Author Topic: Watchmen - You gonna see it? (Read 62237 times)

WrikaWrek · « **on:** February 26, 2009, 01:00:31 PM »

I can't wait now, that i'm almost done with the motion comic.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/

Currently at 80%, it's hilarious how the "negative" reviews either are about the critic effectively trashing the original source, or they sound like someone was ready to trash the movie since the beginning, even if it doesn't sound like the critic has actually read the comic book.

In any case, with reports saying it's really freaking close to a perfect adaptation of Watchmen, and knowing the source puts other comic book movies to shame, i'm super excited. Seriously.

Ganhyun · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2009, 01:03:07 PM »

I wish I could go watch it in theaters, but I'm oncall starting tomorrow night, so thats out until at least the next Friday.

Eric P · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2009, 01:03:46 PM »

probably.

I'm going to aim for one of the before noon shows so i can watch it for $6.

then, if it sucks, it sucks and I won't feel so ripped off

cool breeze · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2009, 01:05:24 PM »

after watching the various clips of the movie and hearing it was 2 hours and 40 minutes long, I don't think I could handle it all at once in a theater. With the exception of the Dr. Manhattan scenes, everything was so damn boring; even the fight scene was incredibly boring. I'll watch it when it's on blu-ray.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #4 on:** February 26, 2009, 01:14:45 PM »

YES FUCKING YES IMAX DAY 2

Quote from: swaggaz on February 26, 2009, 01:05:24 PM

after 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.

cool breeze · « **Reply #5 on:** February 26, 2009, 01:16:14 PM »

well, that's a lot more manageable then.

what the hell was the 2 hour and 40 minute number from then?

here it is: http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/watchmen/mtv-spoilers-screening

he says right there at the start "All 2 hours and 45 minutes of it"

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #6 on:** February 26, 2009, 01:17:28 PM »

it's from the directors cut thats coming out on dvd later.

Robo · « **Reply #7 on:** February 26, 2009, 01:32:03 PM »

I'm gonna catch a Saturday matinee with a senior citizen's discount.

WrikaWrek · « **Reply #8 on:** February 26, 2009, 01:40:16 PM »

Quote from: fistfulofmetal on February 26, 2009, 01:14:45 PM

YES FUCKING YES IMAX DAY 2

Quote from: swaggaz on February 26, 2009, 01:05:24 PM
after 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.

I've seen you say this before, and i hope you aren't looking at 150 min that was mentioned somewhere and going "It's an hour and 50 minutes" in your head.

Cause that would be funny. Anyway. You are wrong. Tieno is right, it's a 2h40 min movie.

Cheebs · « **Reply #9 on:** February 26, 2009, 01:44:08 PM »

Quote from: fistfulofmetal on February 26, 2009, 01:17:28 PM

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.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #10 on:** February 26, 2009, 01:45:08 PM »

I haven't decided if I'm gonna do a midnight showing on the Thursday or if I'll go see a daytime show on Friday. Probably Friday, it'll be cheaper and I won't have to deal with the rabid fanthings/teenagers.

Still fairly confident it will suck, though.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #11 on:** February 26, 2009, 01:48:07 PM »

I'm going to see it next Saturday on a regular screen and a couple weeks later on Imax.

Dickie Dee · « **Reply #12 on:** February 26, 2009, 01:48:53 PM »

I'll see it, though probably not opening night. I'm still cautiously optimistic about it, even considering 300 is one of my most hated movies evar.

I'd love to pre-hate on it because of Zack Snyder but in the couple interviews with him he came across as a really good guy. So that's left me confused.

cool breeze · « **Reply #13 on:** February 26, 2009, 01:51:01 PM »

shit, I forgot this was coming out around spring break. I'm probably gonna watch this in theaters now.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #14 on:** February 26, 2009, 01:59:47 PM »

lol
whoops

my bad

Tauntaun · « **Reply #15 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:14:50 PM »

Gonna see this with the wife def. Don't know whether it'll be Friday or Sat. though.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #16 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:19:37 PM »

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.

Can't wait to see Silk Spectre getting butt naked.

duckman2000 · « **Reply #17 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:19:44 PM »

Of course not

ferrarimanf355 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:23:31 PM »

Quote from: Willco on February 26, 2009, 02:19:37 PM

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.

Can't wait to see Silk Spectre getting butt naked.

Doesn't the Silk Spectre get it on with the naked blue guy?

Eric P · « **Reply #19 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:24:26 PM »

Quote from: Green Shinobi on February 26, 2009, 02:21:33 PM

Okay, granted I'm still drunk from the bars, but this excerpt from the IGN review makes no sense:

Quote
This 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 can be bad and dense

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #20 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:25:33 PM »

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.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #21 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:27:37 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on February 26, 2009, 02:25:33 PM

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.

WrikaWrek · « **Reply #22 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:29:50 PM »

Quote from: Green Shinobi on February 26, 2009, 02:21:33 PM

Okay, granted I'm still drunk from the bars, but this excerpt from the IGN review makes no sense:

Quote
This 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"?

Now it's the tone.

Seriously, there are some haters out there that are really reaching for something to hate.

Dickie Dee · « **Reply #23 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:31:17 PM »

Reminds me of Daredevil (though I hear the directors cut is actually pretty decent)

It seemed like a completely amateur filmmaker who couldn't competently direct a movie interspersed the film with supposedly iconic shots that they all might've sat around the storyboards and wanked to, but fell completely flat onscreen.

- Anyways, that's my worry about Watchmen.

duckman2000 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:32:49 PM »

Quote from: Green Shinobi on February 26, 2009, 02:21:33 PM

Okay, granted I'm still drunk from the bars, but this excerpt from the IGN review makes no sense:

Quote
This 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"?

I think he refers to the quality of the movie making you second guess the quality of the comic. Which makes sense, and that's about the worst sin of a screen adaptation.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #25 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:33:28 PM »

it's impossible to hate 300.
if you do then you hate movies and you're probably not a man.

WrikaWrek · « **Reply #26 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:34:53 PM »

Who hates 300?

Geeks, nerds, bitches, losers, etc

300 rocks.

Herr Mafflard · « **Reply #27 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:36:01 PM »

300 was the first HD movie I ever watched and I was like 'wow.. listen to the sound!'

Seriously, I didn't know my speakers were capable of those sound effects.

Dickie Dee · « **Reply #28 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:38:24 PM »

Quote from: fistfulofmetal on February 26, 2009, 02:33:28 PM

it's impossible to hate 300.
if you do then you hate movies and you're probably not a man.

Sez the guy who only obsesses over girls who are ~14. Any girl who's grown into full womanhood would probably make you cry.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #29 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:40:15 PM »

Quote from: The Card Cheat on February 26, 2009, 02:27:37 PM

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on February 26, 2009, 02:25:33 PM
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.

The delivery in all the clips I've seen has been iffy. I just hope it doesn't reach the levels of ridiculous-ness that Michael Madsen and Jamie King achieved in Sin City

cool breeze · « **Reply #30 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:44:34 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on February 26, 2009, 02:25:33 PM

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.

it does seem like that

300 was boring, Dawn of the Dead remake rocked; Snyder is 1 and 1 for me with movies. The nicest thing I can say about him is that he makes kick ass trailers.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #31 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:45:30 PM »

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

Cheebs · « **Reply #32 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:46:33 PM »

300 was not that much fun to me. I HATE that overly stylized green screen look.

cool breeze · « **Reply #33 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:50:13 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on February 26, 2009, 02:45:30 PM

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

replace boring with exhausting or something as long as you understand what I mean. I could watch a clip from the movie now and I'd probably think it was cool, but as an actual full length movie, it was just got boring. A big reason is the source material and how closely he stuck with it.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #34 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:52:35 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on February 26, 2009, 02:45:30 PM

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.

Tauntaun · « **Reply #35 on:** February 26, 2009, 04:01:29 PM »

Quote from: Cheebs on February 26, 2009, 02:46:33 PM

300 was not that much fun to me. I HATE that overly stylized green screen look.

I gots to agree with Cheebers on this.

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #36 on:** February 26, 2009, 04:27:52 PM »

I'd watch it right now if I could.

Cheebs · « **Reply #37 on:** February 26, 2009, 04:41:26 PM »

Quote from: Tauntaun on February 26, 2009, 04:01:29 PM

Quote from: Cheebs on February 26, 2009, 02:46:33 PM
300 was not that much fun to me. I HATE that overly stylized green screen look.

I gots to agree with Cheebers on this.

Grecco · « **Reply #38 on:** February 26, 2009, 04:45:54 PM »

Hell yes

Diunx · « **Reply #39 on:** February 26, 2009, 04:50:07 PM »

Will download a cam, I don't like paying for shitty movies.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #40 on:** February 26, 2009, 05:58:04 PM »

Quote from: The Card Cheat on February 26, 2009, 02:52:35 PM

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on February 26, 2009, 02:45:30 PM
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.

Leonidas

Flannel Boy · « **Reply #41 on:** February 26, 2009, 06:17:29 PM »

So, you like beards after all?

EmCeeGrammar · « **Reply #42 on:** February 26, 2009, 08:31:29 PM »

Sure, I haven't seen a movie in forever. I kinda wanted to see Gran Torino but never got around to it. The immediate disadvantage though is that the Watchmen graphic novel has some filler documents that made me understand things better, but I don't see these carrying over. Rorschach's childhood essay on Truman made me realise the ending wasn't as much of a dillema as I originally perceived it.

TVC15 · « **Reply #43 on:** February 26, 2009, 08:40:59 PM »

Unless I hear raves, no. Nearly 3 hours is too long.

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #44 on:** February 26, 2009, 08:42:03 PM »

I said no initially but I have yet to read the comic. So it works better if I were to see the movie and then the comic instead of the other way around.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #45 on:** February 26, 2009, 08:44:53 PM »

Quote from: TVC 15 on February 26, 2009, 08:40:59 PM

Unless I hear raves, no. Nearly 3 hours is too long.

Oh whatever. What else are you gonna be doing? Obviously not walking somewhere.

TVC15 · « **Reply #46 on:** February 26, 2009, 08:47:20 PM »

Quote from: The Card Cheat on February 26, 2009, 08:44:53 PM

Quote from: TVC 15 on February 26, 2009, 08:40:59 PM
Unless I hear raves, no. Nearly 3 hours is too long.

Oh whatever. What else are you gonna be doing? Obviously not walking somewhere.

Movie theaters blow, especially on opening weekends. Especially for movies targeted at young people. It would be easy to stay away from this even if it were the Citizen Kane of superhero flicks.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #47 on:** February 26, 2009, 08:48:45 PM »

That's why the absolute best time to go see a movie on opening weekend is Friday afternoon, and the earlier the better.

Third · « **Reply #48 on:** February 26, 2009, 08:50:52 PM »

Yes, but I don't care about the content. I just want to watch the movie. It looks so beautiful.

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #49 on:** February 26, 2009, 08:55:18 PM »

I admit that I liked 300. Great movie to watch with friends.

TVC15 · « **Reply #50 on:** February 26, 2009, 08:57:28 PM »

Quote from: The Card Cheat on February 26, 2009, 08:48:45 PM

That's why the absolute best time to go see a movie on opening weekend is Friday afternoon, and the earlier the better.

I can still spend that 3 hours better. There are Harlan Ellison stories I have not yet spilled my seed to.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #51 on:** February 26, 2009, 09:02:17 PM »

I think it's going to be pretty good. I'm cautiously optimistic, but the early reviews look very, very promising. Devin is usually a tool when it comes to stuff like this, but he was gushing over it.

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #52 on:** February 26, 2009, 09:03:16 PM »

Who is Devin?

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #53 on:** February 26, 2009, 09:04:57 PM »

Devin Faraci from CHUD. 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.

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.

Solo · « **Reply #54 on:** February 26, 2009, 09:06:11 PM »

Im seeing it, not expecting anything, really. I know the source material is geek fap material, so perhaps there is a good movie to be had, but on the other hand, Zach Snyder

.

My expectations meter is firmly level at this moment. Also, Will, its not like this is the first time Malin Akerman will be flashing her shit.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #55 on:** February 26, 2009, 09:06:52 PM »

Solo, it's not the actress I splooge over - it's the character. Watchmen!

Solo · « **Reply #56 on:** February 26, 2009, 09:15:47 PM »

Unless its full frontal, in which case it shall be new territory. Akerman hasnt been shy about showing the upper floors, but hasnt flashed the basement yet.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #57 on:** February 26, 2009, 09:58:56 PM »

The word from the early reviews was the sex scene is quite graphic, moreso than the how it was drawn in the novel.

Akala · « **Reply #58 on:** February 26, 2009, 10:25:25 PM »

I just read it for the first time the other day...don't really see what all the fuss is about, although I was never too big into comics.

I'm actually kind of curious to see the adaptation.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

on bluray

[close]

WrikaWrek · « **Reply #59 on:** February 26, 2009, 10:29:42 PM »

Finished the novel.

The ending was both awesome, and both shit. Can't wait to see the different ending of the movie.

News:

Author Topic: Watchmen - You gonna see it? (Read 62237 times)