PDA

View Full Version : First look at the Watchmen movie...



General_Grievous
03-09-2007, 08:08 PM
From Ain't It Cool News:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31814


It's an image of Rorshach that was hidden in the 300 trailer. Personally, I'm excited to see it. Watchmen is one of my favorite comic books of all time. I'm pretty sure it's still in the preproduction stage, though.

bigbarada
03-20-2007, 01:30 AM
From Ain't It Cool News:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31814


It's an image of Rorshach that was hidden in the 300 trailer. Personally, I'm excited to see it. Watchmen is one of my favorite comic books of all time. I'm pretty sure it's still in the preproduction stage, though.

I really have no idea how they can make this movie without completely butchering the original storyline. If they do it right, though, it'll be a great movie.

BTW, obviously the images have been taken down, they're no longer available in that link.

JediTricks
03-21-2007, 07:48 PM
The image is still right there, here's the direct link to the frame: http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007//rorshach_badge.jpg

2-1B
03-21-2007, 07:55 PM
I never even heard of The Watchmen until this thread...

El Chuxter
03-21-2007, 08:06 PM
You should correct that.

Kris Kristofferson read it, and he loved it. True story.

2-1B
03-22-2007, 06:47 AM
I have too many childish vices as it is, no time for graphic novels.

General_Grievous
08-02-2007, 05:45 PM
So there's been a lot more news on this lately, including a cast.


Watchmen Cast Confirmed!

Source: The Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ie88dcf13294612e0d5010ddce2a351f1)
July 26, 2007



Warner Bros. Pictures has confirmed the cast for Watchmen (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=21117), the big screen adaptation of the seminal DC Comics limited series.

Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, Matthew Goode, Billy Crudup, Jeffrey Dean Morgan ("Grey's Anatomy") and Malin Akerman will star in the Warner Bros. movie, which Zack Snyder is directing. Larry Gordon, Lloyd Levin and Deborah Snyder are producing.

Set in an alternate America, Watchmen (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=21117) follows costumed hero Rorschach, who is living a vigilante lifestyle because most masked heroes have retired or been outlawed. While investigating a murder, Rorschach learns that a former masked-hero colleague has been killed, prompting him to begin investigating a possible conspiracy.

Haley will play Walter Kovacs, aka Rorschach, who ignores the ban on costumed vigilantes.

Crudup will play Dr. Manhattan, a superpowered being with godlike powers and temperament.

Akerman will play Laurie Juspeczyk/the Silk Spectre, who is involved with Dr. Manhattan -- but that relationship begins to fall apart as he becomes more disconnected from humanity.

Goode will play Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, a costumed adventurer who retired voluntarily, disclosed his identity and built a large fortune. He hatches a plot to avert a global catastrophe he believes will be caused by Dr. Manhattan.

Wilson will play the Nite-Owl, a crime-figher who uses technical wizardry and has an owl-shaped flying vehicle.

Morgan will play the Comedian (http://www.superherohype.com/news/watchmennews.php?id=6056#), a cigar-chomping, gun-toting vigilante-turned-paramilitary agent.

Watchmen (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=21117) was created by Alan Moore (http://www.superherohype.com/news/watchmennews.php?id=6056#) and Dave Gibbons.

Shooting is set to start in the fall in Vancouver, with Snyder employing many of the filming techniques he used for his boxoffice success 300.



That's a damn good cast. After "300", I trust Zack Snyder to do the Watchmen justice.

darko666
08-02-2007, 07:24 PM
while i enjoy 300, Watchmen and 300 have nothing in common. i'm keeping optimistic about the movie though. i'm pleased to see an unknown cast filling the roles, the fact that it's more along the lines of a Seven movie(the look of it), with little to no CG, being set in 1985, based around the cold war, and following very closely to the source material. there are rumours of the ending being changed, rather than what happened in the book(Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias ending).

the dialouge has to be serious, nothing like 300, which is what worries me. also Rorshach has to be perfect. i read an interview with Zack describing how they might handle his voice when Rorshach talks. i always pictured a very confident yet serious tone, but we will see. The Black Freighter is planned to be an extra for the dvd, since it will probably cause confusion to non-readers of the book, when in fact it clearly states all of whats going on within the main story. but i'm all right with that.

this movie needs to be as long as ROTK, or else everything will seem rushed. but i will keep faith until i see more being develped with the movie. but this could be a big step in a new direction for comicbook/graphic novel movies. with this, TDK, and Iron Man, i can see comic movies getting a more serious tone to them, which i welcome with open arms. no more of this kid stuff.

"Stood in street, watched it burn."

General_Grievous
08-02-2007, 08:15 PM
while i enjoy 300, Watchmen and 300 have nothing in common.

By that I meant Snyder stays faithful to the source material.

El Chuxter
03-06-2008, 02:23 PM
Wow. (http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=149166)

I am speechless.

Let the naysayers complain, this movie looks like it is going to be THE SHIZNIT.

I don't think I have ever seen any comic hero whose costume was translated as perfectly to the screen as Rorschach and the Comedian.

General_Grievous
03-06-2008, 04:39 PM
I'm in full agreement with you, Chux. Those costumes look outstanding. The only one that looks a little off is Ozymandias, but it still looks great anyway. I guess they're keeping Dr. Manhattan a secret.

El Chuxter
03-06-2008, 05:16 PM
I understand he's CG.

There's also the "full frontal" aspect (assuming they keep that) that wouldn't lend itself to promotional pictures very well.

General_Grievous
03-06-2008, 05:21 PM
I understand he's CG.

There's also the "full frontal" aspect (assuming they keep that) that wouldn't lend itself to promotional pictures very well.

They may just decide to give him the "Ken doll" treatment. I don't know about you, but I feel no need to stare at blue man junk on the big screen.

jjreason
03-06-2008, 05:22 PM
I'm actually a little frightened by the picture of Rorshach, and I don't scare easy.




Okay, really I do. :(

JediTricks
03-06-2008, 11:03 PM
Manhattan is going to be motion-capture CG, so they probably don't fully know what he'll look like still.

General_Grievous
03-06-2008, 11:18 PM
Judging from the others, I assume he'll look pretty close to his comic counterpart.

JediTricks
03-07-2008, 12:43 AM
Probably, but with 3d CGI there is a lot to take into consideration there, it can be very interpretive, what might look good on 2d paper may look weird from other angles and filled out. Look at Stewie from Family Guy, he looks much worse in 3d versions than he does on the show, and he's far simpler than Dr Manhattan.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
03-07-2008, 12:45 AM
I love these pics as well. I've heard lots of moaning about Ozy's costume and how it's BATMAN AND ROBIN 2 LOLZ! and while that joke is not only old and REALLY unoriginal, it also doesn't make sense to me. Ozy is pretty theatrical and over the top and the costume shows it.

This movie is looking better and better. :thumbsup:

JediTricks
03-07-2008, 01:18 AM
I think the combination of muscles and black do kinda say B&R, the purple isn't there enough, there's no gold, and the outfit doesn't look enough like someone seeing himself as superior and regal in costume. I think more robes and gold could have been included in the main chest area to avoid the B&R comparisons and stay truer to the source material. But you're right that it is theatrical, and there were pharaohs who wore muscley chestplates as well (again though, the colors were different).

Plus, it's got NOTB - nipples on the batsuit. :p

Jedi_Master_Guyute
07-14-2008, 11:10 AM
Trailer has been confirmed with TDK. No clue how long it'll be or if it'll be a teaser/announcement/full trailer. Either way, i'm sure the fanboys at my midnight showing of TDK will go crazy, myself included. :thumbsup:

General_Grievous
07-14-2008, 02:05 PM
You think there's any chance the trailer will be shown in IMAX as well? Because that's where I'll be Thursday night.

General_Grievous
07-17-2008, 03:35 PM
Holy crap!

Feast your eyes on the Watchmen trailer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H2R50ONT-Q

Dr. Manhattan looks amazing! Rorschach's voice sounds even better than I thought it would be! Can't wait for March 2009.

preacher
07-17-2008, 04:02 PM
Awesome.

Nuff said.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
07-17-2008, 06:17 PM
Holy Jesus, that was AMAZING.

And I find it ironic that the song in the trailer is by the Smashing Pumpkins from the BATMAN AND ROBIN soundtrack. hehehehhehehe

Still, Dr. Manhattan looks incredible and Walter's voice is perfect. I expect this to get a huge nerd ovation tonight.....and i'll be one of those cheering. :thumbsup:

edit: here you go with tasty APPLE quality!! http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/watchmen/

JediTricks
07-17-2008, 09:50 PM
No! I refuse to watch this trailer on the small screen! (I clicked the youtube one, it's gone) I will only see it on the big screen either today or tomorrow!

El Chuxter
07-17-2008, 10:24 PM
If you are an atheist, watching that trailer will likely change your mind.

JediTricks
07-17-2008, 10:38 PM
If you are an atheist, watching that trailer will likely change your mind.
What about agnostics? :p

figrin bran
07-17-2008, 11:24 PM
Never mind TDK, I'd like to see this now!

RooJay
07-18-2008, 03:46 AM
The trailer looks even better than I was hoping for (especially for a teaser) and look...the good folks over at ropesofsilicon.com have gone to the trouble of posting some trailer to comics comparison pics that have me feeling even more excited!

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/watchmen_trailer_to_comic_comparison/

preacher
07-18-2008, 11:22 AM
Great find Roojay! I can't believe how faithful to the comic those shots are. I wonder if Alan Moore has taken gander...

I am really looking forward to this flick. I'm between curious and apprehension and dread. The visuals are spot on, but the narrative of the Watchmen is so complicated. I'm just not seeing how the story itself can be told and still have the same impact as the comic.

This Snyder chap is aces.

Qui-Long Gone
07-18-2008, 03:48 PM
I caught the trailer at the midnight Dark Knight show....I was never a Watchmen guy and I can't say the movie interests me....only because it feels dated....the cynicism of our time is a different kind and it's hard to deconstruct a genre until it's established. I guess now would be the best time to do so, since Iron Man and Dark Knight (and I'd include X2 and Spiderman 1 and 2) have elevated the "comic book hero."

Bel-Cam Jos
07-18-2008, 05:28 PM
And I find it ironic that the song in the trailer is by the Smashing Pumpkins from the BATMAN AND ROBIN soundtrack. hehehehheheheI was fearful that such a song playing, after a DC Comics logo, meant they were making a Batman and Robin and Batgirl sequel. :eek:


I was never a Watchmen guy and I can't say the movie interests me....only because it feels dated....the cynicism of our time is a different kind and it's hard to deconstruct a genre until it's established.I bought the limited series (in the days before trade paperbacks [a.k.a. graphic novels], you'd have to buy the whole 12-issue run) and found it weird and a bit hard to follow (hey, I was 13). But don't worry, Q-LG, today's cynicism isn't dated; it's the same cynicism as it's been. :sad: This looks good; I'll see it.

bigbarada
07-23-2008, 12:16 AM
Amazing!:thumbsup: I had my doubts as to how much of the graphic novel would actually show up on screen and was completely dreading this, but now this is probably the one movie I am looking forward to the most next year.

El Chuxter
07-28-2008, 03:30 PM
Christ in a bucket, they showed clips at Comic-Con to assuage concerns this would be toned down, and it IS the freaking comic on screen. The extended shots of Dr Manhattan blowing up the Viet Cong and over folks were gruesome. Not over the top, but definitely not a kids' movie. Hopefully they'll leak to YouTube so the rest of you can see them.

Qui-Long Gone
07-29-2008, 03:22 PM
I will say I love how the trailer's choice of Smashing Pumpkin's music is a great commentary on that crappy Batman Forever flick! Same superhero song but very different superhero vibe.....nice touch.

JediTricks
08-01-2008, 07:02 PM
Part of me is bummed I didn't get to see the panel, but another part is glad I didn't get too much more spoiled by how it'll look and feel.

Did you see that vehicle they had out, Nite Owl's ship in the Warner booth? That was crazy, tons of detail inside! I have no idea how this movie came in under its sub-$100mil budget.

preacher
08-01-2008, 08:25 PM
Part of me is bummed I didn't get to see the panel, but another part is glad I didn't get too much more spoiled by how it'll look and feel.

Did you see that vehicle they had out, Nite Owl's ship in the Warner booth? That was crazy, tons of detail inside! I have no idea how this movie came in under its sub-$100mil budget.

Saw that on G4 comicon coverage and it looked awesome.

I would guess the budget is kept so low because partly due to the low $ actors. I mean these are people I've mostly not heard of. Except maybe Patrick Walburton.

Plus, Zack Snyder made 300 for low amount too didn't he? The town mockup utilizes a lot of green screen. Maybe that has something to do with it?

General_Grievous
08-02-2008, 11:25 PM
I would guess the budget is kept so low because partly due to the low $ actors. I mean these are people I've mostly not heard of. Except maybe Patrick Walburton.
Patrick Warburton isn't in "Watchmen".

El Chuxter
08-03-2008, 12:06 AM
Patrick Warburton as the Comedian would kick all sorts of arse!!

"Excuse me, Silk Spectre, but you're looking quite stunning this evening."

bigbarada
08-03-2008, 12:46 AM
One of the things that seems so promising about this film is the "no-name" actors in the roles. I don't like it when they fill a movie with big name actors and actresses who essentially hijack the film because the studio wants to get their money's worth out of them.

Also the unknown actors tend to turn out better performances, because they have to. So there are no "phoned in" performances like what you sometimes get with established actors.

JediTricks
08-03-2008, 05:19 AM
300 was made on a shoestring, but was all greenscreen and costumes and CGI armies, this is a lot more practical shooting - props and characters and places (I think the majority of the city scenes are soundstages rather than locations, to boot).

I do agree about no-name actors, but that only carries one so far, and look at Sin City, that had name actors and only a middling budget (that's where that film's director - Robert Rodriguez - likes to work though, enough money to make it look good enough and not so much that the studio is freaking out about the investment and thus looking over his shoulder constantly).

preacher
08-05-2008, 02:49 PM
Patrick Warburton isn't in "Watchmen".

Oh, hell I did say that didn't I? I don't know who I was thinking of. Must have had Tick or Seinfeld on my mind for reason.

RooJay
08-06-2008, 01:29 AM
Oh, hell I did say that didn't I? I don't know who I was thinking of. Must have had Tick or Seinfeld on my mind for reason.

Actually, I think you said 'Patrick Walburton' but we knew who you meant even if you didn't. ;)

Bel-Cam Jos
08-06-2008, 10:46 AM
Actually, I think you said 'Patrick Walburton' but we knew who you meant even if you didn't. ;)Maybe preacher knows more than we do, and Patrick Walburton IS in the film; that sure would fit the "these are people I've mostly not heard of" aspect. :rolleyes:

Jedi_Master_Guyute
10-21-2008, 11:34 PM
new footage from the scream awards thing on SPIKE. Well, some new footage mixed with old footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5EXW2-Fj9Q

There was a test screening in Portland a bit ago and folks who saw it state that they changed the ending. Somebody remind me how to do spoiler text and I can get into specifics and thoughts about it. lol

JediTricks
10-25-2008, 09:14 PM
== spoiler text here ==

=#f0eded]spoiler text here[/color]


Changed the ending is a really bad idea. Monumental hubris and stupidity have to be combined in the perfect storm of awful to think there's a better ending to that story.

El Chuxter
10-26-2008, 12:15 AM
Maybe they realized the ending of the movie version of V for Vendetta worked better (at least onscreen), and thought that the bizarre fluke of improving on Alan Moore could be achieved twice?

Rocketboy
10-26-2008, 01:27 AM
In recent interview with Kevin Smith (who has seen the movie twice now) commented on the changes to the end of Watchmen.


CH: Rumor has it writer-director Zack Snyder has changed the ending?
KS: It's a little different. While it is a slight departure, it actually makes sense in the context of the story because it brings the characters back into it. It kind of makes the movie more about them by the end of it because of the switch they made. I would never say Alan Moore f**ked it up or something. I love the ending of the Watchmen comic book, but I think this ending works just as well.I trust Kevin Smith.

JediTricks
10-26-2008, 04:22 AM
Maybe they realized the ending of the movie version of V for Vendetta worked better (at least onscreen), and thought that the bizarre fluke of improving on Alan Moore could be achieved twice?The ending of V for Vendetta in the movie wouldn't have worked for the comic because they are very different animals, there's a lot more going on and being spoken in the comic that just wouldn't be paid off with the movie's style of ending. With Watchmen, you have a story that strips away all the excess to leave a thoughtful ending without being big and showy and flashy, it just says what it says and moves on. Maybe it'll work to change that, I dunno, but I can't imagine what they could do right changing that.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
10-26-2008, 09:54 AM
Alright, here is the info regarding the changed ending from a recent screening in Portland. I'm copying this directly from my blog (nerd.):

So, there are several reports that the ending of the film was different from the graphic at the Portland test screening. Instead of Veidt using a giant squid to destroy NYC and kill a few million, he has used Dr. Manhattan's energy to destroy nine cities around the globe with Hiroshima results. This causes Manhattan to leave Earth and humanity to unite.

It doesn't work though. The point of the ending in the graphic was that the world unites in defense against a thread that isn't global, it's extraterrestrial, not of this world and for now at least, pushes away a possibility of WWIII.

If this new ending is legit and is stayed with, it kinda screws things up. Let me put it this way: in the graphic both the US and Russia unite to fight what they think are aliens. If this Manhattan frame up thing happens, it will not work as Russia, and probably the rest of the world will blame the US for Manhattan's "destruction" as he was a US operative and this would probably lead us into a war.

I am a tad worried, but some sites are reporting that multiple endings are going to be tested, if only maybe for kicks. The squid effects have reportedly been done and all that crap. Plus, the creature SFX guy talked about it in an interview as best he could. He did call it 'the creature' too. Plus, director Zak Snyder stated a while back that they would "absolutely keep the novel's ending."


So, as you can see, I don't like it and I hope Snyder doesn't change it.

JediTricks
11-01-2008, 07:13 PM
I guess my reply is spoilers technically, so I'll post it with spoiler textizing:

== Ugh, that seems like such a cop out, like something they merely cut together haphazardly, pulling pieces out of the story without adding anything new more than a couple pieces of looped dialog. You're absolutely right about the implications of this new ending being untrue to the ending and making a big mess. I suspect they want to remove the squid so they can toss out the gathering and killing of random artistic and scientific people on the island, but if they do that, there's no reason to kill The Comedian in the first place because he won't have stumbled onto Veidt's plot to begin with. It might work better for another movie, but for this story it's integral. They could change the monster to something with less suck-factor in the design though. I mean, the extra-dimensional alien squid looked pretty corny and out-there in the book even. But to change anything beyond how it looks would undermine the whole thing. ==

Jedi_Master_Guyute
11-09-2008, 12:59 PM
Spoilers..

Snyder psuedo confirmed the new ending in an interview at Dark Horizons (i'll post the link in a second). He says, '"What about talk he did some 'squid' stuff in pre-production? "Well... I don't want to say yes or no (laughs). The squid was not in the movie when I got the script, the squid was never in any draft that I saw. My point is only that there was this elegant solution to the squid problem that I kind of embraced. I'm a fan of the thing as much as anyone, I was saying what are we going to do about this before I even read the script." Was that solution multiple atomic explosions as some have said? "I won't say exactly but... Dr. Manhattan has a certain energy signature, it's clearly his thing...so you know." He also shot down reports of multiple endings - they only filmed the one.'

Dammit. Maybe if they handle this well I could buy it and the squid problem was only meant to be temporary as Dr. Manhattan says "things never change" when he leaves, implying that war will always happen.

I want to reserve judgment, but i'm slowly upset about this. I guess if it sucks I can cancel the pre-orders for the figures and save myself a few hundred bucks. lol


Link to Snyder's interview can be found here: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/081107k.php

BEWARE SPOILERS. :thumbsup:

JediTricks
11-11-2008, 06:52 PM
Not good. This isn't a simple roadblock, this is part of the essence of the brilliance of the ending and how it ties into the beginning and middle, as well as even Tales of the Black Freighter. If that ending's solution is all the group of unique individuals can concoct, that totally undermines the film and its villain.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
11-13-2008, 10:16 PM
New trailer!!!
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/watchmen.html?showVideo=1

Looks really fantastic. I hope the slow mo isn't overused,but overall, i loved the hell out of this trailer. The music was really solid (Philip glass and Muse) and Haley has NAILED the Rorschach voice.

Spoiler input about the ending:

It looks like at about the 1 minute mark we get a glimpse of what could be the new ending. We can't see much of it and while I dig the explosion, i'm still on the fence about it. They just need to handle it properly and I won't mind as much. While the squid was always WTF!, but it does create a united front. If this convincingly does the same, i'll be okay. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

JediTricks
11-14-2008, 03:48 AM
Wow, there it is, the new ending. Right there. All those other scenes are largely lifted straight from the page, and then that hit me like a ton of bricks. I doubt I'll mind the slowmo stuff, it worked in 300, but this isn't an action picture so it could affect things. Still, from a comic point of view, you do take in more in slowmo which is what comics are often about. The only thing that immediately hit me as not right was Rorschach's voice, too high and thin (Dan's was off too, but it's not as big a deal)... and the new ending, I can't entirely get past that.

Rocketboy
11-14-2008, 08:35 AM
I'm surprised I haven't heard much boo-hooing over the use of the name Watchmen, which I think is probably used in place of Minutemen in the story.

That glimpse of the ending wasn't much different (even though it ends up that way).


SPOILERS? (since I can never remember the code)








In the comic all we see is a growing flash of light that engulfs the people, which is pretty much what we see here, just from a different angle.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
11-14-2008, 12:21 PM
I'm surprised I haven't heard much boo-hooing over the use of the name Watchmen, which I think is probably used in place of Minutemen in the story.

That glimpse of the ending wasn't much different (even though it ends up that way).


SPOILERS? (since I can never remember the code)


In the comic all we see is a growing flash of light that engulfs the people, which is pretty much what we see here, just from a different angle.

Spoiler code: spoiler text here

and replying in spoiler text regarding the possible new ending:

in the book, you get the flash followed by the huge squid and the squid is rumored to be gone.

And JT: I have figured out how I can accept this new ending: if these flashes and the destruction are seen by the U.S. and world Governments as a precursor to an alien attack; THEN I can REALLY go along with it. You still keep the extraterrestrial aspect and the world uniting, but without showing a huge arse squid. I don't mind Veidt using energy from Manhattan, which is what he does in the book if memory serves (i'm rereading it now), but as long as the PUBLIC doesn't know it came from Manhattan's powers and thinks it's alien, then i'm on board. Then the remaining heroes would know it's a lie and know that manhattan was used for it, it creates an ending much along the same lines as the GN.

Your thoughts?

And i re-ordered the figures. that's how excited this trailer got me. eheheheh :crazed:

Rocketboy
11-14-2008, 05:32 PM
Spoiler code: spoiler text here

and replying in spoiler text regarding the possible new ending:

in the book, you get the flash followed by the huge squid and the squid is rumored to be gone. What I meant was we don't see any of the NEW ending. We just see part of the end that was already there.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
11-18-2008, 11:34 AM
What I meant was we don't see any of the NEW ending. We just see part of the end that was already there.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Good point.

And there are pics/info on the variant action figures of Maskless Rorschach, variant Comedian and Transculent Manhattan. I want! http://cooltoyreview.com/story/front/DC_Direct_Watchmen_Collectibles_Update_119076.asp

:thumbsup:

El Chuxter
11-18-2008, 11:35 AM
Did we even see Rorschach without his mask in the book?

And why blank out his face? It's not like we don't know what the actor looks like.

Rocketboy
11-18-2008, 11:38 AM
Did we even see Rorschach without his mask in the book?Yep. For quite a while actually.

El Chuxter
11-18-2008, 11:41 AM
I disremembered. In any case, unless they're planning a switcheroo, the actor is not exactly a secret.

JediTricks
11-21-2008, 04:26 AM
Yeah, we see Rorshach without his mask for almost the entire second half of the book. He's weasly and not what one would expect, it worked well there.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
12-25-2008, 10:27 AM
Just read that WB lost the lawsuit with Fox and Fox has rights to distribute. Hopefully this won't eff things up.

JediTricks
12-28-2008, 04:51 PM
Fox has won an injunction against WB distributing the film, this is preliminary, now they have to work out everything. There's a lot of bad feelings towards Fox around this, but they're defending their contractual rights, it's Warner legal who didn't do their jobs right letting them invest millions of dollars in a project they didn't own legal rights to. Fox will likely end up getting distribution rights and a big cut of the gross take, but not say in the final cut. If the judge grants them say in the final cut, we'll likely never see this leave the courts and the movie will get held up for months, maybe years.

My guess is, if WB appeals, we won't see the film in March but more likely May or June. If there's animosity on Fox's part, they will bury the movie's marketing but release it on time (it's a terrible release date anyway); if they just want to make bank, they'll probably split marketing costs with WB and let it roll.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
12-30-2008, 09:29 AM
aaaaaaand fox is attempting to delay the films release:


Source:The Associated Press December 29, 2008


An attorney for 20th Century Fox says the studio will continue to seek an order delaying the release of Watchmen, according to The Associated Press.

U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess last week agreed with Fox that Warner Bros. had infringed its copyright by developing and shooting the film, scheduled for release March 6.

Feess said Monday he plans to hold a trial Jan. 20 to decide remaining issues.

Fox claims it never fully relinquished story rights from its deal made in the late 1980s, and sued Warner Bros. in February. Warner Bros. contended Fox isn't entitled to distribution.

Warner Bros.' attorney said Monday he didn't know if an appeal was coming, but thinks a trial is necessary and a settlement unlikely.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/watchmennews.php?id=7942

Son of a *****.

El Chuxter
12-30-2008, 03:10 PM
I think the guy at Cracked put it best, but I can't quote him here.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
01-07-2009, 12:08 PM
Yeah, the cracked guy was pretty right on the money.

Looks like we'll be finding out on January 20th if the film will be released on march 6th. http://www.superherohype.com/news/watchmennews.php?id=7962

It's the same judge who ruled in favor of Fox, so i have a bad feeling about this.

JediTricks
01-07-2009, 12:33 PM
The guy at Cracked was not right, everything he said was this one-sided fanboy idiot reaction. If this was YOUR contractual rights being violated, you can bet your aunt fanny you'd be asking for the courts to step in on your part. Fox did nothing wrong legally or morally that we can see, Warner Bros is the one who didn't properly protect their assets, Fox even tried to let Warners know there was a problem before production rolled. Fox needs to halt upcoming distribution in order for Warner to recognize that they would be violating Fox's rights to distribute. The reason a delay is being sought on this film isn't because of Fox, it's because Warner Bros thinks they can sneak around contractual rights.

El Chuxter
01-07-2009, 01:14 PM
Then why did Fox, having full knowledge of the movie's production, not bring the courts in earlier in the process?

I still hope there's some sort of "Watchmen for Batman TV show" tradeoff in the future.

JediTricks
01-07-2009, 02:39 PM
Common procedure, it's easier to prove intent and damages when there is something tangible to point to, and Fox would rather reap benefits than shut down a project midway, leaving it unfinished and untouchable. Fox tried to intervene without the courts initially, Warners wasn't having any of it, they wanted to gamble on the contract they had somehow magically supersesding the one Fox had already made for the project despite no reason to think so. The studios are business, Fox invested money in the Watchman contract, Warner Bros invested money in producing the film, both are looking to protect investments, neither can be said to look good here.


I don't get your "Watchmen for Batman tv show" comment at all, you mean the classic TV series that Fox produced? You want it on DVD?

El Chuxter
01-07-2009, 03:11 PM
It was rumored when Fox first brought the lawsuit that their real goal (in addition to getting a share of the Watchmen profits, obviously) was to finally get WB to allow them to release the 1960s show on DVD.

JediTricks
01-09-2009, 05:05 PM
We'll see. Warners asked the judge to give his ruling a week early, and now both sides have stalled the judge and are in talks.

BTW, one of the producers at the heart of this trouble wrote the judge saying he didn't understand the contract, which is why this happened:
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0645214/
Producer Larry Gordon has fired off a letter to the federal judge who ruled last week that Fox owns distribution rights to Watchmen, saying that he did not understand the 1994 turnaround agreement under which the studio allowed him to shop the film to other studios because it made no mention of a 1991 quit-claim agreement granting Fox distribution rights and a share of the profits if he made the film elsewhere. U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess called Gordon's letter an "improper communication" and said he would not read it.
Congratulations, you've just earned yourself a spot in "never work with this guy" land. He's done a lot of producing too, so he really has some nerve claiming he didn't understand the contract. It doesn't matter if you don't understand what you signed, you still agreed to it!


BTW, before you continue the Fox hate "why did they let them make the movie before suing, huh?" Fox not only tried to get Warners to settle the issue out of court without delaying production, but filed this suit we're in 11 months ago.


Here's the problem, Warners deserves to reap any and all benefits from putting their money and efforts into letting this team make this movie. But the precedent is that they are making a project they don't have legal rights to. Would you expect Lucas to just let anybody at another studio make a new Star Wars film if it was already in the can? No, of course not, it's not their right to do so. Unfortunately, in legal terms, that's the same here, Fox has contractual rights to this film first and foremost, Warners didn't deal with that situation properly ahead of time and now here we are.

RooJay
01-10-2009, 02:05 AM
Would you expect Lucas to just let anybody at another studio make a new Star Wars film if it was already in the can?

Now that you mention it, that doesn't sound like such a bad idea...

JediTricks
01-11-2009, 11:17 PM
Now that you mention it, that doesn't sound like such a bad idea...
Ok, you go commit $100 mil to it and see how far ya get. ;)

Beast
01-13-2009, 10:18 AM
Yeah, Larry Gordon looks to be the main problem here. And it's unlikely he'll be working in Hollywood again. At least as anything important. Especially since it looks like WB will be going after him for damages for any money they have to pay out to Fox. Which will be huge. Good for them.

The latest from the LA Times:

Summery:

The film's producer, Larry Gordon, his lawyers and their insurers, could be on the hook for a lot of money (could potentially total tens of millions of dollars). Warner Bros. is pursuing Gordon "for all damages Warner Bros. suffers as a result of Fox's claims."

In a filing Dec. 8, it was revealed that Warner Bros. "never received the very documents upon which Fox asserts its claims" until a year after the studio believed it had acquired its rights from Gordon. Furthermore, Warner Bros. said, Gordon's attorneys did not alert the studio "that it should contact Fox."

The judge in the dispute has been particularly unimpressed with Gordon's conduct during the litigation, barring him from giving any further testimony at the proceedings because of the way in which Gordon repeatedly invoked attorney-client privilege during a deposition.

Fox and Warner Brothers are working on an out of court settlement.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-watchmen13-2009jan13,0,794434.story?track=rss

I don't blame Fox at all. Frankly, I'm sick of the fanboys growling in their direction. They're simply protecting their rights. And they really couldn't do much of anything until the point where WB was ready to release the film. Once a release date was locked in, then Fox could show intent that WB was intended to release a film they didn't own distribution rights for. I'm sure it's all going to work out fine, well... for everyone but Gordon. :D

2-1B
01-13-2009, 10:10 PM
I don't think many people will go see this movie...so the damages should be limited.

JediTricks
01-14-2009, 04:28 PM
Larry Gordon has a ton of movies under his belt, he'll work again. The guy produced 48 Hours, Predator, and Die Hard, for corn's sake. And he survived the disaster of Waterworld's budgetary issues, he'll work. My guess is he'll lose a little cachet for a couple pictures if he's found liable, and then it'll be smoothed over.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0330383/

Rocketboy
01-15-2009, 09:27 PM
Warner Brothers and Fox Have Reached a Settlement over Watchmen (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/01/15/warner-brothers-and-fox-have-reached-a-settlement-over-watchmen/)


Warner Bros. and Fox have resolved their dispute over Watchmen, with the studios scheduled to present the settlement to Judge Gary Feess on Friday morning and request that the case be dismissed. Terms of the agreement will not be disclosed, but it is said to involve a sizable cash payment to Fox and a percentage of the film’s box office.

JediTricks
01-16-2009, 03:43 PM
IMDB is reporting the settlement as $10mil plus legal fees, and 5 to 8% of the gross. http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0651252/

Honestly, that's not so bad, basically the equivalent of budget overruns plus the fee of a major star, which the film doesn't have.

Qui-Long Gone
01-22-2009, 02:46 PM
No we can move on to more important things.....like this movie coming out!

Jedi_Master_Guyute
01-22-2009, 02:53 PM
I ordered the first set of figs plus an extra Rorschach from amoktime.com as they were instock. Plus, their set was the cheapest i've seen for it: 45 bucks. :thumbsup:

El Chuxter
01-23-2009, 02:13 PM
We need to change the title of this thread. It's no longer a "first look."

JediTricks
01-23-2009, 02:19 PM
So, um... watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5cInmK6LQ

2-1B
01-24-2009, 08:57 AM
Better blue than red, man.

Qui-Long Gone
01-26-2009, 04:16 PM
Wow, that broadcast looked old.....

JediTricks
01-26-2009, 04:28 PM
Well, it's the 10th anniversary of Dr. Manhattan, the movie takes place in the mid-80s, so that tape would take place 15 years before that.

JediTricks
01-31-2009, 11:35 PM
Images, images, images:
http://www.movienewz.com/2009/01/29/watchmen-portraits/
http://www.totalfilm.com/features/nite-owl-ii-s-antarctica-suit#content

That shot of Billy Crudup on the greenscreen set, he looks like he's in a Tron suit. :p

Jedi_Master_Guyute
02-01-2009, 11:01 AM
Got my figures; they look REALLY GOOD. I only have a pic of my extra open Rorschach. :thumbsup:

JediTricks
02-01-2009, 01:15 PM
Killer. Where did you get them? Not entirely sure of that pose, but they painted the coat real nice.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
02-01-2009, 01:17 PM
Killer. Where did you get them? Not entirely sure of that pose, but they painted the coat real nice.

I got mine from amoktime.com as they had a full set for $45.99. All other sites I saw had it listed for $54.99, so I didn't pass it up. :thumbsup:

JediTricks
02-01-2009, 01:40 PM
I didn't realize anybody was shipping these yet. $46 for the 4 figures is a very decent price for DCD figs, especially these.

JetsAndHeels
02-01-2009, 01:50 PM
That is a very good price for the figs. I may have to check those out.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet, but Hot Topic has Watchmen t-shirts and hoodies. I scored one of the t-shirts yesterday, along with a Friday the 13th tee.

JediTricks
02-08-2009, 12:48 PM
This movie's gonna tank. Why do I say that? Is it because I don't believe wholeheartedly that the project deserves to rule, or that everything we've seen so far hasn't been mind-blowing? No. It's because nobody's talking about the fantastic stuff we've been seeing lately. This movie should be lighting a fire under audiences, getting them all abuzz about its impending release, less than 1 month away. But it seems that once the studio wars died down, so did interest in the movie, and that is tragic.

Especially so when you see this video, which is as rad as it gets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5WsciSNVS0


Also, this behind-the-scenes video of Rorschach's mask is keen:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40034

2-1B
02-08-2009, 02:11 PM
I agree, I wasn't being snarky in post 77 - I really doubt this movie will do much at the B.O.

That doesn't mean it will be a bad movie (I'll definitely check it out) but I don't see this connecting. At all.

pbarnard
02-09-2009, 09:48 AM
I doubt there will be any big box office for any movie this year. It's the economy. People will stay home, watch their boxed sets, movies on demand etc.

2-1B
02-09-2009, 07:49 PM
I predict Transformers 2 will do quadruple (or more) of what Watchmen does.

Qui-Long Gone
02-09-2009, 09:59 PM
I predict Transformers 2 will do quadruple (or more) of what Watchmen does.


Agreed....and still suck four times as much......

2-1B
02-09-2009, 10:57 PM
I was banking more on 6 times the suckage...but we'll have to agree to disagree.

Let's wait and see what the box office receipts are and after we see TF2 to gauge the definite level of suckiness. :p

pbarnard
02-10-2009, 10:01 AM
In the NEA (teacher's union) Newsflash/Morning Update I got it mentioned using comics to teach lessons on literacy, symbolism, citizenship etc. Sometimes even as much as history. I mentions Watchmen, 300, the whole Marvel Civil War arcs as possibilities for older students.

Rocketboy
02-10-2009, 11:16 AM
The current mini-series X-men: Magento Testament could very easily be used to help teach kids history. It's the story of Magneto as a young man and what he went through as a Jew before and during WWII. Incredible doesn't even begin to describe it.
Four of five issues have been released and the isn't a hint of superpowers unless you look real close, but the casual reader would more than likely never notice it.

JetsAndHeels
02-10-2009, 04:09 PM
I actually have a couple of books that tell history in comic form. I use them from time to time because the kids relate to it very well.

I also have one for civics.

RooJay
02-11-2009, 07:03 AM
Growing up, my teachers always supported my comic reading habit. Not only did most of them comment that they were happy that comics helped foster my love of reading, but there was also the side effect that when my class came around to studying things like WWII and mythology, I was years ahead of everyone else. In the sixth grade, my teacher actually used to call on me to help him pronounce the names of the various Greek, Roman, and Norse heroes and deities.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
02-11-2009, 08:11 AM
In my postmodern class I took a few years back, we used MAUS to discuss the holocaust and whatnot. I did a presentation on IN THE SHADOW OF NO TOWERS which was also done by the same author, Art Spiegelman.

Back to the movie though, I think it will do some decent business. It's generated a lot of buzz since the coming attraction before TDK. I guess we'll have to wait and see. :thumbsup:

RooJay
02-12-2009, 02:26 AM
I think it's going to do pretty fantastic business, and will surely be one of the highest grossing films of the year. I also note that the new television spots look pretty freaking outstanding!

Jedi_Master_Guyute
02-13-2009, 11:09 AM
Black Freighter trailer! http://www.superherohype.com/news/watchmennews.php?id=8086

:thumbsup:

JediTricks
02-14-2009, 03:28 PM
I doubt there will be any big box office for any movie this year. It's the economy. People will stay home, watch their boxed sets, movies on demand etc.Bad economy usually equals good box office, people want escapism, but you make a point that the value at the movies lately has been horrible. Whether or not that will affect things is tough to predict.

This movie is gonna tank though, I fear. It has to make a lot to break even, and a March release isn't going to be useful. Maybe if they get enough buzz, they can re-release it later in the year.



Black Freighter trailer! http://www.superherohype.com/news/watchmennews.php?id=8086

:thumbsup:Thanks. I don't know what exactly to make of that, really. I dunno if I'll buy it, but I'll consider it.

preacher
02-15-2009, 01:45 PM
Its effecting XM Sirius. And my cable provider "Charter". Both are going bankrupt.

Yes people want escapism, but when I listen to people abroad, the economy is the key discussion. The people I work with are saving the money from overtime. Not spending it at restaurants and not on crappy movies. None of us know where the cuts are going to strike next. Just when you think the news couldn't get any worse it does.

That being said, a movie of Watchmen is a wet dream for all comic geeks. Myself included. I'll be seeing it. Definitely. 300 delivered what it promised - a ballet of death. Simple on plot, but a great story anyway. I trust Snyder to deliver this time as well. The characters are authentic, and every trailer I've seen I recognize from a scene in the comic.

All that needs to be made now is Warren Ellis's Transmetropolitan.

Qui-Long Gone
02-16-2009, 06:49 PM
black freighter trailer! http://www.superherohype.com/news/watchmennews.php?id=8086

:thumbsup:

this is sparta!

El Chuxter
02-17-2009, 01:28 PM
I think the March release is them trying too hard to be clever (3-6-9, as in the three main positions of a clock that aren't 12).

pbarnard
02-25-2009, 12:02 PM
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20259927,00.html People feeding JT's dilusions, I mean opinions ;-)

2-1B
02-25-2009, 11:12 PM
Yeah, I think it's definitely gonna tank.

I'm seeing it next Friday though, without too much knowledge of the book it is based on.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
02-25-2009, 11:26 PM
I don't really get all the negative thinking here. This movie is highly anticipated from comic fans and it's gotten A LOT of press thanks to the lawsuit and trailers in front of TDK and whatnot. I think it should be pretty successful.

Mad Slanted Powers
02-26-2009, 01:23 AM
I don't really know much about it, but I might go see it. As far as movies and the economy, I heard or read something this week that movies are doing well. Actually, it was an article in the same issue of EW that the article pbarnard linked to was in. It said that year-to-year box office results are up more than 22 percent.

JetsAndHeels
02-26-2009, 01:37 PM
I don't know much about the Watchmen story, but I am excited to see it and after that I will probably read the graphic novel.

mrhat
02-28-2009, 11:15 PM
I re-read the graphic novel (finally) and I am excited, but a little scared as to what they may have cut, well, besides the numerous "Black Freighter" segments, which are being released as a seperate movie on DVD Tuesday. And from what I recall the ending has been changed, and that scares me a bit, but i suppose we will see. Got my 12:01 opening day tickets, and if TDK told me anything about movies of this caliber, get there a few days early... The doomsday clock is quickly ticking down to midnight!

JediTricks
03-01-2009, 04:05 AM
I don't really get all the negative thinking here. This movie is highly anticipated from comic fans and it's gotten A LOT of press thanks to the lawsuit and trailers in front of TDK and whatnot. I think it should be pretty successful.A March release is like saying "please don't come see our movie, it's too cold to go to the movies anyway, just wait for it to get released on dvd or HBO." Couple that with the rather lackluster marketing for the film, although I will give them points for trying, they've not given the audience a good idea of what will work about the flick. And the movie is super long, which is very difficult to get audiences to go see in general. Then there's the whole "geek movie" thing which puts off mainstream audiences, and that's who this film has to capture to make money. Plus, it's an expensive film with zero names in it, that's no help either. I will be gladly surprised if I'm wrong, but so far, there's not one thing suggesting this movie will make bank.


I've been kinda trashing director Zack Snyder's choice of the ending over on AICN the past week, and surprisingly getting some traction with a few folks - which, if you've done Talkback there, you know is super rare. Ultimately, I think Snyder's choice shows that he enjoyed the pages, but missed the story and characterizations. It doesn't help that the footage released lately reeks of "300" - too much style, not enough substance, and way too much slo-mo and grating music on top of fight scenes. Plus, and I know this is a fanboy reaction, but the more I hear of Rorschach's voice, the less it works for me.

mrhat
03-01-2009, 12:50 PM
Honestly, if this film tanks, it wouldn't be a huge shocker. But come one the poorly executed Friday the 13th remake made so much money over it's opening weekend. And as for a march release, there are so many blcok buster movies coming out starting in may, this movie would tank no doubt, so an earlier release is ideal, the oscar movies are out, and so there is a void to be filled. I really want this film to do well, and the obnoxious amounts of advertisments that have been flooding the ol' B00b tube lately can't hurt.

preacher
03-01-2009, 07:02 PM
HOw long is this movie anyway?

JetsAndHeels
03-01-2009, 07:08 PM
According to yahoo, it is 163 minutes.

2-1B
03-01-2009, 07:19 PM
JT, you don't consider Billy Crudup and Jackie Earl Haley to be big names? :p

Bel-Cam Jos
03-02-2009, 07:45 PM
I bought my tickets for a 4:10pm Fri. showing. Should get out just in time for a late (for me) dinner.

Darth Awgmon
03-06-2009, 11:12 AM
I saw a midnight show last night and it was INCREDIBLE. The movie was VERY true to the comic. For those who have read the graphic novel, they will not be disappointed. The first few minutes of the movie are really a thing of beauty. My expectations were extremely high, and I have nothing but good things to say about the movie. Eddy Blake is the shiz-nite!

bigbarada
03-06-2009, 01:45 PM
I saw a midnight show last night and it was INCREDIBLE. The movie was VERY true to the comic. For those who have read the graphic novel, they will not be disappointed. The first few minutes of the movie are really a thing of beauty. My expectations were extremely high, and I have nothing but good things to say about the movie. Eddy Blake is the shiz-nite!

How faithful is the ending to the comic? I'm going to wait to watch it until next week when I can go with some friends. They have no knowledge of the comic book at all, so I'm interested to see their reactions to the story.

Darth Awgmon
03-06-2009, 01:49 PM
I obviously don't want to give away any info to those who have not read the comic, but the ending is what the ending was supposed to be.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
03-06-2009, 02:46 PM
How faithful is the ending to the comic? I'm going to wait to watch it until next week when I can go with some friends. They have no knowledge of the comic book at all, so I'm interested to see their reactions to the story.

The ending is changed from the graphic novel; the situation is different, but it results in pretty much the same results.

I really enjoyed the flick; i'm still digesting the ending and whatnot, but overall, I dug it.

I'm debating buying the motion comic, but i don't know if freighter and hood are in it; plus, i read that it's a guy narrator who does all the voices, including the women and seems.....odd.

mrhat
03-06-2009, 08:55 PM
I saw the 12:01 showing in Fort Collins, and, well this may be because the comic is FRESH in my mind, the movie wasn't great, to be honest. They covered the first 3 chapters very well, but then things got a bit bad. Now for those who haven't seen it, I will try to be as spoiler free as possible when describing my gripes with the film version... The violence, so overdone, it was blood and broken bones every fight scene, which happened to an extent in the book, but not the overdone 300 style Zach Snyder decided to use. The character backstories were buthcered if they were included at all. Dr. Manhattan was not naked ALL THE TIME in the book. I saw so much blue wang I though i was watching the smurfs... Before I start spoiling things, i'll stop

Bel-Cam Jos
03-06-2009, 10:57 PM
:)

Simply stated: greatest comic book movie ever. Not the best "super hero" movie, as these aren't super heroes, just heroes. Very true to the comic (my memory is 20 years old, before there were such concepts as graphic novels or trade paperbacks), as near as I can recall; even specific panels came to mind for me. Awesome, awesome.

2-1B
03-07-2009, 12:09 AM
I never read the book, never will, and from a strictly film reaction, I very much enjoyed it. More than I thought I would, and I was definitely looking forward to it. Very cool!

I still think it's going to bomb though, I don't see this having much mainstream appeal.

It was very enjoyable though. :)

bigbarada
03-07-2009, 12:34 AM
I saw so much blue wang I though i was watching the smurfs...

Uh-oh, do you think it would be a problem to let young children watch it?

Jedi_Master_Guyute
03-07-2009, 12:40 AM
Uh-oh, do you think it would be a problem to let young children watch it?

Nah, they'll be fine with that......as for the broken limbs, protruding bones, severed body pots, copious amounts of blood, a few graphic fight scenes, dog murder and body tossing, and two sex scenes (one of which is pretty graphic), that's a different story. :) :thumbsup:

Mr. JabbaJohnL
03-07-2009, 12:41 AM
Holy Christ, why would you even entertain the notion of bringing a kid to this movie?

2-1B
03-07-2009, 12:42 AM
I've been wanting to see Malin Ackerman naked since I saw her in The Brothers Solomon...and God bless her. :grin:

mrhat
03-07-2009, 02:31 AM
I think i meant to put the word "porn" after smurfs, but i apparently forgot... Anyway, I also noticed I made it sound like I hate everything about the movie, which isn't true. For being a "short" re-telling of one of the greatest american novels of the last 100 years (according to the cover of the novel) it was fair, and I understand why many things had to be changed slightly to keep the movie in a normal movie run time. But the ending, oh my god... sorry. What I think SHOULD have been done with the formerly "can never be shot" story is an HBO (or similar premium channel) series (i.e. band of brothers) That way they could do one chapter an episode, cover everything adequetly, and not have it be obnoxiously long, since it's on TV. I will buy the version of the movie on DVD that re-integrates tales of the black freighter, and maybe fixes some of my more nit picky things with the movie. Also I have to mention the soundtrack choice... wow, that was terrible. Oh and epic Nixon action, why did he do that?

RooJay
03-07-2009, 04:01 AM
We screened the movie at work tonight, and I absolutely loved it! That's not to say that it was perfect - there really is no way this story, with all of the depth woven into the original source material, could ever have been translated perfectly into film. At least not considering that most folks haven't the time nor patience for eight hour movies. What is there on screen, though, is amazing!

Jackie Earle Haley was perfectly cast as Rorschach; I really have no other words to describe that aspect of the movie.

I feel pretty much the same way about Jeffrey Dean Morgan, as the Comedian. Upon seeing him in the movie, I really can't imagine anyone else playing that role.

The changes made to the story itself (as opposed to those elements that had to be omitted due to time constraints) actually end up being quite subtle and are handled very well in my opinion, and the end result is perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the original comic.

Dr. Manhattan, though the actual process used in realizing him does come off as a bit stiff at times, was perfectly portrayed. I felt that he was very successfully imbued with an incredible sense of the awe inspiring nature the character should have. I do feel that I'm a bit to familiar now with his...umm, little manhattan, but even that I found to be pretty true to the book.

Patrick Wilson also did a fantastic job as Nite Owl, as well; I find myself liking the character quite a bit more here even than I did when reading the original comics. For those offended that the character's signature, retired-guy paunch had been left out citing promotional stills of the character in costume - it's still there. The costume just covers it a bit more than the design used in the books, and it ended up seemingly perfectly acceptable and even a bit more sensible to me. In real life, any self-respecting retired superhero who decides to jump back into the cape after a long absence would at least make some effort to hide his gut. Though I also suspect that he probably wouldn't choose spandex for his outfit in the first place; which is obviously the reasoning on display in this version of the story.

I even ended up really enjoying Matthew Goode as Ozymandias. I wasn't sure I would based on the material I'd seen prior to the film's release, but I found him to actually be quite good and pretty well cast by the end.

I won't lie, though. The movie is long. The bad thing is that with this property, cutting the film any shorter would have done a major disservice to the story. Those folks in the audience lacking in heartier attention spans will likely be getting restless at the three-quarters mark. All-in-all, I have to say that I'm very happy with the finished product, and will actually eagerly await the rumored, four-hour, director's cut when it's released on DVD. Until then, I'll be seeing this one again on Sunday night with my wife and brother!

...and for God's sake - Please leave the kids at home for this one! I'm hoping when I see it with a public audience, that I won't end up being forced to call Child Protective Services on anyone. I'm kidding about that, but...seriously.

By the way, Malin Akerman...mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm:lipsrsealed:

bigbarada
03-07-2009, 04:01 AM
Holy Christ, why would you even entertain the notion of bringing a kid to this movie?

Because it's a comic book movie, duh! :p

Anyways, I didn't realize this film was R-rated; I was hoping for PG-13. So, I'll probably end up watching it by myself. :(

2-1B
03-07-2009, 05:07 AM
As much as I liked the movie, I don't get all this talk I'm reading on other movie sites about Tales from the Black Freighter.
It sounds pointless to this story and definitely doesn't belong in this movie.

The animated DVD looks pretty lame.

Bel-Cam Jos
03-07-2009, 08:35 AM
As much as I liked the movie, I don't get all this talk I'm reading on other movie sites about Tales from the Black Freighter.
It sounds pointless to this story and definitely doesn't belong in this movie.

The animated DVD looks pretty lame.Uh, towards the end, in one of the shots of NYC, there's a posted bill on a building or pole with the phrase "Black Freighter" on it, behind the actors in the shot. Therefore, it must be unarguable cannon. :pleased:

One thing else I noticed, not in the film but in the theater where I saw it (which was the 2nd largest in the 22-screen complex, and the audience was perhaps 40% full), was no one (except me) laughed at any of the comic relief scenes (as few as there were). No clapping at the end, either (I wanted to, but then I'd know the sound of one ham clapping :rolleyes: ).

Jedi_Master_Guyute
03-07-2009, 12:49 PM
Also I have to mention the soundtrack choice... wow, that was terrible. Oh and epic Nixon action, why did he do that?

I loved the soundtrack for the most part; "Unforgettable" and "The Times are a Changing" were FANTASTIC in the flick. "99 Luftballoons" was pretty good too as it is a song about the apocalypse, the "Ride of the Valryie" was alright, but I wasn't sure about "Hallelujah" being so prominent during the sex scene. And don't forget that these songs were ALL mentioned in the graphic.

And you wanna see what WATCHMEN would look like as a saturday morning cartoon? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

Hilarious. Enjoy!

Jedi_Master_Guyute
03-07-2009, 02:10 PM
Opening credits are online in QT quality. I love these!

http://chud.com/articles/articles/18407/1/THE-AMAZING-WATCHMEN-OPENING-CREDITS-ARE-ONLINE/Page1.html

:thumbsup:

Rocketboy
03-07-2009, 09:48 PM
I'm debating buying the motion comic, but i don't know if freighter and hood are in it; plus, i read that it's a guy narrator who does all the voices, including the women and seems.....odd.Black Freighter/Under The Hood are separate from the motion comic.
The motion comic is out now and BF/UTH will be out in a few weeks.

I picked up the motion comic, but haven't had the chance to watch any of it yet. If it didn't have the movie cash, I doubt I'd have picked it up.
And one guy does ALL the voices, so its similar to an audiobook.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
03-07-2009, 10:57 PM
I saw it tonight and thought it was pretty good but nothing great. I honestly don't understand all the hype; I think that may have lessened its impact for me. It seemed like there were so many ideas here all just bubbling under the surface but they didn't have enough time to properly explore them all. I would kind of like to read the book now to see the differences and maybe better understand the apparent phenomenon.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
03-08-2009, 12:29 AM
Black Freighter/Under The Hood are separate from the motion comic.
The motion comic is out now and BF/UTH will be out in a few weeks.

I picked up the motion comic, but haven't had the chance to watch any of it yet. If it didn't have the movie cash, I doubt I'd have picked it up.
And one guy does ALL the voices, so its similar to an audiobook.

Ah, that's a bummer. I knew about BF/UTH being seperate, but I was hoping for at least SOMETHING on the complete motion comic. They didn't even have to get elaborate, just keep the audiobook narrator guy and have him read it.

I'll pass on the motion comic and just wait for somebody to edit the motion comic, BF and UTH together into one big file and i'll dl it.

JetsAndHeels
03-08-2009, 07:11 PM
Okay, I have now seen it twice and basically these are my thoughts:

The first viewing yesterday was a bit frustrating to be honest. I enjoyed the fighting/action scenes, but I felt they were too far and between. I love Silk Spectre II though, and the sex scene was da bomb. :)

Today I saw it again and it was better this time. There were things that made more sense, and it flowed better. For some reason yesterday seemed to drag by and today went by rather quickly. It was more enjoyable.

I am in the process of finishing up the novel, and so far it seems like the movie was pretty spot on.

bigbarada
03-08-2009, 07:21 PM
Well, I went to the matinee with one of my buddies this afternoon and saw it. He knew nothing about the Watchmen comic, so it was all new to him and he liked the movie.

Overall: great movie! :thumbsup:

I have a few minor quibbles, the sex scenes were a little unnecessary and movie seemed to drag a bit in parts, but (aside from the sex scenes) I don't think anything really felt extraneous to the main plot. Of course, the nice thing about the movie being a little long is that none of the characters felt underdeveloped.

I read the comic probably about 10-15 years ago. Rorschach was immediately my favorite character and I was glad to see that all of his most memorable scenes made it into the film. At least what I considered the most memorable. Did the comic ever explain why his mask moved the way it did? It's been so long since I've read the book that I don't remember.

As for the ending, it is different from the book; but just as plausible and maybe even more logical considering world events from the last 10 years. Maybe. I'll have to let it soak in some more; but, as a fan of the graphic novel, I wasn't "offended" by the changes to the ending at all.

I would definitely recommend it and I'll likely watch it again, but I'll have to be sure to tell my friends that it's not something that they're going to want their kids to see.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
03-08-2009, 08:04 PM
I would definitely recommend it and I'll likely watch it again, but I'll have to be sure to tell my friends that it's not something that they're going to want their kids to see.
A couple of idiots brought their two kids to the showing but left after Rorschach cleaved the guy's head. I think the dogs were what made them leave, though. I'm surprised they lasted that long.

preacher
03-08-2009, 08:21 PM
I loved 300. And the Watchmen comic.

This movie adaptation, IMO is a failure. Had I not known that Snyder had a wife I would swear that he he were ahem, what's the word? There was so much Manhattan Johnson that it was distracting. Yes there were some panel shots in the comic that alluded to sex, but the key word here is alluded. I took a seventeen year old and thirteen year old to see this show and both they and myself couldn't look at each other. I'm not a prude, I like my share of porn as much as the next guy. But the whole sexual undertone was very intrusive to the pacing of the movie and inappropirate to Alan Moore's writing. There was no point to having it in your face and I think the show would've flowed much better had the five minutes of Manhattan's schlong and the scene's between Owlman and Silk Spectre were edited more tastefully. This attempt to somehow make sex a real part of the superhero genre is a huge miscalculation on Snyder's part.

The soundtrack is one of the worse I've heard in some time. A cross between Forest Gump and Spawn. Totally nonsensical. Struggling to find a tone. Which might be appropriate sense this movie oscillated between adult film, action, drama, and dark comedy. The visuals are what you would expect. Fantastic. The cast? outstanding. Even so, in the face of these strengths, the story was poorly presented. The Watchmen has very good messages in it, but they become mired in extreme gratuitous violence and sexual content. It has lowered the bar for superhero movies.

The director has lost my trust. Whatever movie is next, I will be approaching cautiously. If you have children, Watchmen IS NOT something you should take them to.

bigbarada
03-08-2009, 08:50 PM
I loved 300. And the Watchmen comic.

This movie adaptation, IMO is a failure. Had I not known that Snyder had a wife I would swear that he he were ahem, what's the word? There was so much Manhattan Johnson that it was distracting. Yes there were some panel shots in the comic that alluded to sex, but the key word here is alluded. I took a seventeen year old and thirteen year old to see this show and both they and myself couldn't look at each other. I'm not a prude, I like my share of porn as much as the next guy. But the whole sexual undertone was very intrusive to the pacing of the movie and inappropirate to Alan Moore's writing. There was no point to having it in your face and I think the show would've flowed much better had the five minutes of Manhattan's schlong and the scene's between Owlman and Silk Spectre were edited more tastefully. This attempt to somehow make sex a real part of the superhero genre is a huge miscalculation on Snyder's part.

The soundtrack is one of the worse I've heard in some time. A cross between Forest Gump and Spawn. Totally nonsensical. Struggling to find a tone. Which might be appropriate sense this movie oscillated between adult film, action, drama, and dark comedy. The visuals are what you would expect. Fantastic. The cast? outstanding. Even so, in the face of these strengths, the story was poorly presented. The Watchmen has very good messages in it, but they become mired in extreme gratuitous violence and sexual content. It has lowered the bar for superhero movies.

The director has lost my trust. Whatever movie is next, I will be approaching cautiously. If you have children, Watchmen IS NOT something you should take them to.

I didn't recall if the sex was as prominent in the book as it was in the film; but I agree that it was very distracting from the main story and unnecessary to the plot. I actually felt the same way about the sex scene in 300.

As for Dr. Manhattan's nudity, I just treated that like I do when I'm in the men's locker room at our gym: block it out and maintain eye contact at all times.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
03-08-2009, 10:00 PM
If you have children, Watchmen IS NOT something you should take them to.

Funny, I thought that would have been obvious from the freakin' R-RATING it got from the MPAA. Seriously, read the ratings for movies from time to time and you might have been able to avoid some of this.

I saw it for a second time today and enjoyed it just as much. Very solid film and I can't wait for the extended cut! :thumbsup:

preacher
03-08-2009, 11:08 PM
Funny, I thought that would have been obvious from the freakin' R-RATING it got from the MPAA. Seriously, read the ratings for movies from time to time and you might have been able to avoid some of this.

I saw it for a second time today and enjoyed it just as much. Very solid film and I can't wait for the extended cut! :thumbsup:

Glad you like it. But don't go assuming I went into this movie half-cocked and spare me the lecture. I have not let either kid see 300.

I have a huge volume of Rated R movies which I let my kids see and have wondered why they have R ratings. Just looking randomly in my library I see...Trading Places, Deliver Us From Eva, Spy Game, The Rock, The Matrix, Sleepy Hollow, the Godfather....all R rated. Oh yeah, these are horrible movies - definitely at the same level as Watchmen's uncompromising tone. My point is you can't take the rating seriously half the time.

Hell, even another Moore classic, V for Vendetta was rated R for chrissakes. I rent from the Red Box all the time and I view all rated R movies before letting the kids watch them. I'm a responsible parent. The MPAA is inconsistent at best.

After having read Watchmen many times I expected allusions to certain things. Violence. Fine. I knew it was going to have carnage - courteousy of Rorschack. Did you notice how many F bombs were spoken? Not in the book. The overt sexuality was not in the book. Snyder claimed he followed the comic to the letter. So with that kind of claim I thought I knew what to expect. Violence, cussing, and maybe sex scenes equivalent to say a James Bond film. Not so.

This story could've toned it down quite a bit and still made the point it was trying to make. THere was no need for the porn scenes, and manhattan's manhattan-sized unit splashing the screen all the time.

bigbarada
03-08-2009, 11:40 PM
The MPAA is inconsistent at best.

I agree. I think Watchmen actually should have been rated NC-17. Let's see there was:
1. brutal, graphic violence
2. explicit sex
3. a partial rape scene
4. violence against women
5. foul language
6. lesbian kissing
7. full frontal male nudity
8. human dismemberment

There was more, but I don't want to give too much else away.

I'm not saying that I think it's a bad movie because of these things. However, if they had left out the sex scenes and put Dr. Manhattan in that speedo for the whole film, then I don't believe the movie would have suffered at all.

plasticfetish
03-09-2009, 02:17 AM
I have a huge volume of Rated R movies which I let my kids see and have wondered why they have R ratings. Just looking randomly in my library I see...Trading Places, Deliver Us From Eva, Spy Game, The Rock, The Matrix, Sleepy Hollow, the Godfather....all R rated. Oh yeah, these are horrible movies - definitely at the same level as Watchmen's uncompromising tone. My point is you can't take the rating seriously half the time.Wait.. are you being sarcastic? You're not understanding why Sleepy Hollow or The Godfather have an R-rating? (Seriously?) I love both films, but they're pretty violent... I'd say Sleepy Hollow is extremely gory.

Mind you, when The Godfather was given an "R" way back when, they didn't have PG-13 or NC-17, and if you were trying to put out an "adult" film, you didn't really want a PG rating.

The rating system was intended as a way to let parents know what might not be appropriate for their kids when they randomly dumped them off at the theater. Having managed a movie theater for years (over a decade ago now), I can tell you that a "PG" rating never meant that parents had to "guide" their kids into the theater. It was simply a "suggestion" for parents that might not want their kids to see anything with any kind of "mature" situations.

The "R" rating was when we could out-and-out turn underage kids away... and mostly, to be honest, because they'd probably disrupt things and bother the actual adults that had paid to see the film. Many a time I got to tell an obnoxious teen that he couldn't see a "restricted" film unless he came back with his mother. :D


then I don't believe the movie would have suffered at all.Other than being less than true to the book. ;)

Haven't seen the film yet (want to wait 'till the crowds thin out), but I re-read the book a month or so ago, and everything that you mentioned is in there.


I didn't recall if the sex was as prominent in the book as it was in the filmYeah, there was a lot of sex in the book. Mind you, I haven't seen the film yet to compare, but there was plenty of sex, nudity, violence and other "adult" situations in the book... and Dr. Manhattan's "Battery Park" is all over the place.


I would kind of like to read the book now to see the differences and maybe better understand the apparent phenomenon.There really are times when what makes a phenomenon a phenomenon, is the time and place that it happened. My biggest concern about this film was that it would draw so keenly on people's imagined recollection of what made the book great, that when they saw the film, they would be let down.

I enjoyed the Watchmen book when it first came out, but I didn't think then and don't think now that it was earth shattering. It was a good story told in a manner that was unique at the time, and it worked to entertain jaded comic book fans like myself that had "outgrown" the hero genre. The story is a kind of metaphor for just that... a generation that has outgrown the old heroes... blah, blah, blah...

Nice thing about the book, and others like it, is that it got creative people thinking about new ways to develop and present those old themes in comic books, TV, film or whatever. That's the "phenomenon," and yeah you missed it in a way, but should still read and enjoy the book for what it is.

preacher
03-09-2009, 10:27 AM
Wait.. are you being sarcastic? You're not understanding why Sleepy Hollow or The Godfather have an R-rating? (Seriously?) I love both films, but they're pretty violent... I'd say Sleepy Hollow is extremely gory.

Sleepy Hollow violent? Absolutely! I knew it would be because of the source material. I knew the story was about a homicidal rider that cut off people's heads. I viewed it before letting the kids watch it. They have seen episodes of Law and Order, NCIS, and some of the other cop shows that show dismembered torsos, severed limbs, atopsies, stabbings, and so on. I knew they could handle it.

The Watchmen was a complete ambush. I really can't think of a single movie that is R, that had the degree of nudity that Watchmen showed. Its unprecidented. Snyder is going to catch hell for it.

I'm at work. The discussion at the water cooler is the watchmen. I am being kind compared to my coworkers. And these are people that don't have children. Watchmen will survive one more week if its lucky.

Darth Awgmon
03-09-2009, 01:57 PM
I don't know why some of you are saying it deserves an NC-17 rating and has "porn" scenes. Apparently you guys don't get out much. If you do not consider Doc's blue wang (which I don't really because it was like looking at a greek or roman statue's wang), there is very little nudity. The attempted rape and clever scenes were violent and disturbing, but that is why it's rated R. It was a very adult comic, with violent and sexual overtones. The film relays that perfectly and is great! I'll see it again, fo shizzle.

jedibear
03-09-2009, 09:31 PM
Well...first off, let me mention that I never read the "Watchmen" comic books before going to see this film so I did not have any preconceptions on weather or not it's "true to the source" or whatever. What I saw was a damned fine movie that entertained, had a good script, was visually compelling and made me want to know more about that world...so...I'll be picking up a copy of that graphic novel now and checking it out...knowing full well of course that while many of the visual touches present in Snyder's film will be found there, some of the story elements may be different and yes, I've read in many places about the "altered" ending so I'll see how that "reads" and comment later...

It always makes me chuckle to read how bent out of shape folks get over films being made out of comics or books and how they always seem to come up short...and yes, a lot of times they do. But as efforts like "Sin City" or last year's "The Dark Knight" or Snyder's "300" shows, films can be made from comics that enhance, inhabit or sometimes transcend the source material.

After just one viewing (oh, there will be more :)), I'd say "Watchmen" is one such effort... a movie that manages to embrace it's source material while still managing to be spectacular epic entertainment with that added boost of giving the audience something to think about.

From the opening credits which so effectively set up the "world" this story takes place in to the well done ending, this movie moves at a decent pace and had a good cast portraying these unique characters. It's a huge plus that the cast is not a bunch of big names bringing their own baggage to the parts. Not only did Snyder set up the whole '80s feel with the environment , the music and the story, but the characters themselves took me back there...one thing about that time that I remember too well about that time is that it was filled with movies and news about attractive people acting really unattractive (for movies think "Fatal Attraction", for people think Reagan-era government or the whole "Dynasty/Studio 54" selfish party culture) and this movie conveyed that feeling well with despicable, egocentric characters like the Comedian or pathetically tragic ones like Rorscach and Silk Spectre ll...made watching them go through this story even more fascinating to me.

One intrusion on this "alternate world" was the use of pop songs from the period...I have to wonder if maybe a better tact would have been to have cover versions of some of these tunes where the artists gave them a slightly skewered take on them...and that one musical moment that fell totally flat was that use of "Ride of the Valkyries" (I know what it references but it's just a little too obvious, and I wasn't the only one in the theater where I saw it that either laughed uncomfortably or just groaned during that scene...it just kicked me out of the movie for a moment). The only other thing that did NOT work for me was that awful Nixon impersonator...a giant rubber nose and bad make-up isn't quite enough to convince...sorry, but that guy stopped the movie cold every time he came on...especially sad considering how often he pops up...but these were minor distractions that thankfully were overshadowed by so many other positive aspects of the movie.

I definitely recommend this movie to anyone looking for a good yarn put together with style...I plan on seeing it again just to soak in more of the great detail and nuances in the story....man, if the graphic novel is anything like this, it'll provide me with many good reads as well...

I'm sorry if so many fans of the GN are disappointed, but I say well done, Snyder...congratulations on a fine film! Can't wait for the extended cut on DVD!

JetsAndHeels
03-09-2009, 09:38 PM
Nice review Jedi Bear. I agree with all your points.

I can honestly say that after seeing the film the 2nd time I thoroughly enjoyed it (my 1st viewing seemed a bit long, but some of that was because the girlfriend was getting tired). Now that I am reading the GN it makes the film look even better. I think Zack Snyder is to be commended for this work.

Slicker
03-09-2009, 10:14 PM
my 1st viewing seemed a bit long, but some of that was because the girlfriend was getting tired.Did you take her along for the second viewing? If she would've fallen asleep again I would've had her lay her head in my lap...but I'm a gentleman like that. :yes:

JetsAndHeels
03-09-2009, 10:31 PM
Did you take her along for the second viewing? If she would've fallen asleep again I would've had her lay her head in my lap...but I'm a gentleman like that. :yes:

Heh, no she did not come with me for the 2nd viewing. I went with a buddy of mine I used to work with at Gamestop.

bigbarada
03-09-2009, 10:49 PM
I don't know why some of you are saying it deserves an NC-17 rating and has "porn" scenes. Apparently you guys don't get out much. If you do not consider Doc's blue wang (which I don't really because it was like looking at a greek or roman statue's wang), there is very little nudity. The attempted rape and clever scenes were violent and disturbing, but that is why it's rated R. It was a very adult comic, with violent and sexual overtones. The film relays that perfectly and is great! I'll see it again, fo shizzle.

I'm not saying that it's not a great movie. I definitely plan to see it again and I will be buying it on DVD. However, I was agreeing with the comment that the MPAA ratings are very inconsistent. If you compare The Matrix and Watchmen, it's hard to believe that they both have the same rating.

JEDIpartner
03-10-2009, 11:57 AM
I heard it was a pretty crap film from a number of people, so I am avoiding it full stop. Just wanted to comment. :p

2-1B
03-10-2009, 09:35 PM
One of the things that really stuck with me was


****spoiler*****


The Comedian being the lone gunman on the grassy knoll...that was kinda freaky.
Nixon was a bad mother effer ! :eek:

Jayspawn
03-10-2009, 09:56 PM
I just started reading the graphic novel out of interest (only on chapter 3) but enjoyed the film very much. I've been a big fan of Jeffrey Dean Morgan (The Comedian) for years and am glad he's finally broken out into films. Needless to say I liked the opening scene. The fight was good and Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable" overtone was interesting. The soundtrack was creative as well.

Wasnt expecting all the sex, but I can say for sure that "Watchmen" has everything in it.

JediTricks
03-10-2009, 10:10 PM
I've been trying to hold back, I plan on writing a full-length review, but I just haven't had time to get words on the page yet. I saw it Sunday, and I found the film to be a 6.5 out of 10. The key issues I had start with the director, who doesn't really seem to understand the material, so he merely recreates the first 2/3rds exactly as they appear on the page. Comics have a language and cinema has a language, the director and screenwriter are each supposed to be able to translate one language to another, and here they didn't, but the director is the helmer and should know at least when not to merely ape something shot for shot.

Acting was nothing special, Nite Owl II would be the closest character I came to really feeling brought something else to the table, everybody else read pretty flat - I'm reserving my opinion on Rorschach for a second viewing, I know everybody loves this portrayal but at times it totally didn't work and at others it sorta did. Jeffery Dean Morgan as The Comedian has been spoken as the 2nd finest performance, but I felt it failed to elicit anything. Casting was also weak, with too many leads portrayed by actors too young, or with personalities too small (Crudup's Dr. Manhattan is played very mousy and quiet).

Soundtrack was pretty awful, just a shotgun blast of pop culture touchstones without any creativity. Sets and costumes worked about 75% of the way nearly uniformly. Makeup was actively, distractingly bad, even the CGI eye makeup on Dr. M; the aging makeup really slammed head first into a wall, Nixon was downright laughable.

Pacing was a big problem, the movie pretty much proved it was unfilmable with this, it hints at greater ideas but doesn't know how to draw them out in an economical manner, and it wastes a remarkable amount of audience time on slow-motion scenes meant to feel important without going into the actors and showing it from characters' reactions to the situations. So not only does it toss out a great deal, and it wastes a lot of time on slo-mo, but then it also doesn't satisfy the greater ideals it's trying to convey with what's left.

Zack Snyder doesn't get "action". He directs "excitement", mainly in a video game styling, but in terms of raw action, he misses the boat. Every fight scene, save 1, is woefully over-choreographed and given the most ridiculous sound effects. The one holdout is unfortunately the attempted rape scene, which is disturbingly violent, and the actress in the scene ends up laying on the pool table like she's a video file stuck on pause.

Characters are not delivered upon. Even Rorschach, who wears his right-wing-nutjob heart on his sleeve, comes off thin, relying too much on hollow voiceover dialogue and CGI tricks with his mask to convey the reach of the character - although to be fair, the source material gives him so much more than the others that it feels meaty. By contrast, we never get to know why any character here does the things they do, why they feel the way they do, and that makes so much of thing an exercise in futility. Adrian Veidt (whom I always thought was pronounced "Veedt", surprise) is never given any understanding by this director, which totally undermines the new ending, and makes for a rather lackluster final showdown, taking all revelations and choices out of the hands of the characters.

The new ending is a sloppy mess, asking audiences to believe that the society that has for years in this timeline feared nukes and reviled at superheroes is now going to magically live in peace out of fear of America's superweapon - a nuclear superhero. Uh, no. And then they set up a SEQUEL?!? That was some nerve, spitting on the whole point of the ending, who gives up what and who doesn't, and why they make those choices. The tacked-on modern message is also rather sloppy and obvious, even though it isn't as rammed down our throats as it could have been.

To me, this movie was the antithesis of the V for Vendetta movie, that film knew what it could and couldn't do, so it tried to speak with its own language, it translated CONCEPTS and tossed out material it knew it couldn't get its audience to follow, it modernized what parts of the story it felt couldn't fly on screen, and it accepted those changes from the beginning. I loved V for Vendetta as a separate but related entity to its comic source; here, I feel like Watchmen was a slow movie that held everything on the surface and told a simple tale in ways too large for itself, cutting both the human and the superhero tales off at their knees.

JediTricks
03-10-2009, 10:17 PM
Oh, and a fanboy thing, I was annoyed that early in the film, we get a look at a video monitor showing Veidt's antarctic project, whose acronym name is:
S
Q
U
I
D

I believe it stands for "Zack Snyder is a tool".

2-1B
03-10-2009, 11:53 PM
Looks like the movie did alright for the opening weekend, so maybe I was wrong about it tanking...we'll see how much it drops after the first weekend, though.

JediTricks
03-11-2009, 12:03 AM
Analysts are saying that it did about 15 to 20 mil less than predicted based on hype, marketing, and original cost of $200 mil. I still think $55 mil is pretty decent for a March release, but they're saying half of that was opening day and there was a ton of falloff on Saturday & Sunday, which predicts major falloff by next weekend. I suspect they're wrong actually, but they seem to do better predicting trending of existing movies than new ones.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
03-11-2009, 12:06 AM
I've read about several instances of walkouts. In my showing, as I said, a family of four left, but I don't think anyone else did. I wonder if the more "extreme" nature of the movie will be alienating people in the next few weeks?

JetsAndHeels
03-11-2009, 12:17 AM
I've read about several instances of walkouts. In my showing, as I said, a family of four left, but I don't think anyone else did. I wonder if the more "extreme" nature of the movie will be alienating people in the next few weeks?

During my 2nd viewing on Sunday a young couple (I am guessing early 20's) left after about 30-40 minutes in.

Other than that, no other walkouts in either of my 2 viewings.

JediTricks
03-11-2009, 03:22 AM
I've read about several instances of walkouts. In my showing, as I said, a family of four left, but I don't think anyone else did. I wonder if the more "extreme" nature of the movie will be alienating people in the next few weeks?
No walkouts on my viewing, but I've rarely seen a big movie empty a theater so fast at the end credits.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
03-11-2009, 12:47 PM
No walkouts on my viewing, but I've rarely seen a big movie empty a theater so fast at the end credits.
Maybe everybody just really, really had to pee. :p

bigbarada
03-11-2009, 01:33 PM
No walkouts on my viewing, but I've rarely seen a big movie empty a theater so fast at the end credits.

I got up and exited the theater as quick as I could when the credits rolled, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the movie. But I'm always in a rush to get out of the theater, no matter what the movie is.

However, I do agree that Watchmen is not going to perform well in the theaters, but I think it will find it's true niche on DVD. Trying to compare it to 300 was a mistake, since the stories have absolutely nothing in common except for their original source media (technically, not even that since the story for 300 existed for thousands of years before Frank Miller was even born).

The biggest problem that Watchmen is having is that none of it's characters were incredibly iconic prior to the movie's release. Most people already knew who Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, and the X-Men were before their movies were released. While many people may not have known the story of the 300 Spartans prior to 300, the average person recognizes an ancient Greek when they see one (I know that technically the Spartans weren't Greeks at that point in time, but you get my point).

Watchmen doesn't have that luxury, so the average moviegoer has no knowledge of any of the characters in the film prior to seeing the film. Which is why the somewhat overly long opening credits sequence was necessary, to clue the audience in to what kind of world the movie takes place in.

Add to that the slow pace and the R-rating and this is not a movie that is going to translate into box office success. As stated before, it's real home is going to be on DVD (or Blu-Ray for those of you not stuck the 20th century like me :cross-eye ).

Mad Slanted Powers
03-11-2009, 05:55 PM
I got up and exited the theater as quick as I could when the credits rolled, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the movie. But I'm always in a rush to get out of the theater, no matter what the movie is.I like to stay through the end credits. I feel like the movie isn't over until then. Plus, some movies will put things at the end of the credits, or during. Sometimes I want to check out the cast listing, or the song credits. In this day and age, I can do that online I guess, but I might forget about it after I leave the theater.

preacher
03-11-2009, 06:01 PM
I don't know why some of you are saying it deserves an NC-17 rating and has "porn" scenes. Apparently you guys don't get out much. If you do not consider Doc's blue wang (which I don't really because it was like looking at a greek or roman statue's wang), there is very little nudity. The attempted rape and clever scenes were violent and disturbing, but that is why it's rated R. It was a very adult comic, with violent and sexual overtones. The film relays that perfectly and is great! I'll see it again, fo shizzle.

You don't have to have just porn scenes to warrant an NC-17. Scream was originally going to get an NC-17 rating, but had about 20 seconds of violence (not sex) cut to warrant an R rating.

I'm not saying that I think the violence warranted an NC-17. But by your own admission this is a decidedly "adult" comic with violent and sexual overtones. I wholehardedly agree.

If you wiki search of NC-17 movies, you might be shocked to find out how many, and which movies released as R treaded close to NC-17 and Watchmen easily surpasses the content of more than just a handful of those movies as far as adult content.

Would the story have suffered if Manhattan's skyline wasn't splashing the screen every 10 minutes? I think not. The director could have done some clever cuts to get the point across that Manhattan's humanity was so lost that he couldn't be concerned with human trifles, such as clothing (except when being interviewed). I feel those scenes, at least in part, disturbed the flow of the movie. The pacing hit a brick wall everytime you saw it. He was a distraction every time he was in the buff.

Someone mentioned (JT I think) that Snyder followed the panel shots in the graphic novel too closely and didn't allow himself the freedom to film a Watchmen movie that wasn't a constant distraction. Whether it was because of manhattan, owlman and Silk Spetre's trysts, the lame music, or slo mo effect. My sentiments exactly.

But I'm glad you and others enjoyed it. I personally can't recommend it.

Bel-Cam Jos
03-11-2009, 06:41 PM
Would the story have suffered if Manhattan's skyline wasn't splashing the screen every 10 minutes? I think not.

Someone mentioned (JT I think) that Snyder followed the panel shots in the graphic novel too closely and didn't allow himself the freedom to film a Watchmen movie that wasn't a constant distraction. Whether it was because of manhattan, owlman and Silk Spetre's trysts, the lame music, or slo mo effect. My sentiments exactly.

But I'm glad you and others enjoyed it. I personally can't recommend it.If that's euphemistic, it's funny. If you're referring to the city of NY itself, I noticed that the Twin Towers shot held the screen for a few seconds.

That was among my favorite aspects of the movie; it really was a "life action" comic; even though I last read the comics almost 20 years ago, I could remember exact panels from memory put up on the big screen.

The "love" scenes (can you actually call them that?) could've been shown in silhouette, off-screen, cut away after a few seconds, etc. and still held the emotional impact, I think. Not to mention the extra film time. Oh well. What's done is done; while I can't say I disliked it, I was a bit uncomfortable as it kept going.

I will catch at least one more viewing soon.

preacher
03-11-2009, 09:12 PM
Love scenes? I would say no. Watch HBO or Cinemax after hours. Watchmen treads very close to that. Soft porn.

Were you referring to the remark about Manhattan skyline? That was meant to be a funny play on the you-know-what.

Thank you! You've been a great audience! Be sure to tip your waitresses and bartenders.

2-1B
03-11-2009, 10:06 PM
Soft porn? Hardly...you need to watch more R rated movies, there is much worse out there.

Mad Slanted Powers
03-11-2009, 10:18 PM
I think the only movie I can recall that showed male naughty bits was the South Park movie.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
03-11-2009, 10:29 PM
Soft porn? Hardly...you need to watch more R rated movies, there is much worse out there.

Yeah, I gotta agree with this statement. The sex scene wasn't at all that graphic; so you saw breasts and motions? Big whoop. There are more graphic sex scenes in "A History of Violence," "Requiem for a Dream" and "Monster's Ball."

And yes, you see Manhattan's penis. You see it onscreen and in the graphic novel. Let's everybody get over it and move along. :whip:

And the songs in the film were quoted in the book, hence why Snyder put them in there. I liked it! :thumbsup:

Mr. JabbaJohnL
03-11-2009, 11:08 PM
Where were they in the book exactly? I mentioned this to a friend who read the book and she didn't remember any songs from the book.

2-1B
03-12-2009, 12:19 AM
I think the only movie I can recall that showed male naughty bits was the South Park movie.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Zack & Miri Make a Porno
Hollow Man
The Piano

I didn't really plan on listing movies based on this kind of criteria today..

Mad Slanted Powers
03-12-2009, 01:08 AM
Well, I've not seen any of those.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
03-12-2009, 08:05 AM
Where were they in the book exactly? I mentioned this to a friend who read the book and she didn't remember any songs from the book.

I don't have it in front of me (brother is borrowing it) but they were cited at the end of each chapter, if I remember correctly.

bigbarada
03-12-2009, 09:14 AM
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Zack & Miri Make a Porno
Hollow Man
The Piano

I didn't really plan on listing movies based on this kind of criteria today..

You forgot Trainspotting where we all get to see Ewan McGregor's lightsaber.

pbarnard
03-12-2009, 11:28 AM
Boogie Nights was R as well. And that one was well....

Rocketboy
03-12-2009, 01:47 PM
Where were they in the book exactly? I mentioned this to a friend who read the book and she didn't remember any songs from the book.Many of them are at the very end of each issue, in a small, black panel.
For example, at the end of issue/chapter 1:

At midnight, all the agents and superhuman crew, go out and round up everyone who knows more than they do. -Bob Dylan

There are also a few during the story, like if someone is playing a radio.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
03-12-2009, 02:06 PM
Ah, okay. Thanks to you both.

So then the Bob Dylan song gets covered by the ever-crappy My Chemical Romance. Great. :p

JediTricks
03-12-2009, 08:00 PM
I got up and exited the theater as quick as I could when the credits rolled, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the movie. But I'm always in a rush to get out of the theater, no matter what the movie is.If I don't actively hate a movie, I'll sit through all the credits out of respect for the people who worked to make the film.


However, I do agree that Watchmen is not going to perform well in the theaters, but I think it will find it's true niche on DVD. Trying to compare it to 300 was a mistake, since the stories have absolutely nothing in common except for their original source media (technically, not even that since the story for 300 existed for thousands of years before Frank Miller was even born).One of the screenwriters is now alternately begging and badmouthing fans to see it again this weekend, to keep it from falling off.


The biggest problem that Watchmen is having is that none of it's characters were incredibly iconic prior to the movie's release. Most people already knew who Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, and the X-Men were before their movies were released. While many people may not have known the story of the 300 Spartans prior to 300, the average person recognizes an ancient Greek when they see one (I know that technically the Spartans weren't Greeks at that point in time, but you get my point).

Watchmen doesn't have that luxury, so the average moviegoer has no knowledge of any of the characters in the film prior to seeing the film. Which is why the somewhat overly long opening credits sequence was necessary, to clue the audience in to what kind of world the movie takes place in.That didn't have to be a problem, the Watchmen characters somewhat fill a general superhero archetype, it's just that the marketing felt like that should be good enough, and didn't treat them as real characters. The director didn't either, he let that rest on the original story's shoulders, and I don't think he brought that all the way out.

Bel-Cam Jos
03-12-2009, 09:25 PM
And in the Simpsons movie, there was nudity as well. :eek: What about The Little Mermaid? ;) Drawn characters that end up in movie form, showing their parts? Unheard of! :p

I always sit through credits, except when seeing movies with my dad. He leaves rigth after the "The End" part, and I've gotten the sense that if I want to stay, it's just wasting time. :(

Mr. JabbaJohnL
03-12-2009, 09:28 PM
One of the screenwriters is now alternately begging and badmouthing fans to see it again this weekend, to keep it from falling off.
I saw it at AICN . . . he essentially says, "If Sally went back to the Comedian, then certainly you can come watch it again." That's a great marketing technique, act like you tried to rape the audience and then beg them to come back.

The movie certainly has me thinking, but more about what worked and what didn't as opposed to actual themes or ideas or whatever. I'm more interested in reading the book than seeing it again, at least in its current state. I can sympathize with what the guy's saying, but a good adaptation doesn't mean being 100% faithful to the source material - look at the Harry Potter films, the first two are pretty much exact copies of the book to the screen, and they suck compared to the next three, which took liberties with the story and really made it work independently of the books.

Mad Slanted Powers
03-12-2009, 09:31 PM
I always sit through credits, except when seeing movies with my dad. He leaves rigth after the "The End" part, and I've gotten the sense that if I want to stay, it's just wasting time. :(Yeah, that's the trouble I have with seeing movies with other people.

bigbarada
03-13-2009, 11:06 AM
I thought this was pretty funny, Rorshach and Wolverine (action figures) talk about their 2009 movies. Done in the style of those "I'm a Mac. And I'm a PC" commercials.
:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n3VSw1XBOo&feature=dir

JediTricks
03-13-2009, 05:23 PM
I saw it at AICN . . . he essentially says, "If Sally went back to the Comedian, then certainly you can come watch it again." That's a great marketing technique, act like you tried to rape the audience and then beg them to come back.Yeah, he was more graphic and it was ugly. I posted a couple talkbacks in there in response to his overall message, but his rape analogy I let slide because it's just demanding it get talked about and it's not worth it, it was crass and stupid and in incredibly bad taste.


The movie certainly has me thinking, but more about what worked and what didn't as opposed to actual themes or ideas or whatever. I'm more interested in reading the book than seeing it again, at least in its current state. I can sympathize with what the guy's saying, but a good adaptation doesn't mean being 100% faithful to the source material - look at the Harry Potter films, the first two are pretty much exact copies of the book to the screen, and they suck compared to the next three, which took liberties with the story and really made it work independently of the books.Read the book, it's so worth it, it's got some frustrating pacing issues because it's more dense and was originally drawn out over a year - it's a whole year's worth of comics (12 monthly issues) - but it's a great thinker. I keep wanting to read it again, but I promised a friend I'd loan her my copy since she enjoyed the movie and wanted to read the comic.

Droid
03-19-2009, 03:51 PM
I liked it. I only just read the graphic novel this year, so I didn't view it as holy ground as some might. I thought I would be mad about the new ending, but I thought it worked.

No real complaints here.

Qui-Long Gone
03-23-2009, 01:22 PM
Is Watchmen dated? I wonder if the story fits today....

DarkArtist
03-26-2009, 11:48 AM
hoping to catch the movie on Friday after dinner with my wife and brother in law and my brother in law's fiance. can't wait....loved the book.

Bel-Cam Jos
03-26-2009, 02:58 PM
Is Watchmen dated? I wonder if the story fits today....For those of us who read it in the mid-80s? Certainly. Only thing is, to me, it's no longer (or, perhaps better stated as "less" than "no" ) nuclear war that scares me will end the world, it's the interconnectedness that is oozing with relativism, indifference, and self-centeredness.

I saw it for the 2nd time last night. Since it's been a couple weeks, I feel I can post some of the details I've noticed now after multiple viewings:


PLOT AND SCENE DETAILS (WHICH SOME MAY CONSIDER SPOILERS THEN):


- David Bowie as "Ziggy Stardust" appears in the Studio 54 shot, as well as the Village People (actors playing them, not the "real" ones)
- as I stated before, there's a poster on a post (duh...) advertising the Curse of the Black Pearl
- big smiley on Mars (pretty easy to spot that'n)
- the irony of the wrecking/salvage owned by the former Nite Owl yard sign mentioning "obsolete models"
- when the blast leaves the crater in NYC, the Twin Towers remain undisturbed in the background
- wrong zip codes on the mail in the New Frontier's mail basket (all start with 999**), a la 555-**** phone numbers
- the Comedian's apartment number is 3001, and when the door gets hit, the 1 falls off, to reveal just "300" (I wonder why)

RooJay
03-27-2009, 01:57 AM
PLOT AND SCENE DETAILS (WHICH SOME MAY CONSIDER SPOILERS THEN):


- David Bowie as "Ziggy Stardust" appears in the Studio 54 shot, as well as the Village People (actors playing them, not the "real" ones)

There's also Mick Jagger standing right next to him!


- big smiley on Mars (pretty easy to spot that'n)

Believe it or not, that's not a creation of the film or even the comics for that matter! The smiley face crater is a genuine feature of Mars in real life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galle_(Martian_crater)

Darth Duranium
03-30-2009, 05:49 PM
I can't tell you how impressed I was with the film... I just loved it. So rich on so many levels...

The level of detail, the noir elements, the casting, the startling graphic design... all top notch, IMO. I liked Black Freighter and Under The Hood too... but the film's something special.

I thought the sex in the Archie scene was a bit disturbing, somehow. And I certainly saw enough blue penis to last a lifetime... but somehow these didn't really take away from the whole spectacle. The film-makers really created a facinating alternate universe, filled with real flawed people... a la BSG.

I never read the comic so I went in as newbie... but I'm a devout convert now.

Rocketboy
03-30-2009, 06:41 PM
I still don't see what the big deal about the sex scene was. I didn't think it was any different that most R-rated sex scenes. The only real difference being they were superheroes.

Darth Duranium
03-30-2009, 11:19 PM
I still don't see what the big deal about the sex scene was. I didn't think it was any different that most R-rated sex scenes. The only real difference being they were superheroes.

No, it wasn't that it was too explicit or that they were shagging superheroes at all. I'm glad they pushed limits in the flick.

The scene just felt wrong somehow... like I was being forced to watch a middle-aged Aunt/Uncle rubber fetish video or something. A bit disturbing. There was no real chemistry between the leads so that whole scene just looked like bad porn.

RooJay
03-31-2009, 12:44 AM
No, it wasn't that it was too explicit or that they were shagging superheroes at all. I'm glad they pushed limits in the flick.

The scene just felt wrong somehow... like I was being forced to watch a middle-aged Aunt/Uncle rubber fetish video or something. A bit disturbing. There was no real chemistry between the leads so that whole scene just looked like bad porn.

I can't say I agree there, personally. I just happen to think that it lingered just a bit longer than expected; a bit longer than is normally comfortable when viewing with a room full of strangers.

preacher
03-31-2009, 04:12 PM
Ouch. I just looked at box office for Watchmen. Very roughly the numbers are:

Opening weekend $56M
2nd weekend $17M
3rd weekend $6M
4th weekend $2M

Domestic $103M to date. Worldwide $170M to date. Production Budget $150M.

Droid
03-31-2009, 04:26 PM
Ouch. I just looked at box office for Watchmen. Very roughly the numbers are:

Opening weekend $56M
2nd weekend $17M
3rd weekend $6M
4th weekend $2M

Domestic $103M to date. Worldwide $170M to date. Production Budget $150M.

Once they factor in DVD sales and Black Freighter sales I imagine that it'll have been worth making, certainly not what they hoped for though.

Rocketboy
03-31-2009, 05:26 PM
This probably kills the possibility of the extended cut in theaters.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
03-31-2009, 06:10 PM
This probably kills the possibility of the extended cut in theaters.

Considering it was only slated to be released in NY/LA, I don't mind. Just give me the uber extended/ultimate/nifty edition on DVD and i'm content. :thumbsup:

DarkArtist
04-02-2009, 03:06 PM
caught the movie on Friday night and I loved it. thought it was really well done and amazing to see the art of the comic book brought to life on the big screen. absolutely amazing. can't wait to get a deluxe version on DVD when it comes out.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
05-12-2009, 09:21 AM
DVD info is up: http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/watchmen3.html

1 disc, 2 disc, and blu ray. I'm wondering since the 2 disc says DIRECTOR'S cut if that's the full ultimate edition, but there isn't any info on it yet. This is a must buy for me. :thumbsup:

Beast
06-17-2009, 09:49 PM
Very good deal... if you haven't purchased the Tales From The Black Freighter Blu-Ray yet.

Pre-order Watchmen at WBSHOP.com and get Tales of the Black Freighter for just $5.

http://www.wbshop.com/Home-Entertainment/wm_home,default,sc.html?adid=WMPreWBEml

Use Code: WATCH3

I got both on Blu-Ray for a little over $30.00 cause they have free shipping right now if you order two or more movies. So it's well worth it if you haven't gotten Tales yet. Just an awesome deal.

JediTricks
06-18-2009, 04:42 PM
Seems like an ok deal. Friggin' Black Freighter is only 26 minutes long though, not worth more than $5. I'd probably get the disc only for the Under the Hood "special" that's 37 minutes long, but even that feels too short to me. I will probably just get the disc from Netflix instead of buying. I probably should have done that already, now that I think about it.

Darth Duranium
06-18-2009, 11:12 PM
Hollywood reporter:

Warners will release Zack Snyder's three hour-plus director's cut of "Watchmen" on Blu-ray and DVD July 21, just days before Comic Con International.

The cut will include 25 minutes of additional footage, including scenes with vigilante Rorschach as well as the death sequence of a supporting character (Hollis Mason). The animated tale of "The Tales of the Black Freighter" is not included in the director's cut.

The Blu-ray will feature the inaugural use of "Maximum Movie Mode," an option that allows multi-story presentation.ure the inaugural use of "Maximum Movie Mode," an option that allows multi-story presentation.


Very much looking forward to it, but I'll skip the final Director's Cut (with TBF reintegrated) in the Fall. I liked the cartoon and Under The Hood but I don't need them in the movie. I'd think that the final cut will have all 3 together in some form. Maybe the Motion Comic, too.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
06-19-2009, 10:17 AM
Is there confirmation that the final/ultimate/mondo cut with TBF and UTH is still happening? I wasn't sure if WB would still do this with the box office being lower than expected.

Jayspawn
11-01-2009, 10:14 AM
The Ultimate Cut still on schedule for November 10th. Havnt ready much on it -but I'm excited to see how it turns out.

JimJamBonds
11-01-2009, 03:31 PM
The Watchmen.... terrible movie!

Jayspawn
11-02-2009, 10:08 AM
I hadnt read the graphic novel at the time of seeing the film. I went in with no expectations and really enjoyed the movie. It was long, very quiet at times, but I liked the soundtrack and action scenes too. Watchmen has a whole blend of every kind of movie.