The Problem(s) With Zack Snyder's Watchmen
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 сен 2024
- The graphic novel titled Watchmen might be one of the greatest graphic novels ever written. Creators Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons created a true masterpiece that many have tried to adapt over the years. When Zack Snyder brought Watchmen to the big screen, at first it was seen as the most accurate adaptation of it's source material. Though upon further inspection, Zack Snyder's Watchmen may suffer from almost being too faithful. Coming off the back of his hit adaptation of 300, it seemed Zack Snyder was truly the one that could bring Watchmen to the big screen faithfully, but did his commitment to the direct translation end up hurting the film overall?
#watchmen #zacksnyder #alanmoore #nerdstalgic #dceu
The issue with Snyder's Watchmen is that it's a celebration of Watchmen and not a criticism and satire of superheroes.
This is just my personal take, but I don’t read watchmen as necessarily saying “superheroes bad”. But rather as a warning about trying to put superheroes in the real world. Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and the rest are, at the end of the day, a fantasy. The idea that Superman could be the most powerful being in the universe yet still fight for truth justice and the American way, the idea that Bruce Wayne, a man with so much wealth power would entirely devote his life to helping the downtrodden, or the idea that Peter Parker could go though so much suffering snd grief and yet remain a good man and a great hero we should all aspire to be are all, sadly, fantasy. The idea of people being given power and using it to do good simply because its the right thing to do is tragically more fantastic then any superpower, gadget or secret identity. Making superheroes realistic is bad not because it diminishes the hero, but rather because it destroys the very notion of them being heroes.
Exactly. He just thought "let's make a cool, dark and edgy movie without any of the messages of the comic"
That feels like all Snyder movies to some extent - he's really good at articulating what he, Zack Snyder, thinks is cool.
Perfectly put. If Snyder had any meta-cognition whatsoever, he would've known the film, like the original graphic novel, needed a bedrock of superhero criticism. If adapted now, the film would've killed - as it was, in 2009, it stands as an odd standalone venture that was way too early.
I can agree 100%
Fun Fact: Jackie Earle Haley was the only one of the main cast who was already familiar with the graphic novel. He actively campaigned for the part of Rorschach.
And he absolutely killed it. I mean I think he was the highlight of the movie easily.
JEH honestly was one of the best castings ever for a comicbook/graphic novel/ superhero movie
Rorschach was also, honestly, the best part of the film too.
One of the things that kinda hurt this film in my opinion was that all the performances felt pretty phoned in and lifeless. Except Jackie Earle Haley. He arguably makes up for nearly everyone and pretty much every scene he's in is elevated above the rest of the film. Jeffrery Dean Morgan (the Comedian) does a good job too.
I prefer the motion comic's rorschach's voice,
as he's supposed to be calm, not this edgy tryhard (though it is good on its own)
I still smile whenever I think that Alan Moore created Rorschach to be disliked, but succeeded in achieving the opposite.
Honestly what gets me is that there are basically 2 Republicans in watchmen and both of them are the worst kinds of people. Rorshach and the comedian. Both of them Republicans seem to be looked at as heroes and they're not supposed to be seen as heroes cause one is a killer and the other is a rapist.
The characters who are the most damaged and dysfunctional are often the most fascinating ones.
@@BiohazardEXTREME Exactly. Same reason people end up idolising Walter White
people dont tend to identify with something they can never be
half gods only get whorshipped
so...
@@youraveragepasser-by7367 yeah, but people kinda get Walter white wrong too. He's a man that constantly shoots himself in the foot cause he's a jealous man that refuses help cause he sees it as some form of weakness.
Aesthetically, Snyder's Watchmen is beyond impressive for how effectively it translates the graphic novel's iconography to live-action. But in making everything look cool/badass, you could argue he undermines the book's deconstructionist themes of why superheroing is... not all that great. Still, the Doctor Manhattan twist works fairly well as an ending.
I've always said that ZS is a very shallow storyteller but an amazing visual director.
U totally missed the point of the film. It doesn't glorify superheroes at all. The violence is slow motion and over the top violent on purpose. It's not supposed to look cool and fun, but silly and over the top. The violence os supposed to make u feel discusted and shocked.
Snyder didn't try to make them look cool, he is trying to make themselves feel cool, but make the audience mock them how stupid they are behaving.
He does this element in most of his films from 300 to Sucker Punch. He constantly creates "epic scenes" that are on purpose over the top to make fun of how silly the people he is presenting are
@@MarkFilipAnthonyI think you're giving Snyder too much credit
@@MarkFilipAnthony This is incorrect. Snyder missed the point of the comic book. He does make them look cool by giving them badass costumes and slow-motion action sequences. Snyder doesn't have the emotional depth to trick the audience into mocking his characters.
@@tavo7465 or perhaps he CHOSE to make that specific note from the source material different.
I love that you say "just a few human lives" when the comics showed that a majority of NYC was killed by the octopus monster lol.
Technically it's not the monster that kills people it's the monster teleporting in.
Well I don't want to entertain Ozymandias' point, but it's the difference between the city or the world which was definitely on a Mutually Assured Destruction trajectory even without Veidt's intervention.
Half, actually.
Imo, you don't change the ending of something like this.
I think Gilliam was essentially right. Nothing is literally unfilmable, but is something worth filming if all you can make is an inferior version? The whole thing is written very specifically for the comic book medium. Doc Manhatten's chapter is absolute genius, the way it lets you into the perspective of a man who sees through time and has the power of a God, and in such a clear way. You couldn't film that, not in a satisfying way.
I don't know, that sequence in the film is one of the best I've seen in any comic book/fantasy-sci fi adaptation. Pretty hard to beat that in my opinion.
The only problem I have is that Ozymandias walks away thinking hes the good guy. He killed those people for a brief temporary peace and the movie doesnt even tell him.
No he literally saves the world
@@ozymandias3097 😏 Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends. Entropy is inevitable.
I think he's perfectly aware of that. That's why he lets Nite Owl beat him up after his plan is revealed.
I personally like this subtle approach.
I'm not sure, everyone leaves him alone, having to live with the atrocity he committed in secret. I would've loved if they kept his conversation with Jon though, with the "nothing ever ends."
"You haven't idealized mankind, but you've deformed it. You've mutilated it! That's your legacy."
I think that quote from Nite Owl summed up pretty well what the film thinks of Adrian.
One thing that can never be faulted for this movie is production design. The production designer Alex McDowell (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Minority Report, Fight Club, and visual consultant on two of the best looking animated movies Fantastic Mr Fox and Rise of the Guardians) gave a lecture when I was in college the day before Watchmen came out. He talked for a long time about how meticulous they were in creating real things and spaces from the blueprint of the comic. He said lots of the drive for the accuracy came from Snyder, and I have to agree when you say Snyder’s strength is in his visuals because I love how this movie looks.
Good soundtrack too.
You had me until you said the ending change works. The Comedian was so cynical about how the world was gonna destroy itself. This is in the context of the Cold War, so, nukes. Why would it emotionally break him to find out someone was planning to use nukes when he’s already established to be jaded about this?
I think my biggest issue with Synder's Watchmen was the casting of Ozymandias. The actor is too young, and didn't have the screen presence to effectively portray the character. In the movie at the end, Ozymandias looks sad and remorseful that he had to kill all those people to fool the world. In the books, he is smirking and gleeful that he was RIGHT. Killing most of New York and all of his trusted staff is an afterthought for him. It doesn't matter to him that he's changed the world based on a lie, because it's HIS lie.
In the movie, Ozymandias is a sad emo kid. In the books he's an arrogant monster. The difference in tone is huge, and it's very telling that Snyder didn't see it as a bad change.
I saw the film before reading the book, and, while the characterisation wasn't the same, I think he was still good in the film. He still came across as arrogant and self-satisfied.
Agreed. I’d like to add that the actor also looked very little like the character from the book.
And the way the actor portrayed the character was all wrong. He played it smug and sleazy… it was so obvious he was the villain.
I would have picked Michael Fassbender. His portrayal of "David" in "Prometheus" was about 80% Ozymandias.
Matthew Goode kept reminding me of "The Church Lady" from SNL.
@@TighelanderII Fair chat. When Watchmen was being cast Fassbender was hardly known though. Matthew Goode was actually a bigger star. Hard to fathom now.
@@surj1023 I read that he worked with Snyder before Watchmen.
These critics complains when directors stray away from the material and then complain some more when directors become faithful to the source material
Fr these people are never satisfied
They "complain" when the movie sucks. Watchmen was "faithful" in the sense that an ADHD spastic teenager writing fanfiction was trying to be faithful. The story was there, but nothing else. Also Snyder turned Rorschach into a mary-sue and changed the ending of the book, making the main story pointless.
@@jiggusfiggusyeah lmao following the source material on a superficial level isn’t faithful
@@jiggusfiggusSnyders Rorschach is still a racist, homophobic smelly Comedian apologist. What are you on about
‘Critics’ are individuals with their own opinions. They’re not a single all encompassing cabal.
For me, the biggest thing the Watchmen movie got wrong was Ozymandias. In the comics, Ozymandias is a critique of the benevolent capitalist/genius. He's a fundamentally good man who wants to do the right thing for the most amount of people. However, his genius makes him believe that the only way to bring about world peace is to eradicate an entire city using a psychic squid, which is an inherently ridiculous plan. And when he accomplishes his mission, he genuinely feels guilty and wonders if he did the right thing.
However, in the movie, Matthew Goode plays Ozymandias like an evil genius villain, which completely nullifies the deconstruction/critique from the comic. Ozymandias in the movie should've been a good Tom Hanks, basically.
I am one of the biggest critics of Snyder and his DCEU films but his Watchmen is one of my favorite movies of all time. Giving him props where props are very much deserved.
Are you a fan of the original book?
Snyder’s the goat
Yep, I'm no fan of Snyder's generally but I will defend Watchmen and his Dawn of the Dead remake to the death, those movies are awesome
I totally agree. I was looking forward to his DC Movies but then they were released. 😔😔😔😔
it’s far from his worst movie but i’m still not a fan of his watchmen adaptation
The problem with the ending is that Doctor Manhattan wasn't this benelovent entity that suddenly went wrong. He was expressly a tool for US imperialism in the latter half of the 20th century. Hell, he won them Vietnam. The world would absolutely NOT unite if the US's superweapon turned on them. That's why it was so important that it was an alien squid that died instantly and doesn't actually exist.
The directors cut or extended edition is the only way to watch this movie
I would say the director's cut. The extended edition adds that comic cartoon that really bogs down the movie.
@@bartok1378I guess I’ve never seen that version then.. just the directors cut when it was on Amazon prime awhile ago now.
@@bartok1378
Agreed, not everything that works in one media works in another and The pirate tale sprinkled throughout in the middle of the movie just confuses and really bogs down the film.
The director's cut is for Watchmen THE version to watch.
No, the theatrical is definitely my favorite
The director’s cut goes from slow motion punch to speed up reaction too many times, for me the theatrical cut is the only watchable version
It’s not perfect but Snyder obviously had a deep love for the material. For something considered un-filmable, he knew the book intimately enough to be able to dismantle it and put it back together as well as he did.
Disagree. Snyder's interest in the material is surface level. He clearly didn't understand the actual purpose of the story. He saw cool pictures of grungy violence and wanted to film that, and that alone.
@@ToonamiT0M it doesn't matter, he achieved what he wanted, got younger people interested in it. If it wasn't for the movie I would have never read the comic book.n
@@Sebastianrdz41and it twisted the audiences' minds as the movie went to the route that the book was meant to criticize
@@spiderjerusalem4009 didn't twist mine, if anything it just gave the characters in the book voices. Even Zack Snyder said the movie was never made to replace the comic
@@ToonamiT0Mit's sad that ppl like you don't give Zack the credit he deserves on this. You can look back at it now in 2024 and say whatever you like, but place yourself back in 2009. Superhero movies were solely for kids back then. Marvel had just started producing movies, and the long running X-Men and Spiderman films had ended, then here comes Zack and says not only does he want to make a superhero film that won't star anyone from Marvel or DC, but he wants to make it violent, gory, ugly, with sex, cursing and nudity, AND he wants it to be 3 hours long. Today no one would arch an eyebrow to that request, but he must have seemed like a madman back then. And yet he produced one of the greatest superhero films ever made, and it's because it was possibly the world's first ANTI-superhero film. Ppl just dont get it. Watchmen walked so The Boys and Invincible could run.
the best thing is rorschach is fucked and nearly everyone goes 'yeah he's the hero'
Nah, you and everyone else who disagrees or hates Rorschach are just too morally soft and emotionally weak: too Progressively Liberal and Politically Correct.
You lack drive to do what must be done morally and ethically in an objective manner: you compromise whenever the opportunity presents itself because you hate Conservative ideals.
Zack Snyder LOOKS at graphic novels, he doesn't READ them. It's all superficial and containd no real depth of character.
False
Been grappling with this for a long while, because I worked for WB during the aborted Gilliam version. Snyder's version would have worked if he realized violence isn't to be celebrated, but to be grieved.
I quite disagree with the change to the ending. Ozymandias has the Squid created to be an enemy that not only had no ties to any nation but was to also be beyond human understanding. I get that Dr. Manhattan technically denounced his humanity, but to other nations he would still technically be Human-made. And thus the fear that another nation could or would make another will be there. Hell, if i remember correctly Russia was already trying to make their own by testing on dogs. Not saying the Russians would figure it out but the fact that the possibilty is there means not conpletely beyond human understanding. The squid liquified and flowed into the ocean making it impossible to resarch. Not only that but he tampered with the mind of the squid to release nightmarish vision across the world upon death to haunt the dreams of people for decades to come, to keep the fear alive.
While Snyder would change things like Dan’s costume being sleeker and sexier, he then shows you that Dan can’t “get it up” without the thrill of the fight. That’s as much satire to me as what Moore wrote for Dan.
isn't that in the original comic too, though?
Good April Fools joke. There aren’t any problems with Zack Snyder’s Watchmen
Average snyder dickrider
There are , but not many
I love this movie
Really? To me it's pretty bad considering what it could have been in someone else's hands. It's still better than anything marvel has done in the last decade
There absolutely are but it doesn't take away that it's still a good movie on its own. Snyder doesn't understand the book's subtext or Moore's intent. This is incredibly clear with making Rorschach the voice of reason in the movie.
I get that people don't like this film for the fact that it isn't faithful to the graphic novel. But it is still probably one of the best most original super hero movies we've gotten. I remember when I first saw it and walked out of the theater disappointed. But I rewatch this movie probably every year because it takes it's audience seriously and has a generally different take on the whole genre.
No no, we don’t dislike it because it’s not faithful - it’s very faithful apart from the end. It’s that he fundamentally misunderstood the tone required to adapt the material. Thematically it’s a failure, stylistically it’s amazing - Snyder in a nutshell.
How is it "not faithful" to the book? Except for the tweaked ending, of course. But it's about as close as you can get story wise. What you're referring to, likely, is the stylistic choices to have the heroes "fight" and "pose" and "look cool," which you should understand is the point of making Watchmen a movie. The comic was satirizing comics. The movie should satirize superhero movies. Some decisions are pretty obvious like Ozy's costume having Schumacher Batman nipples. Others you can only gather from intently watching the film, like how goofy they look fighting and posing. There's even exaggerated sound effects harkening back to the old Batman TV shows.
@@Whaddayamean13 I dunno. Some people think the movie glirifies superheroes whereas the graphic novel focused on making them out to be seriously flawed. So I guess that's their main gripe about them.
Best summary of Zack Snyder and his fans. “Surface”.
I love the Watchmen, still among the best five superhero flicks ever made.
And that's the problem, Watchmen, the comic book, was never written as a superhero comic, but as a critique of that genre.
@@alphatrece9208 is still part of the genre even if it's a critique.
@@alphatrece9208 Any artist that writes a comic book about superheroes and then tries to pretend they are above the genre and just critiquing.....I am more than happy to ignore their intentions and enjoy a film.
After all, most artists are good because they suck at being normal people.
@@IDontBuyIt50 The level that some of you go to justify Snyder is really impressive.
@@buccob The film also doesn't work as a critique of superheroes, in fact it idealizes them.
One change from novel to movie is completely puzzling for me: Rorschach is one of the most fascinating protagonists in the entire genre. In the novel, he has a _very_ specific creation story, including explicitly the very moment he was created, embedded in a gut-wrenching sequence. The movie not only ignores the creation moment, it also milktoasts the entire sequence and skips over what I think is best line in the novel. (Yes, better than Rorschach's line in prison.)
Why?
He also skipped rorschach's reply to laurie regarding the comedian's rαρe on sally, which he referred to as "moral lapse"
You know why
The movie literally shows the moment he became rorschach when he killed the pedophile
@@spiderjerusalem4009It also omits Rorschach’s reference to ‘welfare queens’ ya know why.
There was only one thing wrong with the watchmen and it was some of the music choices. The ending was better than the squid monster in the comics. Made more sense.
That stupid monster is the satire of big monster final boss (starro) and the plan of ozymandias to create something neutral avoiding another war.
Although I hold the extended version of the movie in same highest regard as the original comic, this was still a pretty interesting viewpoint. Thanks!
I was a huge fan of the story before seeing the movie. I’d read so much of Alan Moore’s stuff from through the past two decades (1963, ABC Comics). The point in the movie that I realized it sucked was when Rorschach leapt out of the window and instead of hurting his ankle and getting arrested, went into Matrix mode and kicked a bunch of cops’ butts before getting arrested. Zack Snyder loves and glorifies physical violence. Alan Moore does not.
"Elevator shoes".
Shows how insecure Rorschach really is, and how it appears he chose the persona of this unyielding vindicator because otherwise he'd just be lost into the abused childhood. I loved the book and have re-read it several times, and the movie is visually amazing but it always feels like it's missing a bit of the soul of the book - mostly how most of the super heroes are not really that heroic and very ethically compromised.
You completely missed the point. If Watchmen is to work as a confrontational piece of media in movie form, it HAS to exaggerate those movie tropes. In superhero movies, that's what you get. All the fighting, posing, and "action" you don't get from the graphic novel is precisely to mimic traditional superhero movies. But the result is the guy gets arrested, bones break, blood spills, guys die, etc. Everything is a deliberate imitation of scenes you typically see in comic book movies, only for it to be blown up at the end. It's stylistic satire, much like The Matrix (which you coincidentally mention), and Robocop, A Clockwork Orange, which are some of Snyder's favorite films. Snyder's a lot smarter than you think.
@@Whaddayamean13The video explains why Snyder misses the point. You do as well
@@nohbuddy1 so you have no view of your own on this subject matter. Just rely on somebody else to tell you what to think. Nice. Good job.
@@Whaddayamean13 You're really dumb when Alan Moore has explained this time and time again
Truly one of the best opening credits sequences I've ever seen!
as a dutchman it hurts to hear "Drieberg" pronounced as "Dreiberg" in Dutch and standard German the "ie" and "ei" are completely distinct sounds.
comparable to the the English "brain" and "Brian"
Snyder copied the notes but missed the music.
Snyder’s work is visually appealing, but lacks substance and does not hold up even to basic scrutiny, his work is the cotton candy of cinema.
Wrong: this film is his best one, and is now a Cult Classic Superhero film.
Truly, the Director’s Cut of Watchmen is a modern cinematic masterpiece.
@@dogewood5499 the room is also classic cult
Wrong
This is a pretty decent adaptation, it has issues and miss calculations in my opinion, but overall it’s pretty enjoyable and well done
The only problem I really agree with is the glorified fights but that really applies to Silk and Nite Owl, which I dont mind. Remember, movies are completely different from comics, so we need some good characters (especially let the extreme ones pass too). Watchmen came out right as the hero movie craze began. I think the original watchmen was to respond and subvert the genre while the movie is trying to predict the genre. Which could be right since almost all of our heros are boiled down versions of what they used to be.
Out of all the comic readers I’ve talked to, I have never heard anyone criticize the switch from the giant octopus monster to Dr. Manhattan. I read the comic first and I always felt the alien was just a bit off, and Manhattan just up and leaving didn’t sit right with me. In the film, it solves all of that in a believable fashion.
Then let me be the first! The switch was absolutely bonkers due to its implication. Dr Manhattan is an agent of the US government. The world wouldn't unite...only be further divided.
Bruh it’s not a believable fashion lmao. America’s super weapon turned on the world so the rest of the world would turn on America not unite against an enemy that already left
I still quote Watchmen to this day, that's how you know a movie did something right.
And the line in question is "I hope you're ready, Rorschach."
" When you are."
His delivery there is...epic.
"You're locked in here with MEEE!!!"
While I haven't seen The Watchmen movie, despite the fact that ironically it's the reason I even discovered the comic, I agree that ending from the comics could've been changed to potentially great effect. Moore and his editor on the series Len Wein outright disagreed with each other about how they wanted it to end, and to be honest, when I read the ending myself I couldn't help but think something went wrong even if I couldn't pin it down.
Watchmen gets better everytime i watch it.
*read, or *watchmen's motion comic
@@spiderjerusalem4009 I did and I wasn’t impressed by either: the Motion Comic was hilariously bad with there being only 1 voice-actor for the whole damn run. Terrible voice-actor too imho…
Watchmen was awesome.
Marvel might have been just ramping up when Watchmen came out but by then we had already been immersed in the gritty super hero trope through Nolan's Batman and others. In the comic medium, we were seeing an explosion of hyper violence - Preacher ended it's run, The Boys was coming out guns a-blazing, and Kick Ass was finding it's audience. There was plenty there to satirize and Snyder missed it all. And by making Dr. Manhattan the faux villain in the end, he implies that he was a true hero at some time earlier in the story.
It's also annoying cause The Alien Octopus was meant to Unite the Countries of the World and stop the counting down Doomsday Clock. But The Literal American made God killing Millions isn't gonna Stop The Countdown. It would just unite everyone against The U.S.
@@FreekKing27explain that to film ending fans plssd
Somewhat different than the novel, still my favorite super hero movie
My man! 100% agreed!
FOR THE EMPEROR!
I found the depictions of bones being broken, skulls being cleaved, and faces melted in hot oil over the top and hyper violent. To me that is as much of a critic of the superhero genre as the characters in the film being ultra skilled in martial arts. In the real world, violence is much more grotesque than we are led to believe in our entertainments and that's a problem worth bringing out to audiences by the showcasing of it.
I absolutely saw no problems with Snyder’s Director’s Cut of the film: I actually enjoyed it far more than the source material in every way that it was adapted to the big screen.
Now, many fans of the graphic novel will say that Snyder missed the point of Moore’s original work, etc., and you know what? They’re right: he did and it was intentionally made to be both interesting plot-wise, while also looking cool as Hell and overall glorifying the dark, gritty sub-genre of Superhero movies.
This is THE GREATEST Superhero adaptation ever directed and filmed as far as I’ve seen the past 30 or so years. If you disagree, you can go read the (in my honest opinion) inferior source material, or the abysmal HBO sequel series. Nobody’s stopping you, and Snyder’s version of Rorschach is STILL my favorite vigilante character EVER: FIGHT ME!
Disagree. Watchmen is probably the best superhero film made.
Disagree. It's more style over substance that misses the point.
And that's why it absolutely fails as an adaptation.
Totally agree. I also personally think that it's the best superhero film ever made and I've seen all of the most acclaimed works of this genre. It may deviate from the source material in some parts but it's still masterful.
Faking an alien attack was an important part of the movie, yet this was replaced by blaming Manhattan. The change still makes this a reasonable movie, but the change alters an important element of the core story arc and I think that was a critical error.
Hollywood tends to take fantastical elements of source material and dumbing it down, I suspect this is an example of that. Ghost in the Shell is another classic example, instead of retaining the focus on transcending into a merged human AI being, they converted the motive to something more mundane, thus creating a ok movie but missing he chance of make it a classic. I am however looking forward to the new animated version of the watchmen.
Maybe if Snyder was a competent filmmaker, this film would’ve been successful
"Watchmen" is my favorite comic book. I love the movie adaptation. Snyder's visual style works really well. Also, the cast and soundtrack are great.
Tbh this movie was fantastic it showed how heroes arent always super and they arent always there for your beat interest The Comedian showed that off perfectly
Two things Snyder could have done with changing the squid to Manhattan were set up early in the film anyway. First is the device only kills humans by exploding them leaving behind grissly remains as opposed to the nuclear blasts in the movie. Second is send images to the minds of survivors (like Silk Spectre got from Manhattan) of why Manhattan is upset with all of humanity and he will kill more if they don't repent and work together basically making a fake wrathful god.
With these changes, there's no mistaking or guessing like in the movie. Humanity isn't united to fight an alien, but instead out of fear of offending a very real god that can kill everyone. The horror of the major cities corpses along with the visions ensure this happens. It's just the real Doctor Manhattan didn't do it.
Watchmen is a hidden gem
Nice April Fools Day video. I'm glad you agree that there is nothing wrong with Zack Snyder's Watchmen movie.
It's honestly aged very well imo. Not perfect, but still relevant today
It's interesting that so far most of the superhero deconstruction has happened on TV - The Boys, Invincible, Watchmen. I do hope we someday get a movie that does for the superhero film what Watchmen did for comics.
Invincible really isn't a deconstruction of superhero media. It's still mostly about heroes saving the world from threats. The fact that some of those threats are betrayals of 'good' characters is just a twist. The show is extremely good, the best show on the list, but it's not a deconstruction. The other two shows are good, worse than invincible but much closer to deconstructions (although I'd argue the boys is more of an inversion - the regular boys are the good guys and the super powered team are the bad guys, but its mostly about Butcher & Friends saving people/murica).
I’m a fan of both the film
and the original source material
I think Snyder did kind of ruin watchmen by making the violence and cowed crusaders “cool”. This is just my personal take, but I don’t read watchmen as necessarily saying “superheroes bad”. But rather as a warning about trying to put superheroes in the real world. Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and the rest are, at the end of the day, a fantasy. The idea that Clark Kent could be the most powerful being in the universe yet still fight for truth justice and the American way, the idea that Bruce Wayne, a man with so much wealth power would entirely devote his life to helping the downtrodden, or the idea that Peter Parker could go though so much suffering snd grief and yet remain a good man and a great hero we should all aspire to be are all, sadly, fantasy. The idea of people being given power and using it to do good simply because its the right thing to do is tragically more fantastic then any superpower, gadget or secret identity. Making superheroes realistic is bad not because it diminishes the super, but rather because it destroys the very notion of them being heroes.
Totally agree - it's in the name and epigraph of Juvenal's quote "quis custodiet ipsos custodes". How do you hold power to account - or in this case, super powers? I really enjoyed the book, how much tragedy is in pretty much every one of the characters.
Idk man, the deconstructive message certainly landed with me. And I never read the comics.
This movie still changed my life and the way I used to see the world
kinda like rorschachs therapist in the novel
The theatrical release missed 2 key scenes from the gn : Ozymandias looking at his lone shadow on the wall, when most other shadows are of pairs of people. Also, the admonition from the editor: “Take some responsibility.”
Have you seen the extended cut and especially the ultimate cut which shows the black freighter
Zack Snyder’s Watchmen is one of my favourite movies of all time period
MY PROBLEMS WITH IT:
1) Obnoxious slow-mo
2) Making modern superhero
suits in the 80's.
3) Butchering the ending by
switching character lines.
Other than that it was just copy/paste.
Snyder answered this years later. There was no super hero movie boom to rebel against and deconstruct. So he tried to recreate it by making Owl and spectre more capable and highlighting dr Manhattan weakness
So he missed the whole point of Dr Manhattan being literally the only Superpowered Being and what that means... Dude is an Idiot
The vibes of the movie are immaculate,,, even if some messages are a smidge muddled. Still a good time tho.
This reminds me of a few years ago when Moviebob did a deep dive into Snyder's filmography and arrived at similar conclusions.
In my opinion the original watchmen comic is more better then the watchman 2009 movie and great video Nerdstalgic :]
Actually, Watchmen was designed, think and draw for the comic medium exclusively, and not other medium. That was, I think, Alan Moore´s goal.
I have read the novel front to back 100 times over. And I STILL love the movie. I think Zach is the only one who will be the closest anyone will ever be to adapting the book from page to film. I'm aware of its flaws, but I will never call it a bad movie, let alone a bad adaptation.
I think that if a movie completely misses the meaning of the original work, it is a poor adaptation.
@@alphatrece9208 Did you ever consider that he did this on purpose? He didn’t “miss the point”, he voluntarily chose to create his own version of the story and characters as he saw fit with complete awareness, and produced not only a superior version of Watchmen, but also a damn-fine Superhero film that is the greatest around as far as I’ve seen: truly a cinematic masterpiece in every regard.
It glorifies the dark, gritty, thought-provoking, sleek and sexy and cool sub-genre that is the dark side of Superhero films, and it is BEAUTIFUL.
@@dogewood5499 Yes, sure, you only have to see how Alan Moore treats the rape scene in Watchmen and how Snyder treats it to know how "wonderful" his version is.
Zack Snyder: "Batman can get raped in prison. THE ENTIRE PLOT OF SUCKER PUNCH. Zombies rape women. What if the Amazons get mass raped."
"He gets to go a Tibetan monastary and be train by ninjas. Ok? I want to do that. But he doesn't, like, get raped on prison. That could happen on my movie. If you want to about dark, that's who I would go."
The guy has the mentality of a 12-year-old.
"If only" we had Zack's other films to prove how "subtle" and "intelligent" he is when he unleashes his basic instincts.
Man, if it was only a medocire film for true watchmen fans, than i can hardly imagine how next level incredible it could of been for lamens like me. I was only 16 sure but that was one of the first films watched that hit so hard i just sat there in silence for a good while after while my subconscious was surely having its mind blown.
All that is to say i feel like i still got the deeper meanings in regards to the villainous of and feer felt towards the superheroes. And the whole villian doing what needed to be done to save the world, that hit me. Dunno, i feel like it hit on a deeper level than most comic fans who already knew the material felt.
This movie is a underrated gem and one of the best superhero movies ever made!😁👍👍
Better than any MCU slop
🎶 They made Watchmen without the slimy squid! And he'll have you know that that's pretty low, but not quite like the standards of the 90s Kid🎶
0:35 - such a cool shot
Was ready for this to be an April fools joke somehow
He's right, tho. Watch the video. People who have actually read the graphic novel , they know that Zack completely missed the point.
He literally made one of the best comic ADAPTATIONS (only mayor change was the alien story) in the industry and still gets shit on i think the hate for Zack blinds people
If u think that's the only change, you never understood Watchmen
@@josef.ramoss.8457 keyword (mayor) change
A lot of people walked away from the movie siding with Rorschach, a fascist who was clearly reactionary in his actions and choice of words in the comic. Snyder's way of portraying his actions in the movie was extremely poorly done in my opinion and completely misunderstood the moral narrative of the story. Not to mention making Dr. Manhattan the enemy would make all superheroes the enemy, not a singular external threat to humanity as people still think of Manhattan as a man-made-god, not some alien external threat that humanity could unite against.
I've always thought that the violence in the alley scene is more disturbing than glorified.
This was my biggest issue with the movie. The action scenes should have felt like A History of Violence, NOT 300. Snyder didn’t understand that.
It's such a polarising film. I think it's one of the best superhero films ever made yet a lot of people think it's no good. On the other hand I can't stand the Nolan Batman flicks but most people think they're high-art.
Yes, the human heroes of the film are too powerful in the way they fight, but they are also that in the comic, but to a lesser extent. The notion that an unarmed teenage girl could confidently take on gangs of violent criminals by physically fighting them is in the book, and is a bit silly.
Yes, but it’s necessary, for the superhero genre to function you need violence
If aliens tried to invade a planet that was protected by Dr. Manhattan, they lose instantly. No lasting world peace would result from that.
Eliminating the aliens and substituting them for D.M., is probably the most unintentionally brilliant thing Zach Snyder has ever done.
Dr Manhattan was gone at that moment
I liked the movie tbh, maybe because i knew the graphic novels i thought it conveyed the themes and ideas well idk
One thing that isn’t denied is that the performances are magnificent. JDM embodies the comedian, on top of Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach and Billy crudup as Dr Manhattan. All of them annihilate their roles.
so you're complaining that ZS deviated from the source material regarding the ending, but also whining because he didn't deviate enough for most of the movie....good f***ing lord
If you don't see the difference, try watching the video again.
I feel that this needs to stated for others that attempt to interpret Alan Moore's work on to other mediums. One that comes to mind is V for Vendetta.
I think the glorification of the heroes was a "must" in regards to not only showing us what the "heroes" see themselves to be (yet the world obviously views them differently) while at the same time making the film a bit easier to watch. The tone is still there, it just gets shifted due to the nature of the medium. Watching characters look stupid and act awful, despite that being the original novels intent, without removing some of the edges (it's all still there), is not very watchable and why the film was considered unwatchable.
And I will go to my grave saying that the films ending is much better at tying everything together in a bow. Where the books ending is not only intentionally dumb, it's meant to insult humanity in general as it assumes people won't investigate and figure out the true nature of the already dead squid monster. Ozy framing Doctor Manhattan and then convincing him that he's right, while tugging on the last bit of Manhattan's humanity and feeding into his fear of never fitting in, was the perfect way to remove the one thing Ozy could not fully control AND achieve the goal of uniting humanity.
Not familiar with the source material, but I loved this then, and love it now. A true standout.
Anyone who argues that Snyder's Watchmen has the goal of adhering to the source material must have quit watching before the last 10 minutes.
Zack Snyder's Watchmen Live Action Adaptation Is So Mature & Excellent Work Better Than Today's Superhero Movies
😅😅 if you think this was mature, read the comic
I am absolutely convinced that snyder was very very insistent they animate dr.manhattans glowing nuclear dong.
- Hey, Zack Snyder, why didn't you reinvent the Watchmen comic-book and made a towering achievement?
- What, and someone else did?
Terrible casting of Veidt. The whole plot twist is that he’s behind the trouble, but you can see it a mile away in the film. Not as obvious in the comics.
I think the director cut is tremendous, like the book. I don’t agree that ZS failed to understand or deliver layers and nuance. Maybe there was room to do better, but I am impressed by the film.
Watchmen is THE GREATEST comic book movie of all time!!!!
Zack Snyder can be a brilliant director....of photography.... I find his actual skills as a director are not really there. His movies look amazing but i find them lacking otherwise.
would love to see a video on the tv series Watchmen!
One thing you can’t argue is that getting rid of the psychic squid saved a LOT of screentime and making Doctor Manhattan the global threat felt much more focused.
Well, we still got our Watchemn-style deconstruction of the superhero genre in live action, it's called The Boys
this is very interesting
snyder doesn't get what makes other people's characters who they are
that's wildly obvious from the way he characterises superman and batman
The fidelity of an adaptation to it's source material shouldn't be subjective to your ideological identity.
I'm tired of being told that I missed the point of a film, or that the director didn't understand the underlying theme or subtext.
The adaptation that is presented to us is an adaptation period. Unless the creator of the source material is the sole creator of the new material then it will never share the same context verbatim. Even having the same creator doesn't guarantee a fully faithful rendition.
I've read Watchmen, I've also seen the film and the TV show
I've read V for Vendetta and I've seen the film
I've read Fight Club, Forrest Gump, Charlie and the Chocolate factory and countless other books that have become films. Not a single adaptation has ever converted the original accurately.
That's not a bad thing either, it allows people who are unfamiliar with the source material to discover it, and appreciate the different interpretations of the message.
The original is not inherently the "real" "authentic" or "best"
Stop praising inclusionary adaptations based on identity representation while simultaneously dismissing inclusionary adaptations based on ideological representation.
Just because you are not the intended audience doesn't hurt the appeal to the everyone else.
He's made 5. Watchmen, 300, Man of Steel, Batman V Superman, Justice League