Did you know Bay was one of the original directors for Watchmen?

[HarryCanyon]

Since 1987 studios from Fox, Warner, MGM, Universal and Paramount have been trying to get Alan Moore's unique comic book masterpiece to the big screen including Darren Aronosfky who tried to change the war setting to iraq instead of Nam which would have been a travesty.

In 2003 when Paramount got the rights Bay was considered director but passed on to do The Island instead, i wonder if Bay is a fan of the graphic novel or comics of Watchmen?

Then in 2007 when Warner brought back rights for Watchmen as a movie since Warner is DC's main company, Zack Snyder was chosen after they were impressed by 300 and he was chosen since he is a fan of the graphic novel.

What would have Bay's version been like?

[starscream1017]

I hated that movie, even tho i like zack snyder. im glad Bay passed up on it to do the Island.

[HarryCanyon]

Have you read the graphic novel?

I thought it did a neat job of bringing that brilliant comic to life and made a superhero movie for adults.

[Crainy]

The movie is amazing. However, I wonder how it would be if Bay directed it. Im not sure if this is Bays kind of territory, though.

[Albershide]

Watchmen is one of the best comic book adaptations. The visual style was so close to the comics. People who doesn't like the movie just have never read the comic book. It's not the regular comic book movie, it's slow paced with plenty of talking exactly as it is in the comic book. Zack did a great job.
I don't think Watchmen is Michael's type of movie. He did well when passed on it.

[Flyingheart]

Yeah i agree.

[starscream1017]

Watchmen is one of the best comic book adaptations. The visual style was so close to the comics. People who doesn't like the movie just have never read the comic book. It's not the regular comic book movie, it's slow paced with plenty of talking exactly as it is in the comic book. Zack did a great job.
I don't think Watchmen is Michael's type of movie. He did well when passed on it.

ah maybe thats why i didnt like it, i never read the comic.

[Bayhem]

People who doesn't like the movie just have never read the comic book.

So that basically means that the director of the movie didn't do his job. Because last time I checked, the job of the filmmaker/director is to make a movie that would stood on its own, even if it's based on a famous novel or a comic book. A movie that would entertain not only the fans of the material but also these people from the audience who don't care about the source material and just wanna have fun for 2 hours. If you say to these people, "Ya know folks, read the comic book first and then come to see my movie", then you have failed as a filmmaker. Big time.


Example: I was never a fan of the "Transformers" cartoons, didn't care about the toys when I was a kid...but I enjoyed the hell out of the first "Transformers" movie in 2007. Why? Because Michael made a movie that was accessible to all people, fans and non-fans of the cartoons.

You didn't have to read a comic book or watch a TV show in order to appreciate that movie.


P. S. I think "Watchmen" was a fun movie but it's not something that I would buy for my own collection. It's just that type of film that I enjoyed when I saw it for the first time, but didn't feel the need to buy later on. As for Michael - I think he made the right decision making "The Island" instead.

[Albershide]

So that basically means that the director of the movie didn't do his job. Because last time I checked, the job of the filmmaker/director is to make a movie that would stood on its own, even if it's based on a famous novel or a comic book.

Well this may be right for most of the general comics/movies, but not for Watchmen. Thank God Zack didn't do this for the mass public. The best thing about it is the uniqueness and the complexity of the story. You really have to read it to understand. Let me just tell you that even before Aronofsky and Bay, Terry Gilliam was attached to direct. He left the project saying: "this novel is unfilmable". And we know about Terry's movies....

[alexsm]

Watchmen movie is pretty bad. Pretty nonsensical lots of times, zero drama and not so smart as it tries to be. It's not about "being for the mass public". If you need people to know everything that happens in the movie before they see the movie to enjoy it... then there's something wrong. The movie should be able to transmit its ideas on its own.

Maybe the graphic novel is better, I don't know. I've just read two Alan Moore comics, and didn't like them very much.

-V for Vendetta, which is nice but IMO no near as good as people claim. Interesting (but pretty obvious) subtext, but not so interesting story and characters (besides V). I've read much better dystopian stories.
-From Hell, which I wasn't able to finish.

[Albershide]

Watchmen movie is pretty bad. Pretty nonsensical lots of times, zero drama and not so smart as it tries to be.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that the movie is good but saying that it (a comic book movie ) is nonsense is a bit too much. Don't you think?
Don't forget that when the comic book was released it was a time of great nuclear concerns between USA and the Soviet Union. And it's remarkable that the bad guy who killed millions to save billions may actually be considered as a savior. Also I love Rorschach's investigation of the murders - like good old detective movie. If you want you can recall the story by reading the short plot description at Wiki. Maybe you missed something from the story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen_%28film%29

It's everything but not nonsense. At least that's what I think. Of course my opinion is not necessarily right.

[alexsm]

I'm not talking about the comic, but about the movie as a standalone story. A good amount of things don't make sense. Character motivations are ridiculous. Not much better than Loki's ones in Thor (absurd beyond human comprehension).

Again, I'm not saying anything about the book. Maybe there everything is better, maybe is deeper. I don't know. Only about the movie. IMO It doesn't work on its own.

Also it's a pretty outdated movie. Nowadays nuclear fear doesn't exist. An adaptation should be adapted to nowadays fear. It should be about something the director and the actors were really concerned about.

[Albershide]

I'm not talking about the comic, but about the movie as a standalone story.

Me too. Anyway, let's move along.

[dnn]

I'm not talking about the comic, but about the movie as a standalone story. A good amount of things don't make sense. Character motivations are ridiculous. Not much better than Loki's ones in Thor (absurd beyond human comprehension).

Again, I'm not saying anything about the book. Maybe there everything is better, maybe is deeper. I don't know. Only about the movie. IMO It doesn't work on its own.

Also it's a pretty outdated movie. Nowadays nuclear fear doesn't exist. An adaptation should be adapted to nowadays fear. It should be about something the director and the actors were really concerned about.

Reportedly when Paul Greengrass was attached he wanted to update the story to modern times and it would have included things like the war on terror and Iraq. When Snyder came on board he returned it to being faithful to the original story, since he wanted to avoid political commentary on modern times.

It certainly would have been interesting to have seen what Bay would have done. Watchmen is a dark, adult political satire, with a labyrinthine plot, a lot of dialogue, and no real heroes. Not exactly Bay's usual material, the closest to it is The Rock, with the complex character of General Hummel. Nolan would have been perfect.

[Crainy]

So that basically means that the director of the movie didn't do his job. Because last time I checked, the job of the filmmaker/director is to make a movie that would stood on its own, even if it's based on a famous novel or a comic book. A movie that would entertain not only the fans of the material but also these people from the audience who don't care about the source material and just wanna have fun for 2 hours. If you say to these people, "Ya know folks, read the comic book first and then come to see my movie", then you have failed as a filmmaker. Big time.


Example: I was never a fan of the "Transformers" cartoons, didn't care about the toys when I was a kid...but I enjoyed the hell out of the first "Transformers" movie in 2007. Why? Because Michael made a movie that was accessible to all people, fans and non-fans of the cartoons.

You didn't have to read a comic book or watch a TV show in order to appreciate that movie.


P. S. I think "Watchmen" was a fun movie but it's not something that I would buy for my own collection. It's just that type of film that I enjoyed when I saw it for the first time, but didn't feel the need to buy later on. As for Michael - I think he made the right decision making "The Island" instead.

Never red any comics and still think that Watchmen is an outstanding movie.

Also, Watchmen is not an outdated movie. The philosphies of the movie are not really connected to the whole nuclear destruction issue, but can be applied to alot of issues, so the director had no need to change it.