Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Zack Snyder Hits Back, Says He Made 'Watchmen' "To Save It From The Terry Gilliams Of The World"

by Kevin Jagernauth
March 3, 2014 11:44 AM
  • |

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    


  • Sloghysa | July 9, 2014 12:20 PMReply

    "The ultimate cut of "Watchmen" really is the best comic book film ever. People who complain about "watchmen" are the same people who think avengers is great."

    I love that. And it's so true. I never understood why the Watchmen movie didnt get more attention, or recognition if you will. I'ts such a fantastic piece of art man. The atmosphere is astounding, creepy, gloomy and so true to the novel it's scary. And why would you want to change anything like Gilliam wanted? The reason someone decided to make a movie out of it in the first place is because the story is awesome! Best superhero movie ever.

  • Jack | May 28, 2014 11:44 PMReply

    So he took so a better director couldn't do a proper job with the material. . Because Snyder just turned it into a juvenile fanboys wet dream with any the subtle the book had.

  • Ghede | March 7, 2014 6:43 PMReply

    Well, the one thing I really took away from this article is that Kevin Jagernauth is an enormous moron who has no idea what the word "satire" means.

  • malickfan89 | March 6, 2014 11:05 AMReply

    The ultimate cut of "Watchmen" really is the best comic book film ever. People who complain about "watchmen" are the same people who think avengers is great (sad people indeed)

  • gerard kennelly | March 5, 2014 7:37 PMReply

    Terry Gilliam is a visionary
    zach synder was
    but now he is just another hollywood sell out

  • Jack | May 28, 2014 11:51 PM

    Get over yourself Tucker. Snyder is not some misunderstood genius. All he did was appeal to numbskull who think overusing slo-mo is artistic. The Wachowski Brothers came up with this shit long before Snyder directed his first commercial. And the Wachowski Brothers used it to hell stories. Not to show off.

  • Tucker Davis | April 6, 2014 5:35 AM

    Don't you really despise people who make statements with no "FACTS'...Snyder is way ahead of his time, always has been, and if you follow his movies, the cinematography, the "300" example which in essence, changed the whole way movies are depicted and viewed. and his style are to be envied.If you want a specific lesson in what change people, go to "You Tube, click on "Super Bowl Commercials-2002-Budweiser Clydesdales-Respect". Yes, that's his work, and some day Gerrard, you should be that talented!!......Change a classic?.. Sounds like you are the kind of person who would make a movie of the "Bible" and throw outr the "10 Commandments"......Don't mess with the "Watchmen" because you will get in over your head!!.....Best Regards, Tucker.....Tucson, AZ

  • Don | March 5, 2014 10:54 AMReply

    This whole thing is asinine and is Hollywood's attempt to stir shit up! Gilliam and Moore are friends. Back in the '80's, Gilliam asked Moore, "how would you direct Watchmen?" Moore simply said, 'I wouldn't". Gilliam respected that!
    It's a comic book, an original work and Alan Moore intentionally uses the comic book medium and its devices to prevent stupid idiots from adapting his work! Why the giant squid ending was removed! Good as a comic, not as film. It had to be alien or something otherworldly to fit into the story! It being a giant squid, octopus, one-eyed monster is irrelevant! So much idiocy! If Terry Gilliam wrote a script, it was very loose, not passionate and to be taken lightly, especially after his talk with Moore back in the day.

  • snydersuxz | May 26, 2014 3:37 AM

    Ahead of his time, by ripping of The Wachowski's. He uses the same effects, heck even borrows the monsters and cast. He ruined The Watchmen got three casting right and the rest horribly wrong. 300 was decent but still not a good translation of source material. How he keeps getting comic book stories yet completely bombs at the box office?Watchmen was horrible, SuckerPunch worse, Man of Steel taking the cake on worthless pos work of all. Casting was laughable, more plot holes than you can shake a stick and same old Synder lame special effects. Which is basically the Matrix Re-reloaded. Boorowing cast members in the same roles and monsters from it. Sad that anyone would mention this pos director / writer anywhere near Joss Wheton, who by the way has actually written comics before unlike Znyder lameness of attempts at them

  • Tucker Davis | April 6, 2014 5:53 AM

    Dear Don, You sound worse than Gerard in the foregoing blog......If you read your first statement about Alan Moore not wanting anyone to adapt his work to "stupid idiots", then why did he sell the rights of the book to "Warner Brothers?."...C'mon, Don, he wanted the money but he didn't want to give up the rights to make it????....I agree that this stuff is a bit
    futile with which to spend a lot of time, but if a guy writes a classic, then don't mess with it.
    Just answer the question????...Why give up the rights to make the movie???...Best, Tucker

  • Gremlin | March 5, 2014 5:03 AMReply

    How embarrassing that the author of this article just showed a complete lack of understanding of the word "Satire."

  • MishuPishu | March 5, 2014 1:35 AMReply

    I don't understand all these people who absolutely hate what Snyder did with "Watchmen". The only thing that I can agree with was that the soundtrack sucked but as far as interpreting a comic book for the screen, that is the one aspect of it that is mostly conjecture, anyway. The rest of it was spot on. Even the sex scene, which is admittedly cheesy but just about every sex scene in a comic book is cheesy. Let's face it, 99% of sex scenes in movies are absolutely ridiculous, regardless of context. So I'll give him a pass on that bit. The visuals are picture perfect. It was like he took the panels in the book and put them on the screen. No one, outside of Robert Rodriguez, has been able to do that when it comes to adapting comic books for the big screen. And, as far as I'm concerned, the ending was better in the movie. It gave purpose for Dr. Manhatten's exile, which was always a sticking point for me with the book.

  • Lou | March 4, 2014 2:30 PMReply

    So in order to save Watchmen from being shat on by Gilliam, Snyder shat on it himself.

    Seems logical.

  • hollywood kills creativity | March 5, 2014 7:39 PM

    gilliam wanted nolte and bridges for TWELVE MONKEYS
    the studio wanted pitt and willis
    the result ?
    rave reviews and impressive box office
    who was right ? who was wrong ?

  • Thomas | March 5, 2014 1:19 AM

    Right on, Brother! further proof that Snyder is a hack.

  • Patrick | March 4, 2014 11:26 AMReply

    I liked the Watchmen movie, quite a lot (especially the Ultimate Cut dvd). I like Gilliam quite a lot as well. After reading about Gilliam's take on the film, I am convinced it would have been terrible, despite his indisputable genius. His ending shows that he either misunderstood the book, or just didn't care. The movie that was actually made is close to the book (and is even better with the DVD Black Freighter scenes), and works both as deconstruction and action movie.

    The Gilliam touch was perfect for adapting something like Fear and Loathing, but for a more straightforward story (and yes, an effective "satire" - look it up, it doesn't mean what a lot of people here think it means) this was probably one of the best possible versions.

  • enzoe flock | March 4, 2014 10:28 PM

    Thing is, if Gillian made it, it would have been weird and beautiful, and so unusual that a re-make would have been produced by now. But since he didn't, we're stuck with Zak's take for some time.

  • Adam N. | March 4, 2014 11:04 AMReply

    Zack Snyder just dropped a few notches in my book. Rather than just saying he disagreed with Silver's comments, and being tactful, Snyder just blatantly attacked Gilliam for no good reason. (I don't know if that was his intent, but that comment came across as so snarky and dismissive, and it feels like an attack on Gilliam's artistry and integrity) The rest of what he said about the matter was fine, and I do think that Silver was a bit out of line with his comments, but the fact that Snyder had to throw in that comment bothered me. And Gilliam is a darned fine filmmaker... one of the best currently working, I would easily say. Snyder should apologize for that one... he was responding to Silver's comments, not Gilliam's, so the comment about Gilliam felt way out of line. (And just to throw my two cents in, I actually quite liked the film Snyder made out of "Watchmen." It's quite a stunning film, although it has its flaws as any film does.)

  • Grant | March 4, 2014 11:02 AMReply

    I think the fans' reaction to the Watchmen film is one of the most embarrassing moments of comic book fan history. Yes, Snyder made a slight change to the ending, but it still got the same point across and the film really didn't have time to explain a giant dead octopus. The only real problem I feel the movie had was parts of the soundtrack. As much as I love the song, I still have no idea why they put "99 luftballons" in there. Otherwise, the characters and key events of the book were still in there and is arguably the most faithful adaptation of an Alan Moore book and probably the best Watchmen film they could have made. If the fans freaked out over the lack of a giant octopus, I can't imagine what they would do if Gilliam's version was made.

  • Stefan | March 5, 2014 4:39 AM

    Nena´s "99 Luftballons" is a song about nuclear war. So it fits in somehow. And maybe Snyder also wanted to please german audiences... ;-)

  • thomas | March 5, 2014 1:21 AM

    WRONG! sNDYER's Ending totally removes any and almost all moral ambiguity that Alan Moore wrote in the Graphic novel. Placing the blame on Dr Manhatten TOTALLY changes the whole story. period. Snyder also mis cast everyone except Rorschach.... and... good god, the lack of imagination that Snyder regurgitates is sad. I could go on, but I'm running out of space

  • Pig Bodine | March 4, 2014 1:18 PM

    With song choices as bad as the ones in Watchmen, it's hard to take the movie seriously on just about any level.

    The selections reveal someone with a glaring lack of artistic understanding -- "The Sounds of Silence" used non-ironically during a funeral scene? The comically overused and self-serious "Hallelujah" played during the big hook-up? And especially "Ride of the Valkyrie" during the Vietnam sequence, as if that music had any connection to that war besides "Apocalypse Now," a film that now *owns* its connection to Wagner. Pure foolishness.

  • andy | March 4, 2014 10:37 AMReply

    snyder will never be HALF the director gilliam is..

  • gilliam is superior | March 5, 2014 7:42 PM

    1-twelve monkeys
    2-imaginarium dr parnassis
    3-fisher king
    4-brothers grimm
    compared to..
    2- '300'
    3-man of steel
    4- sucker punch

  • Don | March 5, 2014 10:42 AM


  • will | March 4, 2014 10:35 AMReply

    When you base a movie off of a book, you dont expect the movie to be different from the book... Gilliam should stick to what he knows, terrible British comedy, and leave good art alone.

  • snow ball in hell | March 5, 2014 7:45 PM

    the thing is..
    i was only interested in people who were friends with Heath
    simple as that

    http://www dot theguardian dot com/film/2009/sep/04/tom-cruise-heath-ledger

  • Daniel23 | March 5, 2014 12:20 PM


    1) Books are not movies, and vice versa. completely different art form. Which is why the best film adaptations allow themselves to be true to the spirit of the books without being slavish to them.

    2) Are you saying that Brazil, Time Bandits, 12 Monkeys, and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas are `terrible British comedies'? Have you seen them? They are brilliant, visionary, bitter-sweet epics that contain more artistry and imagination in one shot than 99% of studio movies today.

    3) When you say Gilliam should `leave good art' alone - are you actually saying Zach Snyder is a better artist than Terry Gilliam, because instead of using his own imagination or inspiration he just makes pre-existing material look slick, shiny and `cool'?

    You know what? Lets just agree to disagree. I don't understand your brain.

  • Gregor | March 4, 2014 12:55 PM

    You, my friend, are an ignoramus.

  • Adam N. | March 4, 2014 11:08 AM

    You clearly know nothing of Gilliam if you think all he does is make "terrible British comedy." Films like "Brazil", "12 Monkeys", "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen", "The Fisher King" and "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" are FAR from being your alleged "terrible British comedies." He's one of the finest artists currently working in film. Don't talk about subjects you know nothing about.

  • bill | March 4, 2014 10:42 AM

    Over here, look, it's a terrible argument!

  • hhhh | March 4, 2014 10:34 AMReply

    What an absolute blowhard twat.

  • Nick Hartney | March 4, 2014 9:41 AMReply

    It was an unappreciated movie. I don't see how it could have been closer to the graphic novel.

  • gerard kennelly | March 5, 2014 7:48 PM

    DREDD is the best comic book aka graphic novel adaptation
    it was every thing you could hope for
    the dark knight (and the dark knight rises) bent over for the PG 13 rating
    man of steel is a chris nolan wannabe
    avengers is a cartoon full stop

  • thomas | March 5, 2014 1:24 AM

    It could have had depth, soul, imagination (cinematically speaking) and better casting for the Night Owl. AND... the ending in the Graphic novel makes total sense for the seetup at the beginning.. The whole graphic novel explores the moral ambiguity of the concept of being masked heros would be going through if they really did exist..... taking away all that and giviing it a clean, clear cut blame game ending is just sickening.

  • JT | March 4, 2014 10:36 AM

    To be fair, the movie's ending IS better....

  • Derpy | March 4, 2014 10:31 AM

    Well, they could have not changed the ending for one.

  • Chuck Williams | March 4, 2014 9:11 AMReply

    "...we think the director claiming it's a 'satire' is a bit much..."

    Considering that the original series was overtly intended as a satire and deconstruction of comic book superheroes up to that point, I would say that Snyder intending it to be a satire is right on the nose. Did the article's writer even bother to do his research before making his snarky jab at the director?

  • Thomas Korn | March 5, 2014 1:26 AM

    Michael Sheilds; you're a moron.

  • Kyle Webber | March 4, 2014 9:08 AMReply

    I think it was terrible. It was pretty much a soft-core porn with decent acting. The graphic novel was by far better than the movie.

  • ger heard ken L e | March 5, 2014 7:49 PM

    best graphic novel adaptations

  • Michael Shields | March 4, 2014 9:28 AM

    I don't believe the people who say that the graphic novel was better than the movie ever actually read the graphic novel. The movie was almost shot for shot a moving picture of the graphic novel. The differences between the movie and the book can be counted on one hand, so to say the movie was terrible and the novel was better is baseless. It's just like Deborah Snyder said above: damned if you do, damned if you don't. When directors diverge from the novel, they are berated by fanboys. Zack Snyder stayed as close to the novel as possible and is still criticized. This was a phenomenal film and if Alan Moore were to ever sit down and watch all of the film adaptations of his work, I am confident in saying this film would be his favorite.

  • Greg Cobb | March 4, 2014 8:52 AMReply

    The movie had the right look and feel, but it ill served the novel in the director's attempt to squeeze a serialized story into a 2-hour Reader's Digest version that lacked heart. The Watchmen needs to be a mini-series in order to do it justice.

  • Andrew Hamm | March 4, 2014 10:41 AM

    Absolutely, 100%, completely correct. There is no way to tell the "Watchmen" story without all those little details, the subtle interweaving of storylines, and subtext. Not only is 2 hours not enough time to tell the story (hell, SIX hours is too short), but Snyder is exactly the wrong filmmaker to approach the material; all style (very good style, I'll grant) and no heart.

  • Gregour | March 4, 2014 8:39 AMReply

    He is exactly right.
    Gilliam's style was very vogue AT THE time ... we also had a few values left back then too *LOL* although he was interesting, he was also somewhat of a flake -- Gilliam's work is dated by being tied to a graphic design style of that decade, his work wasn't ALL THAT important ...
    I like these kinds of movies, I never read the 'graphic novel' in this case but it's not a problem for me, I love its style, I love its satire, although it was a little self centered and nothing but a shallow interpretation of anything in real life, I actually found the characters' personalities and relationships just about deep enough, it was an excellent job making a movie as entertainment and as art, the ending is not really very important,
    and Zack is exactly right.
    Why is this even shoved in EVERY face like this ? we used to only find yellow journalism on the garbage shelves of magazine racks if that's what we really wanted. Make yer own movie (and I mean a real movie), then whine all you like.

  • Ken Jones | March 4, 2014 8:32 AMReply

    Snyder's version was better than Gilliams' in nearly every aspect. Everyone keep saying that Gilliam is better, but with no basis to back that up, other than how long he's be doing this. A very lame defense, at best. Just because someone has been doing something for a long time doesn't mean they need to be worshiped. I mean, look at Batman; he's been around forever and is still garbage.

  • ger heard Ken L E | March 5, 2014 7:51 PM

    only reason people are just taking synders side
    because they are peeing their pants waiting
    begging to see ben affleck new bat suit

  • Hart Thorn | March 4, 2014 8:16 AMReply

    As much as I hate to say it... it's probably a good thing Gilliam didn't get his hands on this one. And the movie was what it needed to be. Watchmen is about as sacrosanct as comics get. Any major alterations would have been difficult to swallow. And it told the story well. The ending was massively altered, and actually seemed more believable than the original in some respects.

    Of course, I still hate this sort of celebrity d*** waving contest BS, so shame on both Silver and Snyder for engaging in it.

  • Joe | March 4, 2014 7:51 AMReply

    Watchmen kinda stunk. It gave me the impression that it was a lame attempt at noir despite the fact that it shouldn't be that hard to capture the majesty and grace of classic cinema given all that is available today to filmmakers . I never read the book so I can't speak on how faithfully it was portrayed but I think that is really after the fact. Movies are a VISUAL medium and this one can't hold a candle to the work of Terry Gilliam.

  • enzoe flock | March 4, 2014 10:32 PM

    Did you experience Moore's work? It's totally based on pulp noir. But you'r right, it kinda stunk because it couldn't live up to the original.

  • Scott | March 4, 2014 8:18 AM

    Wrong. Seriously, Gilliams version was absolute garbage. It was the definition of taking the source material and just crapping all over it. Silver described the epitome of producers taking advantage of a story and making it something that it was never meant to be. Slave to the graphic novel was exactly what it was, but in a great way. It holds every candle to the work of someone who has never read the novel.

  • lakawak | March 4, 2014 7:45 AMReply

    So..he made a movie that sucked to save it from being made by someone else and maybe have it suck?

  • GDI | March 4, 2014 12:09 PM

    Ken Jones, that is a fallacious argument. Whether you like the movie or not is based of SUBJECTIVE criteria. Also, you are inferring a lot about one sentence. What, is keeping up with a disconnected plot of a mediocre movie a litmus test for intelligence? You must be a lot of fun to watch movies with...

    I thought Synder did an ok job, but his cherrypicking of the salient scenes of the comic felt like he highlighted sections, then copy and pasted them into the movie. Sure, he got the style right, but it didn't have that spirit of authenticity.
    Then again, how could you cram the all the nuance into a 3 hour movie? Not an easy task, that's for sure.

  • Ken Jones | March 4, 2014 8:29 AM

    Very intelligible response, there... Just shows your IQ level couldn't possibly understand a shred of that movie. In other words, it didn't suck, you're just too dumb to keep up with it.

  • Rick Lee | March 4, 2014 7:09 AMReply

    I liked the Watchmen movie, though I think that the ending needed to have the final meeting between Dr. Manhattan and Adrian Veidt (in which Veidt asks Dr. Manhattan if what Veidt did worked out "in the end", to which Dr. M replied, "Nothing ever ends. . ."), instead of having the conversation re-hashed in third-person by Silk Spectre almost as an afterthought, because that exchange represented the crux of the story--that events further developing in the future may reveal that the ends did NOT justify the means.

  • bacon cabbage 54321 | March 5, 2014 7:52 PM

    best moment was when billy crudup said ''a picture of oxygen to a drowning man''
    that made the hairs
    on the back of my neck stand up

  • Shawna Waldron | March 4, 2014 5:35 AMReply

    Zach must know where the bodies are buried. Every single film he's done has been a massive music video rehash. Probably worst film maker on the planet.

  • 2 broke girls | March 5, 2014 7:54 PM

    am i the only one who can see
    man of steel was a desperate attempt to recreate the gritty realistic chris nolan tone ? ?

  • SK | March 4, 2014 5:08 AMReply

    Terry Gilliam has DECADES worth of chops that he has earned. Yes, his movies are weird, but they are often sublime. Zack is stylistic... and what else? He is a formidable up-and-comer, but it seems like he may be getting a little too big for his breeches. Mind your manners, Zack.

  • gerard kennelly | March 5, 2014 8:03 PM

    https://www dot facebook dot com/photo dot php?fbid=223887611150873&set=o.252818534829033&type=1&theater

    i have seen 'Captain Phillips' 3 times now
    and this time
    i took notes of what i admire in his performance

    2min 18sec
    he talks about the economy
    his kid not taking school seriously.
    the gravity he brings to that scene

    14min50sec are you just about done with that coffee

    18min20sec the monitor beeps the first sign of pirates

    21min32sec they're not here to fish

    23min20sec he calls in the fake gunship

    26min34sec he saw the pirate leader for the first time

    28min31sec he adjusts his glasses as the crew complain

    28min51sec on the first plane out of mombasa !

    29min36sec sends the email saying he had an ordinary day

    36min17sec shoots flares at the pirates

    42min45sec we got 30,000 dollars it's yours

    43min31sec the ship's broken

    1hr16min51sec can we get some air in here

    1hr17min24sec realises this guy is smart he knows that opening the hatch is a trick to help the crew track them

    1hr55min05sec he writes what he thinks may be his last note

    1hr56min41sec pirate grabs the note puts him over the edge

    the med exam .the best scene in the movie
    and the main reason hanks will win the oscar
    matching DDL record

  • socioevo | March 4, 2014 9:48 AM

    Mind your manners? Really? "Yes, his movies are weird, but they are often sublime." Have you read "The Watchmen?" There is no underlying sublime notion. It is exactly what Snyder said: a satire of the comicbook genre. Just because Gilliam has decades and Snyder is an up and comer doesn't mean Snyder has to pay any sort of respect to Gilliam (who would have ruined the film).

    Come back to the conversation when you've actually read up on it.

  • gw welsh | March 4, 2014 4:58 AMReply

    Zack clearly doesn't know who Terry Gilliam is. Terry is the most anti-studio director there is.
    Who gives a stink he made a good movie, Terry didn't direct it move on. Zack isn't even in the top 200 of directors and he's trying to pick a fight with a legend without no merit. The point is everybody writes bad endings perhaps that is why Gilliam didn't get the job, but to have the audacity to say he made it beacause he was trying to save the film from the Terry Gilliam's of the world is dumb and ignorant. I as a fan boy will never watch a single thing from this Zack fella again..

  • Hart Thorn | March 4, 2014 8:19 AM

    And his anti-studio nature is exactly what would cripple the film. He'd alter it to the point of being unrecognizable, go weeks and millions over budget, studio would swoop in demand cuts and short change after effects, and we'd either never even see the movie or get a movie, that while filled with brilliance, doesn't amount to squat.
    Yes, Gilliam is a f***ing BRILLIANT director. But he was not the right director for Watchmen.

  • captain obvious | March 4, 2014 4:47 AMReply

    you guys are aware this article is from a parody site right?

  • akabaloo | March 4, 2014 5:06 AM

    What parody site? If you're referring to the AV Club, they are not a parody site, they are just affiliated with the Onion. It's their "Sister Site".

  • PJ | March 4, 2014 4:21 AMReply

    So who's going to save us from the Zack Snyder's of the world?
    What has he written that's original... ever.
    I liked 300, Watchmen and even the new man of Steel somewhat but seriously.. for this guy to be bashing on someone with a history like Gilliam? LMAO is all I can say followed by a massive /facepalm. Now I'm gonna torrent 300: Rise just to spite this egotistical prick.

  • GDI | March 4, 2014 12:13 PM

    Just torrent all of his movies. Watchmen is the only movie from him that was even remotely watchable for me, and it's all because he went copypasta heavy from the original source!

  • JediJones | March 4, 2014 4:08 AMReply

    How about Silver licenses out Captain Atom, Blue Beetle and the Question from DC and redoes the story his way?

  • JediJones | March 4, 2014 3:47 AMReply

    I agree it's his best film and that the audience wasn't ready for it. The graphic novel came decades after superhero mythology had been established in comic book readers' minds and several years after genre conventions had already begun being played with. The audience for superhero movies hadn't gotten nearly this mature yet. By 1987, everyone knew not all comic books were for kids, but in 2009 movie audiences still viewed the superhero genre in movies as entirely kid-appropriate. Watchmen the comic book was for people who were bored with standard comic books, but film audiences weren't bored with superhero movies yet in 2009.

    The movie's degree of faithfulness to the spirit and look of the comic book was beyond admirable and could only have been executed by a true fan. My only problem with the film is that the female performances were much weaker than those of the men. Given that Amy Adams' performance as Lois Lane in Man of Steel was also at the low end of her brilliance scale, Zack Snyder seems to have a real problem directing women and bringing female characters to life. It's unfortunate, since female characters are rather important to the superhero genre.

  • Thomas Korn | March 5, 2014 1:35 AM

    Please tell me you're joking. The spiirit and tone of the film only captures the look of Alan Moore's brilliant writing. All Snyder did was ctl+V Ctl+P from the comic to the screen... very dull.

  • Whocares | March 4, 2014 3:31 AMReply

    It was a fantastic movie, and adaptation. Extremely faithful to the source paying attention to the smallest detail. The framing, the story telling, it was probably the most accurate comic book depiction we'll ever see. I wish they had used the novel's original "S.Q.U.I.D." ending. Sadly the biggest downside is also how faithful they were to the novel, which often don't translate well to film. I think it's extremely unique, and something that we'll never see in a big Hollywood production ever again.

  • B1hop | March 4, 2014 3:07 AMReply

    I was actually pleasantly surprised when I saw Watchmen. My question is, why is this happening about a 5 year old move? If this was Spiderman, it would have already been re-booted

  • nature223 | March 4, 2014 2:51 AMReply

    Zack nailed it.. the movie as it came NEEDED Doctor Manhattan to ride the correct storyline and be faithful to the comic..(WHICH IS AWESOME BTW). Terry Gilliam doesnt impress me.. I think 12 monkeys is one of the biggest steaming piles of bad movie I have ever seen.

  • Johnny No Bueno | March 4, 2014 2:41 AMReply

    Brazil or Dark Knight? Oh yes, please audacious rich little prick. Please save us from genius as you continue to produce other peoples trash.

  • blair | March 4, 2014 2:40 AMReply

    saved it?

    he only got to do it because gilliam decided he couldn't.

    you can't just steal the rights to a story. they have to be given up. either by buying them or waiting for the option to expire and then taking out an option of your own.

    that said, snyder's faith to the book was a good thing. but it wasn't perfectly faithful, which might have been an amazing thing. gilliam, if he'd found a hook to exploit that made him feel confident enough to start making the movie, might have done something even better than snyder did.

    me, i'll wait for the Classic Comics version of this feud. tl, dr.

  • Brad | March 4, 2014 2:31 AMReply

    I get that Watchmen was a satire, in the sense it is a play on the typical comic books and essentially makes fun of them a bit. Any non-fan-boy can get that much through the undercurrents of the film, though I had no idea who Zack Snyder was until Man of Steel(surprisingly good, even though it departed from the mythology a bit) came out, or that he was responsible for the pos that is 300(which I hate for four reasons: nowhere near faithful to history, no story, bad direction, and effects only film), though I know some will disagree. I grew up during the sci fi bastion of the 80s, and know you can do modern effects and have a story. My feelings about Mr. Snyder is he is one of these new generations of producer/directors that focus too much on money and effects, and though he will get lucky occasionally, will be among those who ruin Hollywood.

  • obri | March 4, 2014 3:02 AM

    I get your point, but to me snyder is one of the people that doesn't turn away from the original source that much which to me is a good thing, and about the 300 it's not suppose to be faithful to history, snyder did just follow the graphic novel by frank miller.

  • David | March 4, 2014 2:23 AMReply

    I thought Watchmen was brilliantly done and by far the best cinematic adaptation of a comic ever.
    Opening credits with Dylan so effectively summerized the back story that it was almost a movie within a movie.
    I've learned my opinion is in the minority but I don't know what the beef is.
    The constant complaint is these films aren't true to the source material. Watchmen gets it right and still people complain

  • 'watchmen' was brave | March 5, 2014 8:04 PM

    DREDD is better

  • Chris | March 4, 2014 2:19 AMReply

    Watchmen was a shit sandwich. Such a shame since the graphic novel is one of the greatest works of literature ever. I don't know if Gilliam's would have been much better, but I do understand what Joel Silver is saying. The film uses these ridiculous wide angles, zooms, and other shots that are taken straight out of the comic but just don't work well at all cinematographically. Oh, it also happens to be perhaps the most poorly edited film in history. AND there's that sex scene. The end.

  • JediJones | March 4, 2014 3:57 AM

    Not seeing your take on this at all. The opening montage, the origins of Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach, and the episode on Mars are all certainly some of the most beautifully cinematic, well-edited sequences ever done in a superhero movie. The action scene in the alley wasn't bad either. And I can't think of any shot in the film that actually looked bad.

  • sonny liston | March 4, 2014 2:15 AMReply

    Watchmen was an awesome movie, and Snyder did an excellent job, so did everyone else involved, i think any other take than the one Snyder chose, would have ruined the movie..

  • Mark Mazz | March 4, 2014 2:03 AMReply

    I thought Watchmen was absolutely excellent! Beautifully directed and I loved Snyders vision. I however am skeptic about the hyped Batman vs Superman since I thought Man of Steel was meh.

  • Barney Fief | March 4, 2014 2:01 AMReply

    First, Terry Gilliam is awesome. Second, who will save us from the Zack Snyders of the world?

  • Vitarai | March 4, 2014 2:19 AM

    Thanks, you said it for me. Snyder couldn't produce a commercial that carries the kind of vision Gilliam's films have, even when studios butcher them.

Email Updates