Ah, the New York Times has even more “Watchmen.” It’s basically the unfiltered interview from the long-form piece about the movie where Zack Snyder talked about the controversial changed ending of the movie (no silly gigantic squids).
Snyder notes that his changes are still minimal, by many standards, but the fans of “Watchmen” are obviously huge nerds.
“I always say, I’m certain I changed ‘Watchmen’ less than the Coen brothers changed “No Country for Old Men.” I’m certain of it. But you don’t hear the Cormac McCarthy fans up in arms about it,” he said.
The filmmaker says he realizes that the original graphic novel is dark, but he says it’s very in tune with his “natural operatic aesthetic.”
“People have said to me, when they talk about the graphic novel, about how it’s gritty and real, and I always go, “Yeah, you realize also though that a lot of that book takes place on Mars. And Manhattan is 200 feet tall when he walks through the jungles of Vietnam. And the bad guy-slash-good guy does have an Antarctic lair that looks like possibly like an Egyptian pyramid-ish place.”
Asked point blank about a sequel (which none exists in comic book form), Snyder insists he won’t be part of it if they concoct some crazy plan to make one.
“Listen, they own the rights. If they wanted to go and hire some guy to make them a sequel to ‘Watchmen’” I don’t know that they would get any of those actors to do it, and I know that I wouldn’t have anything to do with it. But they own it. They can do whatever they want. They can make a movie – I’ve spoiled it, I think, a little bit. Do you leave that film going, “Man, I wonder what the next chapter is? [laughs] ”
Snyder seems to want to want to caution “The Dark Knight” fans that his films is similar, but ultimately, different.
“The thing about “Dark Knight” is its objective is to set Batman into your world, so that you can imagine the moral dilemmas he faces are exactly parallel to moral dilemmas that you would face in this world, today, if you were out there fighting crime dressed like a bat. Where I think in ‘Watchmen,’ because it creates metaphors and symbolism, it has a little freer of a hand. It’s pointing a finger at those exact moments, going, “Really? Doesn’t this also remind you of this? Or doesn’t that make you think this?” That’s where I think that aesthetically the movies diverge.”
Hey, Warner Bros. could always try and convince someone to try and make a Minutemen film, no? An origins film?