Cool News
Mr. Beaks Sneaks A Peek At Zack Snyder's WATCHMEN: DIRECTOR'S CUT!
Was the theatrical release of WATCHMEN essentially a trailer for the Director's Cut? Judging from the select footage I saw Wednesday morning at Warner Bros. Home Entertainment (which included a peak at the three hours of supplementary material), I think it might've been. "It's almost the reverse of a paperback/hardback version," said Snyder, who was on hand to answer our questions about the WATCHMEN BD and 300: THE COMPLETE EXPERIENCE. "It used to be that the cinematic version was the hardback, and then, when you bought a DVD, it was the paperback version, right? I think that's getting turned on its ear. Now, the deluxe version of the movie is the Blu-ray, and the theatrical version is, in some ways, the paperback. This is a lot more custom. It's a custom experience on a massive level." By now, you know what's coming: on July 21st, Zack Snyder's 188-minute Director's Cut of WATCHMEN will hit Blu-ray and DVD. It is, as Snyder said today, basically what he "wants the movie to look like". And for those of you who are despondent over not getting to see this version of the film in theaters, well, rejoice! If you live in New York City, Los Angeles, Dallas and Minneapolis, that is! Warner Bros. is planning a limited one-weekend rollout of the DC on July 17th. And, yes, "one weekend" means this is a three-day engagement. After that, it's just you and your Philco. That said, it looks like the home experience is going to be pretty damn special. The big selling point with the Blu-ray is the "Director Walk-On", which is a fancy-pants form of commentary that has Snyder standing in front of the screen (and a variety of other screens featuring cast/crew interviews, animatics, etc.) as he explains his stylistic choices. For someone who hasn't goofed around with Blu-ray much, this verges on sensory overload. But I'm cool with a little disorientation so long as the myriad branching features are substantive - which they appear to be. Is this essentially a flashy streamlining of the kinds of featurettes with which we've been inundated since the advent of the DVD? To an extent, yes. But they're so well-produced in this case that I don't mind the "immersive" "Maximum Movie Mode" hard-sell. Also, the opportunity for some kid in the Midwest to fire off questions at Snyder during a live screening (which is scheduled to go down at Comic Con in July) is the kind of thing that makes me wish BD was around when I was fifteen. As for what scenes will be added to the Director's Cut, I can verify that you will get to see the brutal murder of Hollis Mason by a bunch of top-knotted thugs. As with most of the violent scenes in WATCHMEN, Snyder has taken a dozen or so panels from the graphic novel and transformed them into breathtaking cinema. He's also turned the sequence into a half-clever, half-heartbreaking homage to RAGING BULL, with Hollis flashing back to his crime-fighting heyday as the "Intermezzo" from CAVALLERIA RUSTICANA briefly dominates the soundtrack. The music - and his punch-drunk reverie - ends abruptly when the gang's ringleader busts open Hollis's skull with his Nite Owl trophy. This is a brilliantly shot-and-edited sequence. If the rest of the DC is up to this standard, WATCHMEN will officially enter the "Best of '09" conversation. Snyder also fielded questions about his upcoming projects GUARDIANS OF GA'HOOLE and SUCKER PUNCH. Of the former, a PG-rated animated adaptation of the first book in Kathryn Lasky's popular young-adult fantasy series, Snyder would only say that it will be much like the Harry Potter movies in tone (I'm assuming he meant the earlier films, as the later installments have grown increasingly dark). Of SUCKER PUNCH, the fantastic, extremely R-rated tale of a girl busting out of a mental institution, Snyder says it's "Part WIZARD OF OZ, part BRAZIL [and] part ALL THAT JAZZ." Preproduction on that film is set to begin shortly up in Vancouver. WATCHMEN: DIRECTOR'S CUT and 300: THE COMPLETE EXPERIENCE are available for the pre-orderin' right now. Faithfully submitted, Mr. Beaks
Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus-
+ Expand All
-
okay, I'm in...
-
isn't this the 2nd of the 3 alternative cuts for this movie? Supposedly the next cut runs 3.5 hours long and is the ULTIMATE version. That one's coming out for Christmas 2009 when Avatar is mass raping our eyeballs and blasting all over our faces...
-
Just in case I don't feel like wasting half the day on the DC, I could get a quickie version of it then get on with my life.
-
I won't watch it.
-
When Jerry, George and Kramer were talking about if they snuck a peek at each other's package in the community shower. Kramer said he looked. George said he may have snuck a peek. Jerry said he didn't and that there is certain information he just doesn't need to know.
-
I enjoyed the theatrical version but admittedly was sitting there thinking what additional goodness I would be getting a few months down the road in DVD form. <p> I will certainly be purchasing it. But will it include the Black Freighter animated story woven into the tale like the GN?
-
zack should just make hard core homo videos since it is obvious that is his desire (and his fans)
-
cause the last one had more penises than i've ever seen in my entire life... I don't I can stand any more large erections in my face!!
-
June 24, 2009, 10:01 p.m. CST
300: THE COMPLETE EXPERIENCE COMES WITH VIALS OF SPARTAN SWEAT!
by Ator
-
Snyder missed the point of the comic. The flick is visually stunning but he fuggled the message the comic had. Doubtful more scenes will fix that. Nothing to do with the squid, mind you...he just defragged the whole reason Ozzy did what he did, Doc's motivation, etc. Oh well...here's hoping HBO does a 100 Bullets mini.
-
June 24, 2009, 10:04 p.m. CST
Watchmen Directors Cut: All the blue cock you can swallow
by Turd Furgeson
Now that's a title!!!
-
i'm sure i'll watch this too, and be just as frustrated
-
Zach is a terrible director - truly terrible. He makes music videos with dialogue. Keep your shit Zach. Go do some work for Miley Cyrus - that is the perfect platform for your "talent"
-
or 2 separate films like KILL BILL. Packing everything into 2 1/2 hours fucking killed it. Good effort, though.
-
Some of the liberties were too much, but then again the story was too much tell in even a 3 hour version.
-
I never read 300, but loved the movie? I read Watchmen (loved it), but hated the movie?
-
Anybody know why the artwork for the DVD releases is so terrible? Almost all the artwork for the theatrical release was bangin. Why couldn't they have picked from the best of that stuff for the DVD?
-
Due out for Christmas. Don't know if I need that much WATCHMEN, but I'm sure I'll check it out at some point.
-
DAMN IT! I just bought the 300 Bluray for $23 two months ago. I had no idea this was coming out.
-
Manhattan's member was totally flaccid every second it was on-screen.
-
Snyder's movies are for repressed homosexuals and JJ's are for openly gay gays.
-
Non Humans escape from District 9 <P> http://tinyurl.com/lgg3dy
-
June 24, 2009, 10:28 p.m. CST
will this version also include the bad-ass version of
by jackknifed_juggernaut
Ozymandias sorely missed from the theatrical cut?
-
June 24, 2009, 10:29 p.m. CST
goddamn, District 9 will save this summer for me yet!
by jackknifed_juggernaut
-
If they knew they would triple-dip into releases less than a year after it first screen at theatres.<br><br>Plus the Black Freighter DVD.<br><br>I never saw it, was it any good?
-
Watchmen Director's Cut will be mine. Want it. Now.
-
The Simpsons episode where Lisa is watching the postman with Kevin Costner on the screen apologizing for making it, but then she finds out he's really there and asks her to get him some food or drink.
-
Really looking forward to this. Fuck the closet fags who were transfixed on Dr. Manhattan's dink; it wasn't distracting or gratuitous unless you're a natural-born pecker-checker. Just tell me Mason's flashbacks include Captain Axis.
-
Really, really, really AWESOME.
-
If it was shorter.
-
all those gimmicky bonus are just that, gimmicks. just concentrate on making a film worth a damn next time. that's all that matters.
-
June 24, 2009, 11:01 p.m. CST
My next movie is Casablanca meets Citizen Kane meets Star Wars
by Falafalguy
God I love Hollywood.
-
all the violence are amped up in this film just for 'cool' and 'daring' effect, but when the violence becomes truly matter at the climax when countless bloody corpses supposed to pile up, the film took the most cliched chickenshit way out - bloodless generic hollywood explosion.
-
... not a director to begin with? Snyder needs to make a real movie already.
-
Yes, yes, and yes. I'll have some more, thank you.
-
Snyder completely misunderstood the tone and appeal of the material (and that shitbomb of an ending... what the hell was he thinking?). He proved for sure that a great Watchmen film could have been made but that he and Hayter were completely the wrong guys for the job. It's amazing how a film can simultaneously come so close to and yet be so far off the mark. Biggest disappointment ever.
-
the book tries to present a realisitc universe. the film has ozy doing superhuman jumps, heads smash into concrete walls and characters get only minor headaches, nixon gigantic nose. the book feels real, this live action version feels like a cartoon.
-
this movie was a lukewarm adaptation of the source. They're capitalizing on the fan community to bolster profits for multiple releases of essentially the same product. If anyone has a craving for Watchmen, just read the book. If you want to see it numb and lifeless but with moving pictures, pick up Dr. Manhattan's Deluxe Blue Dick Edition.
-
June 24, 2009, 11:07 p.m. CST
I liked it. But more violence and longer cut bores me.
by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD
Not interested. Is the theatrical version going to be available?
-
Well FUCK it then. What's the damn point?
-
that is all
-
Then honestly, I don't know what to say to you. If anything, the tone was spot on.
-
blaming the doc STILL doesnt make sense. doc was made in the US and used by the US, the destruction at the end would be seen by the world as american weapon gone awry. no way the russians would just buy anything the US explain to them. if anything their suspicion would only grow. how would they know the doc leaving earth is not just another ploy by the US? how would they know if and when the doc returns to earth he wont just side the US again? <p> the threat HAS to be from beyond.
-
June 24, 2009, 11:12 p.m. CST
if i were to watch it again, it'd only be for the opening
by jackknifed_juggernaut
titles. Snyder pieced that shit together perfectly.
-
And he ussually doesnt offer an opinion on movies as they arent high on his list of important topics. He did bring up this movie, however-I never even knew he saw it or would bother seeing it. He went with his girlfriend and said it was so friggin horrible that they both left 1/2 way through. That said, I will see the DVD of the Theatrical version when it comes out.
-
i love people complaining about the blue cock, saying to read the book instead as if there was no blue cock in the book. uh, there was. ir juar sounds like someone's getting turned on by it but is afraid to admit it.
-
You know it seems like nothing exists to anyone that lies west of the mississippi river, east of vegas and north of texas. The midwest is the red headed stepchild of the united states. We don't get shit! No big cons or conventions, a lot of comics and bands don't make it here either. And before some asshole says move, I say fuck you. Not everyone has the means. Spread the love people, your fans exist here too.
-
rorschachs. where's the laugh after he said "human bean juice"? where's the running gag of him breaking dan's door locks? where's the running gag of him going into bar and break fingers? where's the loathing silk spectre has towards him? what happened to him being accused as a pervert by the landlady? <p> oh right... this character is supposed to be badass all the way. no room for humor and sympathy for this guy according to snyder. precisely BECAUSE of these little nuances that he feels more human rather than an action hero, and hence why we feel for him at the end. <p> snyder couldnt even let him be misunderstood by his friends when he chased the midget into the toilet. he has to let the door slide open one more time for us to see what he's doing. the humors and subtleties are completely lost on snyder. please just stick to directing cartoon next time.
-
http://tinyurl.com/natfqv
-
nuclear armaggedon is impending right? so where's the tension in the film? moore got it right and brought the tension to the street level. you see the panic affecting everyday people and you feel it when reading. the film completely skip past all that and choose instead to show the tension in a war room with a bunch of man in suits. yeah that worked well. i feel no driving tension whatsoever whle watching the film. and how could you take the war room scenes seriously with that huge nixon nogging splashing across the big screen.
-
June 24, 2009, 11:34 p.m. CST
my biggest problem with watchmen the movie was ozymandias
by iwasredempted
i can't put my finger on it but he just didn't come off as compelling in the movie. he was much more of a compelling character in the comic book. everything else i enjoyed. rorschach rocked.
-
Sounds to me like YOU missed the humor and subtleties of the film. That's pretty funny, actually. Did you need it spelled out for you?<br> <br> I also love the whiners who were disgusted by the violence we did see, yet are disappointed by the lack of visible bloody, mangled corpses in the finale. They also want realism, but they don't want to see the realistic consequences of vigilante violence. They want the same level of "safe" violence we get in the average Batman or Spiderman movie, totally missing the point of Watchmen.
-
Just isn't important and probably would take too much time to put in. <p> I dunno, that's what everyone says when I bitch about things changed/cut out from the last 2 Harry Potter films.
-
i believe snyder has more of an action movie director skill set as opposed to someone like ang lee or scorsese who can make a very nuanced movie. i wonder if ang lee could have made a better watchmen?
-
heheh
-
totally dropped the ball on Ozzy.
-
yeah lockesbrokenleg. let's get this talkback rolling.
-
did to superhero movies what Moore's Watchmen did to superhero comics in 1986.
-
ozy is now a kungfu figthing gay guy. and the way the actor played him, there's a sense of mysterius menace in every scene he's in. in the book he's supposed to look all decent, an all american quaterback. in the film he showed his card way too early. that and when he received no comeuppance in the book you feel the world's lost all the more. it makes his victory all the more glorious and complete and as a result you detest him even more. <p> in the film, you get this B grade wannabe superhero punching ozy in the face for payback. it desipates his glory, gives us a release for our anger. it's a copout choice, made just to bring more box office dollars in. supposedly the darker the ending the less money a movie makes. this film is far far from being daring, despite what snyder has claimed.
-
DONG SOLO!
-
exactly like the movie. less is sometimes more.
-
So was that Behind the Costume thing. What a waste. Should have given them away for free.
-
June 24, 2009, 11:58 p.m. CST
Watchmen : First cab off the rank for a bad geek year.
by hallmitchell
Had no buzz on the film one week after release. Zack went so down in my eyes after this film. That guy was pushing A list. It will take three awesome films in a row for him to get back on there.
-
It is unfilmable. Why didn't you believe him?
-
No one has hired it.
-
I know alot of people who liked it and some who didn't like it, but I don't know many who loved or hated it.<br><br>I read the comic prior to the film and because of it had to view it as 2nd Gen, and I liked it (not loved), but I had friends see it that didn't like it but ended up reading the comic and loving the comic.<br><br>I dunno, but I have to agree with Kevin Smith in that Snyder essentially set himself up for a downfall, either it would've been too faithfull, or too Hollywood.
-
Saw it five times, twice with my dad, who is in his late 50s and knew nothing about the comic. He thought it was fantastic and liked the satirical aspects that apparently went over the heads of the typical talkback meatheads. Also saw it with a buddy who didn't know much about the comic and he loved it too.
-
The portrayal's of Ozy in book and movie are completely different, and the treatment of story in both mediums is also different. So I have no problem with Ozy taking a beatdown from Nite Owl in the film. In the book, it didn't really feel like Ozy had done something terribly villain-like based on everyone else's reactions. In the book, everyone but Rorshach is like "Gee whiz, this SUCKS. But I guess its okay..." <p> The film did a much better job showing just how pissed everyone was there at the end. Therefore, his beatdown is justified and is good for the audience as a cathartic release. The world is still screwed. All Snyder did was give the audience *one* teeny weeny victory. That's it.
-
June 25, 2009, 12:12 a.m. CST
i just thought it was ok. i like Snyder but Moore was right
by BMacSmith
the comic had no business being a movie, especially decades later. I dont agree with Snyders choices to stick so rigidly to the comic. there has to be changes.
-
Snyder is quite simply one of my all-time favorite directors. Totally unique and engaging style, quality oozing from every frame. He is masterful and competent. I was enthralled by The Watchmen and this director's cut can't come soon enough.
-
I can see what Snyder means, but consider this... Films that want to get noticed, make the most money they can, and do it the "traditional" way will be released in cinemas first. I think we're still a long way from films being released on DVD first to achieve the same affect. <P> So I implore directors, get the theatrical release as right as you can please. Don't think that because you can add everything from the cutting-room floor onto the DVD that the theatrical cut is now a "paperback" to the DVD's "hardcover". If anything people buy DVDs because they liked the theatrical release. <P> Perhaps the theatrical release should be called "abridged" if any book terminology should be used, and the DVD "unabridged". But, much like comparing the latter Harry Potter books to the earlier ones, sometimes editing makes stories better.
-
Christ, that movie was hard enough to sit through once. Methinks I will pass.
-
Fuck all these DVDs, the movie still sucked.
-
when i said snyder missed the mark, i provided examples. what subtleties and humors i missed, pray tell? <p> i'm not disgusted by the violence in the film. but those new addition are unnecessary, while the gore and violence in the climax is a MUST to feel the complete visceral impact of what ozy had done. this is the climax we're talking about, the whole movie was leading to this one moment. making it bloodless dissipates the impact. replacing it with a hollywood explosion is just boring.
-
This has alot to do with current Hollywood.<br><br>Think about the last five (fuck it ten) years or so.<br><br>We get lame ass theatre versions versus "non-rated" DVDs that have (usually) both versions. Couple this with the fact that most "shitty" blockbusters get less buck stateside than worldwide, and we wonder why this summer season has little to offer...<br><br>I dunno, but I had this discussion with a friend last night about how Wolverine and T:4 was doing way better over seas, and I realized that 2012 will be the greatest movie ever (since all civilizations will end by 2013).
-
people says his dad and circles of friends love it, like that's supposed to mean anything. wolverine did stellar box office, no doubt bayformers will do too. say thanks to your dad and friends for me, will you?
-
precisely there's no cathartic release provided is why the book ending is so strong and ultimately more satisfying. <p> havent we got enough cathactic releases from all the spielberg films to last us a lifetime?
-
Anybody who thinks Snyder "overdid" the violence needs to go back and examine those scenes in the book. Snyder filled in the blanks, because it's a film not a comic book. The attempted rape scene, the Knot Top brawl with Dan and Laurie, the prison scene - they pushed the envelope in 1986, but this is 2009. Based on his later output, I'm quite sure that Moore would have shown more violence and sex if he thought he could get away with it at the time. The sex scene in the film is positively tame compared to the filth depicted in Moore's Lost Girls series.
-
tinyurl.com /ndne3q Wooo! 15th time coming up!
-
That was a dud from the word go. Its it even playing anymore?
-
In films, no cathartic release often leads into pissed off viewers feeling empty. <p> And while that may be the point, it doesn't leave viewers feeling entertained. Its still a depressing ending. The beatdown really doesn't hurt the film, especially as Ozy just takes it and really isn't hurt by it. <p> But again, its two different mediums. No cathartic release works better in a book than it does in a film.
-
I went from a big watchmen fan to someone who cannot give a shit
-
exactly. what i said about snyder and subtleties? but you seem to be the perfect audience for his kind of films. good for you. <p> also, when moore did the violence in the book, he was breaking taboos. what snyder did with the film accomplished no such things. we've seen that kind of violence in countless movies before, and potrayed more realistically. concrete smashing headbutts and bones protruding upon arm twisting is cartoonish. that's not realism.
-
"In films, no cathartic release often leads into pissed off viewers feeling empty." <p> which is why i said the change was made to rake more box office cash in. it has nothing to do with making the story better.
-
June 25, 2009, 12:50 a.m. CST
can i just say that the plot of Watchmen isnt that great to star
by BMacSmith
it has amazing characters and mood and depth and whatnot, but the main plot is batshit insane. it screams comic booky, and in the negative campy way. thats why it can never really work as a movie. it can only work in superhero comics.<p> i know i know, flame away at me, but i really really like most of the comic and the movie, but in the last act when it has to wrap up the main plot, it unravels. To be honest i didnt want it to end, i just wanted to follow Rorsach and NightOwl around and see what trouble they got into.
-
phaedrus007 said = "Snyder completely misunderstood the tone and appeal of the material (and that shitbomb of an ending... what the hell was he thinking?). He proved for sure that a great Watchmen film could have been made but that he and Hayter were completely the wrong guys for the job. It's amazing how a film can simultaneously come so close to and yet be so far off the mark. Biggest disappointment ever." spot on... Snyder turned a rape scene into a hollywood blockbuster fight scene.
-
But missing the point. First off, the point IS to make money. There's nothing wrong with that unless by doing so it completely screws up the adaptation. <p> Ozy taking a beatdown does NOT screw up the adaptation. <p> Also, like I said, film is a different medium. Audiences need catharsis of some sort, especially after seeing Rorsach die. The beatdown doesn't change anything. Nite Owl is the closest character to the "Everyman" in the film and the one the audience can relate to most. He should be upset his friend just got killed. Without it, its just a dangling plot thread, just as in the book, where an uncaring Dan thinks Rorschach just died in the snow.
-
it has nothing to do with book medium vs film medium. any story should find its own conclusion. did people complain when no relief was provided at the end of fincher's se7en? that bleak ending couldnt be made more perfect. <p> when you want to adapt a seminal book like watchmen, it has to be more than just about making money. otherwise why bother, just make a movie about robots fighting each other. cant lose money there.
-
...to be nominated for Best Picture, I think this one should recieve a nod. <P> I loved it. It is still the best movie I've seen on the big screen this year. <P> I hadn't read the graphic novel...but I read it cover to cover after I saw the movie...and I still love the movie. <P> You people are a bunch of cunts.
-
He MADE that movie.
-
I'll be over here with my copy of Watchmen, the only thing Watchmen that ever needs to exist. You guys have fun at Blockbuster video with your Watchmen clocks and your Watchmen video games and toys. Like Ozymandias' wet dream come to life it is.
-
Nothing he can do can make up for the fact that he CHANGED THE ENDING OF THE COMIC, which was THE POINT of the ENTIRE COMIC. If there was a version with the ACTUAL ENDING OF "WATCHMEN", perhaps I'd be interested. The movie was a bomb theatrically not because people "didn't get it" or that it was "too edgy" - it bombed because it SUCKED. Sure, there were beautiful visual moments here and there - but none of that matters if you REMOVE THE ENDING, ZACK. I won't buy this unless I hear there's a giant space squid in it, and that the ironic ambivalence about the bomb's effect that follows the moral dilemma that was the POINT OF THE ENTIRE THING is included.
-
I mean printed copy of the comic book.
-
People who say "the squid would only work in a comic" about a movie that has a naked blue guy who is basically a god, are the most annoying fucking idiots in the clusterfuck rape of Alan Moore's legacy.
-
Until December of course.
-
I saw all 3 cuts of Alexander, so I'm crazy like that. But the Watchmen Theatrical Cut made me so so so so so ANGRY I wanted to hulk out in the parking lot. <br><br>Here's hoping a longer directors cut + Massive Bong Rips will improve my viewing experience.
-
the old "Stay Puft" defense. Clever...
-
It sucked. Get over it.
-
but overall the movie sunk under the combined weight of several not-so-good performances, one terrible portrayal of the main bad guy from the writing all the way through to the actor's choices and the overall feeling of watching of "best of" from the book rather than a cohesive retelling of the core story. The best I can say about it is that I didn't hate Snyder after watching it, but I definitely don't need to see any more, and it's NOT going to be in contention for "Best of 09" no matter how shitty this year has been (and it's been pretty shitty).
-
The film sucked, fanboys. Get used to it. Zack Snyder can't direct anything other than racked-up bullet time music videos - and even then he's not so great. The film was a rich high schooler's mockery of Watchmen; the denouement was laughably done, with Matthew Goode prancing around as the obviously evil Ozymandias, monologuing.
-
Especially after 300. When Watchmen is just copying the book, it works a treat. It only fails when Snyder forces his 'style' into the material. The superhero 'slow-mo' and violence is childish and goes completely against the characters. It really shows his immaturity as a film-maker/copier of other peoples work.
-
The only good performances? Jackie Earle Haley and MAYBE Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Patrick Wilson and Billy Crudup. They had little to work with; almost everything of depth was stripped from the characters as Snyder does not how to do character, so he removed any subtleties or quirks, and streamlined the film down to PLOT and "BAD ASS" WIRE FU ACTION. Never as a reader of the comic did I believe Rorschach, Nite Owl or Spectre moved like that - that's purely an invention of the post-Matrix era, and it doesn't fit with Watchmen's brawling heroes. Rorschach in costume rarely came off as Rorschach to me; he mouthed lines, then would POUT and MOVE FORCEFULLY at all times. Rorschach in the comic was a lethargic, laconic, bitter, paranoid presence, given to sudden, dry bursts of violence. Here he's always amped up, moving like a Power Rangr. Didn't work. Then there's all that shit with Nixon. Come on. The Comedian's many facets had no real delineation on film, either, and that was a great character. Silk Spectre was just a hot chick, Ozy was a joke. It was a mess.
-
Movie may well be shit - never saw it - but calling it a "dud" is rank ignorance.
-
Watchmen = dud.
-
June 25, 2009, 3:10 a.m. CST
Yeah, we all know box office money is what defines quality, righ
by theplant
wrong.
-
June 25, 2009, 3:14 a.m. CST
Parts of it were very good, other parts missed the mark
by Michael_Bay_Rox
-
Zack. Directorealy Cut the fucking Hallelueyha music from the sex scene. Its deflated the entire seriousness of the experience for me.
-
I'm pretty sure that, most times, the studio would refuse to let a film go over three hours at the cinema. Snyder had no choice but to cut a LOT out of this piece, and it showed. (The news vendor man/comic-book kid at the end means more if they appear onscreen earlier.)
-
Is this being released in the UK too?
-
i didnt see the original cut in theaters because i want to see zack's entire vision...if it sux, it sux<p> and fuck all of you reporting grosses....<p> titanic made tons of money, and that movie sux tits
-
June 25, 2009, 3:25 a.m. CST
Yeah, we all know box office money is what defines quality, righ
by lockesbrokenleg
No, this site does apparently.
-
No, the geeks here determine quality. Of course. Always.
-
I understand the reasons why theatrical releases aren't sometimes the director's cut, studios are in the business of making money and a 3+ hour movie by-and-large isn't as marketable, but the danger here is to consider that between theatrical and DVD versions the theatrical one is the lesser one. That it doesn't matter as much. <P> To me, director's cut or not, the way the audience first experiences a film, for which ever medium it was originally intended, is the film. That's the movie warts n all. Anything else coming after is just extras - interesting but not final product.
-
No Squid! <p>GIANT PIG!!!
-
Snyder did, did he? Ozymandias is still the villain? Check. Lots of innocent people die, making the superpowers realise the errors of their ways? Check. Rorschach dies? Check. Right, so there was no squid? In my opinion, and the opinion of lots of readers of the original graphic novel I've spoken to, the squid was the worst thing about the book. As the film stands, the IMPLICATION (to borrow your use of capitals) is the SAME. As an aside, I love how people diss the sex scene. Jeez, folks, you were meant to hate it! It was an 80s sex scene, for fucks sake!!! All elbows and shitty music, but guess very few people got the joke. As for the violence being overdone? Are you having a laugh?
-
The "heroes" will still be able to punch through solid concrete, and get hurled about without breaking so much as a rib. They'll still be killers. Adrian won't have any moments of self-doubt. And John won't imply to Adrian that his plan ultimately fails.
-
Malin wasn't naked enough in the theatrical release. She needs to be much more naked on dvd. How about a bonud dvd. Just Malin naked. I'd buy that.
-
The least "daring" or creative movie I've seen in years. All snyder did was vomit the funnybook panel by panel onto the screen. It was lame, ridiculous, psuedo-cool and most unforgivably, dull. <P>An utter pile of shit. <P>What does make me laugh though, is the sole creative decision made by snyder was changing the ending and that's what's got you fuckers up in arms. <P>Fuck the squid- that's frigging ridiculous and not in a good way. <P>PS- I feel that the unfair racism of Hulk not being allowed to free his green unit should end now Doctor Manhatten was able to stride around airing his blue junk.
-
that shit was hackneyed, juvenile and embarrasing. He could quite easily have ditched the pathetic flame spurt (which worked in the comic) and improved the scene immeasurably. Mind you, it still would have been awful.
-
Watchmen was flat as a pancake. Boring. Badly written, acted and directed. Snooze.
-
that's like saying since snyder's ozy still wears a cape and has egyptian decor in his home, that it's still the same ozy from the book. <p> the ending WAS changed. the point of displaying the monstrosity and countless bloody corpses in gory details in the book is to make us feel the horror in every sense of the word. instead, the reaction we got from snyder's version is 'wow. that's a cool cg explosion'. <p> the impact is much much lessened. done like the book, that ending splashed across the big screen could linger in your mind for a long long time. it'd be talked about just because it's so out of left field, so unpredicted, so shocking. <p> the explosion just bored me, left zero impact, and people just chalked it up as just another cg sequence.
-
ozy's self doubt is too subtle. ozy needs to get pummeled in the face by a screaming nite owl. oh wait...
-
June 25, 2009, 5:58 a.m. CST
Paperback Hardback Fuckback Boot Scoot Boogiiiiiieeee
by Stuntcock Mike
-
and Christian Slater have sex to the tune of 7 Seconds Away... <P> Don't really know why I mentioned that but it has to be said you just can't please everyone. I know a guy who will never forgive Peter Jackson for not including the scouring of the Shire in Return Of The King as he feels it changes the entire meaning of the story. I kinda see what he means, but to say the movie is then worthless is a little too harsh to be taken seriously don't ya think?
-
I'm not smart enough, how does it change the meaning? Not LOTR fan, but I'm curious.
-
Perhaps we'll get it depending on how well it sells in the US? Fuckers.
-
late july i get the DC cut of Watchmen and Moon finally opens in my city. <p> going to get the 2 films i most want to see in 2009 out of the way in the same week.
-
Fucking loved it - best movie of the year for me. The director's cut will be bought as soon as available!
-
"I don't I can stand any more large erections in my face!!" <p> Apparently you've never had an erection before... I'm sure as soon as your balls drop your chances will increase significantly.
-
is better crafted than the whole of Michael Bay's filmography. Fact.
-
I think it's finally time to acknowledge the mistake it was to remove the squid in hindsight. I mean, with Snyder's new ending the results were that WATCHMEN was panned by half of the critics, not to the lengths of TRANSFORMERS 2, but WATCHMEN was not well received universally by all critics, let's admit it got at least "mixed reviews" and this was with the supposedly new, improved for cinematic purposes ending. But was it, "inna final analysis" the right choice? The word of mouth by non-geeks was that WATCHMEN was "ponderous" to say the least. We can all admit that it underperformed at the box office. There are even those in the Oscar TB speculating that at even with ten Oscar nominees, WATCHMEN shouldn't be included. <br> <br> So what could've been different? Can we now examine what could've resulted if they'd went with the tried and time tested, crazy awesome squid ending of the comic? Why? Let's look at the benefits. First of all, it couldn't have done any worse than what they went with instead. Plus, all the people who loved CLOVERFIELD would've paid to go see WATCHMEN repeatedly just for the new monster, the giant squid, and that would've meant higher grosses just right there. Fans of the comic who were outraged by the squid's omission would've been happier and gone to more viewings as well, again generating mo' money. As for we geeks, we would STILL be talking about the WATCHMEN squid we saw onscreen today in talkbacks, but may I point out, no one, NO ONE, ever talks about the generic big, blue, meh, "Heroes" explosion ending. No one. The same results Snyder's new ending achieved could've been achieved by the squid ending AND it would've received all of the above mentioned additional benefits which Snyder's ending did NOT deliver on, plus, it may have been so much more $uccessful with said added benefits we could've been sitting here discussing the awesome upcoming WATCHMEN sequel/prequel which isn't ever, ever, ever gonna happen now.
-
Watchmen sucked. That's what happens when you give live actors the EXACT same outfits as the ones from the book. They look retarded. Everyone bashes Bay all the time but when it comes down to it, the majority of movie goers will go to and ENJOY Transformers. Watchmen is for sniveling little snot nosed terds that can't get open their eyes enough to see that you have to take some creative liberties with the characters to make them translate onto the big screen. At the end of the day the boxoffice receipts will tell the tale. Transformers and Bay 1, Watchmen and Snyder (and snivelling little snot nosed fanboys) 0.
-
even if it is retarded.
-
Very boring. Actors flat. Rorshach was good. Sex scene was terrible. Hrm.
-
...I didn't see it at the theater. Just wait until the DC comes out and you'll get the TRUE vision of the director.
-
Take this option away from these guys! Here it is, bunkie. You ain't Stanley Kubrick. You get to make one movie, what goes in theaters, I don't care if the STU-DEE-OH interfere with yer genius or not, there it is, that's it, make a good one anyway.<p>To be fair to Snyder, even as a life long comic fan who bought WATCHMEN issue by issue in the mid 80s (when being a comic fan was even geekier than it is now), the property was probably never all the cinematic. Deconstruction just doesn't work unless what's being deconstruction already dominates the medium. There's lots of superhero movies, but not enough to decontstruct them in movies. Satire, yes (BLAZING SADDLES was a great satire but still a traditional western at heart)but not deconstruction.
-
By "Directors Cut" do you mean this is an Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons version? Because Snyder "directed" fuck all. He just recreated the images from the funnybook in film form. <p>It's as big a waste of everyones time as the Van Sant/Psycho debacle.
-
Watchmen was a tremendous flop. It had an ok opening weekend and then it tanked. Transformers will make more in two weeks then Watchmen did in it's entire run. Why? BECAUSE IT FUN! I haven't talked to one single living, breathing person that hasn't LOVED the new Transformers. I can't wait to see it. The ONLY redeeming quality about Watchmen was Rorshach. That's it, nothing else.
-
I'm sorry you didn't like The Watchmen, but not nearly as sorry that you're going to love Bayformers 2.
-
We NEED a version with the black freighter cut throughout.
-
The reason you guys are so obsessed with Dr. Manhattan's penis?<br /><br />It's because you're all so fat you haven't seen your own since the Clinton Administration.
-
That was awesome. I will, like I said earlier, give it up for Rorshach. He was AWESOME! Other than that, it sucked ass.
-
Hey Guys, does this obsession with talking about how "gay" movies are and penises help you deal with your latent homosexual fantasies? If it does, i'm happy that you have an outlet besides beating down a fag. I hear hate crimes carry a harsh sentence these days.
-
...it united humanity and ended the Cold War, but divided Watchmen fans on whether it needed to be included in the movie (I like both endings, btw).
-
reminds me of cnn "hologram". What's the fucking point?
-
Just wondering.
-
I'm fed up with people saying these movies have got "dark". I'm a fan, but they're about as dark as the Milky Bar Kid's pubes. I remember when the second film came out when I was still at school and the press were saying how this one would be darker and more terrifying for kids. And they've said the same fucking thing every time a new one comes out. On an unrelated note, Watchmen was ok. It was much better on a second viewing, but I'm not sure how the Director's Cut will be any better - since its biggest weakness was the fact it was much too long.
-
June 25, 2009, 8:26 a.m. CST
It's like when there was an extended cut of King Kong...
by The Penultimate Gunslinger
... I just don't get the desire to make these over-long movies even longer. As Hitchcock said: "The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder". Sometimes less is more. Every movie has to drag on and on these days, even mindless bullshit like Transformers which can't even justify it with the need to show a complicated plot.
-
Directors cut = unbelievable. Black Freighter Cut this fall = Masterpiece.
-
was not memorable by any stretch of the imagination.
-
I'm surprised it's Minneapolis instead of Chicago and Dallas instead of Austin. I'll be there that weekend!
-
Would have liked the squid, but didn't get it. I thought the same message was pretty much there. HOWEVER, w/out the squid, there is no point whatsoever to having a version w/ the animated Black Freighter woven in.
-
You guys are still funny even months later. If the string of dissapointments this summer season don't make you run back to Watchmen begging for forgiveness for being too critical than you are hopeless. Snyder has made the only memorable film this year so far and it wasn't a remake or a sequel. It was daring, original, and uncompromising.
-
Not some allusion to the squid. It makes perfect sense as long as Ozymandias is in the story. Snyder did a great job on that as well btw. As chilling to watch as it was to read.
-
...that the ridiculous comedy 'squid' from the book doesn't make an appearance. How the fuck could anyone take that thing seriously? I missed out on the theatrical release, which I sorely regret, but as a fan of the book (apart from the 'not-at-all-convincing-alien-squid-thing') I'm gagging for the Blu Ray version. Bring it on Zack! Loved 300 also. Yeah, you heard me right.
-
—that comment is funny as FUCK!!<br><br>Depressing that it's entirely accurate…
-
Of course, when your competition is X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE, STAR TREK, TERMINATOR: SALVATION and TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN, that's not very hard. Still, WATCHMEN was a great film and anyone still whining about the Squid, please go see TRANSFORMERS: ROTF. That's obviously your level of movie.
-
i agree...people who dont like Watchmen are the reason why Tranformers 2 exist. <P>trick question--which is the better film--STAR TREK or WATCHMEN...i was blown away by both...probaly have to say Watchmen though..
-
Hiring a director, that is. No point at all, if you're then going to twist his arm to where he has to put out what he wanted to see on screen on DVD months later. Or, why should we pay to see movies in the cinema if the studio will try to fool people into then paying again later for the 'real' version on disc?
-
I assume this director's cut coming out in a few weeks includes scenes at the newsstand, so the black freighter version expands on those scenes by including chunks of the animated movie?
-
...that was the only thing that made that borefest tolerable. Its like a superhero movie on Prozac.
-
we ALL knew he was doing this...snyder has been explicit as to say what wasnt in the film (including the damned squid) and that the black frieghter and other scenes WOULD BE ADDED on video..with the theatrical cut, this was the longest film that the studio would support to make a profit i guess. <P>BTW this isnt like seeing "the extremem unrated edition" with 2 seconds of shock footage..this is more along the lines of lord of the rings where it actually will expand on the story and universe. stop whining.
-
that is all.
-
edition will have the ENTIRE 'Black Freighter' story intercut with the directors cut. So, that would make the film about as long as 'The Fellowship of the Ring' extended edition.
-
I know the squid is not possible but something that shifts the tone away from Ozy being portrayed as a villain would be nice.
-
June 25, 2009, 9:42 a.m. CST
WATCHMEN is still the best film of 2009 so far (and by far)
by lavatory love machine
saw it 3 times on theaters and I've been waiting the DC with the same anticipation that I did for the return of the king EE, but Zack: I want to see the real Roschard origin story (the rape he saw from his window and nobody helped) and not the story of how he went nuts
-
I actually liked it more after a second viewing.
-
Too funny that we put up such similar posts, minutes after one another!
-
June 25, 2009, 9:54 a.m. CST
I saw it 3 times and I liked it more with each viewing
by lavatory love machine
-
Um...no. That would be Trek, kind sir. Your moniker is the greatest, btw.
-
and I enjoyed it the first time. I had some issues, some moments of head scratching, but I think if you've lived with the comic for a long time, it takes a minute to stop comparing it to the graphic novel/trade paperback and appreciate it on it's own terms.<br><br>I think the extended edition will play like a mini–series anyway; I don't know many people that watched "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring" director's cut in one sitting (I did, but I'm a huge fan of that adaptation).
-
Hard to way which I liked better, because I liked them both differently. <P> New Trek was just a thrill ride with a very likable ensemble. And it earned my respect with some very poignant moments, which elevates it for me. <P> The Watchmen, though, blew me away completely. I'd never read the graphic novel. I was enthralled by it. It was beautiful to behold, and I was riveted with how the story was unfolding. I don't understand why Zack Snyder catches so much shit. That just baffles me. He is truly a master of the craft in every detail, from dialogue, acting, and of course the gorgeous visuals. <P> I would say I 'enjoyed' New Trek more, but I regard Watchmen with a far higher degree of respect.
-
It has nothing to say. I'd give Watchmen the edge for having more substance.
-
to me that was delivered weakly, it didn't seem harsh. Those scenes needed Roland Emmerich style destruction sequences to make it seem important. People dying screaming on the streets, children left orphans the white house being destroyed, just put a white house in new york. It just seemed to pass to quickly and unimportantly.
-
to me that was delivered weakly, it didn't seem harsh. Those scenes needed Roland Emmerich style destruction sequences to make it seem important. People dying screaming on the streets, children left orphans the white house being destroyed, just put a white house in new york. It just seemed to pass too quickly and unimportantly.
-
why doesn't this website have a delete or edit comments button, are we in the 90s?
-
have ever seen in the cinema. I just can't decide whether it is better as bad or worse than the latest Terminator train wreck.
-
Ozy as the villian is whole point of the comic! From what fucking planet are you? Did you even read the book? Anyway, I would like a re-editied ending, but the changes they made were so drastic I doubt a more faithful ending is even possible.
-
<P> I'll wait for the complete cut, thanks. I'm disappointed to not be getting Watchmen in a couple of weeks, but it's the black freighter edit that I have been waiting for. <P> As for Star Trek, I enjoyed the film when I saw it, but it has been diminishing as I've thought about it. <P> Sir, we've come back in time. We can rescue Romulus from its terrible fate! <P> NOOOOOO!!!! We'll wait here for Spock! <P> But...we don't even know if he's here. Why don't we wait a little while and if he doesn't show up, we'll go save Romulus? <P> NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! We'll wait for as long as we need to! <P> Well...I don't know...can we go hang out somewhere? You know? Get some drinks...some R&R? Maybe see Romulus, our home, once again? <P> NOOOOOOOOO!!!!! We will wait in the middle of nowhere FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES! <P> Umm...ok.
-
Digital8...<p> "Sneak a peek" was coined on seinfeld??????? Are you sure?<p> Maybe it was the first time you'd heard it (if so, maybe you should get out a bit more), but it's one of the oldest English terms still in use today. <p> As for Watchmen, have they already released a DVD of the theatrical cut? I didn't care for it that much, so I wasn't paying attention. <p> If they haven't, will it be included with the Director's cut? I mean, what if someone out there liked the theatrical version?
-
cause you cant post to yourself like youre talking in the 3rd person..cerebus boy.<P>watch part 2 of reunion tonight..
-
I think it's because by not having the scouring of the Shire, the Shire ends up not being affected by the War of the Ring at all. The hobbits come home and everything is exactly as they left it, which is what they were fighting for. If the scouring had happened then they would have come home to a ruined Shire, showing that in war everything is changed and that what they're fighting for is lost anyway. It also matches the book's plot point that by destroying the One Ring the magic the Elves wielded with the Three Rings was diminished to the point that their world in Middle-Earth was lost, hence why their age was at an end and they were moving to the West. <P> Perhaps my friend's point was that Tolkien meant to say that in war everything is affected even if it's not directly involved, while in the movie this message was lost. It's a good point I think, but I still the movies are incredible cinematic achievements, so I can't dismiss them like he can. Watchmen also has some good cinema in it. I wonder why people feel the need to say it's completely crap when there is enough actual complete crap out there.
-
some scenes worked really well (opening credits, Dr. Manhattan flashbacks) others didn't (sex scene, ending) Maybe it's just because I'm a huge fan of the book, but any time Snyder deviated from the novel the movie fell flat for me. Anyone else feel that way?
-
I think the simultaneous appearances of Fred and Orcus in the Bayformers TB are affecting me.
-
there I said it. Snyders ending makes more sense, i mean why would russia not attack america because some squid attacked new york, they dont attack because of manhattan. Synders ending takes manhattan away from america and makes him a adversary the whole world now needs to come together and face. Just because you read the comic a bizillion times doesnt mean its the BEST watchmen it can be. Some stories can be improved. For me watchmen is the best film I have ever seen.
-
Snyder uses all the conventions of superhero films (hyperreal fight sequences, fetishistic costumes, action setpieces, etc.) and twists them around, just as Moore did with the conventions of superhero comics when he wrote Watchmen. I just think you haters wanted a "cool" movie about "cool" superheroes, but Snyder showed how ridiculous superheroes would be if they were real, just like Moore did. Sorry if it went over your heads.
-
i cant believe you resurrected the age old 'you just dont get it' excuse. it was a piece of shit. i like the comics and the animated version waaay more than snyder's turd.
-
I can't believe you fuckers are still all autistic over the squid ending. IT WAS FUCKING RETARDED. I tried explaining it to some friends who hadn't read the book after we saw the movie and the glazed-over "WTF?" look in their eyes was priceless. It boggles my mind that you basement-dwelling troglodytes STILL think it should have been in the film. NO, it was FUCKING STUPID and actually works against the argument that Moore's Watchmen was more realistic. Be honest about it.
-
But what played onscreen was Snyder just doing shit because he thought it looked cool, regardless of whether it fit the material. The movie is an embarrassment. I realize you're not all ready to admit that today, or perhaps even in six months. But perhaps in nine, you'll begin to start coming to terms with this. And I'll be here.
-
I hate the "you don't get it" argument too, but in this case it's true. Snyder himself explained it in an interview and it totally makes sense. Watchmen is a meta-commentary on superhero movies and how silly they can be. Even the beloved Dark Knight was unrealistic, because none of the violence has any consequences. People are shot, stabbed, and dropped off balconies without a drop of blood spilled. Bruce Wayne's "romance" with Rachel has all the passion of kissing your grandmother on the cheek. Watchmen takes us where other superhero films are afraid to go for fear of alienating the PG-13 audience.<br> <br> I don't care if you didn't like it, that's your opinion, but it was not a piece of shit. You just wanted a standard superhero movie using the Watchmen story.
-
I'm so glad you have the ability to know what Snyder was really thinking. I actually have some evidence to back up my claims, but somehow you just KNOW that Snyder made all his decisions based solely on aesthetics. One example that I think is brilliant is how he used the "suiting up" scene we usually get in superhero flicks, where we get closeups of the hero strapping on his suit. Instead, Snyder used it when the heroes were taking off their costumes, i.e. Silk Spectre I before the rape scene, and Dan and Laurie in the Owlship.
-
Anything would have been dissapointing if it had to follow TDK.
-
I agree 100%. You can also alot of research and thought went into the music choices in the film. Most of them were lifted directly from out of the comic. Playing "all along the watchtower" at the beginning of the "two riders were approaching" chapter was inspired.
-
There are almost too many to mention. Instead of having Manhattan tell Veidt that some things never change he makes it more subtle as Laurie and Jon condemn him to being alone as they leave in the owl ship. The look they give him is priceless and he is indeed alone. Snyder takes a blunt moments and makes it more subtle. Thats definetly one thing Moores comment wasn't and that was subtle. Why did they expect Snyder to be if Moore wasn't?
-
I felt it didn't work because old Zacky was trying to keep it too close to the book, and I'm sorry, but when something is adapted to the big screen, it has to flow on its new medium. Plus, reading it and taking it all in for its time was great, but people who didn't know the book figured out the bad guy in 2 seconds. Have to say, the opening credits did kick ass though. But the very end where catchup drops on the guys t-shit was FUCKING dumb. It could not of dropped in that angle.
-
How about the absolutely dumbshit idea that Dan and Laurie would stick around Karnak AND HAVE SEX afterward? It's almost funny how some talkbackers will overlook all of the flaws and unrealistic crap in the book, but nitpick the film to death.
-
Apparently, not as many people as WB thought.
-
Exactly. You're funny. <P> Everyone else-You don't get to dictate how I feel about a movie. It seems like most of you missed the point, anyway. So eff off. July 21st cannot get here soon enough.
-
I agree with you 100% That, and having the movie at a shorter length might of made it more of perfect 10. People who do not know the comic could of been blown away by it. Might of come out of no where. Might of been the reason people would tell their friends to go see it instead of telling them they walked out half way through. This movie had such a huge drop off. Barley passed the 100 mil mark.
-
The ketchup drop on the guy's t-shirt was in the book - see the last two panels. You can blame that one on Moore and Gibbons.<br> <br> Superficially, Watchmen is a noirish murder mystery, but it doesn't matter if we know Ozy is the bad guy. Ozy is a twist on the usual supervillain who wants to take over the world for his own selfish purposes; the surprise is that he isn't really a villain, his purpose is to actually save the world, and unlike most villains, he doesn't want any of the credit.
-
mitortilla hit it on the head. The impact the ending of the book has is not directly related IN ANY WAY to the squid itself. The impact is from the six fucking pages of corpses and carnage before we even get to any characters or dialogue. The movie ending worked but would have been sublime had they just showed spectre and manhattan walking around a bit and looking at dead bodies and gore. Hopefully they'll put some of that in the DC.
-
The squid is not important, the destruction is important. Anybody who can't see that is fooling themselves by thinking they understand what's going on.
-
I loved TDK, but it was still a superhero movie filled with massive plotholes and unrealistic decisions. Yeah, like nobody on either boat would have pushed the button. How did Joker survive the truck being flipped over? Batman and Rachel falling 50 stories, crashing on top of a car, AND THEN MAKING GOOGLY EYES AT EACH OTHER?! "Let's not do that again" - what the fuck is that bullshit? Plenty of gun and knife play, but nobody ever bleeds. Don't even get me started on the ultra-silly "Gordon is dead, oh no he isn't" plot device that made no sense. Honestly, watch TDK as critically as you obviously watched Watchmen.
-
we live in a world where WATCHMEN makes barely 100 million in its entire run. Transformers 2 will make that in 3 days...masses are fools. i think ROTF will have a bigger dropoff by the way..and which we be remember 2 years from now? 5 years from now? 10?
-
Call it baby zombies or something.
-
There's bound to be a half dozen cuts of this movie available for purchase. So tired of being bled dry. This particular cut sounds like a cool approach, but I'll bide my time until enough of them have been released so I can have my choice.
-
TDK is more physically realistic, i.e. everything looks real and takes place in a real city, but psychologically they still act like comic book characters. Watchmen is more visually over-the-top (as was the book, unless you believe in flying cars and big blue demigods) but psychologically, the characters are real and react like real people.
-
June 25, 2009, 11:51 a.m. CST
Zack, you moron, get your fucking book terminology right
by Jack D. Ripper
The hardcover and the paperback versions of a book have NO DIFFERENCE in quality or length, it is simply a matter of PACKAGING. A hardcover book does NOT have more material, supplemental or otherwise, than its paperback counterpart. What you MEANT was the difference between an 'abridged' and 'unabridged' version of a book, because an abridged version contains less material. You are so fucking stupid, Zack. Thank Christ you've expended all your cred on this movie and people can now stop pretending to take you seriously.
-
listen to some ENO and chill dude.<P><P>i see what you are trying to say but really, does it need to be said? Snyder "meant" that first a book comes out in hardback and people are happy about it who want to read it right away...then the paperback comes out and that is usually people who dont want to pay a lot for a book and might want to read it. he sais this was the opposite of that. meaning--the theatrical version is something people wanted to see right away. the "hardcover" version is for the fans who want it all. <P>somethimes you have to read between the lines.
-
that is still less than how many cuts WOLVERINE had. <P>and they will all be good.
-
Tshirt bit - They could of just filmed it different. And your right about Ozy. I guess what I meant to say is Zack didn't get it across to us. Or the general public who knows nothing of Watchmen. Also, the big problem for me was I never felt that there people outside the Watchmen themselves. I never felt a sense of danger for anyone. Now all movies have flaws. We only forgive the ones to the movies we want to love. and Six Demon Bag, I guess I am a fool. I will be seeing TF2 and I hope I like more than I did the 1st:) Good day sir!
-
June 25, 2009, 12:11 p.m. CST
"no one you will ever meet hates Nolan's Batman more than I do"
by CaptainAxis
Yet earlier you said: "If you had said TDK is to superhero movies as Moore's WATCHMEN was to comic books, you'd've said something that was true." So you hated Moore's Watchmen? The rest of your post doesn't make much more sense either. TDK, on the surface, wasn't about a guy in a costume saving the day from some vague threat? Really? And yes, realistic superheroes ARE a joke. That's kind of the point.<br> <br> Before we go any further, do you even know what the term "deconstruction" means? I would enjoy an actual discussion on this topic.
-
Sorry but the Watchmen film was fucking terrible. Zack couldn't have picked a worst cast. The worst was the guy who played Dan. What the fuck was with his goofy ass expressions? I've read Watchmen probably 10 times in the last 6-7 years and not once did he ever come across as the pathetic goofball. Just a pathetic man who used to be a great hero.
-
the sex symbol of the seventies. you shall be remembered angel.
-
Zack didn't get what across to us? I don't know man, "the general public who knows nothing of Watchmen" I saw it with understood it perfectly. Maybe you just need smarter friends? ;)
-
Of course, any of you incredibly myopic children can't move on because your bloated egos won't allow you to. Instead, you actually feel the need to insist that our positive opinions of the film are WRONG, which is of course juvenile and ridiculous. Snyder's Watchmen adaptation was just that: an adaptation. He included most of the novel but made some tweaks along the way, as all directors do. Peter Jackson made far more liberal changes to the LOTR franchise and other directors have abandoned their respective source materials all together. Snyder made what I and many others consider an incredibly accurate cinematic version of a dense, complicated narrative that is a fine companion piece to the novel. There is no way he could have pleased everyone (especially when so many Alan Moore sycophants claim the novel is un-filmable, which is basically a bizarre little paradox unto itself since they still insist on seeing and critiquing the film) but what was delivered was hardly some puerile bastardization of the original work. I keep reading all of these self-indulgent posts claiming that Snyder “missed the point of the novel” when in reality the prominent thematic of Watchmen, which is the abuse of power and the deception of the population by its leaders, has been clearly retained. It’s almost as if some of you think the Watchmen is so complex and difficult to grasp that only brilliant humans can fully appreciate its scope and subtext, which isn’t true. The themes of Watchmen weren’t even new in 1986 but rather what was fresh and even a bit revolutionary was the vessel that Moore used to get his point across. Personally, I think Snyder’s film was courageous, relevant, and visually amazing and I resent the notion that those of us who enjoyed the film are a bunch of illiterate assholes who don’t appreciate the novel. I love the novel and frankly, it’s my appreciation of the novel that made me enjoy Snyder’s film so much because I was stunned at how much he managed to get into a theatrical print. If you didn’t like the film I can respect that but don’t come in here and act like your passion or understanding of the novel is greater than ours because that’s nonsense.
-
I don't feel Snyder nailed what you said. That "Watchmen is a noirish murder mystery, but it doesn't matter if we know Ozy is the bad guy. Ozy is a twist on the usual supervillain who wants to take over the world for his own selfish purposes; the surprise is that he isn't really a villain, his purpose is to actually save the world, and unlike most villains, he doesn't want any of the credit." Snyder should of had you write what Watchmen meant to us. I know you understood it. I feel a lot of people did. It just wasn't amazing to some. Not enough anyway to get people coming back or to spread good buzz. But who the fuck cares that the masses didn't dig it. You liked it and thats what matters. You got something out of it, and I'm not tying to take anything away from that. and no, I will never get smarter friends. I'm the smartest (and thats not saying much) and I like it that way.
-
"Now, you tell me where Zack Snyder challenged any of the traditional superhero movie tropes. Tropes, in this case, being the visual characteristics of any other superhero movie."<br> <br> There's the problem, I'm not just talking about visuals. He challenged the traditional superhero movie tropes relating to violence and sex; where all superhero films shy away, Watchmen does not. The Joker can fire his machine gun at dozens of cars and stabs a pencil through a dude's face, but there's no blood, or Superman can toss normal humans around without accidentally snapping bones.<br> <br> The sex in Iron Man is permissible because it's played for laughs and by the end of the movie, Tony Stark has seen the error of his ways. Bruce Banner can't even have sex in The Incredible Hulk without turning into a raging monster, and look at how chaste everybody is in the Spiderman and X-Men movies. No matter how "realistic" superhero films and comics try to make their worlds, it rings hollow when these perfect physical specimens running around in leather, latex, spandex, and molded rubber never have sex or address it in any meaningful way. Batman Returns is really the only superhero film that touched on the sexual fetishism of the costumes with the erotically-charged scenes between Batman and Catwoman, but it was within the confines of a PG-13 movie and only scratched the surface.<br> <br> Watchmen's sex scenes are meant to make you talk about these issues and wonder why you're so squeamish about explicit sex in a superhero film. I like that the awkward non-costumed Dan/Laurie scene on the couch was shot more realistically, while the costumed sex scene in the Owlship was total porno - the glossy sheen, the camera shots, Dan's thrusting, Laurie's oh-face. It's fantasy come to life, just like the hyperreal fight scenes debated in other threads. How could Watchmen have commented on the sex and violence in other superhero movies if it showed barely more than those other movies?
-
Every word.
-
Thanks for the civility. We can agree to disagree. Unfortunately, others need to make themselves feel better by belittling anyone who did like the movie. I have no beef with you, sir.
-
"He's also turned the sequence into a half-clever, half-heartbreaking homage to RAGING BULL, with Hollis flashing back to his crime-fighting heyday as the "Intermezzo" from CAVALLERIA RUSTICANA briefly dominates the soundtrack." <P> You have read the comic, right? Moore has flashes to Mason's past within the murder scene. But I'm sure the film version is just as gratuitously gory and graphic as the rest of the movie.
-
Wasn't that the problem with this film. It had so many homages to other films in it, that it was impossible to take it seriously.
-
but not particularly good. It was lukewarn, so-so. Some competent performances, solid visuals but the direction was flat whenever people weren't kicking the crap out of one another. 6/10 for me, 7/10 as a comic book movie. Neither horrible nor great, which is a shame. A truly awful attempt at a masterpiece would have been better than the flatness Snyder brought to the project.
-
When I have time this weekend, I'm going to check it out again. Haven't seen it since the theatre. Personally, I don't feel it was the worst film. Visually amazing. Again, the opening was awesome. It had some grit. Its the comic to life (though, I wish some things were treated better) Possibly one of the better marketed films too. I want to see Snyder do something just off a fresh script though. 300 and Watchmen are pretty specific in their source, imagery wise. Love to see him do something new.
-
Well said in your last post with the beer metaphor.
-
"Watchmen"'s sex scenes would be ludicrous in any picture. They walk the edge of soft-core, simulated porn seen in Skinemax Friday late night "erotic thrillers." They do not seem real, nor did they engage my interest on any level other than my sense of the absurd. Moore brought a complete sense of realism - clumsy fumbling, rising desire cooled by anxiety, final triumph over nerves - to the sex. Snyder's thrusting and grinding was, like his violence, gratuitous and broke the tone of the film.
-
Maybe it just SEEMED long because I was so bored. I went into this never having read the comic, but being told by my comic guy that it was "The greatest graphic novel of all time." The trailers looked amazing... I was really incredibly excited... then COMPLETELY let down. I just kept wishing the movie would end. There were parts that were good, and visually, it was quite stunning. But it just came up flat for me. Sorry to those of you that liked it. I'm not putting you down... it just wasn't my cup of tea. No DC for me!
-
I'm a GIRL and I thought it was unnecessary! I'm not against nudity in a movie if it's there for a purpose, but this was like... Hello look at my big blue penis flopping around for no reason....
-
You might as well see the Tom Jane Punisher and say, "No Marvel for me!" Neither film was very good and neither represents its publisher well.
-
I see your point regarding the paranoia of the cold war but I would actually argue that capturing that tone is nearly impossible this day and age because frankly, you had to have lived through it (and that constant, looming threat of nuclear devastation) to fully understand the era. Snyder made this film more than 20 years after the original novel was written so his approach comes off, at least to me, as a much more historical film tonally with a slightly more sterile approach because we as a society are no longer entrenched in that reality. My point is that while you are correct that he didn’t capture the paranoia of the age, it may very well be that he didn’t glean that as a prevalent theme of the novel in the same way you obviously did. I think the cold war era atmosphere is an important part of Watchmen but I certainly don’t think it was the primary thematic. I think it is logistically impossible for any film to capture all the nuances and subtle layers of any complex written work, especially one that has been deconstructed and analyzed as much as Watchmen. I sincerely think the best any director could do is read the book, decide what the story is really about, and capture that essence as best as humanly possible. That is why not everyone will be happy with Snyder’s film but personally, when I first read the book, I took away from it very similar things that Snyder obviously also got from his reading. That said, I do think Snyder nailed the cynical tone of the “real” superhero very well, especially with that brilliant credit intro that showed them larger-than-life and then also showed their subsequent mortality and failures. As to Dr. Manhattan, I agree about him being both a product of romanticism and philosophy but I’ll raise you one even better: I think Manhattan essentially represents Alan Moore: apathetic and generally disconnected from the pettiness of the human condition.
-
and look at the actual film. <P>The pacing's fucked- to begin with. It's hackneyed shit (The music is especially guilty of this), the ending is absolutely incomprehensible (the squid would have been worse) and exposition filled garbage. The acting, especially goode- but with the exception of haley, was dreadfully wooden. <P>It was just garbage fetishism. <P>Now, if you compare it to the overrated funnybook, it gets even worse, because it isn't an adaptation (with the exception of the end), all it is, is just moore's work literally vomited across the screen with nary a thought for how it would work in a different medium. <P>Sadly, it is one of the better films of 2009, but look at the competition. It's like winning gold in the special olympics. <P>TO be absolutely fair, if you are either a massive fan of the comic, or totally ignorant of the comic then I'd imagine it's quite good. If you're like me and read it once, but it didn't really do anything for you, then the film is indefensibly boring.
-
Alan Moore is a very passionate man. Just read some interviews where he talks about more than comics.
-
Most massive fans of the comic think it's mediocre to abhorrent, actually. Like me. Read it 20 times over 20 years, wrote about it, discussed it, gave copies to friends. And, as I expected, was utterly disappointed. Though, if "Watchmen" the comic hadn't existed, the movie would have seemed a good deal more interesting.
-
Can't argue with that logic! We can agree to disagree, but I fail to see how he made the sex and violence "cool" at all. He merely exposed the irony of the bloodless violence and sexless romance in most every superhero movie by using the same conventions to make his point. Call it whatever you want, but he couldn't make the same point if he filmed the fight scenes in "shaky-cam" or some other more realistic way. Same with the sex scene.
-
it's certainly fucking cynical. And the 9 different versions to totally wallet-rape a ridiculously credulous and obsessive fanbase prove it.
-
Fair enough. I was bored by it because it was too close to the comic, so assumed that if you were a huge fan then that level of translation would appeal.
-
"If at any point in the film, the characters were presented to look as foolish as they often do in the comic, I'd concede you, at least, that. But they don't."<br> <br> You can't be serious. I don't even think you watched the film. Dan comes off as a huge loser who only gains confidence when he puts on the suit, and even then he's still pretty dorky. Dr. M, for all his godlike powers, is the same "puppet on a string" he is in the book; my buddy even noted that afterward, asking why Manhattan seemingly had no will of his own. I'm guessing you saw the film once and spent most of it rolling your eyes because you'd already decided to hate it.<br> <br> "Snyder isn't making his sex scene more explicit to make the characters look awkward. He's extending it in order to sell a fart joke."<br> <br> Wow, what? A fart joke? If you're referring to Archie's flamethrower bit... it was in the book and had NOTHING to do with farts. If you're truly that dense, I think we're done with this discussion. You gave me a good laugh, though.
-
Show began airing in 1982, ten years before Clinton. I have always associated it with the '80s. Reagan even talked about in 1985, so yeah it was fairly accurate to the era. Stop embarrassing yourself.
-
absolutely true. <P>HOwever, it should never have been in the film. It was the cherry on top of the embarrassment pie of that scene. <P>It was effective in the book, I'll admit, but juvenile and asinine if you've just sat through an eternity of poorly simulated sex to a cliched soundtrack.
-
What are you, 16? I'll take a bottle of 40 Creek over that piss any day, thanks.
-
June 25, 2009, 2 p.m. CST
I was amazed that Rorshach was hurled against a stone pillar.
by cookylamoo
And then gets up like he was thrown on a judo mat. So much for gritty realism.
-
If you're going to challenge Snyder's intelligence you should at least proofread.
-
Yet I found the movie to be highly entertaining. It confused me a bit at first with all the jumping back and forth between the past and the present, but it didn't take me long to figure it out. <P>I admire the fact that Snyder wanted to stay as true as possible to the novel because not too many comic adaptions do that. Changes did and always will have to be made when you adapt comics to the big screen. From what my buddy (who saw the film with me) told me, the changes they made were well done and even though he liked the original squid ending better, he thought the new ending serviced the film fine. I will definitely see the directors cut, I am interested to see if it makes the movie better or worse.
-
had it not been in the film, nerds and geeks alike wouldve cried murder most foul. snyder cant win...he did a hell of a job all things considering. even the ending worked for the condensed film..
-
I told them it was a drama about superheroes, because when you tell people a superhero movie, they expect flare, action, colorful bad guys. Watchmen was a drama, a character study about people who happened to be superheroes, and a well done one at that.
-
Whats happening?
-
yeah the film was great, but you should jump on the book. awesome, that goes without saying.<P>i remember when i was young i thought Dark Knight Returns was the best (comic) book id read until my friend dropped watchmen in front of me..the film was very faithful to the look, the tone, everything. it was like a live action comic book.
-
yeah July 21 cant get here soon enough..watchmen AND GI JOE cartoon out on the same day...whats my inner child to do?
-
Normally this is the sort of thing I'd pick up in a heartbeat, even though I didn't like the movie much. I want to see the extended cut and I want to check out the extras. But if the "Black Freighter" version is truly coming for Christmas, I'll wait. Unless that's only on Blu-Ray, which seems like the sort of screw-the-consumer move they might pull.
-
Yea my buddy has the graphic novel, when I finish reading the SW book I am reading now I will have to get i from him. But who knows how long til I finish the book I am reading now. No matter how good a book is, I can take a year and a day to finish it LOL.
-
which SW book?
-
To tell people they have "flawed logic"? About a piece of cinema? When, for the love of Christ, has logic EVER applied to cinema? The whole point is that it's ultimately a trick! You talk about "tone" like it's something measurable, and my 'favourite'? (The quotes are for an implied sarcastic tone, not irony as I'm sure you'd misinterpret it) "Only a fucktard would think 3 more hours of shit would improve it." In YOUR opinion, for fucks sake!
-
Path Of Destruction, the story of Darth Bane and the establishment of the "rule of two" for the Sith. Just started it, good so far, Bane is a great character.
-
Does that mean, for example, that "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" is a good movie? I worked with someone who, when all of its awfulness was discussed, said, "It's good to ME!" Some things are beyond opinion.
-
Some people just don't get that all entertainment, not just film, is subjective. What is great to one of us may suck to someone else. But that is the beauty of entertainment, if we all liked the same things, there would be no variety in entertainment. <P>Don't let people on here get to you, the one's who think that their opinion is the definitive one are the ones who probably live at home and have nothing better to do but to feel superior in the eyes of total strangers....it's kinda sad when you think about it, the need to feel superior among people you have never met and probably never will.
-
If I want to see Watchmen on DVD, I've got the Motion Comic, which works just fine. Bottom line, it should have been a miniseries, and Snyder should have been let nowhere near the material. Snyder likes to rationalize his choices with "I meant it to be deconstructionist and ironic," but he failed. The point of the violence is not that it's too over-the-top, it's that he revels in it. He doesn't want us to recoil at Dan and Laurie beating the Knot-Tops, he wants us to cheer. (THAT'S why it's a copout to show the bomb's impact abstractly. I mean, the Day After showed the consequences of an atom bomb more than that, for pete's sake)
-
The comic was designed flawlessly, to capitalize on the episodic nature of a monthly series. By retaining some of the aspects of the episodic nature (having the multiple narration in particular) but not totally, it just seemed awkward.
-
getting completely hammy performances from the actors.
-
Your opinions are wrong
-
I was making a generalization but if you feel I was referring directly to you, then read my post a bit closer. I don't know you, I have never been involved in a conversation with you so how could I possibly be referring to you? <P>First off, I said "dont let PEOPLE on here get to you" I never mentioned your name did I? I was generalizing. I also said "are the ones who PROBABLY live at home" Never said anyone in particular lied at home. So why take it as a reference to you when I never mentioned you?
-
The problem was that the film was too short, and that's why it had some pacing issues. Some scenes just didn't connect together too well. And the film was still brilliantly done.
-
casting of Ozy, and lack of the coda conversation between Manhattan and Ozy. otherwise any 'flaws' are really the same 'flaws' as the source material, which i consider minimal. poor hollis. they showed him getting the statue in the face in the preview as i recall. it looked sadly brutal.
-
To explain myself to someone I don't know, but there is enough conflict in these TB's so I sure don't need to start anymore. Especially over something that was a generalization.
-
c'mon, weren't you charmed too? and jackie earl too - fantastic performance. especially in the psychiatrist's office.
-
One of the biggest problems was the cast. Crudup, while talented, was miscast and his voice struck me as inappropriate, especially as the comic indicates Jon has an odd voice that makes him seem even less human than he looks. Goode underplays far too much and doesn't look anything like Veidt should, and his light German accent and implied backstory seemed gratuitous and silly. Wilson is pretty good, playing against type. It's a solid performance but nothing more. Haley, if one excuses his completely wrong voice treatment, does a fine job as Rorschach. Morgan, though way over the top at some points, puts on a good show as Blake. But Akerman might as well have been literally phoning in her role for all the emotion she brought to Laurie. Lots of the secondary actors are no more than competent and sometimes dreadful, like Gugino, and Robert Wisden as Nixon. <P> Without decent performances, one cannot make a film that's much good.
-
You may be a tad harsh there. However, I must admit that when I hear Snyder giggle in glee, I feel a bit sick.
-
Playing a dirge during Doc Manhattan's origin & Leonard Cohen during the sex scene is no way to keep an audience awake.
-
I think you have me confused with someone that a.) even remotely liked Watchmen, and b.) doesn't agree that Zack Snyder is a hack and a meathead. But if you want to take pride in looking like a moron yourself while bashing somone else's intelligence, you go right ahead.
-
I think I made feelings quite clear earlier but the fact is people look for different things when they go to a movie. Me? I just want to be entertained and have a good time. I thought Watchmen was a great cure for insomnia, with the exception of Rorshach. I can see why a true fan of this movie would love it, or hate it. I can definitely see why someone with no prior knowledge would go see it and say "WTF? Over?". Of course if this movie wasn't so polarizing, this TB wouldn't be so much fun!
-
Because I want talkbackers here who hate Snyder and Watchmen to be taken seriously.
-
Where the fuck did you go to school? Corky's Academy for the Retarded Arts? Learn some grammar, dumbass. That Stately Wayne Manor Post was pretty pathetic. Hurry up and type your response before mommy comes in to change you.
-
because during the sex scene, i could care less how appropriate or cheesy it was or wasn't, i was just enjoying watching a hot girl doing soft core porn for 5mins.
-
That's original. AsimovLives's grammar and sometimes spelling can be dire, but there's no need to call the man names.
-
There lies the difference. I didn't find Akerman hot at all. She was like a mannequin.
-
... you're dumb.
-
You're right. I was just trying to funny and overstepped the bounds a little. Sorry Asimov! I feel horrible, maybe I should go drink a beer and try to recover.
-
We have different opinions on something and it has to turn into a festival of juvinille insults. <P>When will anyone learn that we all have different opinions and while we may agree with the opinions of others, we should, at the very least, respect the fact that we are individuals with opinions of our own. No one opinion is better or more correct than a another, and those who think that they have the definitive opinion and all other's opinions are shit are just sad people with the need to feel superior. The need to insult someone just because they like something you don't is childish and stupid, period.
-
In my previous post I meant to say "while we may NOT agree with the opinions as others" damn TB, we really need a real forum here or at least a fucking edit button LOL.
-
((((((TBers))))) <P> Kidding. But it's nice to see unanimity of niceness.
-
That is an incredibly apt description of one of the huge problems with the movie.
-
is that it was a superhero movie. The comic was psychological fiction about people who happened to be former costumed crime fighters. The movie was about superheroes caught in psychological crisis. Big difference.
-
Perfect. And Veidt like a Power Ranger with a battery jammed up his fundament.
-
He speaks in a near-monotone, flat and dead. He's not a Batman growler.
-
Listen dude, you and I don't always agree and like I have said before, it's all good, our opinions are part of what makes us individuals. I do have to say that it annoys me when people pick on your grammar and/or spelling. For one, english is obviously not your first language and IMO you do just fine with it. Secondly, there are plenty of retards on here whose first language probably is English and they have as much grammatical skill as a 5 year old.<P>So basically what I am saying is people need to stop this childish need to criticize someone for "butchering" the English language when people are doing their best to communicate with us even though it is not their first language. Jeez isn't there enough childish banter on these TB's already? We sure don't need more.
-
Let's all be nice again, now.
-
I don't know about being nice, heated discussions are always fun, but the childish insults over stupid shit is what I hate.
-
Snyder choked. Need to approach an adaptation with insight, intelligence and a unique vision in order to create something stand alone that works. (ie Kubrick's The Shining, Scott's Bladerunner etc)
-
True I was reacting about a post aimed at you, but I still was not talking about you, I was generalizing, plain and simple. If you take it as an an indirect attack on you, that's really not my problem. There were no dots to connect, as I said, I don't know you, and have never been engaged in conversation with you so to attack you would be silly. Take it as you will, my intentions were made clear, what you do beyond that is not my concern. Peace.
-
Since we are talking about Snyder, I am assuming you did not like 300? I am curious to know what about that movie you did not like if that's the case.
-
Explain how the costumed heroes survived long enough to make a career out of it. I don't care what kind of training they had or fancy suits they wore, how could one regular person take down gangs of criminals at a time? This is why I let Snyder slide with his depictions of the heroes being something more than normal; otherwise, you're left wondering how these schlubs weren't killed in the line of duty. I know I wondered that while reading the comic. On a related note, how did Ozy catch a bullet with his bare hands? I'd love to see the explanation for that one from the nitpickers.<br> <br> Oh yeah, Subtitles, did you figure out what the "fart joke" really was yet? I imagine you reading the book so many times over the years and thinking that Archie's flamethrower represented a fart. Thanks for the laugh.
-
Ok dude, now I hate to say this LOL...but try to explain to me what you didn't like about 300. Nothing detailed, just a general idea of what you hated about it.
-
There's bending reality and breaking it. Allowing someone to have Bruce Lee level skills and a genius mind is one thing. Allowing a middle-aged fat man to fight like Jackie Chan while another middle-aged man jumps six feet straight up in the air, and another runs up walls, was too much for me to accept. <P> I think it's made clear that the characters consider themselves damned lucky not to have been seriously injured or killed during their adventures. Let's not forget, also, that Dollar Bill was shot, The Silhouette was brutally murdered and The Comedian was nearly stabbed to death.
-
Which one of those allowed Ozy to catch a bullet with his bare hands?<br> <br> Ozy did not jump six feet in the air. His flying leap afterward definitely looked silly upon first viewing, but after seeing the movie again it really wasn't that ridiculous. I like to think that if Ozy can create Bubastis, he can probably alter his own genetic makeup enough to give him an extra edge.
-
why can't he catch a bullet?
-
for me, the bullet-catching was like the existence of Dr. Manhattan. It walked the line of disbelief, but I accepted it. The abilities seen in the film (and I apologize if my estimate of the straight jump was off - it has been a while since I saw the movie) were, to me, gratuitous. Almost all of the physical stuff, whether action oriented or sexual, was gratuitous. Having said that for the third or fourth time, I'll stop with it.
-
I was just wondering how the nitpickers justify one ridiculous aspect and not another. It's funny to me that these people suspended disbelief for Osterman having his "intrinsic field" removed and re-forming his physical body, and Ozy catching a bullet with his bare hands, but Ozy jumps a bit higher than the world record for vertical leap in the film and everybody freaks out about how unrealistic it is. That's funny to me.<br> <br> Anyway, I love the book and the movie, so enough negativity from me. You can't please everybody, and there are plenty of people who loved the film, so I'll try not to lose any sleep over a bunch of disgruntled talkbackers who hate everything anyway.
-
Snyder nailed all three.
-
so I can say, "Giant squid." (ø‹›≈≈
-
OK, then, so you argue that nerds would have whinged that it wasn't in? <P>Fine I can deal with it being in, if there hadn't been the excrutiating shagging first. <P>Or alternatively show the shagging and not the juvenile and asinine flame spurt. <P>One or the other, not both. <P>That's what I mean about a translation as opposed to an adaptation.
-
Share a lot of complaints that have already been mentioned. Just thought i'd toss in how boring and superficial the soundtrack was, much like the film as a whole.
-
scenes? I skipped it in theaters cause I knew a 3 hour DVD was gonna come out. Why bother wasting 8 bucks for a chopped up version
-
hehehehe. <P>Skip the DVD as well. I would.
-
I've read the comic, and I liked it. Saw the movie, and I liked it. I've certainly liked other comic book stories more. Why this slavish devotion to the Watchmen? Is it really that grounbreaking? Squid aside, I thought the movie was exactly what everyone wanted.
-
I wasted my money the first time around.
-
Squiddly - Agreed. The original ending was, for me, the second weakest point in the book (the whole useless Black Freighter sub story being the worst). That the smartest man in the world couldn't see the glaring flaws in his plan made no sense to me. The movie version worked far better.
-
Film being re-edited. Co-director also removed from film.
-
If he hadn't amped up the violence and made the sex more gratuitous, you would have had a movie where people in ridiculous costumes where standing around. Talking. For 3 Hours.<br /><br />And the amped up violence is OBVIOUSLY a satirical commentary on the ludicrously superhuman feats normal human beings are capable of in EVERY movie these days.<br /><br /> Forget superhero movies. James Bond and Jason Bourne are doing leaps and rope swings that would break a normal person's ankles or rip their arms from their sockets. You geeks don't object to that. Things that were over the top satirical silliness in McG's Charlie's Angels movies have become standard operating procedure in films we're supposed to take seriously.<br /><br />Snyder knows that and satirizes it. When Malin Akerman comes crashing through the floor, lands like a gymnast, tresses flowing in a burning building, looking hot and cool and ignoring the pieces of wood hitting her on the head- You don't get that that's supposed to be FUNNY? And that sex scene was so obviously a parody of every bad glossy arty self important sex scene from an 80's movie. Who fucks to Leonard Cohen? Any director who can get an audience aroused and amused simultaneously is a talented man IMHO.
-
June 26, 2009, 10:42 a.m. CST
Snyder definetly creates "super hero mode" for the characters.
by knowthyself
They they are stopping bad guys they become heroes and that includes the over the top fighting. I love how he makes a distinct difference between their normal boring lives and the "suped up action feel" they get when they have to save the day. That little smirk laurie and jon give eachother at the prison fight is priceless.
-
but it was pretty faithful to the book. yes, its totally inaccurate but makes a fairly entertaining story. i think you have a problem with the story more than anything. <P>i believe snyder has stated that he uses the slo-mo to emphasize the coolness of the scene (or panel of book). if you want to get technical, all comic books are really still frames to show the action. basically snyder was slowing it down.<P><P>and who really knows waht happened way back when anyway, history is written by the winners and passed on as legend. which is what they were doing in the film--a soldier was telling the legend of king leonidas to incite his men to stand up and fight harder than theyve ever fought before. <P>if yu take it from this point of view, does it really matter if its true or not..<P>i take more offense to Patch Adams, based on true events, than 300.
-
after MJs death
-
the movie isn't a film adaption of the true story of that fight, its a film adaption of the comic about that story. whatever historical inacuries exist, its the comic's fault and not the movie. the movie is just following its source material.
-
Asimov, if that is your idea of a short post I don't want to see a long one!!! LOL. Anyways ty for your insights. Always interesting to see your point of view on things.
-
Never cared for Dylian's music, but "times are a changing" worked perfect for the opening scenes.Another fucking Snyder Masterpiece.
-
The one essential part of the book that was not in the movie was Rorshach's nihlist monologue about how Rorshach consumed his identity. Given that they changed that part I hope Snyder finds a way to fit in Rorshach's "...and God wasn't there." monologue. It was pure poetry that could easily be translated to film. The movie as is rates about a 7 just by adding that one part (effectivly)could easily make this film a 10.
-
The absolute best critique of '300' I've read. Ever. 1000 internets to you…
-
What are your sources for information on the real historical background of 300? You've obviously done way more research than Frank Miller did. :^)
-
Curious, how many times have you watched Watchmen? There's a lot more subtlety and depth than you (and others) give Snyder credit for, stuff that I didn't even notice upon my first viewing. You're entitled to your opinion, but calling Snyder a hack is factually incorrect. Your critique of 300 is unintentionally funny. Are you saying that filmmakers shouldn't be allowed to use historical events as the basis of fictional works? 300 is a mythologized version of the event, and overanalyzing it as you've done is pretentious and a bit dull. I could see your point if Snyder and Miller claimed to be telling the definitive true story, but it was evident from the first trailer what 300 was all about. If I wanted a history lesson, I'd go to the library. I do hope you're not one of the talkbackers looking forward to Inglorious Basterds though, because that doesn't look historically accurate at all.
-
If you saw an onscreen penis and remember it as an erection in your face, I think your mind might be filling in some blanks that you'd rather it didn't.
-
a giant *psychic* squid that mentally kills everyone around when it dies, transporting into a major city and then exploding it as a means of faking a threat to the world was such a ridiculous, ridiculous idea. It completely took me out of the comic when it happened and I'm pretty sure I uttered 'wtf' outloud. Really guys, you think THAT belongs in the realm of realism? Like if tomorrow, you were watching C-Span and the politicians were discussing the pros and cons of spending 500 billion dollars of genetically engineering a giant telepathic squid as a defense weapon, which they would deploy by teleporting it into a city and then exploding it, you'd be like 'well yeah, that sounds like a reasonable idea. I'll put my taxpayer dollars behind that, it sounds totally plausible and not the slightest bit completely insane and random'.
-
You'll be glad you did. I about fell asleep in the last half of Watchmen.
-
You say that they are just fit dudes in the comic, and not super-powered-types (apart from Doc Manhattan.) That's true to a certain extent, but a bullet is still caught in the hand in the comic - and they do beat up thugs far easier than most 'normal' dudes can. AND there are psychic people existing in the world of the Watchmen comic (they're part of that stupid alien-squid plan.)
-
Not Snyder who did a top nocht job. Frank Miller is the main culprit. I mean he wrote Robocop 2 & 3. He killed a major american icon by making a mockery out of it.
Top Talkbacks
- Spoilery early review of MAN OF STEEL!! -- 390 total posts 358 posts
- Holy Crossover!! Magneto’s Boy Quicksilver To Speed About In Whedon’s AVENGERS 2 And Singer’s X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST?? -- 320 total posts 108 posts
- A review of Refn and Gosling's ONLY GOD FORGIVES, direct from Cannes!! -- 111 total posts 92 posts
- Tom Cruise Won’t Go Solo For MAN FROM UNCLE!! -- 90 total posts 90 posts
- The Friday Docback Revisits DOCTOR WHO Season 7!! A Fuller Review Of 'The Name of the Doctor,' And More!! -- 66 total posts 66 posts
- Harry dives into STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS' spoilers to reveal the truth behind the blockbuster we're seeing! -- 1466 total posts 59 posts
- Green-Band and Red-Band trailers for the new Jason Sudeikis & Jennifer Aniston VACATION ripoff, WE'RE THE MILLERS are here!! -- 149 total posts 57 posts
- Capone makes the case that THE HANGOVER PART III is neither a comedy nor a movie!!! -- 48 total posts 48 posts
- Jon Stewart casts Gael Garcia Bernal for his directorial debut, ROSEWATER!! -- 49 total posts 47 posts
- John Ary's Video Review Of THE HANGOVER PART III!! -- 45 total posts 45 posts