Movie News

UPDATE!! Check Out A Sample Of Zack Snyder's Nifty Commentary For The WATCHMEN Blu-Ray!!

Published at: June 30, 2009, 11:39 a.m. CST by merrick

Merrick here... I gather the video posted by Latino Review actually originated from THIS page at Amazon. As I can't figure out how to get the Amazon embed onto our page here, jump on over to either LR ...or check out Snyder's commentary.

Merrick here...
A week or so ago, Beaks previewed a nifty director's commentary that would be appearing on the WATCHMEN Blu-Rays (to be released July 21). You can find Beaks' write-up on the matter HERE. Now, the dudes over at Latino Review (what would happen to that site's name if a girl ever joined the staff?) have posted a clip from the "Walk On" commentary Beaks referred to in his piece, which gives us a good sense of what this kind of "experience" is gonna be like. Personally, I think it's pretty bad ass & can imagine expanding such applications in many directions for future titles. What do you think?


The WATCHMEN Blu-Ray, which features a "Director's Cut " of the film, is currently pre-orderable HERE.

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 30, 2009, 11:32 a.m. CST

    Wouldn't "Latino" stay masculine?

    by tonagan

    In French it would, even if only one of the staff were male.

  • June 30, 2009, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Fuck all you haters

    by dancetothebeatofthelivingdead

    That's a commentary!

  • June 30, 2009, 11:38 a.m. CST

    watchmen blu-ray...

    by krod

    Thought it was code for Dr. Manhattan’s thing

  • June 30, 2009, 11:39 a.m. CST

    Yeah I'll check this OUt.

    by Nickn328

    Really? A mistake that simple?

  • June 30, 2009, 11:39 a.m. CST


    by donkey_lasher

    I really want to watch this again.

  • June 30, 2009, 11:40 a.m. CST


    by donkey_lasher

    ...Dong references and hate

  • June 30, 2009, 11:43 a.m. CST

    I could give two shits about Zach Snyder...

    by fassbinder79

    ...But I will thank him for one thing. If it wasn't for his doing the Watchmen film I wanted have the Watchmen Motion Comic blu ray which is INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!! Otherwise Snyder is a no talent hack. But I like that he produces films with his wife...THAT'S COOL.

  • June 30, 2009, 11:43 a.m. CST


    by fassbinder79

  • June 30, 2009, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Alright now that I've watched it

    by Nickn328

    That's pretty damn cool. Man I wish I had a Blu-Ray player just for stuff like this. And I don't even have an HD TV!

  • June 30, 2009, 11:45 a.m. CST

    we all know that zack is a visual artist

    by bacci40

    he has proven that in all 3 of his films<p> yes, zack brought the visuals of the book to the movie...but he did miss much of the heart<p> oh, and im not a hater...i liked the just couldve been better

  • June 30, 2009, 11:48 a.m. CST


    by Dr. Samuel Loomis

    Quite your goddamn whining and bashing. I hated this movie when I saw it, yeah. I posted some of the most foul things about it, but being that I'm a 12 year fan of the novel, I used rational thinking and realized i'm not making any decisions on this film until the Director's Cut, which, unlike most Director's Cuts, it's worth waiting to see due to all the cool and held back shit they'll be putting in it. Fuck the average movie goer who knows nothing about the Watchmen novel, this is the fans movie, not yours, go back to your fucking Transformers.

  • June 30, 2009, 11:48 a.m. CST talent hack?

    by bacci40

    watchmen was beautiful to look just lacked soul

  • June 30, 2009, 11:52 a.m. CST

    I heard UK version isnt extended..

    by belasco_house

    ...that right, or that bullshit?

  • June 30, 2009, 11:53 a.m. CST


    by Mr Soze

    Why did Dr. Manhattan put on a speedo when he was 100 ft. tall killing Charlie??? Ever heard of shock and awe?

  • June 30, 2009, 11:55 a.m. CST

    Easily the best film this year...does it get a nom?

    by Jugdish

    Does it get a Best Picture Nomination?

  • June 30, 2009, 11:55 a.m. CST


    by jackalcack

    Yeah mate that is right. We got fucked.

  • June 30, 2009, 11:56 a.m. CST

    better than Bayformers duex.

    by Stalkeye

    That's right I said it.

  • June 30, 2009, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Having just seen the directors cut

    by Indexical

    I have to stay it does improve the film a little. While most of the additions are pointless things like little action beats which serve no purpose one or two scenes are great additions. It's still not great though and if you didn't like it before the directors cut won't change your mind.

  • June 30, 2009, 11:56 a.m. CST


    by fassbinder79

    There are plenty of directors one might call "visual artists." What I'm looking for is a healthy combo of the two. Nolan, Jonze, Verhoeven, Lynch are true visionaries. Snyder is purely style over substance. Nothing more or less. His constant slo mo and MTV jump cuts are BORING. He's like a poor modern day Peckinpah imitation. And that's not a good thing. Just because you use Nat King Cole in an action scene doesn't make it cool. Watchmen as a comic had tremendous heart and he can't really be forgiven for taking it all out. I'll give his director's cut a chance but every film of his I've seen really left much to be desired. 300 was a great graphic novel that he dumbed down to a green screen CGI spectacle. Dawn Of The Dead was a terrible remake where he sucked out all the important social commentary that made Romero's film great.

  • June 30, 2009, 11:57 a.m. CST

    "This part is where I raped Alan Moore's legacy"

    by Autodidact

    Alan Moore wants to commit suicide so he can roll in his grave.

  • June 30, 2009, 11:58 a.m. CST


    by OrangeMonkey

    It's true they stiffed us, but the BD is region free so playusa or is the way to go

  • June 30, 2009, noon CST

    Region-free US version it is then!

    by belasco_house

    What a con

  • June 30, 2009, 12:01 p.m. CST

    Wow, that's pretty amazing

    by D.Vader

    Regardless of whether you liked the film or not, that commentary is extremely informative and is exactly what I like to see. I hate when directors just describe what you're seeing onscreen; I love it when they delve into the process and explain how they made it.

  • June 30, 2009, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Fassbinder, he may have sucked out the social commentary...

    by D.Vader

    In Dawn of the Dead, but he replaced it with some really great action sequences and believable characters.

  • June 30, 2009, 12:15 p.m. CST

    this movie

    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    was pretty shitty. Someone has said it many times here-i don't think Zack got it.Would've been great if the visuals wer toned(a la batman begins/the dark knight)-and he wouldve TRIED to make it with some realism and STICK WITH THE STORY.

  • June 30, 2009, 12:16 p.m. CST

    It's been leaked.

    by chuffsterUK

    DVD screener of the directors cut appeared online last night...

  • June 30, 2009, 12:18 p.m. CST

    You Watchmen detractors

    by Gwai Lo

    Never explain or qualify statements like "it lacked soul" or "it lacked heart" or whatever. What does that even mean? You can't criticize a movie based on your abstract, unquantifiable criteria. Throw this criticism on the pile with "too visual" please, then burn the pile.

  • June 30, 2009, 12:19 p.m. CST

    I already ordered my copy

    by quentintarantado

    No need to watch. Will see it soon.

  • June 30, 2009, 12:22 p.m. CST

    Social Commentary in DOTD my ass!

    by Frijole

    I like how everyone wants to harp on and on about the supposed social commentary of the original DOTD. It just doesn't exist. The mall thing, zombie shoppers. It is a joke. A gag. No different than the similar gags with the ravers and commuters in Shaun of the Dead. It is blantant and totally surface level and it is NOT symbolism or commentary. It was a JOKE and nothing more. Anyone who says differently is being a pretentious nitwit.

  • June 30, 2009, 12:24 p.m. CST


    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    honesdtly...the movie had some cool elements...but man, it was awful.The animated version of this is 1000 times better than what Zack Snyder did. I dont' feel too angry, as feel its a HARD movie to adapt-and probably shouldn't have been made.But if Nolan had've done it(and imagine if the 2 new batman films didn't exsist)-he COULD'VE tackled it.But Zack figued it'd make a bundle, and didn't try enough. The villian(actor)-TERRIBLE.TERRIBLE.the plot changed(terrible).the exclusion of alot of the watchmen elements.(terrible).It just didn't quite work if you ask me.Rorsharch was great-but the alot of the tweaks bugged me(slow mo fighting, the exclsion of ALOT of rorscharh scenes).

  • June 30, 2009, 12:27 p.m. CST

    The movie was good, but forgettable unfortunately.

    by one9deuce

    The novel is not forgettable. Why? Ozymandius pulls off a fake alien invasion that blows your mind. Big, big mistake to alter that part of the story. That IS the story!

  • June 30, 2009, 12:31 p.m. CST

    While I'm thinking about it......

    by one9deuce

    Another mistake is Rorschach straight up killing the child murderer. He should have kept him handcuffed to the radiator and set the house on fire and listened to him burn. Just slashing him to death was dull and out of character.

  • June 30, 2009, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Fans that say they wanted a Watchmen movie

    by Arteska

    and then crapped on the one that Snyder delivered deserve Pineapple enemas. Daily.

  • June 30, 2009, 12:49 p.m. CST

    It would stay "Latino"

    by hebrokeaway

    Because it only needs one male to keep the masculine noun. They probably couldn't afford to change all the graphics, anyway.

  • June 30, 2009, 12:49 p.m. CST


    by Mullah Omar

    ...on the claim that someone from AICN can't figure out how to link from

  • June 30, 2009, 1 p.m. CST

    It's interesting ...

    by DennisMM

    but hardly enough to make me upgrade to Blu-Ray. So long as I only have space for a 35-inch TV and can't afford hi-def, I can't see the point.

  • June 30, 2009, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Those who say Snyder didn't "get it"

    by CaptainAxis

    are actually showing that they didn't "get it" when they read the book, which is fine because the great thing about art is that each person can interpret it differently. For instance, one9deuce thinks the "fake alien invasion" is the whole point of the story, which is a superficial judgment. It's like saying the whole point of Blade Runner is about killer robots, or the point of 2001 is about space travel. There are deeper meanings that can be retained even by adjusting a few plot points. The movie's ending is superior to the book because it ties up all the religious innuendo in the film and basically turns Jon into God - they can't see him but they know he's watching, so we better get along. How the fuck does one dead "alien squid" accomplish that?<br> <br> As for Watchmen being realistic, please read the book again. It wouldn't work as a dry, realistic-looking Dark Knight style film. Intrinsic fields, psychics, flying cars, catching a bullet bare-handed, genetically-altered animals, do I need to go on?

  • June 30, 2009, 1:02 p.m. CST


    by DennisMM

    What about fans who say they wanted a "Watchmen" movie that bore some resemblance to the book, other than visually? I'd say they have a righteous bitch. And, no, I wasn't one of them. I think "Watchmen" was just fine on the printed page, if they weren't going to involve a higher level of talent.

  • June 30, 2009, 1:03 p.m. CST

    Gwai Lo

    by fassbinder79

    How's this for qualifying a statment...He omitted one of the strongest parts of the Watchmen story (i.e. Psych scene with Rorschach). The black freighter scenes should have been in the film and not done as some poorly directed direct to video shit. Watchmen works beautifully as a 5 hour motion comic. I highly recommend that.

  • June 30, 2009, 1:04 p.m. CST


    by fassbinder79

    I never wanted a Watchmen film but I am very pleased with the Watchmen Motion Comic blu ray. Really amazing. Warners should do more of those.

  • June 30, 2009, 1:08 p.m. CST


    by idrinkyourmilkshake FUCKING BUGGED ME that he comically hammers the butcher knife into his head.they RUINED one of the creepiest, ebst parts of the film.Instead, if comes off as odd. Now-when DR.MANHATTAN would point and blow away the underworld bad guys-THERE is an example of what zack did that was pretty bad-ass(and there's like only 2 of thos examples )

  • June 30, 2009, 1:10 p.m. CST


    by DennisMM

    I would think someone with your name would realize that the film lacked most of the emotional depth of the comic. Perhaps being floored by Hollis Mason has shaken up your critical sensibilities.

  • June 30, 2009, 1:10 p.m. CST


    by one9deuce

    I said that is IS the story, not the POINT of the story. Big difference. I could sit here and type out why the squid/alien invasion is the main narrative thread, but I already know you won't get it.

  • June 30, 2009, 1:11 p.m. CST

    Fuck Latino Review

    by Argentino

    They're not even real latinos, you know? At least George "El Guapo" Roush (sp?) isn't. They posted this one story a couple of months ago wich linked to an article they couldn't translate. Turns out this article was in SPANISH! They didn't even recognize the language! I made a comment expecting an answer like "yeah, we know that, we're just too lazy to translate it". Not only did that not happend, but they erased my comment to avoid embarasement. Fuck you "El Guapo"

  • June 30, 2009, 1:17 p.m. CST

    and oh yeah

    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    fuck you captain axis. your a jackass. the film SUCKED. the GREAT thing bout the graphic novel(which i bought when i was 10-and have read and re-read) was HOW dense it was for a "comic book'.There are MANY themes in there, and the novel was supposed to be a realistic take on the modern superhero.They were disfunctional, they showcased how they would affect the world politically, they gave the idea of being hero and the consequences there are for being one.It gave the idea a weight,and that tickled our brains.the film jetisoned ALL of that, and made it into 1989 era batman.and some of the cooler,darker aspects ( rorscharch becoming roscharch...uttering the line about watching the buidling burn and no one getting out alive.or going to the prison psychatrist". And gone wa the suspnese of WTF is going on.In the novel, there hints all along that there MAY be a conmspriacy going on, but we think its jsut rorsharch being delusional and it ends with everyone coming together to deal with it.IM SORRY IM NOT BEING VERY DEEP-BUT THERE WAS A huuuuuge difference between the novel and the film. The film took alot of liberties and basically gutted the more interesting aspects of the movie.

  • June 30, 2009, 1:17 p.m. CST


    by CaptainAxis

    The emotional depth is there. Patrick Wilson disappears into the role of Dan, he IS the character from the book with all of his flaws and insecurities. Same with Jon, you can feel his detachment and how he doesn't understand Laurie anymore. Rorschach is the sad character from the book. Ozy is still a complex, layered character. Could anyone here actually point out HOW the film lacked the "emotional depth" or do you just want to keep being vague about it in every goddamn talkback?

  • June 30, 2009, 1:18 p.m. CST

    Look, guys... this is a useless debate.

    by ebonic_plague

    Watchmen worked for some of you, but for an equal number of us, it fell flat. Soulless, lifeless, empty... however you want to say it. Sure, it looked cool, but it didn't feel like Watchmen... just a flimsy representation of the spark that the book had. Blame it on whatever, but trying to convince someone objectively that this movie was worthwhile is absolutely pointless; it's like trying to argue over whether or not a girl is attractive. It's completely subjective, and what you find attractive, I might find bland and pedestrian, or vice versa. And personally, I thought this movie was the Megan Fox of superhero movies... all sexed up and airbrushed to fit the standard (for what it's worth) of modern beauty, but when you look in her eyes, there's nothing there that intrigues you, no inner spark, no chemistry. This movie had no chemistry. And judging from the general reception, I wasn't the only one who thought so. <p> I'm glad you guys liked it, but don't argue that it was unassailably perfect, because it certainly wasn't that.

  • June 30, 2009, 1:20 p.m. CST

    good things

    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    the casting of nite owl, rorscharch,dr.manhattan(except his voice) and silk specter. the violence. the soundtrack. And, thats all for me.

  • June 30, 2009, 1:21 p.m. CST


    by idrinkyourmilkshake

  • June 30, 2009, 1:22 p.m. CST


    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    still think you're a great director.I loved DAWN OF THE DEAD and 300.You're not a ad director at all, but you tried your best with Watchmen.

  • June 30, 2009, 1:23 p.m. CST


    by idrinkyourmilkshake


  • June 30, 2009, 1:25 p.m. CST


    by CaptainAxis

    I think I can handle your explanation. Go for it. I came here to discuss the film and the book, not to assert intellectual superiority and call other people names. Let's try discussing our differing points of view.<br> <br> idrinkyourmilkshake: Of course there's a difference between the book and the film, they're two completely different mediums. Watchmen is a character study of superheroes and a meditation on power and human nature, it's not about the mystery of the story itself. Watchmen wasn't supposed to be "cool and dark" at all. I really think you missed the point of the book and the movie.

  • June 30, 2009, 1:33 p.m. CST


    by CaptainAxis

    I believe there's an extended fart joke in the Director's Cut, you might want to check it out.

  • June 30, 2009, 1:33 p.m. CST


    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    i think YOU DON'T GET THE POINT I made, so here goes: THE MOVIE SUCKED. pretty simple, and I don't sound like a loser.

  • June 30, 2009, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Better than Star Trek

    by donkey_lasher

    In every way.

  • June 30, 2009, 1:41 p.m. CST

    fassbinder79....i dont disagree with many of your points

    by bacci40

    but to call snyder a talentless hack was going a bit far<p> michael bay is a talentless hack for there is nothing visually interesting in his movies, he just likes explosions<P> the ratt is a talentless hack...he likes lots of chase scenes and girls with boobies<p> im gonna hold out hope that zack will finally meld the visual with the story<p> but i disagree with your assertion about 300....the comic was very thin in was miller's experiment to see if a comic could be made to look like a blockbuster film (although, i think that kirby already did that with much of his ff work)<P> where zack messed up with watchmen, is that he did capture the look of the book, but he filled out the wrong scenes<p> we didnt need to see all the action in the jail...we needed to see the interaction of the regular people<p> it is my same argument was to why tdk is not a brilliant film...for the people of gotham are all window dressing<p> what made watchmen unique, is that moore showed the true impact of having a world with heroes in it, and you dont feel that impact if you have no connection to the man on the street

  • June 30, 2009, 1:48 p.m. CST


    by CaptainAxis

    That's the best you can do? Do you also want to call me a poopyhead and tell me I have cooties? Again, I saw the movie with people who never read the book and they picked up on the same themes as those of us who have read it. That tells me that the themes and ideas of the book were represented pretty clearly in the film. Of course it wasn't as deeply layered as the book, because it's a movie. The book has more time to explore the world with the supplemental material at the end of each chapter, as well as the newsstand characters. NO film could have done all that. Snyder got the tone and themes across within the confines of a three-hour blockbuster movie, whether you want to admit it or not.

  • June 30, 2009, 1:51 p.m. CST


    by Argentino

    I think you guys put the novel in a huge pedestal. I love it, and I think it deserves most of the praise it gets. But Watchmen isn't high literature. At all. Comics as an artform are still in dipers, man. We need like 50 more Moores, Millers and Eisners and a bunch of decades before comics grow to the level of literature. Watchmen is a great book, but I think those guys who always say they read it 5 or 6 times, should spend some of that time discovering other works of art, specially prose books.

  • June 30, 2009, 1:54 p.m. CST


    by CaptainAxis

    Can anyone name another movie that veered away from the main characters to show the reaction of "regular people" (a.k.a. characters who have nothing to do with the story or the movie itself) to the events of the film? Why would anybody expect that in a movie? Moore and/or Gibbons have even explained that a lot of that stuff was added to fill out the books when DC wanted 12 issues instead of six. WHY WOULD IT BE IN THE MOVIE?

  • June 30, 2009, 1:55 p.m. CST


    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    you're stupid.and yes-that's my opnion.and all you do is talk. well, stop showboating and spit our your UNWANTED opnion.Jesus.if not, then please...shut that trap.the MOVIE SUCKED.I don't care bout these imaginary"other people" who shared a bond of love with you on Watchmen. I think this shouldnt have been made,it's just not posisble to make this into a 2-3 hour film(as appranet by the trainwreck most of us saw-you saw something else).A MINI-SERIES would and could do it justice.I know what I liked about the novel, and Snyder didn't bring it.Sides, if you read my earlier posts-there was alot i didn't like.Aside from raping the better story elements..the actor who played Ozymadius was awful.He took me out of the film.The voice crudup used as manhattan was a bit high pitched.And Snyder focused on the wrong things.thats it, you 'bring it" now

  • June 30, 2009, 1:57 p.m. CST


    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    i liked the novel and dont like the film.that's it.You like prose books and make love to captain axis often.good for you.

  • June 30, 2009, 2:04 p.m. CST


    by Argentino

    ok, just trying to make the debate more interesting. I didn't know you were 10. Sorry about that. Carry on.

  • June 30, 2009, 2:10 p.m. CST


    by CaptainAxis

    I've noticed a common thread among people who didn't like the movie - they are mostly incapable of discourse above a third-grade level. Hell, even the normally intelligent Subtitles_Off is still trying to cover up the fact that he thought the Owlship flamethrower gag after sex was a fart joke with his weak attempts at humor. Anybody else want to try rational, even-handed discussion of the merits and flaws of the film and/or book?

  • June 30, 2009, 2:22 p.m. CST

    How vain can you get?

    by ZombieHeathLedger

    Absolutely NONE of that commentary required us to see Snyder full-time. Oh, except for the part where he makes sure to circe where he's doing a "cameo" under some duvetine which you can't even tell and is completely pointless. "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity." W. Shakespeare

  • June 30, 2009, 2:22 p.m. CST

    Fuck Latino Reviev?

    by one_guy_from_andromeda_

  • June 30, 2009, 2:24 p.m. CST

    i love latinos :D

    by one_guy_from_andromeda_

  • June 30, 2009, 2:32 p.m. CST


    by Mr.Stiggs

    You come accross as a very immature and ignorant person. No offense but your arguments are short sighted and embarrassingly juvenile. I'm assuming you are about 15.

  • June 30, 2009, 2:33 p.m. CST

    FFS, the movie is an ADAPTATION—

    by blakindigo

    —not perfect, by any means. I really enjoyed it for what it was. The movie was reflecting superhero movies of our era, where the comic was deconstructing superhero comics of it's era. That's why it didn't look like "The Dark Knight" (besides the fact they were in production at the same time). Also, Nolan's movie is the FIRST time a superhero movie took the approach of 'stylized realism'. Snyder's "Watchmen" took the approach of 'stylized hyper-realism' much like the films it comments on: "Batman" (1989), "The Matrix," (1999), "X-Men," (2000), "Blade," (1998) etc.<br><br>These films revised the genre of superhero movies and THAT is what Snyder's film is reflecting, using the main thrust of Moore's and Gibbons' ideas and cutting things out that don't serve the cinematic language. He's 'sampling' media of the eighties (music, fashions, television, etc.) to set the alternate history in context. He emphasized those examples over the graphic novels political context, because that reads better on film.<br><br>Looking at the source material is almost useless here, because the films goals are DIFFERENT than the graphic novels.<br><br>That's why the cathartic moment when Dan continually strikes Adrien is in the film. It's an emotional release that helps define his character—changing it slightly for the different medium that is fueled by action (emotional and physical).

  • June 30, 2009, 2:35 p.m. CST

    "Oh and here's my cameo, see? Look, look!"

    by Grievey


  • June 30, 2009, 2:36 p.m. CST

    By the way, "Latino Review"

    by Grievey

    "I found the graphic novel a bit hard to read through."<BR><BR> Maybe finish your ESL classes before attempting?

  • June 30, 2009, 2:36 p.m. CST

    captain axis

    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    stop posing you fag, WE ARE ALL WAITING for this intellgient discussion of the movie...where is it? prove me, us all wrong-come on you fruitcake. See what I meant about BEING ONLY ALL TALK?

  • June 30, 2009, 2:39 p.m. CST


    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    I'm 12.Sucks for you loser

  • June 30, 2009, 2:42 p.m. CST


    by Mr.Stiggs

    12...15...35. Either way your still an idiot.

  • June 30, 2009, 2:42 p.m. CST


    by Argentino

    I'm telling you, that guy isn't even latino! Read my first post. If he has a hard time reading I'm not surprised, after all he pretends to be latin and calls himself "El Guapo".

  • June 30, 2009, 2:43 p.m. CST

    You guys are whining about him pointing out his cameo?

    by D.Vader


  • June 30, 2009, 2:43 p.m. CST

    for all

    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    who I have offended by DECALRING the movie wasn't good-go to hell. for all those who think they are some kind of intelligent asshole who brags about HAVING an amazing opinion on WHY this film is so good(yet-DOESN'T even say what THAT is) are incredibly sad. I like snyder's film alot, I LOVE WATCHMENT(the graphic novel)-and i did NOT like the film.Am I NOT entitled to this bold opinion. So, again-fuck you captain axis-with your pretend highbrow opinion(which I've yet to see).

  • June 30, 2009, 2:44 p.m. CST


    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    your a bitch.12,45,55...still a worthless sack of shit loser.and a bitch.Sorry,just the facts.

  • June 30, 2009, 2:46 p.m. CST

    and oh yeah

    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    stiggs, at least you got my opinion on the movie-What's yours? Did you even have one? Or are you also sucking on the axis's cock?

  • June 30, 2009, 2:50 p.m. CST

    This is one of those Bluray only jobbies?

    by CherryValance

    pfft. I'm not upgrading until you can just download stuff into your brains.

  • June 30, 2009, 2:50 p.m. CST


    by Mr.Stiggs

    I must have hit pretty close to the mark on that one. Way to go there kid.. you just proved everything that I said about you as true.

  • June 30, 2009, 2:55 p.m. CST


    by CaptainAxis

    Perfectly sums it up. Whether you liked the film or not, it had a unique vision and it wasn't just Snyder mindlessly throwing shit on film based on what was "cool" and what wasn't. That's the issue with the people who didn't like the film, they claim to somehow know what Snyder was thinking, even when he explains otherwise in great detail. Now that those of us who enjoyed the movie have stated our case with specifics, can anyone who didn't like it do the same without vague generalities and juvenile insults?

  • June 30, 2009, 2:59 p.m. CST


    by D.Vader

    When did your debate skills go down the toilet?

  • June 30, 2009, 3 p.m. CST


    by Aquatarkusman


  • June 30, 2009, 3:02 p.m. CST

    the most impressive thing about that blu-ray commentary...

    by TheBaxter zack snyder's arms.

  • June 30, 2009, 3:23 p.m. CST


    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    sorry dude.I'm pretty slammed wih work-which is why my grammar is atrocious alot of the times.And today-I just can't really care enough./focus enough to argue bout WHY i didn't like the film.(honestly, didn't HATE it...but someone's got to be devil's advocate).And honestly, captain ass's threat to unveil an opinionated review (without actually doing it)..spurred me on.I hate wannabe's! good to see you though.I miss the LOST talkback

  • June 30, 2009, 3:25 p.m. CST


    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    Mr.Stiggs is an old educated man who makes me look like a 15 year old.And by doing it with the oldest slam in the book-by calling us juvenile! GASP! I might never recover.

  • June 30, 2009, 3:25 p.m. CST

    "The voice crudup used as manhattan was a bit high pitched"

    by Talkbacker with no name

    hahaha jesus wept!

  • June 30, 2009, 3:25 p.m. CST


    by maxwell's hammer

    Every body is faggot douche who doesn't agree with my BOLD OPINION that idrinkyourmilkshake has the rhetotical skills of a 6 month old who needs his diaper changed!!

  • June 30, 2009, 3:27 p.m. CST


    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    diaper changed...thats another good slam. actually, its not. but its okay...obviously I insulted your boyfriend.

  • June 30, 2009, 3:28 p.m. CST

    maxwell's silverpenis

    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    Every body is faggot douche who doesn't agree with my BOLD OPINION that maxwel's silverpenis has the rhetotical skills of a 6 month old who needs his diaper changed!! ha!

  • June 30, 2009, 3:29 p.m. CST

    okay, i'm confused...

    by maxwell's hammer he a real person or just some elaborate prank?

  • June 30, 2009, 3:38 p.m. CST

    actually, it's a fake person WHO is part of an elaborate prank

    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    real person? what? huh?

  • June 30, 2009, 3:43 p.m. CST

    idrinkyourmilkshake is real

    by D.Vader

    He's no prank. And to idrinkyourmilkshake: I hear ya. Sometimes when I'm too busy or stressed I tend to just lay the insults on pretty thick. I thought for a minute a kid had gotten hold of your account when I first saw your posts =). <p> And yeah dude, I miss LOST. The LOST TB made it back into the Top Ten this weekend, which was extremely dead, bc LOST made it up there with a whopping 7 new posts.

  • June 30, 2009, 3:44 p.m. CST

    by CaptainAxis

    None of the Watchmen detractors have ever posted a coherent critique in any of the talkbacks I've seen. It's all "it sucked!" and "i hate slow mo" and "it should have been like TDK" and "it doesn't work as a movie" - that's it. On the other side, you have people like blakindigo who explain why they like it. I've gone into more detail on other talkbacks and other message boards, but I can see it's wasted here so why bother until I see the other side put forth a mature critique.

  • June 30, 2009, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Simple explanation of why "Watchmen" failed -

    by DennisMM

    it had no heart. The characters were not developed sufficiently for us to care much about them. Part of the problem was that the lack of time even in a 2.75 hour movie to follow the characters at length, outside the most basic plot-driven scenes. <P> However, the acting didn't help at all. Akerman was flat and uninteresting. Goode made a warm, complex character into a two-dimensional villain. Haley was not given the emotional beats Rorschach had in the comic; though he arguably was the best actor in the bunch, he had little to work with beyond a stereotypical psychopathology. Morgan took it over the top even in quieter moments, chewing his cigar and pulling faces rather than showing us the fear behind Blake's bluster (though the Vietnam scene wasn't bad). Wilson's problem is the problem Dreiberg faces in the comic - he is provided with no backstory and must force us to sympathize with him via just a few brief moments. The sex scene, one of those moments, was laughable and cost Wilson and the character a goodwill that Dreiberg gains in the comic at that point. He's also harmed by the ending, where he sees Rorschach's death and beats on Veidt. It's a naive thing to do, and Dan, while a romantic, is not naive. <P> For me, these flaws in both the writing and the performance of the primary roles hurt the film irreparably. Of course, I'm of the opinion that no "Watchmen" film could have worked. Time was its deadliest enemy. That it was designed to work in comics, that it was a work of graphic storytelling, that it played with the conventions of the superhero within the form itself, was the second enemy. It's like filming a stage performance. It always looks weird and artificial.

  • June 30, 2009, 3:50 p.m. CST

    D.Vader - Quit Sucking Hollywood's Dick please

    by ZombieHeathLedger

    For Chrissakes, man, do you think you're gonna get to fuck their sister or something? I mean, first you take up for Orci getting his widdle feelings hurt because some TB'ers had the balls to take him to task for his part in writing the atrocity that was TRANSFORMERS 2 in typical TB style. And now you want to defend egotistical Snyder's "Here's my cameo! Look! Look!" when you can't even see shit because as he points out, HE'S UNDER FUCKING DUVETINE!!! This ain't like a Hitchcock or a Peter Jackson cameo where they can be seen, Snyder is a lump under BLACK OPAQUE CLOTH! That's fucking stoopid of him to point out that a lump of cloth is actually him. WOW! This lump in my pants is a cameo of my cock, LOOK! LOOK! I'll even circle it with the telestrater. And here you gotta get on your fucking white horse (AGAIN!) Who asked you to be Captain Save-a-Ho?! Do you want me to trash your fucking posts? You want me to trash'em?? I mean you're a nice guy and all but...fuck! Ah de da de da!

  • June 30, 2009, 4:01 p.m. CST

    D. Vader

    by maxwell's hammer

    I'm not convinced. Based on the evidence (all his previous posts on this TB), the lack of discernable coherent thoughts points towards him actually being a sexbot from a Yahoo chat room.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:05 p.m. CST

    How does Latino Review get all these scoops?

    by lockesbrokenleg

  • June 30, 2009, 4:07 p.m. CST

    "Attention to detail"

    by DennisMM

    Snyder thought it was significant that, when Blake goes through the window, the pane next to it wobbles slightly. Oooookaaaaayyyyyy.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:08 p.m. CST


    by CaptainAxis

    HOLY FUCK, give it a rest. You're focusing on, what, a 12-second comment? That's so egotistical of Snyder to have a "cameo" where you can't even see him! WHAT A FUCKING PRICK!! And when can we stop with the oh-so-original and creative Bale outburst references? They really are quite brilliant, the way they've popped up in EVERY GODDAMN TALKBACK FOR THE LAST SIX FUCKING MONTHS, but can we give it a rest yet?<br> <br> DennisMM: Well-written, although of course I disagree with almost everything you wrote. The flashbacks weren't character development? The way the characters interacted with each other and alluded to past events? The film requires the viewer to pay attention and use his or her brain. I do agree that Laurie and the Comedian were a bit stiff in their delivery at times, but Goode's performance is far more nuanced and subtle than you give him credit for. It was intentional to telegraph him as "the villain" because in the end, we find out he isn't the typical movie villain. That's the twist. Dan beating on Veidt impotently completely fits his character, how does it make him naive?

  • June 30, 2009, 4:09 p.m. CST

    Movie had the same problem as the's not very engaging.

    by Ash Talon

    I know the comic is revered, but my main problem with it has always's boring. And not just for lack of action. I can handle that. It's that the characters are rather flat. I don't really care about any of them. <p> I'll even disagree with people that say it's all about the characters. It's not. It's about the genre and its conventions. You can even say it purposely has flat characters, since superheroes from the 40-60s typically have very dry. Hell, the entire DC universe is made up of one-note personalities. <p> I'll give Snyder a bit of credit, though. He did his best. If you try to inject the characters with too much personality, it no longer is accurate to its source material. I find his Dr. Manhattan origin sequence more compelling than the comics. It's actually the highlight in the movie. <p> But both versions of the story are dry. I could give a damn about any of the events, since I don't give a damn about any of the characters. <p> For the nimrod that thinks that the original Dawn of the Dead's only social commentary was the appearance of shopper obviously didn't see the movie. Or at least weren't intelligent enough to understand it. The main characters are the social commentary. They're holed up in a center of consumerism. They go to great pains to make it their home. But it's all for naught. There's a great sequence of them growing comfortable there. They want to defend it from other people. But soon, they realize it's not enough. Having all your material needs at your fingertips doesn't lead to a complete life. They have to leave the mall and risk having a more complete life outside of its walls. <p> Snyder took this entire concept and flushed it down the toilet. He didn't fill the movie with believable characters. Not one of them is believable. They're one-note and make nonsensical decisions. Instead of developing the characters he has, he just introduces more paper thin characters half-way through. The only inspiration he brought is separating the gun shop and putting it in a different building. Although this was probably more to do with the fact that gun stores aren't in malls anymore.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:11 p.m. CST

    Talkbacker with no name - voices

    by DennisMM

    Crudup's voice was high pitched, and took me out of the character sometimes. I have 20+ years of Dr. Manhattan voice in my head, and it's not close to the voice Crudup used, because Manhattan's voice is supposed to be odd. That's why his word balloons aren't normal. Haley's voice was wrong, too, once again based on Moore's and Gibbons's original treatment and explicit statements in the script. Rorschach speaks in a creepy monotone, not a raspy Batman imitation.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:19 p.m. CST


    by DennisMM

    Frankly, I'm too tired (and too busy at work) to write at length about your objections to my reasoning. Obviously, our opinions of the film will not be brought to any middle ground. So I'll just say I think playing Veidt as a villain, at all, was a big mistake. That the shiny, pretty surface of the film conflicted badly with the somewhat realistic tone of the film. And that Snyder's attention to visuals over characterization - no matter his truncated flashbacks - generally hurt the film. I wonder what a Michael Mann could have done with the same story, or a Michael Cimino. That's the sort of look - commanding visuals but a gritty look overall - I think the film needed. And either of those men (or several other directors), I think, would have brought a much surer hand to overseeing performances. <P> Okay, I'm done.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:19 p.m. CST


    by wookie1972

    "Can anyone name another movie that veered away from the main characters to show the reaction of "regular people" (a.k.a. characters who have nothing to do with the story or the movie itself) to the events of the film? Why would anybody expect that in a movie" Magnolia. Boogie Nights. Pretty much anything Altman did. What you "don't get" is that that Moore and Gibbons weren't just commenting on the medium or the genre; they were consciously using the medium to create a world. Snyder made an action figure movie, in which he thinks that putting background characters in the frame is the same as recreating the world. It's not; it's making a backdrop. And the arguments about amping up the violence as a "comment" on superhero movies holds no water.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Ash Talon

    by CaptainAxis

    re: the original Dawn of the Dead, I'm pretty sure you're overthinking it. I've never heard that theory put forth by Romero, only that they filmed in a mall because it was cheap and it turned out to be a great location. That's what's funny about the "social commentary" bullshit, it's all in the interpretation. The filmmakers didn't intend that, other than the aforementioned idea of consumerism turning people into zombies who aimlessly wander around the mall. 30 years later, malls are filled with zombies wandering around aimlessly. Nice theory, though.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:24 p.m. CST

    DennisMM, don't give up!

    by wookie1972

    For one thing, you're completely right about Rorschach's voice. I always "heard" his voice as robotic, almost like HAL. Haley, otoh, sounded constipated. What really annoyed me is that in the "Watchmen" meeting scene (ugh; I still hate that) Rorschach is already talking in his gruff style, BEFORE he went nuts. In fact, I think they mishandled Rorschach's entire story arc. In the comic, it was about the stupid randomness of the crime that caused Rorschach to snap. Here, it becomes simply an excuse for righteous violence.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:33 p.m. CST


    by maxwell's hammer

    um, most of the movies you just listed are true ensemble films, and there are no 'main characters' to veer away from. If you're argueing that the various multitude of characters that Anderson and Altman spotlight at various moments are not important to the plot and have nothing to do with the story, then I pity the many points you must have missed over your movie-watching career.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:34 p.m. CST


    by DennisMM

    I'm tired and, honestly, don't have that much more to say, without arguing. I don't want to argue. For me, Rorschach should sound like - and I know this is odd - John Malkovich. You know that quiet, empty sound he sometimes displays? To me, that absence from the scene is the essence of Rorschach. There is no person left there, just a brain.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:36 p.m. CST

    DennisMM and wookie1972

    by CaptainAxis

    Fair enough. We may disagree, but at least you put forward some ideas of what you would have liked to see. I just think putting Watchmen in a gritty, realistic world would have removed the deconstruction aspect of the source material and turned it into a movie about retired superheroes reuniting to solve a mystery. As it is, I feel Snyder struck a good balance. The world of the film was stylized but still gritty and realistic, more so than the book, which of course had flying cars and other bizarre trappings. I really couldn't care less about losing the newsstand characters, especially the lesbians (who existed in the story only to show that homosexuality is more prevalent in the alternate reality, not as bizarre now as it seemed in 1986) and the Black Freighter stuff. I get the point of all of it, but surely you can't argue the scenes revolving around the newsstand are integral to the plot.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:40 p.m. CST


    by Delagoya

    No one gives a shit if you're "slammed with work". You're still a fucking asshole. That is your title in life.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:41 p.m. CST

    You want a coherent critique? Here goes.

    by wookie1972

    It was reverential to a fault. What I mean is that it tried to jam in bits that worked in the comic but just didn't work as a movie. Everything I've read about the creation of the original comic was that it was intended as a SERIES, and each issue had its own variations within the formula. "Watchmaker" and "The Abyss Gazes Also" are supposed to be self-contained stories in addition to part of the story. To flatten them into the narrative as Snyder did ruins it. An approach that was reasonably faithful to the plot but made some concessions to time and cinematic values would have been favourable. As an example, compare Black Dahlia and LA Confidential. Black Dahlia is more "faithful" to Ellroy's story, but LA Confidential is the better movie and ultimately does more justice to the original work.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:43 p.m. CST



    Watchmen was one of the very few movies I've seen in the cinema. It made me want to check out the GN, that's how good it was. The attention to detail is amazing. Snyder did his best to insert as many things from the GN into the movie as he could, battling for the rating, the 80's setting... while also giving the story his own personal touch so it wouldn't be just a retread of the comic. You might bitch and moan about the few thing that didn't make it in, or were changed. You refuse to acknowledge how many things he did right, he clearly is very passionate about the material. The amount of work put into the making of this movie is very rarely seen these days and you know it, you just refuse to admit it for some retarded reason. Compared to shit like TF2, Star Trek, T4 and such, Watchmen is a masterpiece that I love as much as TDK. Why Watchmen wasn't similarly well received is beyond me. Maybe it's because nobody died while making it. The quality is pretty much the same.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:45 p.m. CST

    Alan Moore as Rorschach

    by CaptainAxis<br> <br> That's how Alan Moore perceived Rorschach's voice. Not that far off from Haley's voice, aside from the accent obviously. Haley was gruffer and not as monotone, but how could you read Rorschach as empty and emotionless? I understand you had your own idea of the characters, but you can't blame the filmmakers for your own mental baggage.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:46 p.m. CST

    maxwell's hammer

    by wookie1972

    Yes, they're ensemble pieces (as Watchmen ideally would be), but no, not every character is integral to the plot. Henry Gibson's barfly in Magnolia is not essential to the plot, but it would be a lesser movie if he wasn't in it. My point is that Altman and Anderson are actually interested in PEOPLE, and so were Moore and Gibbons. Snyder thought the point was the story, which it never was.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:47 p.m. CST

    "how could you read Rorschach as empty and emotionless? "

    by wookie1972

  • June 30, 2009, 4:48 p.m. CST

    One last thing about the comic

    by DennisMM

    I have a 23-year love affair with "Watchmen" as a comic. That Moore and Gibbons managed to mix a realistic tone with obvious sf elements such as the electric cars and Dr. Manhattan himself is part of the reason I love the comic. But the means of storytelling is another. It is, to me, the perfect use of comics to explore the nature of comics stereotypes. I did not think the film's use of superhero movie memes succeeded. But enough of that. If anyone wants to read what I wrote, in 1987, about the comic, here is a link to a post in The Zone: <P>

  • June 30, 2009, 4:49 p.m. CST

    "how could you read Rorschach as empty and emotionless? "

    by wookie1972

    Because Laurie describes it as monotone. In any case, having him speak that way BEFORE the major incident that changed him is ridiculous.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:50 p.m. CST

    Is the director's commentary availavble on regular DVD?

    by lockesbrokenleg

    I checked DVD, but their shitty store never lists what's on the discs.

  • June 30, 2009, 4:55 p.m. CST

    "integral to the plot."

    by wookie1972

    That's my point. The plot of Watchmen is probably the least interesting aspect of it. The comic set out to go to the absolute limits of what you could do in terms of graphic storytelling. I don't mean in terms of sex and violence, I mean in terms of the way the comic gave the information. If all you wanted was a literal representation of the plot, then Snyder succeeded. But it would be like doing a movie of House of Leaves, or a Thomas Pynchon novel. Some things just don't translate.

  • June 30, 2009, 5 p.m. CST


    by maxwell's hammer

    I'd argue that most of the peripheral characters, including Henry Gibson's barfly, was integral in that he was the necessary foil to Quiz Kid Donny Smith in showing how pathetic he had become. That character HAS to be there.<BR> <BR> A lot of the periphary characters in Watchmen (the newstand guys, the lesbians) have potential to interesting little tangents to swerve onto, but they are not integral to the story. Remove them, and the plot doesn't change at all. You may think the movie suffered horribly because of it, but many people I've spoken with who had no knowledge of the GN didn't miss them and it didn't disturb their enjoyment of the film.<BR> <BR> And concerning the overall arguement, I agree that there really isn't any arguement anyone can make to convince anyone else that it was a good/bad film. The subjective reaction to what you percieve as 'beauty' was an apt parallel. There were a few little things I probably would have changed (an older actress for Laurie, imho, would have strengthened several aspects of the film), but I enjoyed it, and a lot of the complaints made by those who didn't enjoy the film don't even make any sense to me. Therefore I proclaim an end to all arguing forever and ever amen.

  • June 30, 2009, 5:04 p.m. CST

    I agree with Rorschach's voice being gravelly.

    by Delagoya

    Just like Bale's Batman voice is too gravelly. My preferred Batman voice is Kevin Conroy's version of Batman from JLU, not TAS. I'm not saying I wanted Bale to literally sound like Conroy, but he would've sound better with a strong, assertive voice instead of the gravelly one. Rorschach's voice definitely would've been better as raspy. Not gravelly, not whispery, but raspy. Still didn't really mind the end result though. I actually liked Dr. Manhattan's voice. It came off as really cold and distant to me. Maybe if they added just a little bit of a voice effect for err......effect.

  • June 30, 2009, 5:08 p.m. CST

    It's not about the plot

    by wookie1972

    It's about parallel storylines that add to the overall effect of the story. The lesbian cabbie nearly kills her girlfriend, and Rorschach's doctor is one of the people who try to save her. The point is that when pressed to their limits, the "average" people can be just as (if not more) heroic as the superheroes. Moore wanted to write about the humanity of the characters, not just their actions.

  • June 30, 2009, 5:11 p.m. CST


    by wookie1972

    Just read your review. Very nice.

  • June 30, 2009, 5:13 p.m. CST


    by DennisMM

    Thanks. I hope it's clear from that why I thought the film had so many problems.

  • June 30, 2009, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Watchmen was unfilmable Wookie?

    by donkey_lasher

    I think partly, that old saying is correct. Snyder just couldn't please everyone in just three hours. (How long does it take to read 12 parts of the GN and really make it all sink in?) Snyder did a great job with a small timeframe, and has to be applauded for it. Watchmen is one of the best movies this year so far, and I love the effort put into it. <p> Of course, a mini series would have been a more realistic way of telling the story, but I think people are missing the point here regarding converting a lengthy GN to film. <p> I think this film will gain more respect over time, just like Blade Runner. Not that I'm comparing the two.

  • June 30, 2009, 5:20 p.m. CST

    i think...

    by maxwell's hammer

    ...the lesbians and the shrink are nice characters who definitely add color to the GN, and certainly reinforce the overall themes, which, yes, are the focus of the work, as opposed to the plot. But...<BR> <BR> When you make a movie, you are forced to streamline things a bit, and all the points the the GN made can also be made by focusing solely on the superheroes, even the spotlight on the 'average' people. In Watchmen, the heroes ARE the 'average' people, whose averageness is highlighted by the detached omniscience of Dr. Manhattan. All the 'heroes' are shown to be every day chumps from varied walks of life, and their myriad perspectives of the way things should be lead them all the heroic in their own, equally myriad, ways. Even Adrien. Do the lesbians and newstand boys and psychologists add another layer to that theme? Of course! But when you have to start cutting things, they are not the main stars of the story, therefore they're the first to go!<BR> <BR> And I know that became a deal-breaker for a lot of people, but not for me. Would I gladly watch a super-extended verion of the movie that threw in 30 extra minutes of all those background characters? Of course! But as it was, I felt the movie worked on most levels as it was.

  • June 30, 2009, 5:28 p.m. CST

    no, "allt the points the GN made" can't be made...

    by wookie1972

    by focusing solely on the supeheroes. The point of the comic was what they were doing with the form, just as House Of Leaves is about what you can do with the book form. A hell of a lot of what made Watchmen not just great but unique was in the way the story was told.

  • June 30, 2009, 5:33 p.m. CST

    the difference between Blade Runner and Watchmen

    by wookie1972

    (and this is not original on my part, but I'm too lazy to look it up myself) is that if you want to experience Watchmen, read the original. If you want to experience Blade Runner, watch the movie (and I'm saying that as a PKD fan)

  • June 30, 2009, 5:33 p.m. CST

    the difference between Blade Runner and Watchmen

    by wookie1972

    (and this is not original on my part, but I'm too lazy to look it up myself) is that if you want to experience Watchmen, read the original. If you want to experience Blade Runner, watch the movie (and I'm saying that as a PKD fan)

  • June 30, 2009, 5:39 p.m. CST


    by TedKordLives

    Synder TRIED to do with the movie what Moore did with the GN. That's why we had all those 'normal' people jumping around and effectively possessing super-strength. It's just that no one gets it. Maybe it's Synder's fault, maybe it's ours. Maybe it'll come into clearer focus as time passes. <P> But I will say that, as this summer has progressed, Watchmen hasn't dropped out of my top 3 of the year. Seriously, is this not the worst summer for movies ever?

  • June 30, 2009, 5:50 p.m. CST

    Opinion about the film itself aside, this is an awesome feature

    by Dr_James_Wilson

    First time I've ever pined for a BD player, while that clip was playing. Very cool.

  • June 30, 2009, 6:04 p.m. CST

    that feature actually makes me want to see this film again

    by jackknifed_juggernaut

    wasn't too crazy about the finished product, but viewing it in this context is actually appealing.

  • June 30, 2009, 6:13 p.m. CST

    Captain Axis - your opinion is meaningless...

    by ZombieHeathLedger

    as you took your screen name from WATCHMEN you are obviously so far up Snyder's ass you could tickle his tonsils ao kindly STFU. Btw, I find you lack of faith in BALE disturbing...

  • June 30, 2009, 6:32 p.m. CST


    by maxwell's hammer

    ...i'm sorry you've been carrying around such a narrow view of what "The Watchmen" was about. If you think the only point was for Moore to play around with genre convictions (which is undeniably part of what's going on) then you missed out a several of the other levels Moore was writing on.

  • June 30, 2009, 6:39 p.m. CST

    Dan = not naive

    by Gislef_crow

    "He's also harmed by the ending, where he sees Rorschach's death and beats on Veidt. It's a naive thing to do, and Dan, while a romantic, is not naive." Isn't that how Ozymandias describes him, talking about his "schoolboy heroics" and all?

  • June 30, 2009, 6:47 p.m. CST

    The one change that would have made Watchmen work

    by Stile

    When Doc Manhattan and Laurie zap into the aftermath of the destroyed NYC, we should have seen blood and guts with bodies strewn all over. The destruction was too sterile and because of that the evil of Ozy's action is undercut which then further undercuts the difficulty of the moral choice he's made. If the destruction had been more brutal then we as an audience would be more revulsed by it and thus more challenged by the moral question of whether it's right to kill a few million people to save a few billion.

  • June 30, 2009, 6:50 p.m. CST

    I will get this

    by Beniffer

    very nice way of doing this

  • June 30, 2009, 6:59 p.m. CST


    by wookie1972

    No, that's not what I meant at all. Yes, there are many themes to the comic. But Moore has said explicitly that he wanted to show what could be done with a comic and, more importantly, not in other media. Snyder could have done something similar, but he focused on the plot and some of the more flashy aspects of the comic.

  • June 30, 2009, 7:21 p.m. CST


    by maxwell's hammer

    ...I concede that stretching the bounds of 'comic books' was an driving factor in what The Watchmen was about. By definition, Snyder can't do that with a movie. Could he stretch the bounds of what you can do in film? Probably, but he certainly would'nt have gotten any studio support.<BR> <BR> For some people, the fact that Snyder couldn't really tackle the comic book paradigm breaking ideas from the GN was a deal-breaker. For me, it wasn't.<BR> <BR> I was fine with him tackling some of the other themes: the ambiguity of good and evil; the variety of motivations for heroism; the tension between man's capability for progress and destruction; etc.<BR> <BR> I don't see why focusing on those themes has driven so many fans to dismiss the whole movie as a horrible failure. I accept that you may not like the film, I have just never understood most of the arguments against it. Its like telling me you don't like ice cream because it tastes too purple. That may mean something to you and you may say it with all sincerity, but I have no idea how to respond to that aside from saying, "Well, i like ice cream anyway."<BR> <BR> Also, thank you for a frank laying out of your opinions instead of telling me to go fuck myself.

  • June 30, 2009, 7:29 p.m. CST


    by Sal_Bando


  • June 30, 2009, 7:34 p.m. CST

    Dawn of the Dead

    by LoLWut

    I don't remember which reissue it is on but Romero does go into detail about the social commentary put forth in his film. I want to say he also touches on it in the Day of the Dead commentary when he was linking Dawn with Day with the different themes he was shooting for.

  • June 30, 2009, 7:46 p.m. CST

    Lol, social commentary in Dawn of the Dead

    by lockesbrokenleg

    The only commentary is how people can buy so many of the same sequel DVDs

  • June 30, 2009, 9:27 p.m. CST

    ZombieHeathLedger, pull the dick out of your ass

    by D.Vader

    And clean the sand from your vag before you burst a blood vessel. You're like, really angry. Why? Also, when you're going to engage someone in debate, it helps if you get your facts straight, that way you won't look like such a dickhead when you start your rants. <p> First, I am no white knight. You want a white knight, go to the ScriptGirl talkbacks and talk to Chromedome, JNR, and JTC. I never defended BobOrci, I merely called out the asshole Talkbackers who were engaging in dick behavior. YOU were never named in that group, and I even told you (after you got upset) that I wasn't referring to you. But for some reason, it appears you have still managed to take offense to it, otherwise you wouldn't be so angry... <p> Also, regarding this Snyder cameo, what's the big deal? You're accusing him of being egotistical and yet you say its different from a Hitchcock or a Jackson cameo where you can clearly tell its them... yeah, what's more egotistical here, putting yourself out in the open, making it obvious to the viewer that you, the director, is now in the frame... or hiding yourself in some dark corner where they'd never see you? You might want to consult a dictionary and recheck the meaning of the word. <p> And so what if he pointed out his cameo (Which I suspect was merely a joke anyway)? That means dick. He's just having fun with his commentary, pointing things out to the audience that they would never know otherwise... which is sort of the point of a commentary, is it not? Why get so agitated over that?<p> Now look, you can get upset and start cursing at me (again), like I'm sure you're going to do, but really, what's the point? Do you really want to be an asshole? Just take a deep breath, step back from the computer, and look at what we're arguing about here. <p> And finally, I know lots of Professionals, I've worked with many Professionals, and you sir, are no Professional.

  • June 30, 2009, 9:28 p.m. CST

    PS, Zombie HeathLedger

    by D.Vader

    I already did fuck their sisters. Now I'm just being civil.

  • June 30, 2009, 9:33 p.m. CST

    Fuck This Movie

    by Autodidact

    "The problem with the comic is it's boring." <p> Retard.

  • June 30, 2009, 10:06 p.m. CST

    who cares about this movie?

    by BendersShinyAss

    it was fucking bullshit! <p>i understand i sound like a hater in the transformers forums... but jesus grow some fucking perspective. Giant robots and explosions with audiance enjoyment, including laughter and clapping - vs dark brooding ugly with audiance walking out in discust at the unfriendliness of it all. <p>what is going on here with this site lately? it all started around the time Xmen came along

  • June 30, 2009, 10:08 p.m. CST

    D.Vader = Hollywood Apologist Gay Capt Save a Ho

    by ZombieHeathLedger

    Dick in my ass huh? We're gonna play it like that huh? Well, the you're mistaking my ass for your Dad's after you gave him a good chocolate licking rimjob last night and the dick in it is the strap on from your clapped out hooker mother. You wanna go down this road, sparky? <br><br> Here's an idea. Why don't you try posting something OTHER than admonitions to other posters for their comments. I mean, who the fuck asked for YOUR approval to what other people post? It's called free speech, douchie. Every fucking talkback you gotta be telling people what they shouldn't be saying? Who the fuck died and left you Harry's left nut? If you have a point about the subject matter fine, but if all you want to do is post about how other people are posting, then please, sunshine, STFU. Nobody is going to stop saying what they have to say because of YOUR opinion, Mr. Holier Than Thou, so give it a fucking rest already. What is it with you, dude? Talkback after talkback. <br> <br> And as for my professional status, you are ignorantly talking out of your asshole...AGAIN so I'll let that one slide. <br> <br> As for Snyder's cameo vs. P.Jackson's/Hitchcock's, their cameos are self-eviden, pertinent and fun, besides, Hitchcock rarely talked about his, and PJ barely mentions his in his voiceover for the director's commentary. Here, we have the completely unnecessary full time view of Snyder pausing the fucking movie to use a telestrater to circle a barely visable lump of opaque cloth. I still can't even see it with him pointing out. Who gives a shit? It's egotistical and it's inconsequential, it's not even something you can point out to your friends, "Hey look there's a lump of duvetine with Snyder underneath" because it's also seen thru a windo reflection making it completely indistinguishable. <br> <br> Now you've cussed at me about five times in your post and then you want to go and act all innocent, like you shit roses and lilacs. Nice try. <br> <br> Basically it's like this: I thought it was stupid and egotistical for him to stand there and point it out what you can't even see anyway, but if you like you can pause it on blu-ray to jack off to it all you want. End of story. <br> <br> Just get the fuck off your high horse already, dude, and you and I have no problem.

  • June 30, 2009, 10:15 p.m. CST

    P.S. D.Vader

    by ZombieHeathLedger

    And finally, I know lots of straight men, I've worked with many straight men, and you sir, are no straight man.

  • June 30, 2009, 10:49 p.m. CST

    Don't fall for it people!!!!!!

    by drdoom_v

    No way is that shitty adaptation going to get any more money out of me! Your money is better spent on "Watching the Watchmen: The Definitive Companion to the Ultimate Graphic Novel"!!! Do it! And fuck those whom hate the haters! Haters just demand perfection! Without us your stuck with Transformers 2, Catwoman, And Batman and Robin! ZINGGG!!

  • June 30, 2009, 11:26 p.m. CST

    Losers Who Hate

    by poddie

    You know, people who describe this movie as the most vile piece of shit ever made are really sad assholes who know NOTING about movies. Give me a fucking break. What the fuck did you guys want? By the sounds of it, unless Zack filmed every fucking word from the comic, including stuff like the black freighter, etc, it sucks. Guess what? You can't make a movie 8 fucking hours, ok? And don't point to the lackluster box office as proof that the adaption wasn't good. It only proves that it wasn't to the taste of the mainstream moviegoers... it was probably too hard to follow for them as it is. So go suck it haters, you will never be satisfied. What a bunch of jerkoffs.

  • July 1, 2009, 12:56 a.m. CST


    by mytmouse

  • July 1, 2009, 1:59 a.m. CST

    wow that was shitty

    by mytmouse

    im new to the talkbacks and that was my first shitty post. anyway, here's my thoughts on all of this watchmen talk. first of all, i think that commentary looks pretty awesome. it looks like the behind the scenes stuff and insight from zack should add a nice perspective on the movie. secondly, i will say im a big fan of the GN. i heard about the book because i heard they were trying to start production on the movie so i wanted to figure out what it was all about. that said, i really liked the movie. i wont say that i love it because i feel like the theatrical release wasn't the complete watchmen movie experience so im waiting for the DC. even then i dont think thats the full experience cause im waiting for the ultimate edition with the TOBF to be interwoven with the movie as well (if they even release that). personally, i think one of the biggest parts the movie suffered in was the cold war element of the story. you never really have that fear and paranoia from that people felt during the cold war era. but, i think thats only because we never see the scenes at the newsstand and i think those scenes helped to created the fear in the GN. also, i dont think zack was trying to focus on that side of the story as much. they have those few scenes with nixon and the war room but that doesn't really help. the only thing i would complain about on the acting side of the movie would be malin ackerman (if thats how you spell her name). her acting was pretty bad but that didnt ruin the movie. i think snyder did an amazing job with the movie. he was able to take the many important aspects of the novel and turn it into a three hour film.

  • July 1, 2009, 1:59 a.m. CST


    by D.Vader

    Eh, whatever. I read your first few sentences and that was enough; I have no desire to read any more, I don't care about anything else you have to say. I come to AICN to learn about and discuss film. And you apparently have nothing qualitative to offer in any of those areas; you'd rather just toss insults. So, I've no desire to interact with you. Often, I enjoy a good debate, but you've got no legs to stand on; you rely on insults to get attention, not interesting facts or witty comebacks. And yes, I'll toss insults back, as I did before, but only after someone's decided to serve them first. <p> Enjoy your time here at AICN. I'll continue to call out douchebags when I see them, and if we meet in another TB, we might just have something to agree upon. TTFN.

  • July 1, 2009, 2:23 a.m. CST

    Why did I waste 14 bucks on that shitty Tales DVD

    by lockesbrokenleg

    It sucked! Gah.

  • July 1, 2009, 6:36 a.m. CST

    Zach's Commentary

    by NacDasty

    People complain that this is a vanity project commentary, but if this was a director you liked I am certain you would change your mind.

  • July 1, 2009, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Haters, D-Bags and Talkbackers

    by redfist

    I trash your lights, buy the fucking disc, Zach needs your money...<P> fucking asses.

  • July 1, 2009, 7:41 a.m. CST

    This is pretty cool stuff.

    by knowthyself

    Definetly the future of the "directors commentary." Bluray exclusive of course.

  • July 1, 2009, 7:46 a.m. CST

    "Pausing" the commentary.

    by knowthyself

    Also a neat feature. They did this on the Simpsons Movie Commentary. Really good little addition so that you don't have to miss commentary on certain scenes and it doesn't have to feel rushed.

  • July 1, 2009, 7:53 a.m. CST

    Watchmen could have turned out..

    by knowthyself many different ways. I guess few of you read those early scripts. Snyder fought tooth and nail to keep Watchmen as faithful to the comic. Comic Geeks have become spoiled pretentious ingrates. There is no appeasing their blood lust as proven in Watchmen where Snyder sucked their collective dicks and was still treated like shit. This is why Michael Bay just ignores you people. Because you are just anonymous complainers.

  • July 1, 2009, 7:56 a.m. CST

    For every one asshole...

    by harshguy

    ...that hates a director's commentary, there are 10 more people who love them and the insights they provide into the decision making process of filmmaking. I'm looking forward to getting this on blu-ray and watching every second of it.

  • July 1, 2009, 8:03 a.m. CST

    This talkback is hillarious

    by OrangeMonkey

    "All I reads is WAAAAAAAA!!!!!!" Followed by "WAAAAAAA!!!!! you're wrong." "WAAAAA!!!!!, no you're wrong." Stating opinions like it's facts. God love the internet.

  • July 1, 2009, 8:04 a.m. CST


    by knowthyself

    Doesn't that happen in EVERY TALKBACK?

  • July 1, 2009, 8:11 a.m. CST


    by OrangeMonkey

    Very true. It just tickled me more on this story. A 30 second clip on Amazon turns people into a red-faced FURY. 'HOW DARE HE POINT OUT HIS CAMEO!!!!' Followed by 'HOW DARE YOU SAY THE MOVIE'S SHIT!!!' 'BUT IT IS SHIT!!!!' For hundreds of comments.

  • July 1, 2009, 8:22 a.m. CST

    D.Vader Pot meet Kettle

    by ZombieHeathLedger

  • July 1, 2009, 9:19 a.m. CST

    "No heart." and "No Soul." (SPOILER WARNING)

    by knowthyself

    Considering I cried when Rorschach told Manhattan to kill him I would have to disagree that the film had no heart. Not to mention I would argue how much heart Moore had ever injected into the original work. Not exactly a sentimental comic that is easy to relate too. If anything it's a pretty cold and calculated look at these ambiguously good and evil characters making questionable decisions. Lacking "soul" is another strange critique. I think the film left many of the books philosophical questions intact and to me that is enough "soul." I agree with one of the posters above. That is quite possibly the laziest way to criticize these films because you never have to explain yourself. Well you're not getting away that easy and don't get me started on anyone who says "it's nothing like the comic." I could write a book on everything that's wrong with that opinion.

  • July 1, 2009, 10:51 a.m. CST

    Knowthyself....I thoroughly agree.

    by Hint_of_Smegma

    I don't get the mentality of the ingrates, as you so rightly put it, who complain the movie "wasn't the book" and so somehow equate that to it being worthless. It was as close to the book as we could ever realistically have hoped to get, and if it hadn't been Snyder directing it the odds are it would have been barely recognisable as 'Watchmen'. The guy worked his ass off trying to keep it as faithful as he could, and he delivered, big time. With the exception of the lack of the hypno-squid, which let's face it was sacrificed to ground the film and make it more relatable, virtually everything else was in there and ALL the themes and the points Moore was trying to make are intact. I've noticed the detractors of the film rarely have anything extensive to say about their gripes - normally just throwaway "it sucked" or "Snyder blows" or the "no soul" comments that have no explanation. As you've pointed out, there can be no explanation for such comments - no credible one anyway. Snyder filmed what for a long time was considered unfilmable (not sure I ever agreed with that idea, but hey) and gave us all the book on film, as close as he could. People bitching about it are indeed ingrates, and it seems more than likely just among the geek-fashionable anti-Snyder camp. Did his debut being given the remake of Dawn of the Dead really earn him so much hatred? The guy has made better films than we could ever have expected from Dawn, 300 and Watchmen. What more does he need to do? He's a damn site better director than a lot of those who get lauded on this site, for sure.

  • July 1, 2009, 12:58 p.m. CST

    How Snyder Could Have Satisfied Me

    by Autodidact

    Make a movie about something else. Any other comic book property beside this one.

  • July 1, 2009, 1:23 p.m. CST

    DennisMM nailed it

    by Star Hump

    Have you see Harley Quinn's ass on the Assholes TB? Magnificent. I want to smell it.

  • July 1, 2009, 1:37 p.m. CST

    Just finished watching it

    by estacado1

    I'm not much of a comic reader and as far as I know before watching, the story was about a bunch of super heroes. After watching, I can say that I enjoyed it a lot. A lot of the complaints about this movie are from fans of the comic. But as a person who hasn't read it, I say the movie stands very well on its own.

  • July 1, 2009, 2:39 p.m. CST

    The heart in "Watchmen"

    by DennisMM

    was too rarely seen. Rorschach's death was touching, yes. But very little about the film made me feel anything. Honestly, it bored me. That's the penultimate crime, short of digusting me outright. It was not a bad film; don't be mistaken. But it wasn't a very good film. I gave it a 6/7, depending upon whether one judged it by comic book film standards.

  • July 1, 2009, 2:41 p.m. CST

    Star Hump

    by DennisMM

    That is, indeed, quite a comic-book ass.

  • July 1, 2009, 2:58 p.m. CST


    by Frijole

    I don't think you meant to use the word "penultimate".

  • July 1, 2009, 3:04 p.m. CST

    No, I did, Frijole

    by DennisMM

    Disgusting me outright is the ultimate crime. The penultimate crime is, thus, short of the ultimate crime.

  • July 1, 2009, 3:18 p.m. CST

    I still don't think that is proper usage

    by Frijole

    Penultimate means next to last in a numerical, procedural or timeline listing of some sort. So even if you mean on your list of things that are "ultimate" crimes to you, then the penultimate thing on that list would be towards the end of the list, not second (unless there are only three ultimate crimes in your view). Whatever.

  • July 1, 2009, 3:37 p.m. CST

    I'm counting down

    by DennisMM

    From least to greatest

  • July 1, 2009, 3:37 p.m. CST

    It Was a Great Movie - But NOT a Great Watchmen Adaptation...

    by Read and Shut Up

    ...and that's not faint praise. The movie is incredible to look at, some of the performances are really strong - but as a Watchmen adaptation? Nope. <p> The novel did two things exceptionally well that the movie didn't: the novel NEVER called them "Watchmen," as that's a blanket term for ANYONE with power - costumed adventurers, police, the army, the President, the United States. By calling the "superhero team" "Watchmen," Snyder marginalized the entire point of "who watches the watchmen?" <p> Next, replacing the alien invasion with bombing cities and blaming it on Manhattan? Dumb. Why? Look at the novel - there are PAGES full of twisted corpses, blood, gore, etc. And it's inferred that those who DIDN'T die will be insane or tormented FOREVER. In the movie, you see nothing - except a smoldering hole where the city was. Horror? What horror? Where's the VISCERAL impact of the event? <p> So, I loved the movie and have pre-ordered the Blu-Ray - but I enjoyed it as a well-made movie, not an accurate representation of the novel.

  • July 1, 2009, 3:45 p.m. CST


    by wookie1972

    Watchmen the movie was "faithful," and that's a big part of the problem. It wasn't allowed to exist as a movie in its own right. It's a direct analogue to the comic adaptations of movies that Marvel put out in the 80s. Most of them were very faithful to the movies - the Star Wars ones in particular had great artwork by Al WIlliamson - but they served little purpose on their own, other than something you could "take home" after the movie. When home video became more popular, they more or less died out. So unless you absolutely have to have a cinematic version of Watchmen, Snyder's movie served no purpose. Frankly, I would rather have a good director (Greengrass) do an updated version than Snyder.

  • July 1, 2009, 4:04 p.m. CST

    Well put, sir

    by DennisMM

    I hadn't imagined the two forms in that sense, but it's a fine allegory.

  • July 1, 2009, 4:09 p.m. CST


    by wookie1972

    danke schoen. BTW, have you read any of the Watchmen archives online, which have the original usenet comments on Watchmen from rec.arts.comics? It would be great raw material for a fan studies essay.

  • July 1, 2009, 4:27 p.m. CST

    wookie1972 re:usenet

    by DennisMM

    I haven't read those, as my computer use is precariously self-limited. I tend to get caught up in too many things. It does sound like interesting material for an essay. I hope someone writes something like it. I don't write anymore, myself.

  • July 1, 2009, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Read and Shut Up

    by CaptainAxis

    Why do we need to see piles of twisted, mangled corpses to understand the horror? This argument doesn't hold water. Think of September 11, 2001. Aside from some shots of people jumping to their deaths from the WTC, there was no blood or gore shown on TV, yet I'm pretty sure people understood the horrific implications of planes crashing into buildings. How about Hiroshima? Just the image of a mushroom cloud is powerful enough to scare people into, say, invading Iraq. Can you really say that we need to see dead bodies to understand the horror? Are we all that stupid?<br> <br> As for your other point, the Watchmen team symbolizes anyone who has too much power - that's the main theme of the film and the book. I think it's an extremely minor quibble that a select few are holding onto in order to come off as intellectually superior. It's not "dumbing it down" or marginalizing the point, it's just making it slightly more accessible for those who aren't steeped in the absolute minutiae of the book.

  • July 1, 2009, 4:33 p.m. CST


    by wookie1972

    We may not need to see the bodies (I would say that it definitely adds to the scene, especially when Laurie sees the people and says "they just wanted Chicken Tandoori") but it's downright hypocritical that Snyder amps up the violence in every other instance (to the point of feitishizing it) and pulls back when it really matters.

  • July 1, 2009, 4:34 p.m. CST


    by CaptainAxis

    You would have preferred an updated adaptation of Watchmen? Really? Are you sure you're not just saying that to be pedantic? Because I'm pretty sure you guys would have ripped a "War on Terror" Watchmen adaptation an even bigger asshole. Please.

  • July 1, 2009, 4:37 p.m. CST


    by wookie1972

    I would rather have a good movie that stood on its own. Yes, I probably would have been skeptical, but I'd rather have a decent director do something original with the material than slavishly recreate something that was fine on its own.

  • July 1, 2009, 4:40 p.m. CST

    It's also downright hypocritical

    by CaptainAxis

    For people like you to complain about the ramped-up violence, yet also bitch about the lack of mutilated corpses in the finale. Instead of admitting that the Dr. Manhattan ending makes more sense thematically and is superior to the book's ending in almost every conceivable way, you are whining over the fact that we didn't get five minutes of closeups of gore and grue.

  • July 1, 2009, 4:48 p.m. CST

    I admit no such thing...

    by wookie1972

    I objected to it the minute I heard about it. Manhattan has no reason to not just squash Ozymandias like a bug. The point is that the mutilated corpses serve a purpose - they show what was really at stake. The violence Snyder *does* choose to amplify is simply gore porn mixed with righteous anger ("dogs get put down".) People were cheering Rorschach on, when they should have feared him and realized he was nuts. Snyder *glorified* the vigilante aspects of the characters rather than questioning them.

  • July 1, 2009, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Wait a minute...

    by CaptainAxis

    So was Snyder too slavish or not slavish enough? In one post, you guys are pissed because he didn't include some INCREDIBLY minor details and characters, and in other posts you're wishing he had done something completely different with the material. Can you step outside your argument and see the contradictions?

  • July 1, 2009, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Captainaxis, you do your best to miss the point...

    by wookie1972

    The fact is that the so-called "minor details and characters" are part of what Moore and Gibbons were trying to do, to recreate a world to its minute details. The plot is probably the least interesting thing about the comic (and before you say I'm being pedantic about the squid, my problem with changing the ending is that 1) it deadens the impact and 2) it makes no sense in terms of character motivation) One of Moore's points was that the "minor" characters (some of whom, in the comic anyway, have more panel-time than Ozymandias) are just as important as the heroes. My problem with Snyder's Watchmen is that he did nothing original with it, and screwed up what he did do. A more interesting movie would be something like The Shining, which veers greatly from the original text but in an interesting way.

  • July 1, 2009, 4:58 p.m. CST

    People were cheering Rorschach on?

    by CaptainAxis

    Uh, not at any of the five showings I was at. Or are these the imaginary people in your mind? Snyder didn't glorify the violence, he showed the real-world consequences of vigilantism. It was shocking and brutal, not pornographic - people gasped in the theater as they realized he isn't a hero, he is a fucking lunatic. I suppose you would have been fine if he had filmed Rorschach handcuffing the guy and leaving him to burn alive like he did in the book, as if that's more acceptable.

  • July 1, 2009, 5:04 p.m. CST

    Let me put it this way...

    by wookie1972

    The only way to describe Snyder's approach is half-assed. He doesn't realize that once you jettison whole parts of the story (Black Freighter, the artists on the island), to recreate the narrative so slavishly in other parts (the Manhattan sequence) just seems forced. Again, I use the analogy of Black Dahlia vs. LA Confidential. Black Dahlia is more "faithful" to the novel, but to put the whole story in a 2-hour movie just seems forced and awkward. LA Confidential succeeds AS A MOVIE even though it took out whole subplots and streamlined the main plot.

  • July 1, 2009, 5:09 p.m. CST

    I'm not missing the point

    by CaptainAxis

    I acknowledge the point you and others have made, and it's great in the book, but those minor characters wouldn't have worked on film and honestly aren't missed by anyone who hasn't read the book. Once again, Moore and/or Gibbons have said that a lot of that stuff was added when DC wanted 12 issues instead of six. It ended up adding to the world, but it is NOT essential to the story or the themes of Watchmen. Do you really want to argue about the squid now?

  • July 1, 2009, 5:09 p.m. CST

    bull captainaxis

    by wookie1972

    The scene was pitched so that it was about Rorschach's righteous anger, not his calm insanity. I've seen people use the quote "men get arrested, dogs get put down" unironically. In the comic, you were supposed to be repulsed but at the same time think Rorschach might have been right. In the movie, that dichotomy got flattened. In any case, it's one small scene. I could go on about the other ways the violence was amped up to make the "Watchmen" more heroic, but I don't see the point.

  • July 1, 2009, 5:11 p.m. CST

    they might not have worked on film

    by wookie1972

    but then again, for me, neither did Manhattan's narrative. Don't you see my point? If you're going to be faithful to the book, then go all the way. Or, if you're going to alter it, make some interesting alterations. Don't just film parts of the movie, artlessly cut the rest, and then claim to be doing something interesting or cinematic.

  • July 1, 2009, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Oh please

    by CaptainAxis

    You're not even making any sense. So you either have to adapt ABSOLUTELY EVERY LAST DETAIL AND SLICE OF MINUTIAE from a book, or else do something completely different? You know what, we're pretty much done here. It's been fun though.

  • July 1, 2009, 5:17 p.m. CST

    Even if it was added to fill out the comic...

    by wookie1972

    It's still important to the finished work. The original comic evolved in the creation. Real art evolves in the telling.

  • July 1, 2009, 5:19 p.m. CST

    I liked it, you didn't

    by CaptainAxis

    Case closed. I guess there really is no point in debating the merits and flaws of a film in a talkback. I was wrong. I'm sorry.

  • July 1, 2009, 5:20 p.m. CST

    no, captainaxis

    by wookie1972

    The fact that you consider the parallel stories "minutiae" shows that, indeed, we can't see common ground here. My point is that Snyder should have actually put some THOUGHT into the adaptation rather than just filming frames in live action. The fact that you can't see why the lesbian cabbie might be more integral to the comic than getting the exact angle of Rorschch's ascent into Blake's apartment shows that you just didn't get it.

  • July 1, 2009, 5:29 p.m. CST

    You're so right, wookie1972

    by CaptainAxis

    I guess you just understood Watchmen on a much deeper and more meaningful plane than my little pea brain. Your massive intellect renders all other opinions and points of view obsolete, for none of us can ever hope to grasp the importance of the lesbian cabbie. In fact, after one showing I overheard several patrons discussing how much more they would have liked the movie if it had veered away from the main characters to follow a pair of lesbians and a newsstand vendor. Consider yourself vindicated.

  • July 1, 2009, 5:36 p.m. CST


    by wookie1972

    I've tried to be civil, I've not called anybody names (except maybe Snyder). There's no need for being so snotty about this. You are the one who resorts to comments like "Read and shut up." I had a very different viewing experience in terms of going with people who hadn't read the comic. Most of them hated it, were confused, and thought it was shallowly "grim and gritty" and trying to be like Dark Knight. Maybe I shouldn't have said you "don't get it," although that has been the standard comment from fans of the movie towards its detractors (you used it yourself) But for me, the movie got many of the surface details of the comic right without understanding or presenting the themes.

  • July 1, 2009, 5:43 p.m. CST

    Read and Shut Up

    by CaptainAxis

    That was some other talkbacker's name whom I was responding to in the post. Anyway, we can civilly agree to disagree. I'd suggest watching it again without the "I'm going to hate this / Watchmen can't be made into a film" mentality. Your call. Thanks for the discussion; I mean that. Sorry if I came off as an asshole.

  • July 1, 2009, 6:01 p.m. CST

    Sorry about that, CaptainAxis

    by wookie1972

    (how often do you get to say that?) I didn't realize that's what Read and Shut Up meant. I guess I'm a little defensive because fans of the movie (not just you) complain about "ingrates."The pressure to like this movie was pretty extreme, hence my own defensive reaction.

  • July 1, 2009, 6:23 p.m. CST

    Anybody Who'd Seen It Five Times is OBVIOUSLY Invested In It...

    by Read and Shut Up

    ...and, yes, seeing the horror of the mutilated bodies was necessary to drive home the obscenity of what just occurred. As wookie said before, it's hypocritical to show a dearth of violence throughout the movie, then remove it when it's the most necessary. <p> And for the love of God don't compare this to 9/11. We're talking about a MOVIE, not a real event. A MOVIE is SUPPOSED to manipulate you into feeling something - and in this particular instance Snyder dropped the ball. Seeing an empty hole evokes NO revulsion or horror - especially when it's preempted by 180 minutes of violence simply for violence's sake. THAT moment was the money shot of the movie, period. Don't believe me? Watch the first eight minutes of "Private Ryan," a masterful piece of direction that DID take a real event and horrify us with the results. <p> Also, minimizing "Watchmen" (the umbrella theme of the piece) means you minimize the entire novel AND movie. "Watchmen" wasn't some hip and slick "team name." It was a theme and a word that evoked a pretty serious cautionary tale. Snyder forced the "neat team name" on the public to make it more palatable. For shame. <p> Finally, you'd best re-read my first post. As a movie I enjoyed it - thought it was a quality piece of work and extremely well made. Your problem is you're so invested in the thing you can't recognize any sort of critique. A shame, really, but regardless, I have the Blu-Ray on pre-order, and will enjoy watching a well-made movie when it arrives - just not a well-made Watchmen movie.

  • July 1, 2009, 7:31 p.m. CST

    Could have been worse

    by DennisMM

    Could have been the Sam Hamm script, back in the early '90s. Or the Hamm/Gilliam/McKeown script that followed. "Watchmen", I repeat, was not a bad movie. But it wasn't particularly good. Mostly, it was empty.

  • July 1, 2009, 9:05 p.m. CST

    Oh, come on

    by CaptainAxis

    The book draws on our knowledge of real events (Kitty Genovese, Vietnam, Cold War) so it's a bit disingenuous to try to divorce reality from Watchmen when it suits your argument. 9/11 and the War on Terror had some influence on the film, so it's a fair comparison to make. I realize you will never concede anything, so we can drop the argument if you'd prefer.<br> <br> Watchmen is a flawed film, like any other. I've never claimed it was perfect or above critique. The first time I saw it was with my girlfriend, and she HATED it because she was expecting X-Men or Spiderman. In my head I constantly compared it to the book, and I ended up feeling lukewarm about it as a result. But over the next few days, it tickled my brain enough for me to go see it by myself and I "got" what Snyder was doing with the material, best summed up by blakindigo above. Then I saw it three more times with other people who really liked it, having no knowledge of the book, and I appreciated it more each time. That's how I came to love the film as much as I do - I could just as easily not seen it the second time and focused on the negative instead of trying to figure out what Snyder was doing with his film.<br> <br> Anyway, Read, I hadn't seen your other posts and assumed you were one of the extreme haters. My apologies. Thanks for the discussion.

  • July 2, 2009, 4:25 p.m. CST


    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    your comments are truly ridiculous.So, please for my sake-shut the fuck up you piece of shit.You're ebtter suited for latinoreview!

  • July 2, 2009, 4:27 p.m. CST


    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    I never saw this intellgient OFFENSIVE arguemt from captainjackass-only derivative bullshit defense of the film. and oh yeah, mention of a girlfriend. I doubt that very much.You seem pretty uptight for a guy with a girlfriend.

Top Talkbacks