Author Topic: Watchmen - You gonna see it? (Read 62898 times)

Barry Egan · « **Reply #480 on:** March 08, 2009, 09:24:05 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on March 08, 2009, 08:58:27 PM

I'm baffled as to how this movie costs $150 million,

are you? The extended cut is over 3 hours long. There's hardly a shot in the film that doesn't incorporate CG. They also animated the entire black freighter sequence.

Cheebs · « **Reply #481 on:** March 08, 2009, 09:46:06 PM »

Quote from: Great Rumbler on March 08, 2009, 09:16:25 PM

Quote from: Cheebs on March 08, 2009, 09:12:23 PM
Quote from: Great Rumbler on March 08, 2009, 09:04:29 PM

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.

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.

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.

cool breeze · « **Reply #482 on:** March 08, 2009, 09:55:46 PM »

Quote from: fistfulofmetal on March 08, 2009, 09:01:08 PM

All I care about now is getting a 4 hour cut of the movie on blu-ray in a few months.

yeah, I'm not going to judge the movie too harshly until I see the extended version. I will say that the theatrical version was enjoying if only as fanservices, and many aspects won't be fixed by the extended length, but I will still give it a second chance. The best addition this movie had to the book was that intro. The idea behind the new ending wasn't bad

spoiler (click to show/hide)

with Manhattan being the cause of it, but things like Veidt letting Dan punch him and no Veidt and Manhattan talk at the end with "nothing ever ends" said by Laurie were lame.

[close]

Eel O'Brian · « **Reply #483 on:** March 08, 2009, 10:37:04 PM »

It was...all right, I guess.

Greatness Gone · « **Reply #484 on:** March 08, 2009, 10:53:16 PM »

IMDB-WATCHMEN-FORUM-LIKE VOTE - Which was better? This or The Dark Knight?

Greatness Gone · « **Reply #485 on:** March 08, 2009, 10:59:24 PM »

I think that Watchmen has a better OST. TDK had, like, probably three songs that were played throughout the whole movie.

BlueTsunami · « **Reply #486 on:** March 08, 2009, 11:19:42 PM »

Just came back from watching this. I dug it a lot but mostly due to seeing what I read in motion. I love how they handled Rorschach, Manhattan and Ozy. And yeah, the sex scene was fucking obscene... I had actually thought the couch foreplay was the scene everyone was talking about and wondered what the crying was about. Boy was I wrong. The rape scene was nothing though... I thought it would go Monicca Bellucci levels of horribleness, fortunately it didn't.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #487 on:** March 08, 2009, 11:21:59 PM »

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.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #488 on:** March 08, 2009, 11:30:59 PM »

Quote from: Greatness Gone on March 08, 2009, 10:53:16 PM

IMDB-WATCHMEN-FORUM-LIKE VOTE - Which was better? This or The Dark Knight?

I give the edge to TDK, in part because Watchmen lacked coherence. I really liked both, though.

Eel O'Brian · « **Reply #489 on:** March 08, 2009, 11:32:35 PM »

all in all, i think i would have rather watched a film of alan moore sitting in a chair reading watchmen aloud

they could have shown some close-ups of the lice crawling around in his beard to give it some action

i'll watch the director's cut to see if hollis mason still disappears with barely a mention after five minutes in that, though

BlueTsunami · « **Reply #490 on:** March 08, 2009, 11:39:20 PM »

Dr. Manhattan recalling how it all started was awesome. I actually felt for him, something I didn't really get so much from the comic. And the way Rorschach went out, I guess not sticking to the comic was also something that was needed (for dramatic effect).

cool breeze · « **Reply #491 on:** March 08, 2009, 11:49:51 PM »

I'm hoping that the extended version will be more coherent and that's why I'm not judging it too harshly. They didn't even explain the purpose of Manhattan's symbol; a shot of him carving it into his head, then nothing else. So many parts of the movie felt rushed and I'm hoping those get better treatment with the extra time.

BlueTsunami · « **Reply #492 on:** March 08, 2009, 11:54:16 PM »

[youtube=560,345]jQYQTFudrqc[/youtube]

TVC15 · « **Reply #493 on:** March 09, 2009, 12:23:55 AM »

Quote from: Eel O'Brian on March 08, 2009, 11:32:35 PM

all in all, i think i would have rather watched a film of alan moore sitting in a chair reading watchmen aloud

Grab that Mindscapes of Alan Moore documentary. It is basically him talking for like 90 minutes, and he is awesome.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #494 on:** March 09, 2009, 12:27:33 AM »

Quote from: Eel O'Brian on March 08, 2009, 11:32:35 PM

i'll watch the director's cut to see if hollis mason still disappears with barely a mention after five minutes in that, though

This scene was specifically mentioned as being one that Snyder cut out at the end of the process.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #495 on:** March 09, 2009, 01:02:16 AM »

Quote from: Green Shinobi on March 09, 2009, 12:15:35 AM

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.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #496 on:** March 09, 2009, 01:20:46 AM »

It's not slightly incoherent, it's very incoherent. Just because it's not a trainwreck does not excuse it for being so disjointed.

And - yes - they should've found a much more suitable way of telling the story for the medium, even if it meant taking liberties with the source material, because what was put on screen simply does not work.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #497 on:** March 09, 2009, 01:27:56 AM »

I didn't have any problem with the pacing or the intertwining but I didn't read the comic so maybe they left out some pretty important stuff?

The two problems I did have with the movie:
1. Super-strength. My friends who did read the comic said that that wasn't in the comic. Seemed really out of place to me when watching this film.
2. The drawn out sex scene. Why? I kept on thinking there was about to be a nuke go off or something that that scene was building up to but it was just really awkward for the sake of it.

Vrolokus · « **Reply #498 on:** March 09, 2009, 02:18:33 AM »

Wait a minute: Watchmen is "incoherent"? Jesus, it's twice as logical as Dark Knight...

Vrolokus · « **Reply #499 on:** March 09, 2009, 02:28:34 AM »

Quote from: Spencer on March 09, 2009, 02:20:41 AM

All I want to know is
spoiler (click to show/hide)
Does Ozy catch a bullet?
[close]

Yes, but

spoiler (click to show/hide)

to make it more plausible he seems to be wearing some sort of heavy (kevlarish?) glove.

[close]

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #500 on:** March 09, 2009, 03:10:05 AM »

Quote from: The Card Cheat on March 08, 2009, 11:21:59 PM

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.

bubububu TDK was MORE than a pop corn flick

TVC15 · « **Reply #501 on:** March 09, 2009, 05:29:47 AM »

Not really. TDK wasn't that great. If not for Heath dying, it would be held in similar regards to X-Men 2 or so. A decent flick, but nothing great. I'm fairly positive Nolan didn't even give much of a fuck about the movie, hence the editing issues.

demi · « **Reply #502 on:** March 09, 2009, 07:11:35 AM »

What did you think of the penis

demi · « **Reply #503 on:** March 09, 2009, 07:20:07 AM »

Ok way to avoid the question :smh

demi · « **Reply #504 on:** March 09, 2009, 07:27:56 AM »

Barry Egan · « **Reply #505 on:** March 09, 2009, 08:01:26 AM »

I'm really surprised by how many people didn't 'get the point' of the sex scene, but whatever. It worked.

GilloD · « **Reply #506 on:** March 09, 2009, 08:05:39 AM »

Quote from: Willco on March 09, 2009, 01:02:16 AM

Quote from: Green Shinobi on March 09, 2009, 12:15:35 AM
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.

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.

GilloD · « **Reply #507 on:** March 09, 2009, 08:06:06 AM »

Quote from: Chipopo on March 09, 2009, 08:01:26 AM

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.

Cheebs · « **Reply #508 on:** March 09, 2009, 08:11:17 AM »

Movie was a mess. Also it was just a cliffnotes verision of the book, it wasn't it own thing. Didn't feel like a real movie. Same problem with most Harry Potter movies.

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.

fistfulofmetal · « **Reply #509 on:** March 09, 2009, 08:11:28 AM »

Quote from: GilloD on March 09, 2009, 08:06:06 AM

I was so pleased that they kept in the penis-shaped button/flame ejaculation scene.

that was one thing i thought couldn't of been from the comic until i went back and checked.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #510 on:** March 09, 2009, 08:35:50 AM »

Quote from: GilloD on March 09, 2009, 08:05:39 AM

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.

Yes, it's How Not to Adapt Source Material for Film 101.

Eel O'Brian · « **Reply #511 on:** March 09, 2009, 08:58:36 AM »

i thought the soundtrack was a bit obvious and cliched

sure, they're good songs, but it felt like someone just turned on the classic rock station and let it play while they were sound editing

Kestastrophe · « **Reply #512 on:** March 09, 2009, 09:01:34 AM »

Quote from: Eel O'Brian on March 09, 2009, 08:58:36 AM

i thought the soundtrack was a bit obvious and cliched

Ugggh, Sound of Silence during the funeral scene was painful. And I think there were way too many bombastic clips ala 300.

leper Green Shinobi

BlackMage · « **Reply #513 on:** March 09, 2009, 09:14:23 AM »

GilloD, come here you little bitch. ::backhand:: how dare you defend this shit movie, you piece of shit! here ::throws napkin at GilloD:: wipe the blood off your face. Now get out of my sight!

GilloD · « **Reply #514 on:** March 09, 2009, 10:40:52 AM »

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".

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #515 on:** March 09, 2009, 10:53:03 AM »

Hey, I'm not the one getting all upset about a not very good film.

Like I said, I love the source material and I wouldn't consider myself obsessed or full of "nerd rage" at things omitted from the book. If anything, they should have cut more out.

It's a disjointed, dense and ultimately dull movie.

demi · « **Reply #516 on:** March 09, 2009, 10:54:34 AM »

If you guys are tired of all these crappy movies, The Boat That Rocked comes out in America on August 28th. Guaranteed great movie - probably best of 2009

Eric P · « **Reply #517 on:** March 09, 2009, 11:12:40 AM »

can't wait to see the boat that rocked.

ferrarimanf355 · « **Reply #518 on:** March 09, 2009, 11:36:50 AM »

I know I'm letting my creepy James Mielke obsession out again, but what the hell makes him think that Alan Moore reads his blog?

The comment from "ErikWaters" will be deleted in 5,4,3...

BlackMage · « **Reply #519 on:** March 09, 2009, 11:49:17 AM »

Quote from: GilloD on March 09, 2009, 10:40:52 AM

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".

stop being a baby!

Tauntaun · « **Reply #520 on:** March 09, 2009, 12:11:22 PM »

Saw in Friday night with the wife. It was good but not great I mean, I'd give it a matinee.

Bloodwake · « **Reply #521 on:** March 09, 2009, 12:39:40 PM »

The song selection was halfway from the graphic novel though.

When Everybody Wants To Rule The World and All Along the Watchtower were used, they were spot on in places they needed to be. SPOT ON.

G The Resurrected · « **Reply #522 on:** March 09, 2009, 12:41:46 PM »

Quote from: Tauntaun on March 09, 2009, 12:11:22 PM

Saw in Friday night with the wife. It was good but not great I mean, I'd give it a matinee.

WAIT WHAT!!!!!

your married?

This ruins all my plans! The homoerotic dungeon I built for you

The movie was great, got had by what they call IMAX at amc. FUCK YOU AMC! Imax is six stories of sound and fury, not a converted small theater. The movie was great and the girlfriend loved the crap outta the blue dick man.

Bloodwake · « **Reply #523 on:** March 09, 2009, 03:24:59 PM »

Quote from: a slime appears on March 09, 2009, 03:10:55 PM

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.

It's the same damn story, adding some pirate ship comic in a comic shit for symbolism. Some of the movie is frame for shot with the graphic novel. I still prefer the graphic novel more though.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #524 on:** March 09, 2009, 05:14:33 PM »

I don't get why you all expected a great 2.5 hour adaptation. It was an enjoyable film that is at least somewhat based on the original concept. I'm guessing that most fans have a bigger problem with the alterations to the characters and story than with the actual pacing itself. You should kind of just go into it for the semi-decent story and pretty visuals and get all the depth from the actual comic book.

BlackMage · « **Reply #525 on:** March 09, 2009, 06:14:30 PM »

this is one of those movies that when you see it the first time it sucks, but sucks even more the second time! Dammit, why did i get suckered.

Sideshow Raheem · « **Reply #526 on:** March 09, 2009, 06:34:04 PM »

Quote from: Cheebs on March 09, 2009, 08:11:17 AM

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.

This is idiot fan logic at its worst.

Bubastis only appears during the Antarctic scenes, right? As far as I know, the only Antarctic scenes occur at the end of the film.

Besides, Bubastis isn't central to the story. It's absurd to think its appearance late in Watchmen the movie is somehow indicative of an incoherent story or messy screenwriting.

Saint Cornelius · « **Reply #527 on:** March 09, 2009, 07:13:15 PM »

Quote from: Willco on March 09, 2009, 10:53:03 AM

Hey, I'm not the one getting all upset about a not very good film.

No, you're the one trying to push off your OPINION as FACT.

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.

Saint Cornelius · « **Reply #528 on:** March 09, 2009, 07:13:57 PM »

And yes Cheebs is right, having that fucking cat in there at the end made no fucking sense at all since it was engineered along with the squid.

Cheebs · « **Reply #529 on:** March 09, 2009, 07:17:12 PM »

Quote from: Saint Cornelius on March 09, 2009, 07:13:15 PM

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.

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.

It'd be like in TDK if in the final showdown between Batman and The Joker somehow randomly had a pet dragon.

Saint Cornelius · « **Reply #530 on:** March 09, 2009, 07:17:37 PM »

Yo mang I just agreed with you

Cheebs · « **Reply #531 on:** March 09, 2009, 07:17:59 PM »

Er I meant to quote Sideshow Rahib

Saint Cornelius · « **Reply #532 on:** March 09, 2009, 07:18:26 PM »

fuck that guy

Sideshow Raheem · « **Reply #533 on:** March 09, 2009, 07:24:44 PM »

It makes no sense that in a world with a guy who can assemble and disassemble atoms at will that an obscenely rich man would have a super-exotic pet?

Come on, now. You're just reaching.

Bubastis' appearance is not indicative of anything, let alone a messy script or poor storytelling.

God. Comic fans and film buffs.

Saint Cornelius · « **Reply #534 on:** March 09, 2009, 07:27:01 PM »

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.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #535 on:** March 09, 2009, 07:33:36 PM »

I didn't catch that, and I re-read the novel yesterday

Saint Cornelius · « **Reply #536 on:** March 09, 2009, 07:34:09 PM »

Then read it again, because it's there

cool breeze · « **Reply #537 on:** March 09, 2009, 07:43:54 PM »

Batman would double fist slam that pet dragon off a ledge

BlackMage · « **Reply #538 on:** March 09, 2009, 07:48:28 PM »

Quote from: swaggaz on March 09, 2009, 07:43:54 PM

Batman would double fist slam that pet dragon off a ledge

NO HE WOULDN'T!

Sideshow Raheem · « **Reply #539 on:** March 09, 2009, 07:49:16 PM »

Quote from: Saint Cornelius on March 09, 2009, 07:27:01 PM

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.

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.

And Richie Rich did have a crazy pet, as I believe. His name was Dollar. He was a dalmation, I think, featuring dollar signs instead of spots.

Rich also had a robot maid. It's wholly believable that a super-rich kid would have one. Just like it's wholly plausible the super-rich Adrian Veidt could have had Bubastis created without it being baked in the same lab as a giant squid.

(Also: Please see "artistic license." Thanks!)

News:

Author Topic: Watchmen - You gonna see it? (Read 62898 times)