Zack Snyder Hits Back, Says He Made ‘Watchmen’ “To Save It From The Terry Gilliams Of The World”

"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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

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

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.

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

Seems logical.

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.

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.)

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.

snyder will never be HALF the director gilliam is..

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.

What an absolute blowhard twat.

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

"…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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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..

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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..

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.

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

I had to check if this article was satire. Joel Silver, whoever he is, would have removed Dr. Manhattan from the film! What nonsense is that? Anyone who has read or watched "Watchmen" knows how integral he is to the whole thing!

He's pretty much Reverse-Jesus. He goes from man to god: he has the ability to see time from beginning to end, can create life, understands perfectly the mechanics of the universe and has a variety of other abilities one attributes to the big man upstairs. And in all his power, he sinks into apathy, which contrasts Rorschach in a way that the blackest black on the whitest white could never come close!

Rorschach is but a wee man that, unlike his peers, has no powers or gizmos, does everything in his power to expose truth, never wavering from his principles. Dr. Manhattan is a living god yet does nothing. It even looks like he does not observe any principle.

Joel Silver wanted to remove that contrast from the film? Is he insane? Eat a rock, Joel!

I'm not certain it's an adaptable book. It doesn't lend itself to the cinematic medium and it would have taken a very very hefty overhaul of the original material to turn it into a film that is great in its own right. Kubrick probably could have pulled it off.

I thought Snyder's movie was excellent. I am a huge fan of the graphic novel and I understand the changes Snyder had to make. No matter what, you are going to have people disagree and think the movie is shit. Snyder did what he wanted to do with the film which is what a director should do in my opinion. I know people will disagree but whatever. And as for Terry Gilliam, I thought all of his movies I've seen were absolute shit so I am glad he did not do Watchmen. I read the article of the things he would have done with Watchmen and I cringed at the thought of a Watchmen movie like that. And Gilliam bitches about any movie that he doesn't get to direct. He had a bitch fit because Warner Bros. chose Chris Columbus over him to direct the first Harry Potter films and bashed Columbus on his work. I'm happy with Watchmen and I think that Gilliam is a tool and a shit director, but like I said, it's a matter of taste and opinion.

i saw this headline as it was trending and just feel like telling you all – no matter what side of the fence you are on – you need to get laid

I love all the idiots in these comments that are claiming that Terry Gilliam made the comments. Either pick up some reading glasses or go back to school. The article's second sentence clearly states that Joel Silver made the comments. So please shut up if you aren't going to take the time to figure out what the article actually says

""Watchmen," though we think the director claiming it's a "satire" is a bit much…"

Anyone who has read "Watchmen" closely and for those us who read it when it first was released as a 12 issue miniseries, knows that "Watchmen" was allegory, deconstruction AND satire. Because Snyder did make a movie that is about 98% faithful to the original story he is right in calling it a satire, whether one likes the film or not.

(And by the way, Kevin Jagernauth, the sex scene in the Owl ship to which you are referring is almost exactly portrayed as it is in the comic/graphic novel of "Watchmen," which was both satirical and funny in a cringeworthy way. Your snark is therefore clearly uninformed given the context of your comments).

Never read the novel. Cool movie, though. Satire – I think not, bit a dark, somber political commentary and a cautionary tale. Liked everything – visuals, music, even the sex scene. Definitely a reusable product. Gilliam's comment? Could-ah, would-ah, should-ah…

He is full of shit if he thinks his version is better than what Terry Gilliam would have came up with. Watchman was a shit fest. Funny he calls Watchman a "satire" when most people who have even a basic understanding of decent movies will admit that it was a shit movie at best. Go produce the Veronica Mars movie and shut the hell up.

The original Watchmen ending was exclusive to the medium it was presented in, which was part of the intention: To de-disneyfy the classic Superhero universe. Let's not forget that Watchmen was made to show off what the comic book medium can and other mediums can't. The new ending fits the medium of film much more plus it keeps the narrative contained.

Worst movie I have ever seen.

Opinions on the quality of Watchmen or Zach Snyder's work in general, notwithstanding, The man has a right to defend his own movie against some random shit-talking from a guy who couldn't get his version made.

I think Watchmen is far superior to V for Vendetta. Joel Silver went on to work with the latter film's director on his follow-up, Ninja Assassin. It would be absurd for Snyder to let this guy have a cheap swipe by evoking a faded master.

Watchmen was one of the most faithful adaptation I have ever seen. The small changes didn't bother me and I enjoyed it. I'll take Snyder anyday over Michael Bay or Neo-George Lucas. People act like it's easy to make a movie at the major level. It's not. Snyder's films showcase someone who is dedicated and works hard to bring something new to the screen almost every time. I am not in love with everything he touches. But I am glad he got a hold of Watchmen and saved it from turning into a nuked fridge on it's explosive journey to M Night's house. Terry Gilliam is one of our most talented filmmakers…I'll watch whatever he does…we can't blame him for whatever his take would have been…but we can blame Joel Silver who just chases explosions and dollar signs. I think we all know that whatever idea of "ending" Silver had in mind would have strayed so far from the novel that it would have been wrecked by the fanboys. Thank You Zack….thanks for saving Watchmen…your version may not be perfect…but it's the best one we would have seen.

Well I wont be watching anymore of Snyder's movies. I did like Watchmen but I'm a former film student and Gilliam is one of my favorite directors of all time and a legend. 12 Monkees, Fear and Loathing, c'mon.

I misspoke. He directed "Legend of the Guardians", not "Rise of the Guardians". "Rise" was not very good; his movie was worse.

Snyder's a neo-fascist who makes crap movies for adolescent boys in red states only. "300" is one of the most embarrassing things ever filmed; he raped the Superman legend; he turned Santa into a Russian Mafioso type. "Watchmen" was probably the least crummy thing he's done, and it's mediocre at best. Why should anyone over the age of 14 care what he thinks? Terry Gilliam is a brilliant filmmaker, but brilliant filmmakers don't get money to make movies these days.

Not being a "fanboy", and having never read the graphic novel (cough cough comic book), I'm safe in saying I'd have preferred Gilliam's version.

300 is (barely) a franchise that is nothing but fight-sequences and green screen effects. The plot is as simple as it gets and barely any philosophical message can be pulled from the film other than "fighting for your country makes you a hero." I'm not surprised Joel Silver didn't like Watchmen, doesn't really seem like his cup of tea. The discontinuous story-line, flashbacks, philosophical confrontations that the main characters have with each other, the allusions made to society both now and during the Cold War. These things are just stupid, right? Why make Watchmen similar to the comic when you can cut the bullshit and have nothing but sex scenes and Dr. Manhattan ass raping the Vietkong for two hours.

It's definitely a deconstruction of the superhero genre, but I'm not sure if I'd call it a satire. Some of the characters, individually, are certainly satirical (Nite Owl and Silk Spectre II), but as a whole, it works better as a deconstruction, as a pondering of what superheroes would be like in the "real world." To that end, I think Snyder loses his tone somewhere in the last half or third of the film, when it begins to feel more like the traditional "let's kick some ass!" superhero story, but he regains it in time for the ending, which I feel is superb (aside from the superfluous final two scenes). I'm personally not a fan of Snyder's — this is the only film of his that I enjoy — and I don't know if he has the résumé to take on Gilliam (Silver seemed to be the offending party, anyway), but it does sound like Gilliam's take might have strayed a bit too far from the intentions of the novel.

" Is Snyder right that fanboys woudn't have liked Gilliam's take either? " – Considering that the "Gilliam ending" hasn't been revealed in this article, I find it irresponsible to speculate.

watchmen was GREAT. dude who is saying it was bad is jealous plain and simple. movie was so good it made me get into the comic. terry gilliam… HA

He put's on a good front, and I was unsure of him at first…but this proves it for me: Snyder is a petty, pompous, fool. He seems to be very thin-skinned and whines like a baby whenever he's criticized. First he butchered "Watchmen"…then he (somehow) totally screwed up Superman, and horribly mis-casted "Batman". I just wish he'd go away before he f's up more of what I loved as a kid!

Now, this whole thing about "I made 'Watchmen' to save it.." line is total bullsh– , and he stole that from Dick Donner. If you go back and watch the commentary for "Lethal Weapon", Donner talks about how he directed the film to protect it from other ( and possibly inferior) directors. I really dislike Snyder's "vision" and am tired of all of his platitudes and bitching!

As an independent filmmaker I hasten to point out that no director should waste their time policing other directors' visual styles or storytelling techniques, even when their own work is disparagingly compared to others'. I am a big fan of Snyder's work, have been since his remake of Dawn of the Dead, and I'm very disappointed that he took Silver's bait. A much better response would have been something gracious like, "Hey, Terry has his way and I have mine. We both make good movies in our own way."

Regardless, his film was terrible.

"…we think the director claiming it's a "satire" is a bit much (though yes, that sex scene was hilarious)."

Do you really think that a satire has to be funny?

Oh that's so cute! He's talking exactly like he believes he is as talented as Terry Gilliam.

Who Still Watches The Watchmen?

If Snyder had the talent that Gilliam does for melding solid storytelling with imagery, then MAYBE I might agree with that sentiment. What we got from Snyder was a film that *looked* good, had a couple of great performances (Jackie Earle Haley & Jeffrey Dean Morgan), one fairly good performance (Patrick Wilson) & a couple of horrid casting choices (Malin Akerman & Matthew Goode). Plus we got a very rushed telling of the story without properly fleshing out the scenes, themes & characters — every chapter of the seminal book was rushed in order to fit it within a 2 hr 45 min timeframe. And we got way too much slo-motion editing.

If Gilliam had been willing to retell the story properly & had made it into an HBO or Showtime miniseries, then it would have been excellent. We can hope, I guess but Gilliam's been about doing his own thing.

And I think Snyder should watch Gilliam's work to learn how to properly blend drama, story & visuals together before he goes trash-talking a director who was making films almost 30 yrs before him.

What Snyder's trying to say is "Dr Manhattan would have become some Mister Mxyzptlk if Gilliam directed."

It's true and you all know it….

I thought Snyder did a great job on Watchmen. Sure, it wasn't exactly like the book, but it had the same themes and spirit. I never liked the giant alien squid and I think it would have confused the audience. Granted, it's a contrived threat to unite mankind and move us away from nuclear war, but I thought making Dr. Manhattan the scapegoat was a better idea. It did the same thing but also made mankind not be dependent on heroes to save them. As for Gilliam, he's a visionary and has made some amazing films, but that doesn't mean he's perfect or never has bad ideas. Sounds like his Watchmen wouldn't have been nearly as good.

I enjoyed Watchmen but think just about everything else Snyder has done is heavy-handed nonsense. Gilliam has a far lighter touch as a director. It's moot who's Watchmen would have been better because Snyder just comes off as petty and small with these remarks.

Holy SHIT do you need a lesson in what satire is, KEVIN JAGERNAUTH – " though we think the director claiming it's a "satire" is a bit much". Nope. That ridiculous statement was a bit much. Stick with objective reporting and leave out the op-ed arrogance.

Yeah, Watchmen is a deconstruction, and I'm glad that Snyder realized that and stayed pretty close to the comic. The fact that the movie is a labour of love definitely shows. I rather liked his version.

"a slave to the comic", well, don't u usually hear ppl say "the book was better" so maybe he was making it for those snobs, anyways, its being taken FROM the book u douche, so yes, maybe that means he should do it like the book, your just mad u didnt get to cash in!

I think Snyder is pretty damn good at directing other people's screenplays and graphic novels. Watchmen was excellent. Just stay away from anything he writes himself. That's a disaster.

Of course fans would have hated the Silver-Gilliam version. "The Watchmen" was all about Dr. Manhattan. There is no "Watchmen" without the fact of Dr. Manhattan. What were they thinking? And how did Joel Silver and Terry Gilliam get together in the first place? Silver is a studio guy, Gilliam is totally about independent film. Would never have worked because Silver would throw his weight around and Gilliam would have quit mid-production. Ridiculous. And no, the sex scene was no "hilarious."

I don't like so see directors snapping at each other. So, I hope this bad-mouthing doesn't continue. It's just not very classy.

Watchmen is my favorite movie because all of the Big Themes from the graphic novel are there in the film to wrestle with, debate, re-watch and rethink about. Sure, there are, to my tastes, an unfortunate number of minor missteps in the film, but they don't collectively diminish the Big Questions the movie explores. It's a classic science fiction movie in that it takes a hypothetical "what if scenario" (what if costumed vigilantes existed in the real world?) and uses it to explore a variety of social, ethical, political and philosophical implications. I love this movie because it challenges me to think about interesting themes and conflicting ideas instead of merely "entertaining" me.

I agree with Zack Snyder and as far as I'm concerned, NO ONE does Graphic novel adaptations like he can. He gets it and is absolutely a dream as far as the gn world is concerned. I love the film. Never stop, Zack!

Let's be real here: Gilliam is an auteur. Snyder is a hack. But I really did enjoy Snyder's version of the film and I'm glad he ended up making it. I can't help but think it's the reason he was put on this Earth.
Gilliam had his masterpieces made long before, and they were all fantastic, but I'm glad Snyder was given a chance to just make a good movie, even in the face of pressure (there's nothing I have to say about the graphic that hasn't been said before, it's the perfect postmodern graphic novel, the kind of book so great that a perfectly executed adaptation is something that we don't need, nor that we really should want).

too bad no one was there to save Watchmen from Zack Snyder.

I'm with Snyder here on all counts, including the worthlessness of snarky fanboy culture. As far as the Watchmen movie, it would be very hard for me to picture Gilliam or anyone else doing it as well as Snyder did. I think his change at the end was outright genius.

No Mr. Manhattan no Watchmen so f*ck Terry Gilliams in that regard. Though Andrew I disagree, the alien was awesome in the book

Being a fan of both the graphic novel and the film, ranking both in my top favorite things of all time, I can happily say that if done any other way and by anyone else other than Zack Snyder it would have not been as satisfying as it was and still is! So bravo Zack, and to the other guy… I encourage you to not make a film version of any form of literature unless the author really doesn't care about his work.

ya that gilliam guy is right. that masterpiece gn called watchmen? ya that one. you should have fixed it when you made it into a movie so that it made sense instead of just being a bunch of nonsensical jargon. You should have fixed it like peter jackson fixed that one epic fantasy called the hobbit. we need more people to be going back and finding literary masterpieces and fixing them so that they aren't bad. Its so nice when hey go back and add their own touch to these masterpieces that just really fix the story and the characters. these guys that have never written a story before, they just steal other peoples stories and fix them, ya we need them to be fixing the masterpieces. come to think of it, we should probably just take a piece of tolkien's dna and clone him and then have gilliam teach him and moore and anybody else who has ever written a masterpiece how to write a story.

a giant alien with tentacles is a poor ending and I do not think it would have satisfied many. That was my complaint when I read the graphic novel. the story belongs to moore but the rendition is snyders beautiful interpretation. Anyone else would have botched this no names need mention Snyder succeeded. As for fanboys Avengers was not successful due to them. They should have balked at the overpowered triumph of the good in the movie. It was so pg. The evil must match the good with their own triumphs or it loses interest. I lost interest. It was popular due to mass appeal. Avengers<Watchmen every day.

Proving that not only is Zack Snyder a terrible director but that he is also a complete asshat.

"though we think the director claiming it's a 'satire' is a bit much (though yes, that sex scene was hilarious)"

Did the journalist just mix up satire and parody?

Snyder's comment that the "Watchmen" was a satire is spot on. When the graphic novel was written in 1986 (complied 1987), Nixon was eight years away from death. He was impeached as president, and besides the Frost/Nixon interviews he wasn't coming back to a political life. For many people his legacy was as the devil. From this vantage the author wrote this novel to show the decline in the self image of the USA. The concept that Nixon could be voted president for life for crushing the Vietnamese and taking power harks to a sarcastic image of the USA as on par with the USSR and Communist China in the ideology we emit. Think about the jingoism we emit now post 9/11. The battle cry of 'Merica!, the self-congratulatory way in which we are unapologetic about our way of life. That's not to say that the US isn't great. Bottom line this movie was perfectly satirical.

I loved the Snyder interpretation of the Watchmen, but you really have to have read the GN to fully appreciate it.

Being a fan of both the graphic novel and the film, ranking both in my top favorite things of all time, I can happily say that if done any other way and by anyone else other than Zack Snyder it would have not been as satisfying as it was and still is! So bravo Zack, and to the other guy… I encourage you to not make a film version of any form of literature unless the author really doesn't care about his work.

People are still talking about Watchmen? It's a relic. Let Me know when they make a movie based on The Boys.

When you stray too far from a movie based on a comic or video game you get stuff like Resident Evil. And nobody wants that. Thanks Zack and the cast for making a damn good movie.

True, Snyder is a little big for his britches here, but Gilliam is guilty of badmouthing other directors in the past, too. Remember his sniping commentary on Spielberg and "Schindler's List"? Though Gilliam has made some films I respect, I think he fancies himself the rightful heir to Stanley Kubrick, and has never recovered from Kubrick passing him over in favor of Spielberg for "A.I." That's the hazard of being good at what you do…and knowing it.

Well, after seeing the first one, I'd love for ANYONE else to have done it. That movie SUCKED! Could've been so much better than it was.

Thank you Zack Snyder. Gillam's "version" would've been awful.

I think the bickering is childish — which might be moot since we're talking about film adaptaions of comic books. But if it's worth saying, then I'd say that there's clearly rich material for films in comic books, and it seems to me that nobody really has the perfect formula for adapting comics to the screen. They're a lot like films anyway, but there are important differences, which, it seems to me, make translation a really interesting challenge. There's plenty of room for experimentation.

Tim Burton's two Batman films were one attempt at rendering the character, for example — the first one being Tim Burton's adaptation of Batman, and the second one being basically Batman happening to appear prominently in a Tim Burton movie. Then Joel Schumacher showed us how to get it utterly wrong. Then Nolan. But even Nolan's Batman, though a so widely regarded as a terrific interpretation, is still just a version, expressing the soul of the character in some ways and riffing and deviating in others. Same with Spider-Man. Same with Superman, I guess — though I don't know what's ever going to top Donner and Christopher Reeves.

Zack Syder's WATCHMEN was a valuable addition to all that experimentation, I feel. Now we know more about what it's like to try to add as little as possible to the tone of the source material. That's good for the whole genre.

I liked the Watchmen, Snyder did a fine job. just for the record I feel Gilliam is far to focused on the visuals, that's why Python went with Terry Jones to direct the other two movies, as both directed Holy Grail.

I loved it! Watchmen was an incredible movie. I'm so glad they didn't let hollywood ruin it.

The movie was the best we could hope for for a Watchmen adaptation. It was not an incredible film, but it was in no way a bad film. It captured the comic well. It was satisfying.

Are you kidding me! I read the graphic novel and I was happy how close Snyder kept it.
<3 Snyders version.

Zack Saved Watchmen!!!!

i don't understand how "being a slave to the comic" is a bad thing. I've argued many times that making changes can be good but also sticking to the material is rarely ever bad.

i think most of us wanted Alan Moore's version. Snyder did an amazing job. Watchmen is possibly the best comic book adaptation. I think Gilliam's version is a stupid gimmick. We've seen this before. Might as well get M. Night to direct and tell him "the usual" if you want that kind of ending. Sticking to the material is vital for an adaptation. It's not Snyder's creation, he acted as the conduit…a humbling virtue for an artist who probably has a million awesome ideas of his own… to bring to life another artist's vision with such attention to detail was a great accomplishment.

I love Snyder's Watchmen and I love the graphic novel it was adapted from. Moore has stated that no adaptation of his novel could be "true" because he wrote Watchmen to show the bounds of the graphic novel. Changing mediums, of course, eliminates any statement of boundaries and possibilities within the original art form.

Thank you Zack Snyder for a visual masterpiece! (I also love Sucker Punch. I might be alone in having seen it twice before it finished its short run but, hey, I'm okay with that…)

Watchmen wasn't very good. It either needed to be 2 movies, or lose a subplot or two. The story and some of the characters were just mishandled.

8===D

That is all.

I actually have a bootlegged copy of the Gilliam script and I thought the ending was TERRIBLE. The film did leave some things a bit lacking from the original comic series/graphic novel, but there were parts of it that were pure gold (the perfume bottle's tumble on Mars was EXACTLY the visual from the book). As to the Dr. Manhattan ending change, the result was the same: Veidt pulled the world back from the brink with a unified front. Overall, when you include the Black Freighter, this was the film I had waited 20 years for.

Zack Snyder is a good director. Maybe someday when he grows up, he will be as good as Terry Gilliam. I think he should keep his mouth shut and stop trash talking, other good directors. He lost points with me.

I am a writer and i know that if someone wanted to adapt something i wrought for the screen i would prefer they stay true to the original text, because if they chose to go in there own direction it would be a slap in the face to me in that while they wanted to use my intellectual property but they deemed it inadequate as a slap in the face as an artist.

I had no idea what "Watchmen" was or who Alan Moore was. I watched the "Motion Comic" version of "Watchmen" a few days before the film was released and was instantly captivated by how complex and intellectual it was. "Watchmen" the film, was a mediocre adaptation. One scene that struck me as very poorly directed was the scene in Vietnam where a pregnant woman confronts The Comedian, in the motion comic, the scene has weight, you really understand what The Comedian is about and the depth of his neurosis. But in the film, it barely registers, it just flies by, and you barely see how The Comedian was injured or grasp how pivotal his confrontation with Mr Manhattan was to the story. So to me, that one scene illustrates how Zack Snyder botched the job directing "Watchmen". Sure it was faithful to the source material, but Snyder just didn't have the intellectual chops to follow through.

Growing up, I was a big fan of Terry Gilliam's silly action adventures, largely for their wit and anarchic style. Who hasn't been influenced by Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Life of Brian, Brazil, 12 Monkeys, and the Fisher King? I still get a chuckle when I think of Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas.

But would Gilliam have come up with a better version of Watchmen? I'm not so sure. Gilliam has a very distinctive, tongue-in-cheek style. And while Watchmen came at us with dark humor, Snyder's long, R-rated rendition of the graphic novel was about as faithful a telling as you could expect in a tentpole film. It might not have been for everybody, but Snyder's film was better than it would have been if it had been directed with the stylings of The Brothers Grimm.

I love Snyder's "Watchmen." I loved it at the theater every time I saw it, and I love it on streaming video. He totally nailed the look and feel of the graphic novel. Rorschach was perfect. Same goes for the Comedian. Wasn't sold on the guy he chose to play The Owl, but he grew on me. I couldn't believe the Internet reaction to the film, and I still don't get why so many people think it was bad. It was an almost impossible movie to bring to the screen, and I can't imagine anyone doing a better job than Snyder did. I thought he deserved an Oscar.

12 monkeys didn't make it into my fav's. Watchmen is still amazing. Haha suck it TG! ZS bested him on this.

Notice how 'Juck' is so utterly insecure in his post trashing a brilliant filmmaker like Gilliam (and I CERTAIN he has watched NONE of the films he mentions, at least not as an adult), that he disallows replies to his post. Way to not be an adult or a man at all, you sackless wank. Man up, bitch.

Given, that the greats of Hollywood can't seem to pull off a giant squid, or Galactus, but would prefer to leave gaping plot holes instead, I'd be interested in seeing Gilliam's version of Watchmen. I've always respected his work. On the other hand, I still find Snyder's Watchmen only partially enjoyable, mainly because it's so inconsistent. Just as I'm drawn in by the costumes, sets, mood, lighting… the awful casting choices of Ozymandias & Silk Spectre 2, clumsy employment of music and sound effects, and choosing to include the Black Freighter bit over the squid sub-plot/finish… there's just enough to leave me smh.

Don't be disrespecting Terry Gilliam! Still, I get what Snyder was going for with "Watchmen" and I loved the movie. It's a very cynical story, yes, and it does address the very things Snyder mentioned. But I wouldn't have worded the criticisms of what Gilliam might have done with the material the way Snyder did. I highly respect his body of work — "12 Monkeys" was a masterpiece — and no one can really match him for whimsy or for darker tales that screw with the mind.

i thought The Watchmen was pretty awesome.

"….if you read the Gilliam ending, it's completely insane," – Yeah, because your ending was SO much better, wasn't it Zack? To be fair, Watchmen IS pretty damn good, right up until you cut the balls off of the story with your f-ed up ending.

Two words… Who cares.

Not a perfect movie, but not bad either.

What exactly has Gilliam done in the last 15 years that was worth watching?

"in the end, the most important thing with the end was that it tells the story of the graphic novel."
Except it doesn't. In his movie version of the ending, the world would have teamed up on the US and the wars would have continued. The story needed the alien to bring the world together – Dr. Manhattan was an American weapon for decades, his actions in the end of the movie would have been seen as America's fault. The movie asks you to believe that because he destroyed a few American cities, everyone in the world would have forgiven the US for creating, supporting and nurturing Dr. Manhattan. It was a change that didn't need to happen and drastically weakened the plot of the film. In a movie that was so close to a perfect rendition of the comic, this gigantic plothole, introduced for no reason that I can see (other than director hubris, Snyder assuming he could tell Moore's story better than Moore did) made the whole movie a terrible flop.

I actually enjoyed the Watchmen movie quite a bit. It wasn't a perfect adaptation, but for a story as meta as Watchmen that is not a bad thing. I can't imagine what would have happened if a director like Terry Gilliam had gotten the nod instead. Not saying that Gilliam didn't respect the original story, but you could tell throughout Snyder's movie that he really had a tremendous amount of love for the graphic novel.

I was with him (as much as I like Gilliam) until he devolved into, "They just didn't understand it's brilliance!" crap. The reason people didn't like the movie isn't because they were too stupid to understand the concept of satire, and such asinine statements make me not want to take anything else he does seriously.

Also, the problem with the movie wasn't the it stuck to the *themes* of the book, but that it didn't make allowances for the change in format. It stuck too closely to the book without considering the changes that were mandated by a change in format, and that ruined it.

The people who refuse to take criticism as always those who need it most.

I love Terry Gilliam with a burning passion BUT I think that he would have gone to artsy with Watchmen and… while not ruining it… would have given us something that was NOT QUITE The Watchmen.

I like The Watchmen movie and I don't think that it suffers from using the graphic novel as a storyboard. It suffered because no one in that movie besides Jackie Earl Haley and Jeffrey Dean Morgan were stellar actors. Look at "Sin City" and see how fantastically reproducing a graphic novel can go when you cast well!

Snyder straps giant dicks on everything and calls it art. F*** him. Gilliam has more talent in his left nostril.

Gilliam's done some great stuff but mostly in comedy. If "The Brothers Grimm" is what we would have gotten from "Watchmen", then I think Snyder was the right choice. In fact, I think he was the right choice anyways. I could never fathom why Snyder took so much flack from both sides for Watchmen. I loved the movie because it was so faithful to the novel, but still appreciated the purpose of the changed ending. I think die hard fanboys should be greatful that the movie was as faithful as it was in this day of utter irreverence for all original material. You guys looking forward to Teenage Alien Ninja Turtles? Me neither. Try backing productions like Snyder's more and Hollwood will be less nervous about maintaining story integrity.

So many fanboys int he comments 😀 Lulz 😀

Snyder did a fine job with "Watchmen" and to make a film without Doctor Manhattan would be short-changing the audience, especially fans of the graphic novel.
I loved Gilliam's "Time Bandits" and "Brazil". But "Watchmen" benefited from the adult violence/themes Zack Snyder used; Terry Gilliam has a habit of using over-the-top or "campy" violence that wouldn't work for me in a "Watchmen" representation.

If The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is any indicator then the movie wouldn't have gotten very much attention if Gilliam had made it. I liked Snyder's interpretation and thought the casting was superb.

Terry Gilliam did more with less than whoever the f**k this guy is. Terry was making movies before this guy could spell CGI.

ask Alan Moore if he gives a f*** what either of these douchebags think about his work. then ask yourself why movies are privileged above all other forms of media. then f*** off.

First, it was a miniseries that was later released as a single volume. Not a true graphic novel.

Second, Snyder ruined my favorite gag in Watchmen, where you see the R.R. For President signs throughout the entire series, and you think it's just Ronald Reagan, but it turns out it's Robert Redford.

When I first saw Watchmen I was angry at the changes. The extended version helped a bit. Being a huge fan of the graphic novel and Alan Moore, I had standards that were impossible to meet in a feature film. I feel as though the book was admirably paid homage after further viewing. Watchmen is not a "superhero story", it is indeed a satire. Superheroes could not exist in the real world and the story points out the tragedy, depravity, and humor behind the concept given the society of the world. As a director I am a much bigger fan of Gilliam but after reading about the ideas and changes he had in store I am sure I would have hated it. I'm not a huge fan of much of Snyder's work but I think he did well with this movie.

Meh, the only good thing about this is that Terry Gilliam's career was saved because his version of the movie didn't go through.

My feelings are the movie would have garked either way because it was based on a comic that in my opinion sucked horses.

I for one am sick of all the doom and depression that happens in today's comics. Now I'm NOT pressing for a return to the Golden Age, or even a ironclad return to the Comics Code. I'd just prefer a somewhere in the middle where there are at least SOME happy endings!

I really think Snyder should wait until he puts out his equivalent to 'Brazil' before he he starts talking this kind of crap.

I think Snyder did a fantastic job with Watchmen,, sure I wish they'd used the graphic-novel ending,,, (even if it meant ditching the excellent interpretation of the Black Freighter for time's sake),, but I just can't imagine anyone else doing a better job of carrying-on the spirit of the comics. I care as much about Silver's opinion as I do Alan Moore's ,, they both seriously need to cheer up and get out more.

I loved his version. Other than missing the squid (was really hoping for that) I think it was an incredible homage to the original work. Anything else would have felt blasphemous.

I own the BluRay of the movie and watch it from time to time. I can't wait to share the book and movie with my son when he's old enough.

Watchmen would have been a better movie if another actress would have slept with the director to get the role of the second Silk Spectre.

I'm sure Akerman was awesome on the casting couch, but whatever passion she put into earning the role didn't translate to the screen.

Her performance couldn't have been more wooden if she were Pinocchio's sister.

When Snyder has accomplished a THIRD of what Gilliam has in his career he can STILL shut his mouth. Don't ever be pompous enough, with only a VERY SMALL handful of "good" projects under your belt, to pound your chest at one of the legends of film. Because you think ONE of his ideas is worse than yours you suddenly have authority in that arena? Please.

"but took a moment to share their feelings on Silver-Gilliam-Watchmen-gate."

Are you kidding me? Snyder and Silver's disagreement on how to intrepret Watchmen is a scandal on the level of Watergate? Please, stop using "-gate" for everything, it is the sign of an unimaginative hack writer.

Having not read the graphic novel, but went with my son who had read it, it felt, to me, that it was tied way too much with the novel. But that's OKAY. Better to stick with the source material and not bend it to a certain demographic or PG-13 rating than change it around to your "vision" and screw it the hell up. Why Tim Burton felt the need to add a third-act to "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" – I'll never know. When Levinson decided to change the end of "The Natural" from a depressing strike-out to a spark-filled/Newman scored home run – I shudder to think what the fans of the book felt. Why can't the source material be tweaked to fit film structure instead of radically re-written?

If you didn't like the movie, you couldn't have possibly liked the comic book. I think the movie was well crafted and followed as close to the comic book as was possible.

i personally loved the movie. ive also read the graphic novel. i also understand that the ending in the graphic novel wouldve done nothing but make the purists happy. it wouldnt have come off well in a film adaptation.

I love Terry Gilliam's films but I didn't hate "Watchmen" and I didn't love it either. There were scenes that were breath taking but there was a lot of non-sense as well. I don't think Gilliam would have done a good job either. Some graphic novels should be left alone and enjoyed for what they are.

Snyder's film sucks not because of the changed ending (although that didn't help); rather, the plastic performances and terrible design flourishes. He kept the framework of things, sure, but changed the essence of scenes and characters to the degree that, when he tried to present the overarching theme of the text, it was so heavy-handed that it almost seemed out-of-character.

I loved the graphic novel, and I loved the ways that the movie was true to it. AND I loved the way the ending was changed. I thought that it was a much better fit as the movie went from the comic to cinemas. I don't think that the original ending would have worked. I thought Snyder went above and beyond to make this comic work for the movie, which was not an easy task. It's full of politics, relationships, asking tough questions about what's morally right versus the greater good, and looking back at what might have been, when we must move forward. So in case you can't tell I'm Team Snyder all the way on this one.

The original comic absolutely had major satirical themes lampooning the practical application of superheroes to real life.

I am big fan of Gilliam, but I think the Stanley Kubrik-David Lynch school he's with, while awesome, is not the way to do a film like Watchmen. Watchmen worked because it brought a version of that amazing story to the screen, changing it anymore than Snyder already had to would have truly defeated the point of making it at all.

No Dr. Manhattan? Come on now, just make a different movie inspired by Watchmen if you're going to cut out one of the most significant characters.

I never read the comics, loved the movie, love Monty Python and every Gilliam movie ever made. So there!

I've never read The Watchmen, I didn't see the movie. I've never seen a non-Python Gilliam movie. That said, I'll never let my children ever watch a Snyder film for 1) they look awful, 2) if you diss Monty Python, you're an idiot and the world would be better without you.

If the world (of cinema) can only be saved by the shallow likes of the screamingly NeoConservative Snyder, I say better to let it die.

As a long time fan of the comic book, i was pleasantly surprised by the depth and sincerity with which Watchmen was made. I always knew that it was not going to be a huge hit, but the backlash from fans surprises me to this day. And i completely agree that Terry Gilliam, for all his auteur reputation had not made a great movie in decades. Watchmen would have been an utter disaster with him at helm.

I for one defend Snyder here. Gilliam is obviously the favorite here, and that's fine. He made some of the most debated movies ever. But he's condescending to everyone that isn't him. Read any interview on any movie someone else made and he has no respect for anyone it seems. Snyder's movie is wonderful. I couldn't have asked for a better one, fidelity be damned. And I never would have asked who made it before I saw it, and when I did, it became. "Who made this great movie? Oh, Zach Snyder." The movie comes first.

I would rather see Terry Gilliam going for broke and failing than Zack Snyder playing it safe and failing any day of the week. The truth is that The Watchmen is such a sprawling work that trying to squeeze it into a feature is inherently going to lessen it; it would be best, as Gilliam I think has suggested, as an on-going tv show.

Gilliam directed Brazil, 12 monkeys, fear and loathing in Las Vegas, Monty Python and the holy grail, time bandits… All some of my favorite movies…

Snyders watchmen was fine I did like the bob Dylan opening but there's no doubt that whatever Gilliam wanted to do would have been awesome

Aside for that ridiculous sex scene, the movie was well put together. we will never know how the Gilliam version would've ended up, and it may or may not be better, but not putting Dr. Manhattan in a Watchmen movie is ludicrous. I really never get the hate that movie got…

Gilliam = Brazil + Time Bandits.

Synder = Sucker Punch + Man of Steel…

as Brando once said, never confuse the size of your pay check with the size of your talent.

like Aaron answered I cant believe that a student able to earn $5643 in a few weeks on the computer . find out here now http://7.ly/f3vt

I know people unfamiliar with the comic who were furious that they watched a superhero movie where the good guys didn't 'win'. I think that's the element of satire that as the source material was to comics, the film was to comic-book movies. I appreciated that in 2009 when the comic book movie was surging into huge popularity and I thought Snyder translated that aspect well.

Well… I think this is what I needed to hear to finally stop feeling guilty about not liking Zack Snyder. If he thinks his job is to save us from the Gilliams of the world, then he's clearly stating that he's an enemy of interesting, ambitious cinema and is only interested in commerce.

I can appreciate how Watchmen is a sore spot for him, what with fanboys unwilling to allow for anything but a comic panel-to-film frame exact adaptation of any comic property, but the fact is Snyder's Watchmen changed certain characters' motivations, abilities and moral codes just for the sake of adding more gratuitous violence, not to improve the story for a film adaptation. And given that Snyder changed the ending from the graphic novel, he's really dug himself a nasty little hole.

Yeah, I feel good about this, and feel much better about not liking anything he's done pretty much besides Dawn of the Dead.

Snyder is a complete moron, somthing reflected in the brain-sucking deadness of all his films.

I think Snyder has confused 'satire' with 'metaphor'.

The original comic was certainly a satire. (And much else besides!) I felt Snyder didn't quite capture that, but it's nice to know he's aware of what the comic was aiming at.