after watching the various clips of the movie and hearing it was 2 hours and 40 minutes long,
YES FUCKING YES IMAX DAY 2after watching the various clips of the movie and hearing it was 2 hours and 40 minutes long,
the movie is an hour and fifty minutes.
it's from the directors cut thats coming out on dvd later.No it isn;t. The directors cut is over 3 hours. The cut in theaters is 2 hours 43 minutes.
Early buzz is that this film is pure geek splooge. I'm a fan of Snyder to boot. And the fact that it's two hours and forty-five minutes of Watchmen goodness is just icing on the cake.Doesn't the Silk Spectre get it on with the naked blue guy? ???
Can't wait to see Silk Spectre getting butt naked.
Okay, granted I'm still drunk from the bars, but this excerpt from the IGN review makes no sense:QuoteThis movie is a shallow interpretation of Watchmen, shorn of sophistication or literary density. Worst of all, watching the film makes you wonder whether the source material was actually any good to begin with.
If the guy doesn't know if the source material was any good to begin with, how on earth does he have the perspective to call this a "shallow interpretation"?
Definitely going. Looks good for the most part, although it seems like the director was more concerned with getting source material details correct than getting the actors to...act.
Okay, granted I'm still drunk from the bars, but this excerpt from the IGN review makes no sense:QuoteThis movie is a shallow interpretation of Watchmen, shorn of sophistication or literary density. Worst of all, watching the film makes you wonder whether the source material was actually any good to begin with.
If the guy doesn't know if the source material was any good to begin with, how on earth does he have the perspective to call this a "shallow interpretation"?
Okay, granted I'm still drunk from the bars, but this excerpt from the IGN review makes no sense:QuoteThis movie is a shallow interpretation of Watchmen, shorn of sophistication or literary density. Worst of all, watching the film makes you wonder whether the source material was actually any good to begin with.
If the guy doesn't know if the source material was any good to begin with, how on earth does he have the perspective to call this a "shallow interpretation"?
it's impossible to hate 300.Sez the guy who only obsesses over girls who are ~14. Any girl who's grown into full womanhood would probably make you cry.
if you do then you hate movies and you're probably not a man.
Definitely going. Looks good for the most part, although it seems like the director was more concerned with getting source material details correct than getting the actors to...act.
This is my biggest concern. "Wow, this looks just like panel from the comic! Who cares that the acting stinks and it's a bad movie!"
Nerds are rapidly becoming the worst thing to happen to movies in like, ever.
Definitely going. Looks good for the most part, although it seems like the director was more concerned with getting source material details correct than getting the actors to...act.
There are plenty of complaints I could understand for 300. "Boring" isn't one of them
easily the most fun I've ever had at the theater
There are plenty of complaints I could understand for 300. "Boring" isn't one of them
easily the most fun I've ever had at the theater
300 was not that much fun to me. I HATE that overly stylized green screen look.
:tauntaun300 was not that much fun to me. I HATE that overly stylized green screen look.
I gots to agree with Cheebers on this. :-*
There are plenty of complaints I could understand for 300. "Boring" isn't one of them
easily the most fun I've ever had at the theater
Quit lying, you were just turned on by Xerxes.
Unless I hear raves, no. Nearly 3 hours is too long.
Unless I hear raves, no. Nearly 3 hours is too long.
Oh whatever. What else are you gonna be doing? Obviously not walking somewhere.
That's why the absolute best time to go see a movie on opening weekend is Friday afternoon, and the earlier the better.
Devin Faraci from CHUD (http://chud.com/articles/). He's usually good for taking a few shots at film geek properties. He got a flooded inbox full of vile after criticizing The Dark Knight.Devin went crazy over Hellboy II and wouldn't shut up about it, he even said it was better than TDK. He is not much better than Harry Knowles.
And to clarify, I've got no problems with people critiquing film geek properties - this board is basically nothing but that. Devin bugs me because he seems to go into things looking to break them down and does so with a condescending attitude. It's obnoxious.
Devin went crazy over Hellboy II and wouldn't shut up about it, he even said it was better than TDK. He is not much better than Harry Knowles.
Devin went crazy over Hellboy II and wouldn't shut up about it, he even said it was better than TDK. He is not much better than Harry Knowles.
So because he said Del Toro's latest was better than The Dark Knight, which is something some people have said on this very board, he's as bad as Harry Knowles? I'm no fan of Devin Farici's holier than thou review style, but to equate him to Harry Knowles because of he favors Hellboy II over The Dark Knight is borderline distinguished mentally-challenged.
Someone who gets really worked up in the hype and marketing of the movie like Devin is with Watchmen and is with a handful of movies each year makes me wary of those reviews since he becomes fanboyish about it.
In terms of internet critics I'd say my most trusted is this guy, I very rarely disagree with him:
http://www.reelviews.net/movies.php
The Anti-Hype? 8):lol These type of articles are exactly why I dont trust reviews from people like that. DEVIN WATCHES THE WATCHMEN TRAILER! HELP DEFEND WATCHMEN!
http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/18177/1/SET-VISIT-REPRINT-WATCHMEN/Page1.html
http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/16660/1/HELP-DEFEND-WATCHMEN/Page1.html
http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/18254/1/THE-DEVIN039S-ADVOCATE-NON-REVIEW-MUSINGS-ON-WATCHMEN/Page1.html
http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/15591/1/DEVIN-WATCHES-THE-WATCHMEN-TRAILER/Page1.html
http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/16514/1/ZACK-SNYDER-APPEARS-TO-HAVE-NAILED-WATCHMEN/Page1.html
The Anti-Hype? 8)
http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/18177/1/SET-VISIT-REPRINT-WATCHMEN/Page1.html
http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/16660/1/HELP-DEFEND-WATCHMEN/Page1.html
http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/18254/1/THE-DEVIN039S-ADVOCATE-NON-REVIEW-MUSINGS-ON-WATCHMEN/Page1.html
http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/15591/1/DEVIN-WATCHES-THE-WATCHMEN-TRAILER/Page1.html
http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/16514/1/ZACK-SNYDER-APPEARS-TO-HAVE-NAILED-WATCHMEN/Page1.html
John Hodgman said something like, "The movie is fine as long as it understands it has no right to exist"That pretty much sums it up right there. As long as it isn't a complete cinematic abortion the alternative was never seeing the material put to film at all. It won't surpass it's source material, the only question is whether it comes across with the minimal amount of competency.
John Hodgman said something like, "The movie is fine as long as it understands it has no right to exist"That pretty much sums it up right there. As long as it isn't a complete cinematic abortion the alternative was never seeing the material put to film at all. It won't surpass it's source material, the only question is whether it comes across with the minimal amount of competency.
I'm still uncharacteristically optimistic about this for some reason, but if it turns out to be shite onscreen so be it.
This better not suck. You don't want to see what happens if this sucks.
New Scorsese in 7 months. Fail.
Public Enemies and Shutter Island say hello.
In any case, movie still looks better than anything in a radius of 12 months.
Thread after thread of angry, mildly autistic manchildren complaining about how a great work of art--a graphic novel about superheros--was forever ruined? Yeah, I don't want to see that.
I also can't wait for Moon. Sci-Fi flick directed by David Bowie's son and the only actor in the entire movie is Sam Rockwell. Got a lot of praise at Sundance.This movie looks awesome :omg
Yes it does! I've seen a decent amount of reviews claim it will be this decade's "Alien". Can't wait.I also can't wait for Moon. Sci-Fi flick directed by David Bowie's son and the only actor in the entire movie is Sam Rockwell. Got a lot of praise at Sundance.This movie looks awesome :omg
I'm just pissed that this will be stinking up XBLA this week instead of OutRun Online Arcade... :mafThe video game is up for pre-order at Steam. $19.99.
Let me repeat that. $19.99. And I hear it's only two hours long. :yuck
And how long are most XBLA/PSN titles for nearly the same price? Exactly.
Becides, you shouldn't say a damn thing. You seem to have really bad tastes in things.
moar liak DONGtor Manhattan, amirite?What an enormous schwanstucker! :-*
moar liak DONGtor Manhattan, amirite?
Yes it does! I've seen a decent amount of reviews claim it will be this decade's "Alien". Can't wait.I also can't wait for Moon. Sci-Fi flick directed by David Bowie's son and the only actor in the entire movie is Sam Rockwell. Got a lot of praise at Sundance.This movie looks awesome :omg
I Love You Philip Morris
Section: Premieres
Director: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
Stars: Jim Carrey, Ewan McGregor, Leslie Mann
What's It About? If Carrey in The Yes Man didn't seem enough of a stretch for you, just wait till you see him in this bizarre-looking, true-life black comedy, playing a Texas policeman who came out of the closet, went to jail and fell in love with his cellmate (McGregor).
World's Greatest Dad
Section: Spectrum
Director: Bob "Bobcat" Goldthwait
Stars: Robin Williams, Dary Sabara, Alexie Gilmore
What's It About? The Police Academy star follows the bizarre Stay, about a girl who admits to giving a dog a blowjob, with another black comedy, about a poetry teacher who covers up his son's death in a freak masturbation accident by faking a suicide journal that becomes a literary phenomenon.
Moon
Section: Premieres
Director: Duncan Jones
Stars: Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey (voice)
What's It About? The British sci-fi revival starts here: the debut film from acclaimed ad director Jones, starring Sam Rockwell as a solo miner who starts to think he may not be alone on the moon after all when a serious accident leaves him concussed and possibly delusional. Sam Rockwell co-stars.
When You're Strange
Section: US Documentary Competition
Director: Tom DiCillo
Stars: Pierce Brosnan, Susan Sarandon, Aaron Johnson
What's It About? Indie auteur Dicillo (Living In Oblivion) makes an unexpected move into documentary with this highly anticipated docudrama about psychedelic LA rock legends The Doors, which uses only - repeat, only - original footage of the band that was shot between 1966 and 1971.
Big River Man
Section: World Cinema Documentary Competition
Director: John Maringouin
Stars:
What's It About? After Grizzly Man, meet Big River Man - Martin Strel, a Slovenian endurance swimmer who spent 66 days in February 2007 making his way down the Amazon, swimming 3,278 miles across Peru and Brazil, while dodging pirates, crocs, piranhas and those things that go up your cock.
This better not suck. You don't want to see what happens if this sucks.
Thread after thread of angry, mildly autistic manchildren complaining about how a great work of art--a graphic novel about superheros--was forever ruined? Yeah, I don't want to see that.
This better not suck. You don't want to see what happens if this sucks.
Thread after thread of angry, mildly autistic manchildren complaining about how a great work of art--a graphic novel about superheros--was forever ruined? Yeah, I don't want to see that.
This is what I don't get. How is watching a movie going to take away from the graphic novel?
Because alan moore said so. :lol
This better not suck. You don't want to see what happens if this sucks.
Thread after thread of angry, mildly autistic manchildren complaining about how a great work of art--a graphic novel about superheros--was forever ruined? Yeah, I don't want to see that.
This is what I don't get. How is watching a movie going to take away from the graphic novel?
This better not suck. You don't want to see what happens if this sucks.
Thread after thread of angry, mildly autistic manchildren complaining about how a great work of art--a graphic novel about superheros--was forever ruined? Yeah, I don't want to see that.
This is what I don't get. How is watching a movie going to take away from the graphic novel?
Because alan moore said so. :lol
My books are still the same books as they were before they were made into films. The books haven't changed. I'm reminded of the remark by, I think it was Raymond Chandler, where he was asked about what he felt about having his books "ruined" by Hollywood. And he led the questioner into his study and showed him all the books there on the bookshelf, and said, Look—there they all are. They're all fine. They're fine. They're not ruined. They're still there. And I think that's pretty much the attitude I take. If the books are as good as I think they are, then they are the things that will endure. And if the films are as bad as I think they are, then they are the things that will not endure. So, I suppose we'll see at the end of the day, whenever that is.http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/17-03/ff_moore_qa?currentPage=all
Reviews are pouring in. Consensus?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cIdKb8fftY0/STChzDB0glI/AAAAAAAAB9A/jmCyTtZy-Yg/s400/jay_sherman_it_stinks.jpg)
It's still riding the certified fresh line on RT.
With actual critics, most of whom have journalism degrees, it's at 33%.
I think Peter Travers is an epic tool; almost all mediocre films from the 90s have a quote from him on the back of the VHS box.
And we will never invite you on our show - we don't tolerate haters of Transformers! Except my two co-hosts. :'(
Travers is ridiculous
it's like he was a schmaltz liqour alcoholic.
didn't he love patch adams?
The Robin Williams comedy "Patch Adams" gave the company the biggest hit among the Christmas Day openings. Since Dec. 25, it has grossed $66 million in spite of mostly terrible reviews, including one by Rolling Stone's critic, Peter Travers, who declared it the worst film of 1998.
Well William, one man's mediocre film is another man's Transformers.
well seeing as 300 is sitting at 60% and this is 68%, and seeing as 300 is amazing this movie can only be more amazing.
what's the formula behind your horrible taste concerning skinny breastless women?
what's the formula behind your horrible taste concerning skinny breastless women?
what's the formula behind your horrible taste concerning skinny breastless women?
What's the formula behind your obsession with flabby assed women and cheeseburgers?
what's the formula behind your horrible taste concerning skinny breastless women?
What's the formula behind your obsession with flabby assed women and cheeseburgers?
I'll take either over Fistfull's "women" anyday of the week :punch
Watchmen is kind of a sacred cow when it comes to my comic book and graphic novel collection. I was so pumped for this adaptation and now I'm debating whether or not to even see it at this point. If I go make the trek to the theaters this weekend to see it, it's only for discussion material when Eric P and I record our next podcast.
That's why Triumph and I bag old ladies! :punch
I think it was Mandark that said that all fans believe every geek property works better as a HBO miniseries.
Snyder is a super talented guy and if Watchmen fails as a movie, I don't think it'll be for a lack of effort or talent. It'll likely be a lack of courage to really create a script that works on film, and not just pandering to fans.
Watchmen is kind of a sacred cow when it comes to my comic book and graphic novel collection. I was so pumped for this adaptation and now I'm debating whether or not to even see it at this point. If I go make the trek to the theaters this weekend to see it, it's only for discussion material when Eric P and I record our next podcast.I told you not to trust chuds hype!
I never said Devin Faraci was the final say in film quality, just that it was very promising that someone who is a notorious nitpicker was absolutely raving about it. It will no doubt be extremely excruciating to read any op-eds from him that paint Snyder as some kind of martyr, whose film is "misunderstood".My rule of thumb, any internet geek critic who visits the set of the movie should be ignored come review time.
I get the sense that the directors cut will be substantially better then the theatric. Could just be wishful thinking.
My rule of thumb, any internet geek critic who visits the set of the movie should be ignored come review time.
I get the sense that the directors cut will be substantially better then the theatric. Could just be wishful thinking.
I'm kind of holding out for that, as well.My rule of thumb, any internet geek critic who visits the set of the movie should be ignored come review time.
If you extend that rule to most critics, including those who cover the industry for magazines, newspapers, etc. - you'd be ignoring most reviews for many tentpole flicks.
That's why I said Internet geek critics. Real journalists are used to sets and jaded about all that.
If you extend that rule to most critics, including those who cover the industry for magazines, newspapers, etc. - you'd be ignoring most reviews for many tentpole flicks.
Stop calling Snyder "super talented", Feder, you're hurting my soul. 300 was crappy, and DotD was slightly less crappy.
Stop calling Snyder "super talented", Feder, you're hurting my soul. 300 was crappy, and DotD was slightly less crappy.
This is William Federwang we're talking about here, tho. To get him to claim a movie is the greatest of all time all you'd have to do would be to cast Bruce Campbell as the lead and toss in some shitty robots.
MST3K The Movie 2, starring Bruce Cambot
so did i, but i accidentally a whole series instead
that's because you have no problem fucking grannies in the butt while you steal DS games
He was screwed either way. If he made legitimate changes to adapt the source material into a good film, the fan community would've hung him out to dry. This reeks of the way the Harry Potter movies are mishandled, where they become the visual equivalent of Cliff Notes and very mediocre films as a result.
Most of people I'm seeing this with seem to think it's The Dark Knight 2, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the impression that most non-nerdlingers' have going into this. The fallout should be interesting.
Stop calling Snyder "super talented", Feder, you're hurting my soul. 300 was crappy, and DotD was slightly less crappy.
So...wait"KUFO’s Fatboy Is Saddened To Assert That Alan Moore Was Correct: WATCHMEN Is ‘Unfilmable’!!"
AICN hates it, but AICN loves it? I'm confused.
Moore recalled his four years of toil on the 12-issue DC Comics series as "slam-dancing with a bunch of rhinos." That description also fits watching the movie, which stumbles and sometimes falls on its top-heavy ambitions. But there are also flashes of visual brilliance and performances, especially from Haley and Crudup, that drill deep into the novel's haunted soul.
Triumph, Peter Travers gave it 2½ out of 4 stars:Quote from: Peter TraversMoore recalled his four years of toil on the 12-issue DC Comics series as "slam-dancing with a bunch of rhinos." That description also fits watching the movie, which stumbles and sometimes falls on its top-heavy ambitions. But there are also flashes of visual brilliance and performances, especially from Haley and Crudup, that drill deep into the novel's haunted soul.
Ain't It Cool News reaction seems about like you would expect.Isn't Harry Knowles the guy who's so fat he can't walk? :wtf
"I WATCHED THE FUCKING WATCHMEN AND FUCKING LOVED IT!"
- Harry Knowles
DotD was slightly less crappy.
There has never been a good zombie
DotD was slightly less crappy.
There has never been a good zombie
co-sign
I'm thinking about taking my dad to see it on Friday-ish. Either that, or buy the graphic novel and blow through it in a weekend. Which one?
Read the graphic novel first, dude. It's not that long, but you will end up re-reading certain parts (which is one of the reasons it was considered unfilmable: you can't go back and look at certain frames while watching a film).
Reading this thread it looks like no one else has seen it yet?!
Reading this thread it looks like no one else has seen it yet?!
No, none of us want to see it after we heard it sucked.
wait the midget from SEINFELD is in Watchmen?!
(http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1184697/photo_148_hires.jpg)
Yeah but MICKEY from Seinfeld? I just can't imagine it. :lolwait the midget from SEINFELD is in Watchmen?!
(http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1184697/photo_148_hires.jpg)
probably 'Big Figure,' the midget crime-boss Rorshach and Nite Owl put away that was trying to kill Rorshach during the riot.
Ebert liked it.Ever since Ebert nearly died he likes pretty much everything.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090304/REVIEWS/903049997
I'll see if I can buy it off of the local Books-A-Million tomorrow, then.I'm thinking about taking my dad to see it on Friday-ish. Either that, or buy the graphic novel and blow through it in a weekend. Which one?
Read the graphic novel first, dude. It's not that long, but you will end up re-reading certain parts (which is one of the reasons it was considered unfilmable: you can't go back and look at certain frames while watching a film).
Im planning to see the big blue penis on Monday. Let everyone else see it this weekend.GIANT BLUE DONGS. :-*
Cocktor Manstabbin'PEINS PEINS PEINS oh god I'm drowning in them PEINS PEINS PEINS
Do you get to see Laurie's tits?
aw yeahWhat if her tits are gross? :smug
She has shown them off in a lot of movies already.aw yeahWhat if her tits are gross? :smug
aw yeahWhat if her tits are gross? :smug
PICS OR IT NEVER HAPPENED. >:(She has shown them off in a lot of movies already.aw yeahWhat if her tits are gross? :smug
beautiful sweedish breasts.You like them because she is skinny and her breasts are small
The sex scene aboard the good airship Archie is to the Leonard Cohen version of the song "Hallelujah."
beautiful sweedish breasts.You like them because she is skinny and her breasts are small
QuoteThe sex scene aboard the good airship Archie is to the Leonard Cohen version of the song "Hallelujah."
Wait, did they use the original version from Various Positions? That's actually kinda neat. It fits too.
original version :bow2
Jeff Buckley version :piss2
Let me ask anyone who has seen it: how do they do with thespoiler (click to show/hide)prison scene[close]
specifically thespoiler (click to show/hide)interview with the psychologist where Rorshach tells his backstory regarding finding the little girl who had been butchered. Do they preserve the lines "I wasn't Rorshach then. I was just Kovacs pretending to be Rorshach"?[close]
That was probably my favorite scene in the graphic novel.
QuoteThe sex scene aboard the good airship Archie is to the Leonard Cohen version of the song "Hallelujah."
Wait, did they use the original version from Various Positions? That's actually kinda neat. It fits too.
original version :bow2
Jeff Buckley version :piss2
No, it doesn't. It's fucking bad. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD. Honestly, if that scene wasn't in the film or handled differently, the film would have been much better.
I'm not 100% sure if it was the Cohen version but a friend of mine said yes, so don't take my word for it. I was too distracted to give a shit.
QuoteThe sex scene aboard the good airship Archie is to the Leonard Cohen version of the song "Hallelujah."
Wait, did they use the original version from Various Positions? That's actually kinda neat. It fits too.
original version :bow2
Jeff Buckley version :piss2
No, it doesn't. It's fucking bad. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD. Honestly, if that scene wasn't in the film or handled differently, the film would have been much better.
I'm not 100% sure if it was the Cohen version but a friend of mine said yes, so don't take my word for it. I was too distracted to give a shit.
I thought it was pretty funny
Let me ask anyone who has seen it: how do they do with thespoiler (click to show/hide)prison scene[close]
specifically thespoiler (click to show/hide)interview with the psychologist where Rorshach tells his backstory regarding finding the little girl who had been butchered. Do they preserve the lines "I wasn't Rorshach then. I was just Kovacs pretending to be Rorshach"?[close]
That was probably my favorite scene in the graphic novel.
what scene is that line from?
i had some time to let the movie sink in and this segment lost a lot of its depth in the movie. Changes:spoiler (click to show/hide)- instead of setting the house on fire, Rorschach plants a cleaver in the killer's head multiple times[close]
I bet the Directors Cut will be so awesome that heads will explode.A bad movie tends to be a bad movie whether it is 2 hours 45 min or 3 hours 10 min (the dc). Not everyone is a Ridley Scott.
i had some time to let the movie sink in and this segment lost a lot of its depth in the movie. Changes:spoiler (click to show/hide)- instead of setting the house on fire, Rorschach plants a cleaver in the killer's head multiple times[close]
having not seen the movie, this is the change which annoyed me the most
Cute to see certain audiences still react so out of control towards certain type of sex scenes in R Rated movies. History of Violence was the same crap.
You kind get the feeling that the movie is being seen by kids with INTERNET access.
i liked dawn of the dead because it was actually scary and it had an awesome downer ending during the credits, plus best use of a johnny cash tune ever
i liked 300 as a modern-day update of 50s gladiator and harryhausen flicks, and also because i wasn't looking for any hidden/overt political meanings - just outlandish asskickings, which it had by the score
snyder's no genius, but he has entertained me so far
that said, i doubt even the most talented film crew on earth could make a truly outstanding watchmen film, even given three hours
this should have been an hbo series
QuoteThe sex scene aboard the good airship Archie is to the Leonard Cohen version of the song "Hallelujah."
Wait, did they use the original version from Various Positions? That's actually kinda neat. It fits too.
original version :bow2
Jeff Buckley version :piss2
QuoteThe sex scene aboard the good airship Archie is to the Leonard Cohen version of the song "Hallelujah."
Wait, did they use the original version from Various Positions? That's actually kinda neat. It fits too.
original version :bow2
Jeff Buckley version :piss2
Holy shat, Recursive for Icon :bow
I got slammed for wanting to like movies? Oh geez, Triumph. :smug
I'll consider seeing this if it has a flashback of Silk Spectre starting elementary school with full frontal/boobage. And a dick. Does it have either?
I'll consider seeing this if it has Silk Spectre full frontal/boobage. Does it have either?
Ok... this is important. The penis. Thumbs up?
Ok... this is important. The penis. Thumbs up?
I got slammed for wanting to like movies? Oh geez, Triumph. :smug
No, you got slammed for WANTING TO APOLOGIZE FOR UNTALENTED HACK ZACH SNYDER. Or, TRYING TO RATIONALIZE LIKING BAD MOVIES.
Don't get me wrong; I like plenty of bad movies, but I'm cognizant of the fact that what I am enjoying is, in fact, a BAD MOVIE BY A BAD DIRECTOR. I don't say stuff like "ZACH SNYDER'S GOT SOME TALENT" when that is quite obviously not the case.
or if they just didn't show it at all and kept it to the rustling noises under the bed
movie makers are afraid to let people use their imagination these days
or if they just didn't show it at all and kept it to the rustling noises under the bed
movie makers are afraid to let people use their imagination these days
Yeah, Triumph, I'm kinda puzzled by your hate on for Snyder. He's made 2 entertaining (if not great) flicks. Even if they weren't your thing, I still can't understand why someone would possibly hate him as much as you do.
I thought Dawn of the Dead was better than it had any right to be and I thought 300 was ridiculous to the point of being entertaining, even if it doesn't hold up so well on repeat viewings.
I imagine that there are alot of people who read the graphic novel and interpreted it as something gritty and cool, and then they see this somewhat goofy movie and feel as though there's been some lost opportunity here. The truth is they just weren't receptive to how kooky-bizarre that book actually was, and how much it undermines its own attempt at being taken completely seriously.
Anyone who can appreciate what makes Starship Troopers a great movie will fucking adore The Watchmen.
Uhh did anyone else have kids in their theather? When I was leaving, I saw 4 kids(like around 8 or so) and they seemed to really enjoy it. I'm surprised someone brought their children to this. It's so violent.
I'm convinced that Zack Snyder is gay now. What a cigarillo. :humpWell I mean does it have considerable weight with it? Or is it just kind of there and not very flattering.
Judge for yourself
http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/nakedmanhattanbig.jpg
Uhh did anyone else have kids in their theather? When I was leaving, I saw 4 kids(like around 8 or so) and they seemed to really enjoy it. I'm surprised someone brought their children to this. It's so violent.
Hey, people brought their kids to see Passion of the Christ. ::)
After some time to think about it, I think the story (having not read the graphic novel) was alright and has merits and some interesting questioning for its time. My problem with the story in the film and why the film is so un-engaging is just that none of the characters were likable. When you don't care about anyone, you don't care about the plot's world and it's hard to get a satisfying end out of it. This could be a problem of the movie just not doing a good job fleshing out the novel's cast; but as a film everyone just feels so empty and soulless.
I didn't see The Spirit, but from what I read that had a similar problem where it looked great but felt empty.
After some time to think about it, I think the story (having not read the graphic novel) was alright and has merits and some interesting questioning for its time. My problem with the story in the film and why the film is so un-engaging is just that none of the characters were likable. When you don't care about anyone, you don't care about the plot's world and it's hard to get a satisfying end out of it. This could be a problem of the movie just not doing a good job fleshing out the novel's cast; but as a film everyone just feels so empty and soulless.
I didn't see The Spirit, but from what I read that had a similar problem where it looked great but felt empty.
You don't get it, bebpo. Instead of trying to coax watchable performances out of his actors, Zach Snyder was doing the right thing by thinking up COOL LOOKING SHOTS and RAD ASS GREEN SCREEN ACTION SHIT to show people. That's what directing is all about!
I think the choice of actors and their abilities accurately captured the notion that deep down, the Watchmen are just regular people.
I saw A LOT of kids with parents at my showing tonight. Like kids under 10. I was pretty surprised.
It's an allegory for Ozymandias' life.Oh. Okay.
After some time to think about it, I think the story (having not read the graphic novel) was alright and has merits and some interesting questioning for its time. My problem with the story in the film and why the film is so un-engaging is just that none of the characters were likable. When you don't care about anyone, you don't care about the plot's world and it's hard to get a satisfying end out of it. This could be a problem of the movie just not doing a good job fleshing out the novel's cast; but as a film everyone just feels so empty and soulless.
I didn't see The Spirit, but from what I read that had a similar problem where it looked great but felt empty.
If I've got the graphic novel sitting in my apt but have never read it, and won't be seeing Watchmen until next weekend, should I read the novel beforehand?I'm reading it beforehand. If you want to cheat a little...
Or should I treat it like I did Akira, see the movie and then use the novel to 'fill in the gaps?'
After some time to think about it, I think the story (having not read the graphic novel) was alright and has merits and some interesting questioning for its time. My problem with the story in the film and why the film is so un-engaging is just that none of the characters were likable. When you don't care about anyone, you don't care about the plot's world and it's hard to get a satisfying end out of it. This could be a problem of the movie just not doing a good job fleshing out the novel's cast; but as a film everyone just feels so empty and soulless.Characters have to be likeable for a film to be engaging? I think it was un-engaging because it spread itself too thin and there was a blue penis.
I didn't see The Spirit, but from what I read that had a similar problem where it looked great but felt empty.
Zach Snyder is a terrible director too: half the scenes were slow motion accompanied by "epic" music...
Zach Snyder is a terrible director too: half the scenes were slow motion accompanied by "epic" music...
Are you sure you didn't see 300, because that was not the case here. There are a lot of flaws with the film, none of which is that half the film is shot in slow motion with epic battle cues. I think there are maybe five fight sequences in a movie that clocks in just shy of three hours.
As a big time hater of 300 style slow-mo I gotta say Watchmen didn't have nearly as much as I expected. The trailers made it seem like it was all over, I didn't notice it that often in Watchmen.
All this talk about the sex scenes are making me want to see the movie :droolYou see far more of Night Owl's ass in the sex scene then you see of Akerman's tits.
As a big time hater of 300 style slow-mo I gotta say Watchmen didn't have nearly as much as I expected. The trailers made it seem like it was all over, I didn't notice it that often in Watchmen.
Well, there wasn't as much action in Watchmen for one thing and it was much longer for another. It's still obvious that particular trick is Snyder's "thing", which I guess is cool since his body of work is comparable to say an Alfonso Cuaron or Darren Aronofsky according to some yahoos around here.
I tried to be optimistic, but that's basically what I got from this too. The marketing, everything just leads me to believe nobody involved with this actual knows what the fuck the novel was about. They just saw it had a great rep, could be condensed into some flashy razzle-dazzle psuedo-intellectual "adult" actioner riding TDK's coattails, and decided to take a chance. I appreciate that they tried to be faithful to the novel, but it seems no one bothered to probe any deeper than lifting scenes right off the page and staging them like a high school play with a hell of an effects budget. Really, really disappointed in this, and my hopes weren't exactly all that high going in. I don't see how any online critics/etc. who have read the graphic novel can actually praise such a soulless, ridiculous adaptation. It's like they're just too happy to have any Watchmen movie, they're willing to forgive the fact that it's about as engaging as Fantastic Four 2: Rise of the Silver Surfer. I can forgive the popcorn audiences for digging it, since they've basically been given a film that revels in high-falutin', blood-splattered, hyper-stylized, hyper-sexualized bullshit they've grown so accustomed to. But how people can praise Snyder for "breaking boundaries" etc., really, is fucking beyond me.*
*Expanding on that, did these people tauting Snyder's work here not see shit like Sin City or 300? That's basically what this is; an adaptation that stays fairly close to the source, only reveling a bit too joyously in the over the top sex and violence. The problem is, while that works for adapting Miller (because that's basically his bread and butter), for Watchmen it just feels like they completely missed the POINT. To add insult to injury, this didn't even strike me as having been done so in a tongue-in-cheek, self-aware kind of way; it seemed like they were trying to make a legitimately deep flick here, only they got too caught up with the razzle-dazzle to actually inject much soul. In the end, it plays like a shiny, pretty summary of the events of the novel.
Or rather, more like some dweeby action junkey trying to describe the graphic novel to a friend, only focusing on the "grittiness" and the sex and violence and failing to really sell what the story is actually about.
As you can tell, I've got some pretty strong feelings on the topic. I just feel like they had a golden opportunity to present an adequate, engaging adaptation of a work I feel is the strongest the medium has to offer, and one of my favorite works of fiction EVER, and they just completely squandered it in favor of making some popcorn crowd-pleaser with a grandiose sense of intellect.
The Watchmen Motion Comic was a better movie. I give it 7 Human Cockroaches out of 11.5 Aging Bloated Whores.I agree with this.
The Spirit was just trash. Outside of SLJ scenes, the movie was absolutely terrible in every regard except visuals.
I didn't see The Spirit, but from what I read that had a similar problem where it looked great but felt empty.
they don't have them, but they do have the black freighter.
As a big time hater of 300 style slow-mo I gotta say Watchmen didn't have nearly as much as I expected. The trailers made it seem like it was all over, I didn't notice it that often in Watchmen.
Well, there wasn't as much action in Watchmen for one thing and it was much longer for another. It's still obvious that particular trick is Snyder's "thing", which I guess is cool since [his body of work is comparable to say an Alfonso Cuaron or Darren Aronofsky according to some yahoos around here.
Well at least this movie had some good music.Yeah, best song from the album right there.
[youtube=560,345]pR7ESNMKdIA[/youtube]
Well at least this movie had some good music.
[youtube=560,345]pR7ESNMKdIA[/youtube]
movie was great.
Snyder vindicated.
This is a pretty good review:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/05/review.watchmen/index.html
They shouldn't have made this movie. They should've made a watchmen movie and adapted it to be a movie instead of filming it exactly like a comic book... it felt really forced, slow and dumb.
???They shouldn't have made this movie. They should've made a watchmen movie and adapted it to be a movie instead of filming it exactly like a comic book... it felt really forced, slow and dumb.
You just don't understand the brilliance of VISIONARY director Zach Snyder, who has directed one re-make and two too faithful comic book adaptations. He's just that awesome.
:smug
No squid was an improvement.
One of the worst parts of the ending was that fucking cat. It came out of NOWHERE in the last 10 minutes. My audience laughed when it showed up. For someone who never read it it would make no sense to pop up and be some freaky non-normal cat. I can't see how Synder thought it worked.
Yeah, the movie ending is like way better than the original ending, Manabyte loses again.
(http://www.darunia.dommel.be/gifs/silksynth.gif)I'd tap that. :-*
Film fell pretty short of expectations this weekend.
spoiler (click to show/hide)swaggaz, it was a freak accident, nobody's going to risk more human lives to make more naked blue guys![close]
I'm pretty sure they would.No, not really.
yes. But it's not as though the technology that formed Dr. Manhattan has an expiry date.But it was a freak occurrence, a one-in-a-million chance...
Uh, not only did it make less than Snyder's other R-rated March opening, Warner Bros. was expecting over $60 million. You guys are crazy if you think this was an impressive opening for such a hyped film. :lol
Warner Bros' unrealistic expectations mean that a $56 million opening isn't good now?
I wouldn't worry about Willco, he just came from a company that chews out its employees for failing to improve same-month sales over a previous year when a WoW expansion came out.
we're not only talking about the US government, but the US government UNDER NIXON. Doing radically unethical shit that never reaches the public eye is standard practice.
Film fell pretty short of expectations this weekend. I gather this is the last time a major studio will do the whole "let's film the comic book exactly!" thing for awhile. Unless that studio is FOX, which will continue with its oath to rape comic book properties as much as possible.Yeah, WB was hoping for a lot better from what I read. And I bet the legs will be horrible.
I only take issue with your assertion that because it opened with $56 million and not $60+ million, that studios will force more changes to films like this in the future.
Except 300 was only 62 IMAX screens, whereas Watchmen was 124. Your argument doesn't hold up.
And again, tracking data, including advance ticket sales say otherwise.
The average person hasn't heard of Watchmen, but heard of 300? That's ridiculous, as 300 is easily the more obscure graphic novel of the two. 300 owes its box office haul to the same "manufactured hype" that Watchmen does, except Watchmen has the benefit of being a Hugo award winning novel and listed on Time's top one hundred novels of all-time.
Saying Watchmen fell short of expectations, because of its length, when it launched on five hundred more screens than 300 with enough marketing to make George Lucas blush, is kind of silly.
Here's the real deal: It's not a very good movie. People liked 300 more.
"Watchmen," an unorthodox superhero movie that took two decades to reach the big screen, took the No. 1 spot at the weekend box office in North America Sunday, but fell a little short of expectations.http://www.cnbc.com/id/29582400
The adaptation of a cult comic book series sold an estimated $55.7 million in tickets in its first three days, distributor Warner Bros. Pictures said, becoming the biggest opening of the year.
But pundits had expected an opening in the $60 million-plus range, and the tally was considerably lower than the $71 million start two years ago for "300," the previous film from "Watchmen" director Zack Snyder. The ancient battle epic holds the record for a March opening. "Watchmen" ranks at No. 3.
"Our expectations were met," said Dan Fellman, president of domestic theatrical distribution at the Time Warner [TWX 7.47 0.41 (+5.81%) ]-owned studio. He said the film's 161-minute running-time inevitably affected business, restricting theaters to one main evening screening.
I could see Watchmen limp along to $130-140 millionThats the expectation now from what I read this morning on the internets. Fantastic 4 and Ghost Rider numbers! Hooray!
Warner was probably willing to take the risk and green light Watchmen because the knew Batman would do gangbusters. I hope they didn't expect it to do the same, but I doubt they're hurting because of it.They wouldn't have invested 200 million in a movie if they expected it to limp to sub-150 mil numbers.
Many unrealistically compared Watchmen to 300, the previous picture from Watchmen's director Zack Snyder that was prominently cited in its advertising, and were expecting records to be shattered. However, just because a picture has a massive marketing campaign or a fervent fan base doesn't mean it's going to be a blockbuster. 300 set the March opening benchmark at $70.9 million on around 4,800 screens at 3,103 sites (which included $3.6 million at 62 IMAX venues). While technically 300 was a comic book adaptation like Watchmen, that's where the similarities ended, because 300 was first and foremost a harrowing, clearly-wrought tale based in history with a then-striking visual style.
As visually punchy as Watchmen's marketing tried to be, the movie's story was left obscure to the uninitiated. Considering that style and mystery took precedence over clarity and relatability, Watchmen's opening was terrific. Eventually, ads vaguely revealed that someone was killing off superheroes and that the Watchmen had to figure out why. However, the superheroes in question were not previously well known to the general public, making it an uphill battle to earn audience investment, especially given the picture's ensemble nature. Typically, the biggest superhero movies are the ones where the superheroes are ingrained in the culture, like The Dark Knight, Spider-Man, Superman and X-Men. Watchmen's source material had a following but never reached a high level of cultural saturation. What's more, the advertising presented no heroes to root for and no villains to root against (a potent combination that worked like gangbusters with The Dark Knight); instead raising the question "will they save us or destroy us?"
PD your screen argument makes NO sense. It's just studio spin. Watchmen had a lot more showings than 300 ever did due to its vastly better theater count.
Internet memes and anecdotal evidence doesn't constitute as tracking data. Watchmen sold more advanced tickets, had more marketing and was tracking extremely high. Watchmen, as a novel, sold a million copies in 2008 alone. I repeat, just last year alone, it sold a million copies.
This isn't Warner Bros. adapting a property that's only known to comic geeks; Watchmen has sold millions of copies, won the Hugo Award, etc.
I never read watchmen before, so it was freeing to see the movie with no expectations at all.
The story is fantastic!
Also, lulz at the idea that a 50 mil opening is bad news. This film will have GARGANTUAN DVD sales. It'll be fucking huge, it doesn't even need the theater take.
I never read watchmen before, so it was freeing to see the movie with no expectations at all.
The story is fantastic!
My point exactly- The vocal opinon on the internet comes from people who are OBSESSED with the material. I'm pretty familar with it, so of course I was like "WHERES THE NEWSPPAER MAN WHERE IS HOLLIS MAN GETTING WHACKED", ignoring the fact that movie is totally 100% fine without those things.
Also, lulz at the idea that a 50 mil opening is bad news. This film will have GARGANTUAN DVD sales. It'll be fucking huge, it doesn't even need the theater take.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
That the movie will do well/recoup its budget on DVD/BD is irrevelent; 99% of movies successfully do this. Doesn't change the fact that WB expected much better.
1) Do you realize how small a number a million is these days, in a world where Dark Knight makes a billion dollars? Do the math in your head: if every one of those million people went and saw the movie this weekend, how much does it add to the box office take?
2) Do you realize how kooky it is to cite the Hugo in a discussion about Watchmen's broad, general recognizability?
Sooo... it's a disappointment because it's merely successful, not wildly successful?
The only people that seriously use "Man, [enter film here] will make its money back on DVD!" argument are fanboys. You guys should watch What Just Happened, when DeNiro's character poses the same line to a studio executive and gets laughed at. That's how real Hollywood works.
Considering that Warner Bros. is paying Fox a percentage of the gross and that Paramount is getting the international box office take, sales from the home video market is not the prize money any studio executive wants.
No film studio sinks millions into a production hoping to recoup costs on the home video market - that's a revenue stream that's in addition to box office.
You think Universal is banging on David Twohy's door right now for a Riddick sequel? Where's the rush to greenlight a Jumper sequel? If DVD sales were so important, both sequels would be in pre-production right now.
Much better box office intake than Watchmen, count on that.
Also, that Star Trek trailer FUCKING RULES SO HARD
I think this a film filmed and built for a healthy theatrical release with a gigantor DVD follow-up.
Also, "What Just Happened"? Talk about a film that went nowhere.
Watchmen is going to drop like a rock in theaters. That's my bet, at least.
I think this a film filmed and built for a healthy theatrical release with a gigantor DVD follow-up.
Watchmen is going to drop like a rock in theaters. That's my bet, at least. And since Warner Bros. is giving a percentage of the gross to Fox, and Paramount has the overseas take, this is not a great day for Dan Fellman.QuoteAlso, "What Just Happened"? Talk about a film that went nowhere.
Oh, I'm not saying it's a good movie or anything, but it is an eerily accurate depiction of studio suits, producers and Hollywood scum.
What I'm saying is, saying that it "doesn't even need the theater take" (which you did) is dumb. Nobody needs to be an expert on anything to realize that, GilloD.
Star Trek, T4, Harry Potter, and Transformers 2 will rule the summer, $$$$$ wise
Not sold on Star Trek. The Internet is, but we'll see. Science fiction is a tough sell, no matter how many glossy, action packed trailers Abrams can churn out. I'm not confident in saying that it will tank either. My gut says middle-of-the-road box office performance.
I'm just saying that a weak theatrical take isn't really END OF STORY for comic book movies.
But you and Solo seem to take pleasure in mentioning that Watchmen is a "bomb".
But you and Solo seem to take pleasure in mentioning that Watchmen is a "bomb".
I seriously hope this doesn't tank, because it could mean terrible things for Snyder.
I would agree with that. Jackie Earle Haley knocked it out of the ballpark and his character was perhaps the only compelling one in the entire film. Without him, this film is indeed a trainwreck.
I think it'll stay in the stop five long enough to make the films budget back.That is pretty much impossible. It will finish in the 120-140 mill range. They sunk 200 million into this with marketing and have to share a chunk of the domestic profit with Fox due the legal battle and Paramount gets the world wide gross.
Star Trek is firmly rooted in geekdom.60's era Trek I'd say is as much nostalgic trip for people (although those type of people are in their 40's now) as Transformers was for 80's kids. And this film pushes that, with the short skirts go-go boots...etc. But as I said, who knows if it will work. I gotta give Paramount and Abrams credit for marketing as well as they have though. If it doesn't do as well as it should then it's no fault of the marketing guys. Haven't seen a tentpole film this well pushed via trailers/tv spots in years. I mean it's 2 months away and they are already putting tv spots out for it during 24, Heroes...etc.
Dr. Manhattan is not a compelling character, much in the same way Dan is not, on film.
i don't understand why you guys give a fuck about box office at all, either way
the only money concern i have is whether or not my $8 is going to be wasted
Dr. Manhattan is not a compelling character, much in the same way Dan is not, on film.
I found him very compelling. His scenes were my favorite in the film.
Dr. Manhattan is not a compelling character, much in the same way Dan is not, on film.
I found him very compelling. His scenes were my favorite in the film.
QFT
Dr. Manhattan was The Watchmen film at its most intriguing.
This I will agree with. I enjoyed pretty much any scene that was focused on Dr. Manhattan, ditto for Rorschach except for the flashback scene where he tracks down the girl and the kidnapper. Niteowl and Silk Spectre are what made me want to barf.
This I will agree with. I enjoyed pretty much any scene that was focused on Dr. Manhattan, ditto for Rorschach except for the flashback scene where he tracks down the girl and the kidnapper. Niteowl and Silk Spectre are what made me want to barf.
You've read the book though, right? Dan and Laurie are supposed to be the pathetic human-acting ones.
Haven't seen the movie, but would't the cat be pretty pointless in the film, considering they changed the ending? i always remembered the cat's significance in the GN, was that she foreshadowed the original ending.No squid was an improvement.
One of the worst parts of the ending was that fucking cat. It came out of NOWHERE in the last 10 minutes. My audience laughed when it showed up. For someone who never read it it would make no sense to pop up and be some freaky non-normal cat. I can't see how Synder thought it worked.
It was really odd for Bubastis to just show up like that. My wife leaned over and asked me "whats up with that weird cat?" I'm guessing the scene where they introduce her will be in the extended cut.
PD your screen argument makes NO sense. It's just studio spin. Watchmen had a lot more showings than 300 ever did due to its vastly better theater count.
Haven't seen the movie, but would't the cat be pretty pointless in the film, considering they changed the ending? i always remembered the cat's significance in the GN, was that she foreshadowed the original ending.
PD your screen argument makes NO sense. It's just studio spin. Watchmen had a lot more showings than 300 ever did due to its vastly better theater count.
It makes perfect sense, and it's not like I came up with it. It boils down to basic math. Watchmen may have more screenings, but on a theater basis it's only shown a few times. I'm looking at the local showings right now: 4 IMAX, 6 DP, 3 RWC/DVS (whatever that means). 13 showings. 300 could have almost twice as many showings in a day
And that isn't even factoring in watchmen had a massive 500 more theaters compared to 300.
And how could 300 have almost twice as many showings? 300 was 117 minutes and Watchmen is 163, that's a difference of only 46 minutes. "Basic math" means that if Watchmen has 13 showings during a day then it takes up 2,119 minutes. In that same stretch of time, 300 would have 18 showings or an increase of slightly less than 40%.
Oh and PD we already know its likely legs. A big drop from friday to saturday is a signal a movie is very front loaded.
And how could 300 have almost twice as many showings? 300 was 117 minutes and Watchmen is 163, that's a difference of only 46 minutes. "Basic math" means that if Watchmen has 13 showings during a day then it takes up 2,119 minutes. In that same stretch of time, 300 would have 18 showings or an increase of slightly less than 40%.
I'm baffled as to how this movie costs $150 million,
And the fact that this movie seems to appeal only to the 20-30 something male is a bad sign for legs. the type of people who go after opening week are families, old people, etc... the exact people who'd never see watchmen.Oh and PD we already know its likely legs. A big drop from friday to saturday is a signal a movie is very front loaded.
And how could 300 have almost twice as many showings? 300 was 117 minutes and Watchmen is 163, that's a difference of only 46 minutes. "Basic math" means that if Watchmen has 13 showings during a day then it takes up 2,119 minutes. In that same stretch of time, 300 would have 18 showings or an increase of slightly less than 40%.
Most likely it'll end up like the Friday the 13th remake. Good take on Friday, big drop on Saturday, further drop on Sunday, and massive drop on second weekend. The later's first three days still make up 64% of its total gross after 24 days. I think Watchmen will have a better hold, but the signs aren't good.
All I care about now is getting a 4 hour cut of the movie on blu-ray in a few months.
IMDB-WATCHMEN-FORUM-LIKE VOTE - Which was better? This or The Dark Knight?
all in all, i think i would have rather watched a film of alan moore sitting in a chair reading watchmen aloud
i'll watch the director's cut to see if hollis mason still disappears with barely a mention after five minutes in that, though
So Willco, you believe the fact that the movie isn't super amazing is dragging it down. But let me ask you; had Snyder taken the studio's advice and made it a buddy hero film about Rorschach and Nite Owl and just glossed over everything else, would word of mouth be any better at the moment? If anything, it would be worse, and you'd be looking at a Fantastic Four-esque bomb instead of a mild disappointment.
All I want to know isspoiler (click to show/hide)Does Ozy catch a bullet?[close]
God you people are dumb. V for Vendetta was a better movie than this. Were there higher highs in Watchmen? Sure. Is it in any way a coherent movie? NO.
And TDK hate is fucking dumb. It was a great popcorn flick; sure it wasn't as good as people want it to be but neither is it as BAD as some of you fucking idiots want to try and make it out to be.
So Willco, you believe the fact that the movie isn't super amazing is dragging it down. But let me ask you; had Snyder taken the studio's advice and made it a buddy hero film about Rorschach and Nite Owl and just glossed over everything else, would word of mouth be any better at the moment? If anything, it would be worse, and you'd be looking at a Fantastic Four-esque bomb instead of a mild disappointment.
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? The fact that movie is a disjointed mess with no coherent narrative is what is dragging it down.
I'm really surprised by how many people didn't 'get the point' of the sex scene, but whatever. It worked.
I was so pleased that they kept in the penis-shaped button/flame ejaculation scene.
God, what? What are you talking about? It follows the plot of the comic almost exactly. It's a story about masked heroes set against a mystery backdrop. This is 101 shit.
i thought the soundtrack was a bit obvious and cliched
I am leaving this thread before the massive amount of "I-am-not-a-nerd-BUT-NERD-RAGE-ANYWAY/I AM INTERNET EXPERT" in this thread makes my heart stop. Jesus christ, youy guys could pick apart Starry Night- "Too much paint and like why does the moon swirl like that there are no tradewinds in France and the painting only sold for 15 mil, way below what the market was hoping for".
Saw in Friday night with the wife. It was good but not great I mean, I'd give it a matinee.
Someone at work lent me their copy of the Watchmen in all of it's hard cover glory. I really hope the graphic novel is far better than the movie. The real ending, which was told to me this morning, makes me suspect it might be worse.
To those who say it wasn't incoherent. Explain the cat at the end. A mutant cat shows up OUT OF NOWHERE with no explanation in the last 10 minutes and is treated like it's always been around. That is TERRIBLE story telling and messy screenwriting. To those who didn't read the novel it makes no sense to be there at all.
Hey, I'm not the one getting all upset about a not very good film.
Look at it while ignoring the book. There is no explanation for a mutant cat thing. There is no explanation to how that could have came about.
Dude I'm one of the biggest Watchmen fanbois ever, I read the fucking 12 issue series as a kid before they ever repackaged it as a "graphic novel". I've been waiting almost my whole life for a big-screen version to be made.
Was it all I was hoping for? No. Was it slightly disappointing? Yes. Was it the miserable failure you're trying to make it out to be? NO.
Batman would double fist slam that pet dragon off a ledge
No, don't give me that bullshit Rhabib. it's not a fucking "comic book" thing. It's something that a lot of people held dear to their hearts.
Bubastis' was created along with the Squid. When they took the squid plotline out of the movie, Bubs should have went with it. Yeah if you want to just go along for the ride, then sure, why shouldn't Richie Rich have a crazy pet? While we're at it, why don't we have NBC's Heroes stop by and do a cameo?
Fuck, man. ::)
Batman would double fist slam that pet dragon off a ledge
NO HE WOULDN'T!
Just stop.
I've put two reasons forth why Bubastis' appearance is not important. If you care to ignore them, that's fine with me.
Is it not possible that Veidt could have created his pet in some other way? Some way that's not tied to the squid? I think that's wholly plausible given the fantastical nature of the Watchmen movie's world.
(Also: Please see "artistic license." Thanks!)
Batman would double fist slam that pet dragon off a ledge
NO HE WOULDN'T!
he'd hurt it so bad that PETA will be all up in his business
(See also: fuck you and your condescending bullshit)
Well if folks have resorted to complaining about Bubastis it looks like the movie is worth seeing.
I've read it a number of times, and i can typically divorce adaptations from source material. But if nerds are arguing minutae, it obviously struck a nerve somewhere.Nerds will argue about ANYTHING. I thought you knew that.
I've read it a number of times, and i can typically divorce adaptations from source material. But if nerds are arguing minutae, it obviously struck a nerve somewhere.
I've read it a number of times, and i can typically divorce adaptations from source material. But if nerds are arguing minutae, it obviously struck a nerve somewhere.
I just don't understand how the film was incoherent. are you implying that it wasn't well paced? Bloated perhaps? There's certainly something to be said for that. But there was a clear plot thread from the beginning of the film to the climax, so I'm not sure incoherent is the right word.
I just don't understand how the film was incoherent. are you implying that it wasn't well paced? Bloated perhaps? There's certainly something to be said for that. But there was a clear plot thread from the beginning of the film to the climax, so I'm not sure incoherent is the right word.
My girlfriend hadn't read a word of Watchmen, and she found it easy to follow and really good. Granted, that's only one opinion... kinda like Wilco's.
your wives and girlfriends are whores
your wives and girlfriends are bloated, aging whores
i'm rewatching the Dr. M monologue/origin scenes and I can't get over how fucking perfect it is.
That was done much better than the book.
i'm rewatching the Dr. M monologue/origin scenes and I can't get over how fucking perfect it is.
They totally nailed this scene. I keep on fluctuating over whether the entire film would have benefited more from having an entirely 'Phillip Glass-esque' epic soundtrack or whether they made the right choice by tethering most of the music to the films alternate history narrative.
(http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z240/huwm/watchmen.jpg):rofl
I also liked how Rorschach's ending was handled - a little bit different than the book, but it carries more emotional weight. It was about the only time I felt anything for the characters.
PVP actually did something pretty amusing:Again... :rofl
http://www.pvponline.com/2009/03/02/ombudsmen/
It goes on for 5 strips.
What do you guys think of Mark Kermode? He's one of our more respected critics here in Britain.
[youtube=560,345]xu8l0q4rgcg[/youtube]
I think he makes a lot of good points.
http://www.avclub.com/articles/mass-watchmen-walkouts,24907/
Watchmen is the new Freddie Got Fingered.
I agree with pretty much everything he said. It's scary really.
Quote
I agree with pretty much everything he said. It's scary really.
Here's some other of his latest reviews.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/videos/kermode_reviews.shtml
http://www.avclub.com/articles/mass-watchmen-walkouts,24907/
Watchmen is the new Freddie Got Fingered.
I'll see if i can upload it for you.
Did you get to see the Watchmen one tho?
I just don't understand how the film was incoherent. are you implying that it wasn't well paced? Bloated perhaps? There's certainly something to be said for that. But there was a clear plot thread from the beginning of the film to the climax, so I'm not sure incoherent is the right word.
[youtube=560,345]rWrYj644Yz8[/youtube
I'll put the dark knight one up in a sec.
He also writes for the most (only!) serious film mag in the UK:
(http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/images/covers/200903.jpg)
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/
Sorry 'bout this, I'm gonna stop pimping this guy now.
How on earth could you possibly find it boring?
While we're at it, why don't we have NBC's Heroes stop by and do a cameo?
Watchmen felt more like 90 minutes to me.
Kermode is great from what I've seen so far. Can someone put up his There Will Be Blood review?
fuck you Willco and your butthurt bullshit; watchmen meant a lot to me, like making an example out of Jaffe meant a lot to you.
but in all honesty I don't even know what I'm arguing about anymore
B-
fuck you Willco and your butthurt bullshit; watchmen meant a lot to me, like making an example out of Jaffe meant a lot to you.
but in all honesty I don't even know what I'm arguing about anymore
B-
By the way, Corny, you were wrong about Bubastis' origin being tied to the squid. The graphic novel says Bubastis was an early success in genetic engineering, along with teleportation.
The squid came later.
fuck you Willco and your butthurt bullshit; watchmen meant a lot to me, like making an example out of Jaffe meant a lot to you.
but in all honesty I don't even know what I'm arguing about anymore
B-
By the way, Corny, you were wrong about Bubastis' origin being tied to the squid. The graphic novel says Bubastis was an early success in genetic engineering, along with teleportation.
The squid came later.
In that way the animal is a sign of things to come. In the film it's just a crazy animal.
Tales of the Black Freighter sucked, don't waste your money on it guys.
what's there to laugh at? i want the penis info. now. this is evilbore after all. i thought we were all penis afficionados here!
what a shame. is it at least well proportioned?
No more R-rated Superhero/Tentpole films for Warner Brothers
So says the IESB source buried deep into the folds of the Warner Brother's lot. WB is apparently skittish about losing money if a superhero/tentpole film is rated R rather than the more family friendly PG-13.
The biggest superhero film last year (and of all time) was a WB film, The Dark Knight, which grossed $1,001,842,429 worldwide and it was rated PG-13. Iron Man, another big hit last year, grossed $582,030,528 worldwide and was rated PG-13. Everybody took their families to these movies, kids bought the shirts and the toys and the masks etc. which means more money for the studio.
On the other hand, Zack Snyder's Watchmen was rated R and I am sure the fact that it was 2 hours and 40 minutes long also had something to do with it, but it bowed at $55 million opening weekend and then sharply dropped off. You can't take your kids to this one, not sure if you'd even be comfortable watching it with your mother. Don't get me wrong, I really liked it and thought it was a fantastic piece of filmmaking, but it's definitely for adults only. And no kids will be asking mommy to buy them shirts or Rorschach masks from this one.
How much of the movie going market - specifically those that go to see superhero/genre films - is cut out by rating a film R versus a PG-13? Warner Bros. thinks too much and is said to be focusing solely on PG-13 rated superhero/tentpole films only, definitely harder than the "family friendly" superhero films of Fantastic Four but not in the R rated range. Think about it, the movie going audience is "huge", now the genre/superhero movie going audience is a portion of that "huge" and the R rated/genre/superhero movie going audience is an even smaller portion of that "huge." It makes a lot of sense to make the movie for the largest audience possible and still respect the property.
Not that it's a superhero film, but it is a genre tentpole, Terminator Salvation, PG-13 or R? WB wants PG-13, director McG wants R just like the originals. McG was outspoken about the ratings debacle at WonderCon 2009 who said he wants the Moon Bloodgood in the rain topless scene kept in the film. WB wants it nixed to comply with the PG-13 guidelines. This was before the R-rated Watchmen premiered but the studio apparently already had the feeling that PG-13 was the way to go to make the big box office bucks with the genre.
So you can bet your ass Green Lantern and Wonder Woman will be PG-13. However, I've been told Jonah Hex, set for August 2010, is still a go for an R rating however WB doesn't consider it a "superhero" movie per se but a rather a comic book adaptation and not one of their tentpole films.
Cheebs was getting such a kick on that other forum talking about how little money this made in its second weekend and how Terminator Salvation will be PG-13 because of it. Makes me think he's a teenager who really wants to see Terminator Salvation and doesn't have an adult to take him / doesn't know how to sneak into an R-rated movie.No, the movie was just shitty and the insane hype annoyed me so I am glad to see it stumble. I doubt T4 will be good anyway.
no shit green lantern and wonder woman movies will be pg-13
was there ever any question there?
no shit green lantern and wonder woman movies will be pg-13
was there ever any question there?
http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6527&Itemid=99QuoteThe biggest superhero film last year (and of all time) was a WB film, The Dark Knight, which grossed $1,001,842,429 worldwide and it was rated PG-13. Iron Man, another big hit last year, grossed $582,030,528 worldwide and was rated PG-13. Everybody took their families to these movies, kids bought the shirts and the toys and the masks etc. which means more money for the studio.
On the other hand, Zack Snyder's Watchmen was rated R and I am sure the fact that it was 2 hours and 40 minutes long also had something to do with it, but it bowed at $55 million opening weekend and then sharply dropped off. You can't take your kids to this one, not sure if you'd even be comfortable watching it with your mother. Don't get me wrong, I really liked it and thought it was a fantastic piece of filmmaking, but it's definitely for adults only. And no kids will be asking mommy to buy them shirts or Rorschach masks from this one.
i was never a huge gl fan, but i really liked some of the stuff i have read centering around the gl corps
i doubt the corps will be much of a factor in the movie
also i think the golden age gl has one of the coolest superhero costumes ever
http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6527&Itemid=99QuoteNo more R-rated Superhero/Tentpole films for Warner Brothers
So says the IESB source buried deep into the folds of the Warner Brother's lot. WB is apparently skittish about losing money if a superhero/tentpole film is rated R rather than the more family friendly PG-13.
The biggest superhero film last year (and of all time) was a WB film, The Dark Knight, which grossed $1,001,842,429 worldwide and it was rated PG-13. Iron Man, another big hit last year, grossed $582,030,528 worldwide and was rated PG-13. Everybody took their families to these movies, kids bought the shirts and the toys and the masks etc. which means more money for the studio.
On the other hand, Zack Snyder's Watchmen was rated R and I am sure the fact that it was 2 hours and 40 minutes long also had something to do with it, but it bowed at $55 million opening weekend and then sharply dropped off. You can't take your kids to this one, not sure if you'd even be comfortable watching it with your mother. Don't get me wrong, I really liked it and thought it was a fantastic piece of filmmaking, but it's definitely for adults only. And no kids will be asking mommy to buy them shirts or Rorschach masks from this one.
How much of the movie going market - specifically those that go to see superhero/genre films - is cut out by rating a film R versus a PG-13? Warner Bros. thinks too much and is said to be focusing solely on PG-13 rated superhero/tentpole films only, definitely harder than the "family friendly" superhero films of Fantastic Four but not in the R rated range. Think about it, the movie going audience is "huge", now the genre/superhero movie going audience is a portion of that "huge" and the R rated/genre/superhero movie going audience is an even smaller portion of that "huge." It makes a lot of sense to make the movie for the largest audience possible and still respect the property.
Not that it's a superhero film, but it is a genre tentpole, Terminator Salvation, PG-13 or R? WB wants PG-13, director McG wants R just like the originals. McG was outspoken about the ratings debacle at WonderCon 2009 who said he wants the Moon Bloodgood in the rain topless scene kept in the film. WB wants it nixed to comply with the PG-13 guidelines. This was before the R-rated Watchmen premiered but the studio apparently already had the feeling that PG-13 was the way to go to make the big box office bucks with the genre.
So you can bet your ass Green Lantern and Wonder Woman will be PG-13. However, I've been told Jonah Hex, set for August 2010, is still a go for an R rating however WB doesn't consider it a "superhero" movie per se but a rather a comic book adaptation and not one of their tentpole films.
Also, it was boring.
I also enjoy those movies.
Eel, do you like beer? And nachos?
I'm missing the talent, unless his talent is adapting comic book movies too literally and the slo mo-speedup gimmick. I've seen better directing in local community theaters.
I also enjoy those movies.
Eel, do you like beer? And nachos?
i don't understand this questionI'm missing the talent, unless his talent is adapting comic book movies too literally and the slo mo-speedup gimmick. I've seen better directing in local community theaters.
he made a scary dawn of the dead, which is something romero failed to do (and i like the original quite a bit)
in the event of a zombie apocalypse, i'm dead. so so so dead.
carless, in the middle of manhattan, no weapons.
I don't remember the zombies in dotd been able to outrun humans.
in the event of a zombie apocalypse, i'm dead. so so so dead.
carless, in the middle of manhattan, no weapons.
Everything that could crack a person's head is a weapon against zombies.
Eric, I will come save you.