it came out.Wrong. It was not a huge blockbuster, but it was a box office sucess.

I don't think anyone's saying that. In fact more people have been suggesting something close to the opposite - this slightly self-congratulatory idea that the mainstream's distaste for the film is down to it being too intelligent and sophisticated for them to handle.

My POV is that the reasons the mainstream didn't take to the film just happen to correspond with the reasons I don't think the film amounts to much more than a mildly diverting curiosity for fans of the book.

Erix, no one is saying their own reaction to the film is based on its lack of impact on audiences. But denying the existence of bad word of mouth is just a blatant refusal of reality. Snyder himself says " Its not entertaining..." (not the full quote, but you get the idea) Asides from my chud friends, I don't know a single person who liked the film, and I couldn't care less. I went and saw it for a second time on my own. The greatest joy this movie probably gave me was, listening to my friends reactions to it, I loved the fact so many people were so pissed off, and I'd love to hear their utter confusion.

A lot of what Snyder says about the difficulty in making an entertaining film out of Watchmen, is borne from his insistence on making a faithful adaptation as possible, almost to the point of translation.

But it's like many of you have commented, Watchmen was grounded in reality, relatively speaking. And despite his insistence on fidelity with the graphic novel, ironically, his stylized film feels like it takes place in another reality. I didn't hate the film, I enjoyed it. I genuinely look forward to the director's cut. I personally think Snyder wasn't the person to helm Watchmen.

There are plenty of great films that fall under the radar every year, unjustly so. I don't think Watchmen is one of them. I find it slightly odd and ironic, that this, or any, superhero movie is being used as a rallying cry for the immaturity of movie audiences, especially when there are far better examples of the industry and audience failing an artist.

The largest portion of the movie going audience is comprised of children and families, or so I read, I may be wrong about this. But complaining about Transformers making more money than Watchmen is just so silly. Transformers was always going to make more money, being surprised or annoyed by this fact is, again, silly. It could be more a matter of demographics, and less of intelligence.

The comment about "feeling like it takes place in another world" resonates with me. The film is very glossy and stylized. I think this hurts it when it does try to tackle mature concepts.

One of my friends called it 'geek porn' since she thought it has all the sex , violence and superheroes for nerds to get their kicks from. Originally I thought she had simply missed the point, but now I'm starting to see where she's coming from. This film simultaneously wants to be an entertaining big-budget film as well as complex deconstructive drama. I think it gets straddled half way and really pleases no-one.

One other thing I don't thing has been mentioned. This film had no real stars to help sell it.

So they didn't want people to tell other people the film was good? That last statement doesn't make a lot of sense. They certainly wanted some kind of word of mouth. Any film does.

I thought this got squashed in the post release thread ? The comic world of the comics release was NOT stylized. The art style was not an attempt to be more realistic, simple, or less stylized. The super heroes of that era were mainly good guy boy scouts. Watchmen's characters were super brutal and violent in comparison to the vast majority of the field. It helped usher in dark and violent anti-heroes (not its intention, but that is what it did). Comics were pretty much simple and straight forward in that era (in comparison). Watchmen super sexualized its heroes and made them into brutal fighters. The movie took current super heroes and did the same. People did not seem to like or not get what it was doing. Fine, but people need to stop not recognizing what the original was also.

I misstated my point. What I meant was, it was not meant to be a movie like Star Trek - that everybody basically liked. It was not calculated to be a big, mainstream blockbuster, despite what the marketing department would have you believe. Of course they wanted good word of mouth, from and for its intended audience.

Gotcha. Although I don't think Warner Brothers was really happy with the idea of it being a niche film and being content with a limited audience.

Probably not, and that's why they sold it the way they did. They were hoping their bait-and-switch method would work.

Though I don't know that there was any other way to sell this. As other have pointed out, no recognizable stars. They had to bring people in by promising them a thrillride.

That being said, they're still giving the film an awesome DVD release. I think they're banking on it becoming a popular catalog title and it probably will.

Note that I don't say "the next Blade Runner" or "the Clockwork Orange of superhero movies." those labels are silly. But I do think it will grow on people that weren't into it right now, particularly if the director's cut turns out to be an improvement. (You can do a lot with 25 minutes, just ask The Abyss.)

I really agree with the glossy stylized look being detrimental to the universe of Watchmen. Snyder is no doubt a unique and visionary director, whom I'm sure will impress us with some exciting films. I just don't think his particular brand of vision fits well with Watchmen. His slick music video sensibilities run counter to everything I would expect from a Watchmen film.

Considering the amount of marketing exposure this film recieved, I don't think a lack of a big name factored into its lack of success. Its the word of mouth which really sunk it. I almost feel like the fact that it did have such a big opening is the reason it'll never attain late recongnition like Bladerunner, or The Thing, the bad taste will remain in too many peoples mouth. Even otherwise I don't think its going to be a late achiever.

Watchmen fans will always differ to the comic book, the movie will never step out from its shadow. Are you going to give your kid the DVD or the comic book? Dumb question, but it illustrates what I'm trying to clumsily explain.

Too drunk to write more, hopefully didnt write anything too flameworthy. Peace.

When I first saw BLADE RUNNER and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, I saw things I had never seen before. When I saw WATCHMEN, I saw things pretty much exactly as I had seen them for over two decades in the panels of the comic book. Aside from the not-insignificant achievement of actually getting a mostly respectable WATCHMEN film made in a creatively-bankrupt studio system, it really had nothing new to offer or say. That's why WATCHMEN will never be "the next BLADE RUNNER or CLOCKWORK ORANGE." Unlike those films, it broke no new ground.

And the notion that the filmmakers weren't interested in making a WATCHMEN movie with mass appeal makes no sense to me. They may have been pleasantly resigned to the fact that they weren't making mainstream cotton candy but that doesn't mean they didn't want it to get gobbled up by every kid at the mall multiple times between buying all the toys and t-shirts and demanding a sequel.

I'll give her the book. Then, when she's done, we'll sit down to watch the movie. But I see what you're saying... It's not like The Godfather or Jaws, where it's the movie you go to.

Though that's probably because Watchmen is a better book than those.

The filmmakers were interested in bringing Watchmen to the screen as faithfully as they could. It's the studio that wanted a slam-bang with toys and possible sequels. And that's always the case.

Kind of like Universal Pictures expected Brazil to be Time Bandits II and had no idea what to do with the movie Gilliam delivered.

I really disagree. The point of the violence in the comic is that it's the opposite of comic-book violence--realistic and unglamorous. That means it's brutal, but it's also underplayed as much as possible. Almost all of it takes place off-panel, or in long shot, or with some kind of distance between the reader and the act. It's observed remotely, the exact opposite of traditional comic book violence. Taking out the "WHAM! POW!"-style action is one of the ways the comic grounds the characters in regular life.

There's this feeling lingering over the comic like the characters are left over from a superhero comic but are stranded in a realistic world in which they don't fit. Whereas most superhero comics, then and now, bend the narrative to the genre, so that people in spandex with superpowers are made to feel natural. That's what I meant by stylization. Watchmen, the comic, doesn't let the characters be godlike heroes who perform fetishized acts of violence. It forces them to be human beings.

Nicely put Prankster.

sorry, but comparing "Watchmen" to "A Clockwork Orange" is COMPLETELY off. "ACO" was nominated for 4 academy awards , including Best Picture and Best Director, won the New York Film Critics Circle on those same categories, had a HUGE influence on the culture of its time (prompting Kubrick to call for its being taken off the screens in Britain because he was being blamed for violence in the country and was afraid to take his kids to school) and, according to then President of WB, "was the second highest grossing film the studio had since 'My Fair Lady'".

Plus, it was, y'know... good.


Completely unlike "Watchmen" in every regard: audience reception, critical reception and (this being my opinion, obviously) quality of filmmaking.

C'mon folks, I know this is CHUD and you have to love Snyder to prove your worth here (which would make me worthless), but comparing him or his film to Kubrick is just ridiculous.

I must admit, when they flashback to the Comedian attacking a mob with "Boogie Man" playing in the background, it felt like one of the EPIC MOVIE/SUPERHERO MOVIE spoofs

I think UP's reception (regardless of Pixar namebrand) makes it too soon to cry about falling skies. Has UP even opened wide across the globe?