Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

A List Of Some Of The Added/Reworked Scenes You'll See In The WATCHMEN Director's Cut...

Merrick here...
Earlier this week, we got a preview of Zack Snyder's unusual "walk on" commentary from the soon-to-be-released Blu-Ray Director's Cut of WATCHMEN. You can find a sample of said commentary via THIS product listing at Amazon (click the "Related Media" tab labeled "Maximum Movie Mode" for a four+ minute demonstration of the new feature). A reader named Ulysses got a look at the Director's Cut, and sent in a quick list of some of changes/extensions we'll see on that Director's Cut...
I was luckily enough to get to see the 3 hour director's cut of Watchmen yesterday and I want to give you short review with a list of changes I noticed. First thing is first not all the changes are directly from the comic. A few extensions of scenes are entirely made up. A few of the new scenes are just same situation and location but different dialouge (good though and true to the spirit of the scene from the comic book and to the characters themselves.) Most of the changes bring it dead on with comic. Added monolouge and dialouge here and there. I would rate the theatrical cut an 8 and this 3hr cut a 10 Here's a list of changes that I noticed: 1. At the end of Rorschach's search of the comedian's apartment. Two cops enter, he knocks one of the cops out and jumps out the window as the other cop is firing his gun at him. 2. Rorschach has more comic book monolouge, throughout the movie. Though I'm only going to mention it once. (nothing but the good stuff too.) 3. Dan and Holis's visit is extended by seeing roschrach on TV. Hollis comments "It didn't stop him." (refering to the keane act.) 4. More scenes from the comic such as: -- Before they walk into the alley we are introduced to the scene by the news vendor talking to Seymour delivering his papers. -- When Jon says "leave me alone" everyone in the room disappears. Leaving him alone. -- Cut back to Laurie and Dan at the end of the fight. -- Laurie decides to go back to the military base and Dan meets with Hollis; they watch TV and learn of Jon's departure. Dan says laurie doesn't know. Cut to Jon on Mars and his story. --The only major difference in this scene that I can remember is Jon talks about his symbol, slightly varied from the comic he says,"The boys in marketing wanted me to have a symbol. I said if I should have a symbol it shall be one I respect." --Next scene is Laurie getting interrogated at the military base. They discover that Jon is on Mars and Laurie escapes and decides to go stay with Dan. 5. Rorschach has more dialogue from the comic with Dr. Malcom. Also in his story of the girl, the murder is shown as in the comic - walking outside, asking his dogs to bark, when they don't he draws his gun and enters the building. 6. Rorschach and Laurie argue on the rooftop of the jail; Rorschach more or less calls Laurie a whore. They escape. 7. Jon and Laurie begin their conversation as they did in the comic: "You're going to tell me you have been having an affair with Dan". 8. A few more interesting changes, happen. 9. Oh and Hollis talks on the phone with Sally, only to be interrupted by knocks at the door. He has a great montage death scene. They also explain why the knot heads go there at an earlier point. 10. In the bar, Dan sees the news of Hollis's death by knot heads and beats up one in the bar (knocks out like all of his front teeth. pretty brutal).


Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • July 2, 2009, 10:31 a.m. CST

    Everybody Loves Watchmen

    by hebrokeaway

    Yes, they do.

  • July 2, 2009, 10:32 a.m. CST

    First

    by Maceox

    Probably not

  • July 2, 2009, 10:33 a.m. CST

    Good thing

    by Maceox

    If I acyually had gotten first, the rest of my life would have been the epilogue.

  • July 2, 2009, 10:33 a.m. CST

    SOUNDS AWAOME!

    by Ebixby

    FIRST! if you like comic art and talking about it go to http://chillustrators.ning.com/

  • July 2, 2009, 10:33 a.m. CST

    Roschrach?

    by knightrider

    Hm.

  • July 2, 2009, 10:34 a.m. CST

    For fuck's sake

    by OrangeMonkey

    Just spellcheck the copy before you post it. You make that person look like an idiot by putting it up in that state.

  • July 2, 2009, 10:35 a.m. CST

    additional time to tell the story isn't what this film lacked

    by hegele

    it's a juvenile mess of a film. Snyder needs a slap on the face.

  • July 2, 2009, 10:35 a.m. CST

    change number 8

    by will munny

    sounds like the best one

  • July 2, 2009, 10:37 a.m. CST

    One more time.

    by Mr Soze

    I really tried to like this movie, will give it another chance with the dvd

  • July 2, 2009, 10:38 a.m. CST

    Squid?

    by Jonas Grumpy

    Did they bring back the original ending?

  • July 2, 2009, 10:39 a.m. CST

    hahaha

    by thinboyslim.

    "a few more interesting changes happen" what a fantastically precise write up.

  • July 2, 2009, 10:39 a.m. CST

    Kingdom of Heaven - Director's Cut

    by Mr Gorilla

    I'm still shocked at how bad the theatrical version was, and how amazingly good the full director's cut is. Can't wait therefore to see the director's cut of Watchmen - Oh, wait, I can't, because WARNERS ARE NOT RELEASING IT IN THE UK!!!!!! YOU BASTARDS!!!!!!!!

  • July 2, 2009, 10:39 a.m. CST

    Spellcheck?!?! where is Cobra Kai?

    by ElvisPresLeeHorsleyHarveyOswaldOprahWinFreeJackHorkheimer

    To say - Spellcheck does not exist in this dojo - <br /> Still have yet to watch more than the trailer of The Snyd's Watchmen effort, been waiting for THIS cut. <br /> Maybe I just wanted to be dissapointed for a full three hours.

  • July 2, 2009, 10:40 a.m. CST

    Luckily?

    by louisse

    It's pretty obvious it's been leaked on the internet

  • July 2, 2009, 10:42 a.m. CST

    Can't Wait

    by Jugdish

    Wonder if they should have released this in the summer instead of the dead of spring....

  • July 2, 2009, 10:44 a.m. CST

    WATCHMEN...

    by -guyinthebackrow

    ... is like having to eat a fantastic twelve course meal, but then you get full about half-way through, and you say to Snyder, "I think I've had enough," and Snyder says, "Fuck you, you're only half-way through." So, you keep eating, and eating, and eating, until your so full that you want to die - that you don't even remember that when the meal started the food was good, because now it's just... too much.

  • July 2, 2009, 10:45 a.m. CST

    So.....

    by closeencounter

    This director's cut will probably have some added penis pics? Cock shots? Prick posts? No thanks.......

  • July 2, 2009, 10:49 a.m. CST

    "8. A few more interesting changes, happen."

    by Mullah Omar

    That is some good insight.

  • July 2, 2009, 10:49 a.m. CST

    So no Black Freighter?

    by rev_skarekroe

    I thought they were going to incorporate that stuff. Or will that be done in some super-deluxe box-set edition to be released conveniently prior to Christmas?

  • July 2, 2009, 10:50 a.m. CST

    @Hegele

    by spooky2k

    Sorry if you think that. It wasn't the comic that's for sure, but if I wanted that, I'd simply read the comic. This is as good an adaptation of Watchmen that we're going to get anytime soon. It wasn't perfect but some of the scenes in it were damn near.

  • July 2, 2009, 10:52 a.m. CST

    PLANT

    by JohnRyder

  • July 2, 2009, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Ugh

    by frozen01

    I was wondering how long it would take for some prude to get upset about the nudity all over again. <p>Gotta agree with Spooky2k, though... Other than the fact that people think it makes them look cool to hate on just about every movie, I don't know why everyone is so hard on this flick. It's probably as good as we could have ever gotten. We could've been given another Fantastic Four or X-Men/Wolverine... we should be grateful we didn't.

  • July 2, 2009, 10:55 a.m. CST

    this is the extended edition not director's cut...

    by JAMF

    isnt it? coz i heard the director's cut is 3hr 25 and includes the black freighter too. extended edition is only 3 hours...

  • July 2, 2009, 10:55 a.m. CST

    How many of the new scenes are in slo-mo?

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Pretty boring flick. Some cool stuff, but deeply flawed.

  • July 2, 2009, 10:55 a.m. CST

    btw, the watchmen film is

    by JAMF

    a piece of shit anyway. in case you didnt realise that. watch the motion comics instead.

  • July 2, 2009, 10:56 a.m. CST

    "First thing is first not all the changes are directly from the

    by fassbinder79

    "A few extensions of scenes are entirely made up." Zach Snyder is not a good director. The only good thing about Watchmen is the motion comic that Warners released on blu-ray. That is INCREDIBLE. Snyder clearly doesn't understand what made the comic great. We don't want new stuff that wasn't in the comic. I just want what made the comic great. And the fact is the only true adaptation is the motion comic blu ray and fortunately its really really stunning.

  • July 2, 2009, 10:59 a.m. CST

    "I was luckily enough to get to see"...

    by photoboy

    You mean you downloaded it?

  • July 2, 2009, 11 a.m. CST

    @closeencounter

    by SantiagoAndDunbar

    Why are you so afraid of a penis? Were you the bathing suit guy in high school? Remember, it's just a penis, it can't hurt you.

  • July 2, 2009, 11 a.m. CST

    Wonder if this is from the DVDRip that came out yesterday.

    by WickedJester

    Couldn't be!

  • July 2, 2009, 11:01 a.m. CST

    That should've had a ? not a .

    by WickedJester

    But point still remains, this is piracy supporting blah blah blah, who cares. I'm waiting for the Bluray.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:03 a.m. CST

    Yeah, cos what this film needed

    by gbc204

    Was to be LONGER. God, this was one of the worst films I've ever seen. not THE worst, but the quality coupled with the interminable runtime makes it pretty close.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:10 a.m. CST

    rev_skarekroe

    by CaptainAxis

    This is the Director's Cut, as it is Snyder's preferred cut. Apparently there will also be an Extended version at some point with the Black Freighter stuff integrated into the film. I think that will mess up the flow of the movie, though. Should be interesting.<br> <br> @fassbinder79: I like the motion comic too, but why wouldn't you just read the book if you're not interested in an actual adaptation? Do you just like the way the (male) narrator sounds when he does Laurie's voice?<br> <br> Anyway, sounds like these additions should make some people happier. I'm pleased to hear about the "LEAVE ME ALONE!" sequence, I missed that in the theatrical version and didn't like how he went straight to Mars.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:10 a.m. CST

    Snyder didn't have the guts

    by Chesterfield Slacks

    to do a cinematic version of the comic. Instead he aped every panel, composed the shots like the graphic novel. Therefore a) the fanboys wouldn't riot and whine and b) he didn't have to use imagination. He was screwed if he went original and screwed by doing an homage. Also, his juvenile fixation on glorifying violence just made it all the more purile and meaningless. Watchmen worked in the 80's. It should have stayed there.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:14 a.m. CST

    The Motion Comic?

    by frozen01

    Sorry, I know it's cool to crap on Snyder's movie and claim that a narrated comic book is genius, but I couldn't agree less. The motion comic was for people so lazy they had to have a COMIC BOOK read to them. The narrator's voice would've put me to sleep if it weren't for the fits of laughter I experienced every time he tried to do a character's voice. <p>If I wanted to read the comic, I would READ THE COMIC... not have it read to me. The motion comic was a glorified book-on-tape.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:16 a.m. CST

    Most of these sound useless

    by Bass Ackwards

    And the stuff that I do want to see, Hollis death scene and Dan's reaction to it in the bar will probably be ruined by Snyder's use of ridiculous looking violence (but yes, someone please point out that Snyder MEANT for his fight scenes to look completely stupid, because that's somehow satire).

  • July 2, 2009, 11:19 a.m. CST

    Chesterfield Slacks

    by frozen01

    He was probably more concerned with A than B. I know I would be too after the months of whining we had to live through before the movie even came out.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:19 a.m. CST

    I can't wait.

    by Evangelion217

    This film finally sounds complete, and the director's cut is going to make this excellent film even better. :)

  • July 2, 2009, 11:21 a.m. CST

    Bass Ackwards

    by frozen01

    As much as I hate to say it, I had the same thought: Ho-hum. Can't wait for the extended version w/ Black Freighter, though! (And, yeah, the over-the-top violence was the one big complaint I had about the movie.)

  • July 2, 2009, 11:22 a.m. CST

    Bass Ackwards

    by RipVanMarlowe

    Couldn't agree more on the violence ... it's an obsession of Snyder's that really doesn't serve Watchmen well at all.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:24 a.m. CST

    Is Malin Akerman more naked!

    by sighborg

    The only thing about this garbage that matters is whether Malin Akerman gets naked. Does she?

  • July 2, 2009, 11:25 a.m. CST

    The motion comic was a glorified book-on-tape.

    by JAMF

    yep - and it did exactly what it said on the tin! if they'd had a couple of extra actors it'd be *really* good. snyder's film was just a waste of time. i cant see anyone even wanting to read the comics after seeing it.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Made Watchmen more or less money at the Box Office...

    by DerLanghaarige

    ...than Serenity?

  • July 2, 2009, 11:31 a.m. CST

    i have wspf.

    by alice 13

    watchmen sales pitch fatigue.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:33 a.m. CST

    good question

    by Stormshadow4life

    IS she more naked!?

  • July 2, 2009, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Plant

    by dancetothebeatofthelivingdead

    Why doesn't AICN just say that this is an unofficial press release listing the changes in the director's cut? <br> <br> I mean, come on, even if this reader saw the theatrical version five or six times at the theater, after viewing this just once, he can run to the computer and list off every little, minor dialogue change or addition and tick off every extra few seconds in scenes? <br> <br> This wouldn't be a lesser post if the crew at this site just fessed up and told us that Snyder gave them a list of the differences. <br> <br> Why the lies and secrecy? Why the posting from a "reader" that none of us have heard of? Stupid.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:38 a.m. CST

    I have to wait until December for the Black Freighter added vers

    by ricarleite2

    FUCK THIS!

  • July 2, 2009, 11:39 a.m. CST

    How about...

    by dancetothebeatofthelivingdead

    once, just once we get a regular TB'er of this site to review something or get into one of these secret advance screenings that happen a year before the movies released? <br> <br> I know we all have fun shouting out "PLANT!" but do the studios and this site really think we're that stupid?

  • July 2, 2009, 11:39 a.m. CST

    Squid Shot First

    by Twisk

    [shrugs]

  • July 2, 2009, 11:40 a.m. CST

    in my opinion

    by simondark

    watchmen was proof that people dont want thoughtful films.People want wolverine..they need it so they dont have to think for themselves or think beyond whats on screen.Everyone always complains that we dont get enough movies that make us think,IE more characterization more plot less filler.When we get what we ask for we bastardize it and remember it for nothing more than the most trivial thing,for example a big blue cock.You need the cock,you just dont know it.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:42 a.m. CST

    YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!and BTW.

    by hopeless

    I cant wait for this!!!! But hey I live in LA anyone have any info on the release of The Watchmen directors cut in theaters here? Its this month but when and where?

  • July 2, 2009, 11:42 a.m. CST

    So does this extended cut come out on DVD also?

    by Mahaloth

    ????

  • July 2, 2009, 11:46 a.m. CST

    BLUE DONGS ARE BACK!!

    by darius25

    MORE BLUE DONGS! MORE BLUE DONGS! MORE BLUE DONGS!! i'm excited.. ahem... fuck this shit...

  • July 2, 2009, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Am I the only fan of the comic who loved this movie?

    by karmattack

    You guys make it sound like it, but that's because you're whiny turd-gobblers. Good day.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Big bue weenie.

    by Mr Soze

    Why did the good Dr. put on a speedo when he was in Vietnam 1000ft. tall killing charlie???

  • July 2, 2009, 11:59 a.m. CST

    It sucked, let's move on

    by reflecto

    Please.

  • July 2, 2009, 12:03 p.m. CST

    The book was violent too

    by CaptainAxis

    Watchmen, the comic, pushed the boundaries of superhero violence in 1986. Watchmen, the film, pushed the boundaries of superhero violence in 2009. Look at the book - vicious man-on-woman violence, Dan and Laurie destroying Knot Tops, Big Figure's henchman getting his throat slashed and blood spraying all over Rorschach's prison cell. Take an honest look at the book and tell me that over-the-top violence has no place in Watchmen.<br> <br> http://tinyurl.com/ltolkr<br> http://tinyurl.com/mg5pll<br> http://tinyurl.com/mpnbn6

  • July 2, 2009, 12:12 p.m. CST

    Giving the heroes superstrength in the movie...

    by ZombieHeathLedger

    ...completely negated the point of the comic. These were REAL people with real problems and pychosis, in some cases, sexual, not superstrong in any way. Why didn't Snyder trust his audience would accept bad ass normal humans? Look how popular MMA fighters are.

  • July 2, 2009, 12:14 p.m. CST

    hollis' death scene

    by palinode

    I too was "lucky" enough to see the extended cut. Hollis' death scene was definitely a Snyderesque fight scene, but a bit more restrained than some of the rest of the violence. The best thing about the scene is a series of flashbacks to the original Nite Owl fighting costumed villains. But the setup, with a bunch of knot-tops talking by the newsstand, is terrible.

  • July 2, 2009, 12:16 p.m. CST

    MMA comparison

    by CaptainAxis

    MMA fighters don't singlehandedly take down armed gangs, as Dan and Laurie do in the book and in the movie. How did two retired, supposedly out-of-shape superheroes without superpowers do that? Please explain.

  • July 2, 2009, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Judd Apatow Describes AICN Penisphobes

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    "When you show a movie with full frontal nudity to a test audience, you instantly learn how many seconds of screen time results in how many audience members walking out of the theater. You may get away with three seconds of penis exposure, but at five seconds you'll lose 18 people. At 10 seconds it could be 100. The fear of the penis in modern society is unparalleled." -PLAYBOY 20 Questions July /August 2009.

  • July 2, 2009, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Mahaloth... DVD can't handle extended blue dong

    by MattmanReturns

    You need Blu-Ray for that.

  • July 2, 2009, 12:23 p.m. CST

    CaptainAxis

    by Bass Ackwards

    Yes, but the scenes you mentioned aren't the scenes that most (including me) have problems with, because they aren't over-the-top in the movie either (with the exception of Dan/Laurie vs the knot tops, in the book they fight a bunch of teens and they're dirty dirty fighters, in the movie they're just kick ass superheroes). It's the stuff like the needless prison hall fight (though I do get a kick out of the smirk), wire-fu, a quick reaction by Ozy against an unsuspectingly set-up assasin in the book turns into an all out bullet dodging slow-mo shoot out in the movie.

  • July 2, 2009, 12:31 p.m. CST

    I guess

    by Bass Ackwards

    My problem isn't that it's overthr top gratuitous, so much that it's over the top silly.

  • July 2, 2009, 12:32 p.m. CST

    Captain Axis...

    by ebonic_plague

    ...Dan and Laurie didn't KILL the topknots in the alley fight in the book. That was one of the changes that irked me. I don't understand why is Rorschach considered to be such a violent nutcase for killing two people (offscreen, even), but when Dan and Laurie fatally injure several people in an alleyway it's no big deal. The violence in the book was visceral and intense, sure... but it should have been filmed more like the bar fight in The Ninth Configuration, rather than a fight scene from the Matrix. That's the distinction you're not acknowledging.

  • July 2, 2009, 12:33 p.m. CST

    was it just me that thought the violence was

    by lex romero

    glorified on purpose? It's both extremely violent and "cool" at the same time - surely because we need to see part of the desire Nightowl et all are attracted to the life of a superhero - part of it is that "fuck yeah i'm a badass/beating people up is liberating". The audience needs to see that. <br><br>To then put it with the extremeity of the violence, reminds us that whilst it may be cool this is real, they've just beaten the shit out of some criminals and it might not be for entirely noble reasons.

  • July 2, 2009, 12:33 p.m. CST

    It rocked, let's move on

    by 3D-Man

    Please.

  • July 2, 2009, 12:36 p.m. CST

    Bass Ackwards

    by CaptainAxis

    The wire-fu was definitely a bit much, but it seemed to be a nod to the gymnastics performance that Ozy does for charity in the book, where the announcers note how extraordinary his display is. It still looks ridiculous, for sure, but it's not a dealbreaker. Ozy dodging the bullet the way he does is straight out of the comic, which is why it's filmed in slow-mo. Ozy dodges the bullet and even deflects it in mid-air, something that I doubt any "normal human" could do on the fly.

  • July 2, 2009, 12:36 p.m. CST

    I'd give the theatrical cut a 5 out of 10

    by Spandau Belly

    If this extended cut can bump it up to a 6 or 7 then I'll be happy with the film. I hope more minutes will help pad out the time between those seemingly endless music video montage portions and actually let me get to know the characters while they talk without some popular song blarring in the background. But it won't dillute the horribly offbase approach to the action in this film.

  • July 2, 2009, 12:38 p.m. CST

    AWESOME, BUT WHERES VEIDT SAYING "I DID IT"??

    by supercowbell5THECOWBELLHASSPOKEN

    PLEASE TELL ME THATS IN THERE AND ILL BEGIN STROKING MY COCK!

  • July 2, 2009, 12:43 p.m. CST

    WATCHMEN is number one on Blu-ray bestsellers list

    by 3D-Man

    at Amazon. Let's see... Blu-ray Owners = Rich People Rich People = Smart People Smart People = Watchmen Film Fans NON-Watchmen Film Fans = ??? Hurm.

  • July 2, 2009, 12:47 p.m. CST

    ebonic_plague

    by CaptainAxis

    I was shocked the first time I saw it, but really, if a large group of armed thugs attacked you in an alley, wouldn't you do whatever it took to stop them? Or would you just punch and kick and hope they don't stab or shoot you? Part of the point of Watchmen is that the "heroes" aren't any better than the rest of us, and that scene shows it. <br> <br> I've acknowledged the distinction in a couple other talkbacks, but Snyder used the conventions and tropes of superhero films (i.e. hyperreal fight sequences) just as Moore and Gibbons used the conventions of superhero comics. You don't have to like the direction Snyder went in, but it wasn't mindless or made just to look "cool" - there was a method to his madness.

  • July 2, 2009, 12:48 p.m. CST

    I found the violence spot on.

    by TheLastCleric

    It was a tad over-the-top but for me, that fit nicely with the film because while the violence was a bit cartoony it was also incredibly violent, which fits snugly with the tone of the film and the graphic novel. Also, I really liked how they translated Doc M's "splatter" attack to film because the comic implied that it was a gruesome way to expire.

  • July 2, 2009, 12:56 p.m. CST

    I'm with ebonic_plague

    by Spandau Belly

    The wire-fu approach to the action was totally wrong. This was supposed to a story about how normal people try to become myths and do extraordinary things but are still flawed regular people. When they can get their heads smashed through granite counters and emerge just with a nose bleed or kick each other 20 feet through the air it makes me think I'm watching a movie about people with magic powers like X-Men or something. I really do think it was just Snyder trying to entertain and missing the point.

  • July 2, 2009, 12:59 p.m. CST

    Captain Axis, I understand what he was going for...

    by ebonic_plague

    ...I just think he ultimately failed. It's like telling a joke... yeah, I understand what the clever idea was behind the joke, but the execution didn't make me laugh, and no amount of explaining WHY it's supposed to be funny will suddenly make me decide it was funny. These things have to take on a life of their own beyond just the intent or the words on the page. The book did that fairly effectively; the movie just didn't. I'm honestly not trying to antagonize anyone by saying this... I just want to make the point that I "got" the movie, I understood all the clever things Snyder was trying to do, and I liked a few of his choices, but in the end, the ingredients didn't make the resulting food any more appetizing.

  • Is it?

  • July 2, 2009, 1:02 p.m. CST

    spandau

    by lex romero

    But what about the bullet catch? Or Rorscharch cracking a toilet bowl with one kick? Or Rorscharch surviving a jump from a second story window with no injury other than a twisted foot? <br><br>I'm just not sure the comic was ever as "realistic" about its depiction of the action as people seem to think.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:03 p.m. CST

    Watchmen?

    by batzilla

    Hmmm... perhaps I should watch this movie

  • July 2, 2009, 1:07 p.m. CST

    CaptainAxis

    by TheLastCleric

    I agree completely but more importantly what you posted also brings up the issue that just because somebody doesn't like Snyder's take on the material doesn't make Watchmen a failure or Snyder a hack. If a dozen different directors took on the task of making a Watchmen film, I'm willing to wager all ten versions would be very different creatures and all would have their respective fans and detractors. Snyder took a very literal approach to the material and he's been blasted and praised for it. There is no way his adaptation was going to please everyone and while I respect that not everyone enjoyed his translation some of these people have deluded themselves into thinking that Watchmen is artless and formless merely because they didn't personally care for it. There is plenty to appreciate in that film even if the final product didn't mesh with your own sensibilities. Then again, go into one of the Public Enemies threads and see how many people are calling Michael Mann's latest effort, which is actually pretty damn impressive on various technical and artistic levels, "mediocre, shit, etc." The internet has taken the notion that everyone is a critic and amplified it to a degree that really makes objectivity and rational deconstruction an endangered species. It’s not that I think everybody should like the film, nor do I expect them to, but when people write that this film is “shit” or that it is one of the worst films they have ever seen, any type of intelligent discourse becomes impossible because such hyperbole leaves us nothing to intelligently discuss.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:10 p.m. CST

    You know that's an illegal download?

    by chuffsterUK

    I messaged Harry on Twitter earlier this week that the dvd screener had cropped up online,so much for the stance on piracy eh??

  • July 2, 2009, 1:15 p.m. CST

    lex romero

    by Spandau Belly

    I guess I think any exaggeration on human strength and agility found in the book got blown up five hundred percent by Snyder's adaptation. I'm not demanding complete realism, just standard movie realism. Something on the level of a Bourne movie or Apocalypto.<br><br>When I watch a Bourne movie I know that no real man could survive all those beatings and car wrecks without all sorts of back and neck problems, but I buy it at the time in a movie. You definately cross another line when guys can fly and kick another human so that they go 20 feet through the air, land head first on marble tile shattering it, then jump back up and keep fighting.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:24 p.m. CST

    Realism was never the point of the comic

    by TheLastCleric

    I think the real point of the more literal powers and limitations of the characters in the comic are to illustrate just how powerless we all really are, collectively. They wear their costumes to imbue their own lives with a sense of purpose and control, something that is touched upon later when Night Owl overcomes his feelings of impotence and helplessness by donning the suit again. That concept is nothing particularly new, since that reclamation of power and control of one’s destiny is the crux of why Bruce Wayne becomes Batman and why his costume transforms him into an entirely different being. As others have noted, most of the Watchmen are supposed to be incredibly well-trained and skillful and the way they are depicted in the comics isn’t very realistic at all.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:25 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives, kudos for proving my point

    by TheLastCleric

    and missing it at the same time.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:26 p.m. CST

    Did they cut out Malin Ackerman's performance?

    by TheLastBoyScout

    If so, I'll buy it, but if she's still in the movie, no dice. She was the single worst thing about the movie, and there were a lot of bad things about the movie. And to the idiots asking if there is more nudity, you do know they have something called porn? Try it out.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:27 p.m. CST

    Looking forward to the Blu-ray.

    by JDanielP

    This flick deserves more credit.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:28 p.m. CST

    TheLastCleric, Watchmen was doomed

    by Chesterfield Slacks

    No matter which director took it on, they would be stymied by the fact that it would be like committing the most precise "storyboard" to film. How can one "un-imagine" the images and story, and even attempt to re-invent the visuals? All literal movie versions of detailed comic books don't work. Spider-Man and the new Batman worked because they had art directors who took inspiration from the source material to craft a cinematic version that worked with the logic and narrative conventions of film. If Watchmen had been a novel with no images,I can't even begin to imagine how wildly creative one could get with the storyline.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Normal Humans in the real world

    by InActionMan

    are capable of some astounding feats of athleticism. Practioners of Parkour can do some astonding things as this video demonstrates: <P> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEeqHj3Nj2c <P> Snyder, Moore and Gibbons may has stretched it a little but, is someone was a truly dedicated nutcase that wanted to turn themselves into a "superhero",had some natural athletic ablity, dedicated themselves to building up their body, learning marshal arts and gymnastics they could make themselves pretty formidable.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Fuck Yes!

    by TedKordLives

    I totally wanted to see Ted, oops I mean Dan, go nuts on someone at the bar and Rorshach, of all people, has to calm HIM down. I'm so glad that was filmed and done with brutality. <P> I felt Hollis' death and Dan's reaction was one of the omissions I missed most. I mean, why even include Hollis' first scene if you're not gonna have the payoff?

  • July 2, 2009, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Snyder's violence

    by Chesterfield Slacks

    I was not appalled by how graphic it was, but how it was staged, shot, and overtly self-indulgent. When they kill the little guy in the bathroom, I kept saying "oh no, your not going to dolly in to the crack under the door and have the blood ooze out, will you? You can't be that cheezy and Captain Obvious, right?..." (smacks forehead)

  • July 2, 2009, 1:33 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by CaptainAxis

    Why do you feel the need to be such an overbearing asshole? It's too bad we don't all have the massive intellect required to digest and understand Watchmen as deeply and profoundly as you. Since you're so brilliant, could you begin by explaining how Ozy catches a bullet with his bare hands in the comic?

  • July 2, 2009, 1:36 p.m. CST

    "knocks out like all of his front teeth. pretty brutal"

    by Dapper Swindler

    I'm sure it was brutal. This film's problem was that it was too violent. The violence was gratuitous, juvenile, and, worst of all, actually betrayed the story. How is Rorschach's character unique when Dan and Laurie are happy to murder people in the streets? It's silly. I would rather see a PG-13 Watchmen that tells the story right than porn-violence.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Gays ?????

    by NacDasty

    What the hell does that mean?

  • July 2, 2009, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Mr Soze

    by smylexx

    Well, the reason for Dr Manhattan wearing speedos in Vietnam is simple. He gradually loses touch with humanity. At that point in his life he still had some concept of modesty but as his powers grew, he became less and less aware of the little foibles and petty issues that plague humans.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:38 p.m. CST

    Same script could have been made into a good movie

    by Guy Who Got A Headache And Accidentally Saves The World

    By nearly any other decent director, with maybe a few minor changes.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:39 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by TheLastBoyScout

    Keep up the good fight my man.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:40 p.m. CST

    "dumb and uneduicated"

    by CaptainAxis

    When insulting the intelligence of others, it's best to ensure that you don't sound stupid yourself. Your posts are littered with misspellings and grammatical errors. Oh, I know, English isn't your first language, blah blah blah. I just love irony.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Yay!

    by LaserPants

    I'm looking forward to owning this.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:43 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by TheLastCleric

    Again, just because you don't like something doesn't mean that dislike becomes universal truth. So unless you have some divine credentials that supersede personal opinion and by default make your own views gospel, you are going to have to grasp the fact that not everyone shares your assessment of the film. Many people, including intelligent enthusiasts of the source material, liked the movie. As to the violence in the comic being real, I think it's obvious you are being selective with your criticisms at this point because the violence in the graphic novel, while gritty and presented in a mature manner, was far from an accurate depiction of reality. Even setting aside Doc M, Ozy is treated like a superhuman in several scenes within the comic. As to the issue of Watchmen being a typical dumb blockbuster, please don’t even waste my time with that bullshit argument. Everything about this film goes in direct contrast to it being some cheap, shallow money grab. If Snyder and the studio wanted to fuck over the property they could have made it a PG-13 tweeny fest for the teen crowd. Instead, just about everything Snyder did, from casting to adhering to the source material to the R rating, ensured this film would have an incredibly limited audience. So again, I respect that you didn’t like the film but that doesn’t make it any less an artistic accomplishment for those of us who did.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:48 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives...

    by ebonic_plague

    Hey, not to pile on, man, but you're not helping the cause of actually discussing the movie with misspelled unintelligible hyperbole like "The guy is not only dumb and eduicated, he's compeltly clueless." I may not have thought Watchmen was very good, but I can admit Snyder has talent with a camera. Statements like that are pretty much just flame bait, but if that's your intent, then flame away... just don't be surprised when you get flamed back.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Fuck general consensus.

    by GetEveryone

    Watchmen wasn't bad by any means. It had moments of greatness; a few of stupidity; and a lot of good. Without knowledge of the comic I can see how it would've seemed a little disjointed, lacking, even. Hopefully the added scenes rectify that a little. I'll still probably hold out for the Black Freighter edition, even though the reservations about its pacing are well placed.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:50 p.m. CST

    Stop exaggerating

    by CaptainAxis

    Nobody in the film kicked anyone "from one end of the alley to the other" or sent anybody flying "20 feet" with one kick. Fuck's sake, hate the movie all you want, but STOP EXAGGERATING. Trust me, the violence was over-the-top but you guys are making shit up. Again, if these superheroes are just like the rest of us, how did they survive? Oh right, they were "lucky." Apparently they were "lucky" that the criminals in Watchmen's world are just as useless and stupid as the villains in any other comic book. Smell the realism!<br> <br> @InActionMan: Thanks for the link. That's awesome, and it pretty much cancels out the "wire fu" bitching. I better bookmark it for future arguments.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:58 p.m. CST

    Haha

    by CaptainAxis

    Even people who didn't like the movie think you're being retarded. Now, can you answer the questions of realism in the book? Ozy catching the bullet, Dan and Laurie beating up a gang of armed Knot Tops, the fact that any superhero survived long enough for "costumed adventuring" to catch on as a fad?<br> <br> I'll be waiting.

  • July 2, 2009, 1:59 p.m. CST

    could someone tell me what

    by lex romero

    the "real" point of the comic was then and how Snyder "obviously" missed it? Genuine question, that kind of comment is thrown around a lot but no one seems to want to actually explain beyond some bland comment of "oh the violence...wire fu".

  • July 2, 2009, 2 p.m. CST

    what's most disappointing here

    by oisin5199

    is that I was hoping the cut scenes were the ones with the Bernies (the newstand guy and the kid reading the Black Freighter), so that when we see them get blown away at the end, it means something. Maybe they'll add a little of that when they put Black Freighter in there. Though I definitely like more Hollis in there. But we don't need more of Dan and Laurie, that's for sure.

  • July 2, 2009, 2 p.m. CST

    The Motion Comic

    by Autodidact

    In every Watchmen thread there are multiple posters who say "forget the movie, watch the MOTION COMIC". Please go die you illiterate fucks. How goddamn lazy is your mind that you have to watch a video of a guy reading a comic?

  • July 2, 2009, 2:03 p.m. CST

    the alley kicking

    by lex romero

    I'm guessing you're refering to when Laurie kicks some bad dude into the bin across the alleyway. The key word being "across", maybe a few meters. Not "from one end of the alley to another".

  • July 2, 2009, 2:04 p.m. CST

    The knot-top fight was indeed overdone

    by wookie1972

    For one thing, I never got the impression in the comic that they actually killed any of them. For another, both Dan and Laurie were pretty much winded after the fight in the comic, and they were both out of practise. I just found it way too overdone. But to each their own. I agree that Snyder did not seem to show a lot of originality in his presentation. But again, YMMV. What I don't for a second believe is that Snyder meant to be "commenting" on the violence or "satrizing" it. 300 was essentially xenophobic action porn.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:04 p.m. CST

    The knot-top fight was indeed overdone

    by wookie1972

    For one thing, I never got the impression in the comic that they actually killed any of them. For another, both Dan and Laurie were pretty much winded after the fight in the comic, and they were both out of practise. I just found it way too overdone. But to each their own. I agree that Snyder did not seem to show a lot of originality in his presentation. But again, YMMV. What I don't for a second believe is that Snyder meant to be "commenting" on the violence or "satrizing" it. 300 was essentially xenophobic action porn.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:04 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by CaptainAxis

    Yes, I'm sure. Laurie did a kick that flipped the Knot Top and sent him flying back MAYBE five feet against a dumpster. Over-the-top, yes, but it wasn't this huge distance you make it out to be.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:04 p.m. CST

    Autodidact

    by fassbinder79

    I've read the graphic novel numerous times since I was a kid. What makes the motion comic great (for those of us that appreciate interesting animation techniques) is that unlike the live action film it is brilliantly directed.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:05 p.m. CST

    3-D Man

    by WickedJester

    My friend has a PS3 and he's broke as fuck.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:05 p.m. CST

    Another watchmen talkback. Typical comments.

    by knowthyself

    Good list of new scenes. Can't wait to see it mixed with the black freighter. Love this movie.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:07 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by knowthyself

    I think the complete opposite. You know what's amazing? Neither of us are wrong. Gasp.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:10 p.m. CST

    wookie1972

    by CaptainAxis

    So they were out of practice, but still somehow laid out a dozen armed thugs? Oh, they were a bit winded afterward, that makes it so much more realistic. They were winded in the movie too, so that should excuse any of the over-the-top aspects, right?<br> <br> I really hate these arguments because they bring up flaws in the book I hadn't thought much about. Thanks guys!

  • July 2, 2009, 2:11 p.m. CST

    Autodidact- Agreed. READ THE COMIC.

    by knowthyself

    Don't watch it.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:11 p.m. CST

    "Animation" in the Watchmen Motion Comic

    by Autodidact

    You mean when they separate things into layers and slide them around the frame, sale them around, etc.. most often without any easing? Wow, yeah what mind-blowing animation techniques. I'm being sarcastic: the "animation" in that thing fucking hurts my eyes. Strongbad has more interesting/impressive animation techniques. The fucking thing is an abuse of the term "animation" as well as the term "comic book" and as I said before, if you enjoy it please go commit suicide.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:12 p.m. CST

    "scale" them around

    by Autodidact

    Wow, sprite scaling, what an interesting animation technique that has been ubiquitous since the days of fucking Super Nintendo.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:13 p.m. CST

    CaptainAxis

    by fassbinder79

    I read TONS of graphic novels. And I've read Watchmen too many times to count. The motion comic blew me away because it captured everything I liked about reading it and looked incredible on my hd tv in blu ray. To call anyone who prefers the motion comic to what Snyder did illiterate is just silly. And I would also add that the way Juice Films and Hughes handled the shorts and the score for the motion comic were really strong. Look we don't have to agree on this but I have every right to post my opinion. And trying to make some juvenile joke about how I must have liked hearing a girl's dialogue read by a guy is just ridiculous. The choice to have one narrator for the piece is probably my only gripe with it but you get used to it and I was extremely pleased with the presentation as a whole.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:13 p.m. CST

    asimov

    by lex romero

    thank you. Whilst the film does not live up to the comic, I very much believe it does manage to address many of the points you just raised. The characters having "super" powers in the fights really doesn't affect that element of their own humanity essentially making it impossible for them to be the mythical heroic figures they wish to be. <br><br> Also, if 90% of the dialogue is taken directly from the comic, how can it be trite or dumb without the comic being so as well?

  • July 2, 2009, 2:13 p.m. CST

    "Zack, the dumb illiterate "

    by knowthyself

    Wow that was unecessary. You know on a personal level Zack seems like a really nice guy, and anyone who can take the helm of a 150 million dollar movie is not dumb or illiterate. You may not like his work but come on now no need to insult the guy.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:13 p.m. CST

    Asimov Lives is right

    by Dapper Swindler

    I wonder if there was some producer pushing Zac to put in these kewl moments because they knew it was going to bore the shit out of 90% of the audience who weren't smart enough to enjoy it. I think those people hated it anyway. So, like most things, Zac tried to please too many people and ended up alienating both.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:14 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by knowthyself

    You are convinced you are right. But you cannot prove as a fact that the film is bad. Just like I can't prove to you that the film is good. An opinion can never be a fact.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:14 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by CaptainAxis

    Okay, now you can explain Ozy's bare-handed bullet catch. You said Watchmen was all about realism, so how does that fit? And the thing about psychic brains, don't forget that little gem of realism.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:15 p.m. CST

    I second the Motion Comic

    by Dapper Swindler

    If you want a Watchmen movie done right, just watch the motion comic.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:16 p.m. CST

    Dapper Swindler

    by Autodidact

    You realize you're obliged to go commit hari-kiri now? K, good, go die!

  • July 2, 2009, 2:16 p.m. CST

    The comic had "kewl" moments too.

    by knowthyself

    Mostly coming from Rorschache and Manhattan. Don't pretend you never thought they weren't bad ass as much as they were "thought provoking". It is a comic book after all. Its not JUST about the "deep philosophical" ideas. its also about telling a good story with fascinating and yes at times cool characters.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:19 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives, oh I'm well aware...

    by ebonic_plague

    ...of who you are and why your posts have typos. :) <p> But second language or not, saying essentially "Snyder is a big poop-head and shouldn't be making movies," is not useful film criticism. It's troll flame bait. Sure... "THIS. IS. TALKBACK!" and all that (never a more appropriate use for that meme than a Snyder TB), but if you want to have an actual DEBATE about the relative merits of Watchmen, the kiddie insults are nothing but detrimental. Surely that isn't a nuance lost in the translation?

  • July 2, 2009, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Snyder injected his own artistic moments.

    by knowthyself

    The music choices for one were very effective. And the way he brought the comic to life and the design choices for Owl's costume were just inspired.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:23 p.m. CST

    Again...just opinions. You can't

    by knowthyself

    I don't believe Watchmen is dumb at all. And having cool hero moments does not make it dumb. Including 99% of the dialogue, story, and key moments makes it a very smart adaptation if you ask me. I don't know why this movie makes you so angry. And why anyone liking it makes you even angrier. Nothing you say will change my mind buddy. So just relax a little bit. Its just a movie. Don't take things so seriously.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:23 p.m. CST

    no additional ozy scenes? no additional

    by Warcraft

    newspaper guy and black kid scenese?

  • July 2, 2009, 2:23 p.m. CST

    Again...just opinions. You can't "prove

    by knowthyself

    I don't believe Watchmen is dumb at all. And having cool hero moments does not make it dumb. Including 99% of the dialogue, story, and key moments makes it a very smart adaptation if you ask me. I don't know why this movie makes you so angry. And why anyone liking it makes you even angrier. Nothing you say will change my mind buddy. So just relax a little bit. Its just a movie. Don't take things so seriously.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:27 p.m. CST

    This motion comic business reminds me...

    by knowthyself

    ..of people who said that the Clone Wars cartoons (yes the two minute long cartoons) were better than the Prequels. People really can be ridiculous. I don't care about bad a movie is a two minute cartoon with nothing but action isnt any better and its certainly isn't any more interesting.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:32 p.m. CST

    fassbinder79, it captures everything?

    by TheLastCleric

    Of course the motion comic captured everything; it is quite literally the comic on DVD with narration and a few rigidly animated sequences. As others have stated, it's basically a book on tape.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:33 p.m. CST

    God Damn, AsimovLives

    by TedKordLives

    You ARE an idiot. You've missed the entire point of the movie. Coming at the onset of the summer of REALLY dumb movies, Watchmen should've been the cinematic equivalent of 9/11. Easily the most challenging film mainstream Hollywood has produced in years. The movies actually dares you to enjoy it, and you call it a fail. The movie is a response to the onslaught of comic book movies, just like the book yadda yadda. I know all that's been said, but it's the truth. <P> And Asimov, hacks are lazy. Snyder is not. Therefore, Snyder is not a hack. Jeez.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:34 p.m. CST

    Music choices prove Snyder was thinking on a deeper level.

    by knowthyself

    The Unforgettable song has a deep meaning to those in the scene and Comedians over all arc. Thats one choice that proves he wasn't just thinking about what was cool. There are other examples as well. The way he edited the Dr. Manhattan flashback was very true to the way it was done in the comic. He matched moores vision artistically and brought it to life. Again not just there to be cool.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:34 p.m. CST

    Agreed again, Asimov

    by Dapper Swindler

    You're able to analyze the story and explain the significance of scenes to the overall story. Most people can't do this, but they "get it" on an unconscious level. Which is why Watchmen is the greatest selling graphic novel, even if most people can't explain the appeal.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:34 p.m. CST

    Sounds like you were unlucky to see the new scenes

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Watchmen - Pandering to the audience.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:36 p.m. CST

    Some more choices not based on coolness.

    by knowthyself

    Naked Dr. Manhattan. If he was really worried about being cool he would have put some clothes on the Doc. No teenager wants to look at a naked penis in his action movies. But Snyder understood the importance of keeping Manhattan naked and he fought to keep it in the film.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:39 p.m. CST

    In fact...99% of Snyders choices are anti-hollywood.

    by knowthyself

    So how on earth is he just concerned with being "cool" considering most audience found his film offensive? Watchmen went over so many heads, not exactly what I would call a movie seeking to pander to a mainstream audience looking for "coolness." If you want to watch a movie where all decisions are based on coolness watch Transformers 2. Snyder didn't have to fight to keep the films 80's setting. He didn't have to fight to keep Comedian killing the pregnant vietnamese girl.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Some great points AsimovLives, but Snyder isn't

    by blakindigo

    'dumb' nor is he a genius. Some elements in the fight scenes are over-the-top, but I don't think 'realism' applies to 'Watchmen'. Moore's and Gibbson's structure, attention to characterization, violence and sexuality were revolutionary for mainstream American superhero comics, so his approach was more 'realistic' than say, Moon Knight. But, realism is the realm of Harvey Pekar. And, superheroes don't exist; they can't exist. Both Moore and Gibbons created a fantastic 'let's suppose…' framework. An alternate history. A world where dressed up vigilantes can extract justice and NOT be killed by the police on sight. The world of 'Watchmen' hints at some of this. <br><br>That's FAR from reality, it's not a world where villains would collude with government or other criminal fiefdoms to exterminate them. A world with COINTELPRO, paparazzi, traitors, and victims exist. In short, it's not OUR world.<br><br>Just as the comic was a critique of superhero FICTION, the movie is a critique of superhero MOVIES. They are extremely different each celebrating individual strengths and weaknesses. There are flaws in execution on Snyder's part, no doubt. But, I think there are many valuable things in this movie, things that made me go back to the book and I found myself agreeing with some of his choices that I initially loathed. I don't think Snyder's movie is a complete success, but a failure? Not at all.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:56 p.m. CST

    So AICN is posting reviews of bootlegs now?

    by ManaByte

    Huh?

  • July 2, 2009, 2:58 p.m. CST

    Ummm, the primary theme of the novel is clear.

    by TheLastCleric

    Sorry to knock down those egos a few pegs but the primary theme of Watchmen, whose title is derived from the saying "Who Watches the Watchmen?", is about the abuse of power and those in power using their authority to do evil, duplicitous things while simultaneously justifying those actions. Watchmen was published about a decade after the Vietnam War ended and the novel was obviously heavily influenced by that conflict and the governmental policies that allowed it to escalate. Like V for Vendetta, Watchmen is in many ways an anti-government message about fascist philosophies that allow leaders to do horrific things all for the sake of the greater good, which is precisely what Ozy does and what Night Owl, Silk and Manhattan become accomplices to after the fact by covering it up. All of this intellectual posturing by those of you claiming Snyder “didn’t get the novel”, while adorable, really is misplaced when discussing Watchmen because the main point of the novel is clearly visible for all to see and Snyder got that point across in his flick. There are of course other themes and ideas in the novel but the primary theme remains the abuse of power by those in charge.

  • July 2, 2009, 2:59 p.m. CST

    The movie could had a different look or a different framing from

    by knowthyself

    Then you would be here bitching that he changed the comic and that he's an idiot for doing it. Yeah I don't think so.

  • July 2, 2009, 3 p.m. CST

    Yeah watchmen is not some

    by knowthyself

  • July 2, 2009, 3:01 p.m. CST

    Yeah Watchmen is not THAT deep.

    by knowthyself

    Its pretty simple and easy to understand. I know you want to feel smart for being able to unlock a comic book but really its simple. Go watch Fellini's Satyricon and tell me what THAT films about and I'll be more impressed than your disection of a comic book.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:03 p.m. CST

    Reply to my posts Asimov.

    by knowthyself

    The ones where I show that Snyder did indeed make some very smart decisions when making Watchmen and that not all his decisions were based on what was cool.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:04 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives, Snyder understands the novel better than you.

    by TheLastCleric

    At least based on your bloated, pseudo-intellectual masturbatory exercises in literary analysis and deconstruction. Then again, you don’t even understand that an opinion isn’t quantifiable so obviously, any intelligent discussion with you is a waste of time.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:07 p.m. CST

    I was luckily enough to see the 3 hour director's cut

    by MorganLeafy

    Not really my definition of luck. But hey, whatever makes you happy.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:10 p.m. CST

    Little formal education?

    by knowthyself

    "Zack attributes his distinctive style in part to his early artistic training in London, where he studied painting at the Heatherlies School. Zack later refined his artistic sensibilities at the world-renowned Art Center College of Design in Pasadena where he developed the bold cinematic style of filmmaking that he is known for today." From http://www.zack-snyder.com/

  • July 2, 2009, 3:13 p.m. CST

    Extended does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    I've not watched WATCHMEN yet. Don't think i've ever gone straight into watching an extended edition without having seen the theatrical cut first... but for this flick I think I might.<p> Any tb'ers done this before? (watched an extended cut of a movie prior to the original) How'd it play?

  • July 2, 2009, 3:13 p.m. CST

    You take movies too seriously asimov.

    by knowthyself

    How old are you? I'm 28 and I already moved past that phase in my life. Movies are great art. But they are not life. To get so worked up and upset really doesn't do anything for anyone. It does make you seem very pretentious. Last I checked no film ever solved world hunger or saved lives. Relax. Again you ignored my posts about Snyders decision to keep Manhattan naked. Proving that he understood the importance of it. He kept the 1980's time period. He kept Comedian shooting the girl. None of these things are cool but they are important to the themes and mood of watchmen. Want to keep ignoring that because it proves you wrong?

  • July 2, 2009, 3:16 p.m. CST

    Snyder doesn't claim to be anything.

    by knowthyself

    He comes off as just a nice guy doing what he loves and doing it quite well. He also is very humble which is rare in this business.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:16 p.m. CST

    No one can really defend '300' from a historical pov

    by blakindigo

    It's NOT a good movie-but, the fault is also from the Frank Miller book. The job was to make a blockbuster and that's what Snyder delivered–it looks beautiful, but it can ONLY (IMO) be viewed as a fantasy in the 'Conan' mold.<br><br>But, 'Watchmen' isn't '300' in book form or in it's film adaptation.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:17 p.m. CST

    OMG SNYDER HAS HIS OWN WEBSITE!!!

    by knowthyself

    Is this your first time on the internet Asimov? lol.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:17 p.m. CST

    but, the faults are in the Frank Miller book

    by blakindigo

  • July 2, 2009, 3:20 p.m. CST

    So I just disproved your claim that he's had little education.

    by knowthyself

    Want to at least admit that you are wrong about that? Are you just going to make stuff up that isn't true?

  • July 2, 2009, 3:21 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    AsimovLives is a guy with very particular tastes... and his favourite pastime is damning all the movies that don't fit these tastes.<p> STAR TREK, THE ROCK, WATCHMEN, BEOWULF, T4, TOMBSTONE are all 'despised bullshit' in the world of Asimov.<p> Luckily the rest of us do not live in that world.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:23 p.m. CST

    You're still taking movies too seriously.

    by knowthyself

    You really are. When you're dead it won't matter. Seeing one bad movie isn't the end of the world.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:23 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    that world*<p> = Portugal!

  • July 2, 2009, 3:25 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    "When you're dead it won't matter. Seeing one bad movie isn't the end of the world." knowthyself, you really live up to your name.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:27 p.m. CST

    Self Promotion?

    by knowthyself

    But...everyone has a website...its nothing new.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:29 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    BALE WILL NOT SELF PROMOTE.<p> SO WE PROMOTE FOR HIM.<p> aintitbalenews.com

  • July 2, 2009, 3:33 p.m. CST

    Still no squid. This is a world I don't want to live in.

    by Uncle Stan

  • July 2, 2009, 3:38 p.m. CST

    The Bale abides

    by blakindigo

  • July 2, 2009, 3:38 p.m. CST

    For what its worth -- I thought Watchmen...

    by Oknight

    was an excellent adaptation of a work that I've loved since its creation. A far more faithful and successful adaptation than "Moby Dick", for example and a very thoroughly enjoyable movie.<p> <p>My wife is even more enthusiastic.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Everytthing matters

    by knowthyself

    But some things matter less than others.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:41 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Oh true believer. Catherine Zeta Jones' open legs await you in Bale's paradise Asimov.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:41 p.m. CST

    ComicGeek cred...

    by Oknight

    and I speak...<p> as the geek...<p> who renamed S.H.I.E.L.D. for Gruenwald.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Oh, you're Portuguese, Asimov?

    by TedKordLives

    Ok then. <P> Everyone knows the Portuguese have terrible taste in movies. <P> I keed, I keed. Don't you dare take that seriously, you big weirdo.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Fuck the squid, it's dumb.

    by MattmanReturns

    Go stick your dick in a seafood salad if you like squid so much.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:42 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    "My wife is even more enthusiastic." Ok night, you really live up to your name too.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Oknight-

    by TedKordLives

    Really? That's pretty fucking awesome. Are you Ralph Macchio?

  • July 2, 2009, 3:48 p.m. CST

    TedKordLives -- really

    by Oknight

    They gave me credit in the letters page of the last issue of SHIELD in a rather insulting remark that misspelled my name-- but I'm still proud of the credit (I gave the name to Gruenwald at Mid-OhioCon based on a 1983 fanzine article I wrote about Comic Spy acronym names)

  • July 2, 2009, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Mattman-

    by TedKordLives

    LOL! <P> My response: Go blow it out your...uh, blowgun.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:54 p.m. CST

    The movie sucked....

    by vittala23

    and just the thought of a longer cut of the film gives me pain. I loved the comic but the film was just bad and boring.

  • July 2, 2009, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Ah.

    by TedKordLives

    Still, really awesome. I got a letter printed in Avengers #4 Vol.3, but they misprinted my state acronym. I am NOT from Arizona, Tom Brevoort!

  • July 2, 2009, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Ha!

    by TedKordLives

    The TB killer strikes again!

  • July 2, 2009, 4:06 p.m. CST

    I knew the movie was in trouble

    by Dapper Swindler

    When all the interviews with Snyder discussed his attention to visual detail. Having pictures of other characters and stuff in the background is great, but it felt like he wasn't focusing on the important stuff like really understanding the story. But I'm not sure if I would agree that Snyder "didn't get it" as Asimov says, he may have just been forced to make changes by the studio (more action!) And, considering what standard you hold it to, we might be thankful for getting an adaptation as close as this, with studio interference it could be a lot worse.

  • July 2, 2009, 4:06 p.m. CST

    "The film was just bad and boring"

    by MattmanReturns

    Yeah I hate when characters start talking in movies. Should've been two hours of non-stop action.

  • July 2, 2009, 4:14 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives....stop embarrassing yourself

    by Mr.Stiggs

    "The reality of the thing is that Snyder is incredibly uneducated, and he's hardly as intelligent as he thinks he is." Is there a better example of the term "pot calling the kettle black"? I've read all of your posts on this topic and you come across as one of the dumbest people that I've ever seen.

  • July 2, 2009, 4:20 p.m. CST

    Snyder understands the material perfectly

    by MattmanReturns

    The scenes on mars proved to me that Snyder knew exactly what he was doing.

  • July 2, 2009, 4:30 p.m. CST

    I will say-

    by TedKordLives

    I thought a few of the musical choices were a little too on the nose. Sounds of Silence for the funeral? How about some Cure or Smiths seeing as the movie takes place (primarily) in the '80s? Then again, I love me some '80s music so I'm biased. <P> That said, there will never be a better use of 99 Luftballoons in a film. That was a stroke of genius right there.

  • July 2, 2009, 4:34 p.m. CST

    I stll haven't seen this yet.

    by lockesbrokenleg

    I have heard. "Oh it's shit" to "Oh, it's brilliant." I think the 3 hour DVD will either bore me to tears, or blow my mind.

  • July 2, 2009, 4:35 p.m. CST

    you can't seriously defend the music selections

    by wookie1972

    "Ride of the Valkyries?" Oh, that's right, that was either a) a homage or b)"parody" of Apocalypse Now. Don't tell me "it was in the book" because it was in the book in a completely different context. And when Moore quoted "Desolation Row," I can bet dollars to donuts he wasn't thinking of a crappy emo band doing a cover of it. I can think of *two* better uses of 99 Luftballons: Grosse Point Blank (a movie I didn't even like that much) and Boogie Nights.

  • July 2, 2009, 4:37 p.m. CST

    "The Comedian's Overall Arc."

    by wookie1972

    If Snyder was so interested in the Comedian's character arc, why didn't he film the revelation of Laurie's father the way it was done in the book, instead of with an asinine magic flashback courtesy Manhattan?

  • July 2, 2009, 4:39 p.m. CST

    Uh, Wookie

    by TedKordLives

    I was criticizing his use of music in the film. For the most part. "A little too on the nose." That means, basically, what you are raging about in your last post. I AGREE with you. For the most part. <P> Chill dude.

  • July 2, 2009, 4:40 p.m. CST

    CaptainAxis

    by wookie1972

    We'll just have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid. Clicheed but true. I thought the violence was too over-the-top, but you see otherwise. C'est la vie.

  • July 2, 2009, 4:41 p.m. CST

    tekordlives

    by wookie1972

    I was replying to both you and Knowthyself. Sorry. But I still say that Boogie Nights used Luftballons (along with "Jesse's Girl" and "Sister Christian" in one messed-up scene) better.

  • July 2, 2009, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Desolation Row

    by TedKordLives

    Yeah, that cover was absolutely shit. But, you know what I did when I heard it? I got up and left the theater, because the movie was over. He put the song (probably one of the very few concessions he made to the suits) in the best possible place, at the very least.

  • July 2, 2009, 4:52 p.m. CST

    Ah

    by TedKordLives

    Yeah, the scene with Jesse's Girl and Sister Christian is, for me, one of the greatest scenes ever put to film. And my favorite Mark Wahlberg moment too. And yes, 99 Luftballoons is used very well in BN, but that moment when Dan lays his eyes on Laurie and just lights up-I love it. That's all I can say. I feel exactly what Dan feels at that moment, and I know that's what Snyder was going for.

  • July 2, 2009, 4:57 p.m. CST

    i like how this turns into a SUCKS vs NO SUCKS TB

    by Six Demon Bag

    cant wait for July 21st

  • July 2, 2009, 5:03 p.m. CST

    Tell me about it, Six Demon Bag…

    by blakindigo

    It's pure nancy bwoy business.

  • July 2, 2009, 5:04 p.m. CST

    NO SUCKS

    by TedKordLives

    Can't wait to play End is Nigh. No doubt the closest I'll ever get to a Blue Beetle video game short of programming one myself. <P> Which I have no idea of how to do.

  • July 2, 2009, 5:04 p.m. CST

    Third Option: Shouldn't Exist

    by Autodidact

    Read the book, jackasses.

  • July 2, 2009, 5:06 p.m. CST

    I'm confused, does the new version have a giant squid or not ?

    by barnaby jones

  • July 2, 2009, 5:10 p.m. CST

    Ted--we talking Boogie Nights????

    by Six Demon Bag

    i love the shot after Amber does a line and looks at Dirk diving into the pool...during GOLDEN BOY, she has this look of desire and lust that she really wants him..then she gives him a line later in the film...god im about to relapse just thinking about it...what a GREAT film.

  • July 2, 2009, 5:16 p.m. CST

    "Lonely Boy" by Andrew Gold

    by blakindigo

  • July 2, 2009, 5:20 p.m. CST

    blakindigo

    by Six Demon Bag

    fuck thats what i meant..what a great fucking soundtrack

  • July 2, 2009, 5:22 p.m. CST

    Yeah 6DB

    by TedKordLives

    I know that look. That's such a great fucking movie, I think I'll go home and watch it tonight. On VHS, the way it was meant to be seen ;-)

  • July 2, 2009, 5:24 p.m. CST

    I used to have both volumes of the Soundtrack.

    by TedKordLives

    We'd play them at the theater I worked at. <P> The one track with all the sex noises (forget title but blakindigo will know)? Playing in the lobby of a four-screen theater in Arkansas? <P> Fucking hilarious.

  • July 2, 2009, 5:24 p.m. CST

    What? Not more Bernies?

    by Boneyard

    Now, I really liked Watchmen. As a comic fan, I appreciated it as the closest we'll ever get to a literal translation. Maybe I'm suffering from "Phantom Menace Syndrome" but I thought it was a faithful and well done film. However, the one thing it was missing IMHO was a reason for normal people to fear the coming war in Afganistan and a reason for the world to change after Ozy's plan happens. In the comic, all of that comes from the discussions of the Bernies - especially the new vendor who is literally the "man on the street" in the comic. Without the Bernies, the resolution seems a bit abrupt and empty - without that fear seen from the perspective of the common man, it doesn't seem so... big. I was hoping that the revised version would have the Black Freighter material book ended with these scenes. While I'm looking forward to Hollis' hallucination against the Katie-heads (fingers crossed for the Screaming Skull!) it doesn't sound like too much has been added back to give the movie more weight only bulk.

  • July 2, 2009, 5:25 p.m. CST

    the motion comic is hilariously bad

    by supercowbell5THECOWBELLHASSPOKEN

    id rather watch the happening again, which was fucking torture.

  • July 2, 2009, 5:27 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives...

    by Mr.Stiggs

    Your main complaint about the film is that it is not "realistic". You fail to recognize that the source material is based in a world that does not and could not exist. One of the main characters is a Omnipotent God like being who can manipulate matter and travel though time and space. A man catches a bullet in his bare hands. Another flies around in a egg-shaped hover craft solving crimes while wearing a cape and mask. I fail to see how the representation of the film world differs significantly from the one in the novel. Both are set in a fictional time/space that is in many ways unrecognizable to our current existence. You also fundamentally disagree with many of the choices made by the director. Did you ever take the time to consider that Snyder is not the last word when it comes to the final cut of this film? There are so many decisions that are taken away from a director and ultimately made by executives in the creation of a 100 million dollar studio film. The odd thing is that Snyder seemed slavishly committed to reproducing the graphic novel on film. Do you have any idea how hard Snyder had to fight the studio executives just to set this film in its proper decade? It's a miracle that he was able to include so many of the more controversial sequences from the original novel. This is a studio produced Super-Hero" film that includes scenes of rape, murder (a pregnant woman!), mass death and destruction, sex, male nudity, and overt violence. Compare Watchmen to some of the other big studio releases and consider how much Snyder got right. I'll admit that the action sequences were a bit over the top. I didn't have a problem with the way they were staged. I felt that the cinematography and fight choreography injected a bit of a spark into what is a fairly (intentionally) dour film. Have you ever seen a fight in real life? Fights are ugly, clumsy and quick. I've never seen a film that depicts hand to hand combat in a realistic fashion (Bourne...No. Rocky...No). Just try to keep in mind that the film still has to appeal to a mass audience who have become accustomed to a certain type of highly stylized action. It's no different from any other Hollywood blockbuster. I'm not calling it a masterpiece but I believe that Snyder was up to the task and delivered a thought provoking piece of work. Perhaps in your perfect vacuum of a world this film could have been made "properly" . Unfortunately that world does not exist. There are literally hundreds of thousands of decisions that must be made by a committee to complete a project of this size. It's amazing that so many of you so called movie "fans" don't take that into consideration when you judge a film makers work. If you don't like the movie then I can accept your opinion. But to call out Snyder as "unintelligent" and "illiterate" just because you have a problem with the film just makes you look immature and ignorant. Try a more intellectual approach next time.

  • July 2, 2009, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Watching "Boogie Nights" make cinema history—

    by blakindigo

    right here on videotape.

  • July 2, 2009, 5:28 p.m. CST

    "Jungle Fever" by Chakachas

    by blakindigo

    Song got me in sooo much trouble…

  • July 2, 2009, 5:33 p.m. CST

    Mr.Stiggs Realistic Fight scenes

    by blakindigo

    Sean Connery's James Bond in 'Thunderball'. The fight in the lift.

  • July 2, 2009, 5:41 p.m. CST

    Thank you, YouTube

    by blakindigo

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpffY6ZRfZk

  • July 2, 2009, 5:44 p.m. CST

    I don't think a fight like that one ↑ would work in

    by blakindigo

    a film deconstructing superhero films.

  • July 2, 2009, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Thanks blakindigo.

    by TedKordLives

    But I never got in any trouble. Heh heh. <P> Sorry, can't do youtube at work. Could you tell me what that link is please? <P> I'll be your best friend.

  • July 2, 2009, 5:45 p.m. CST

    No Thanks. Two hours and forty were enough.

    by hallmitchell

    All hail Alan Moore.

  • July 2, 2009, 5:51 p.m. CST

    It's not quite 'realistic' but, it 'feels' real until they

    by blakindigo

    exit the lift. It's a clip from 'Thunderball'. And, of course the classic fight between Connery and Robert Shaw in 'From Russia with Love." The grappling, quick thinking, struggle—most of the fight scenes in those original Bond pictures told a story. They 'felt' dangerous.

  • July 2, 2009, 5:55 p.m. CST

    Let's argue about the soundtrack instead!

    by CaptainAxis

    Here's a little bit I wrote about the soundtrack back in March. Listening to the soundtrack, it occurs to me that Watchmen is the first superhero film to use classic songs and forgotten gems to convey mood and tone with a keen sense of irony, in much the same way as Quentin Tarantino or Rob Zombie; love or hate their movies, they understand the power of music and images. "Unforgettable" works on so many levels during the opening brawl, from the obvious ironic contrast between the beauty of the song and the brutality of the fight, to the lyrics and just the fact that it was quoted somewhere in the book, so it's cool that Snyder found a place for it. Much has been said of the credit sequence that establishes this alternate reality, and Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" really drives home the point. "The Sound of Silence" is another ironic, yet poignant, choice for the vile and vulgar Comedian's funeral as everyone recalls what an arrogant asshole he was. My favorite Comedian moment in the movie is set to "I'm Your Boogie Man" as he seeks to end the rioting; I just imagine the Owlship blasting the tune in Dan's failed attempt to incite the rioters to start dancing instead. Not only does it give the upbeat disco beat a whole new context, but the lyrics ("I'm your boogie man, that's what I am/I'm here to do, whatever I can/Be it early mornin', late afternoon/Or at midnight, it's never too soon") also take on a new meaning when you realize that superheroes are this alternate reality's "boogeymen" - it is an anti-mask riot, after all, and the heroes were always there to do whatever they could to help, day or night. The haunting epic from the Philip Glass Ensemble entitled "Pruit Igoe & Prophecies" is tailor-made for Dr. Manhattan's origin flashbacks and gives him an ethereal power deserving of not just a god, but THE God. Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" seems cheesy during the Owlship sex scene (there's a sentence I'll bet my mother never thought I'd write) but come on, don't even tell me that lame-ass Dreiberg wouldn't play it while romancing a lady. The use of "Ride of the Valkyries" in the Vietnam scene has been criticized as cliche, but in this alternate reality that IS their Apocalypse Now moment. Similarly, "All Along The Watchtower" has been tied to 'Nam etc. in our reality, but this alternate reality would be different since the US won the war, so while it's jarring at first to hear it in a new context, ultimately it's almost essential. Not to mention the lyrics were quoted in the book and fit the scene pretty damn well, while breathing new life into a classic song. And that's what irks me about the complaints that the songs are "jarring" or inappropriate in the context of the film. People love to categorize and pigeonhole. Of course some of the cues are a bit odd at first, because we've never seen a superhero/comic-book movie that used real, actual songs that are ingrained in popular culture and our public consciousness. Every song that's used in the film fits the scene, either through previous associations of the song (i.e. "Ride of the Valkyries"), the lyrics ("Unforgettable", "The Sound of Silence"), mood/tone ("Pruit Igoe & Prophecies") or meaning of the song ("99 Luftballons", which isn't on the soundtrack CD). If you love music and you know these songs and what they mean, it's exhilarating to hear them in a completely new context.

  • July 2, 2009, 5:57 p.m. CST

    Again, with paragraph breaks

    by CaptainAxis

    Listening to the soundtrack, it occurs to me that Watchmen is the first superhero film to use classic songs and forgotten gems to convey mood and tone with a keen sense of irony, in much the same way as Quentin Tarantino or Rob Zombie; love or hate their movies, they understand the power of music and images. "Unforgettable" works on so many levels during the opening brawl, from the obvious ironic contrast between the beauty of the song and the brutality of the fight, to the lyrics and just the fact that it was quoted somewhere in the book, so it's cool that Snyder found a place for it. Much has been said of the credit sequence that establishes this alternate reality, and Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" really drives home the point. "The Sound of Silence" is another ironic, yet poignant, choice for the vile and vulgar Comedian's funeral as everyone recalls what an arrogant asshole he was. My favorite Comedian moment in the movie is set to "I'm Your Boogie Man" as he seeks to end the rioting; I just imagine the Owlship blasting the tune in Dan's failed attempt to incite the rioters to start dancing instead. Not only does it give the upbeat disco beat a whole new context, but the lyrics ("I'm your boogie man, that's what I am/I'm here to do, whatever I can/Be it early mornin', late afternoon/Or at midnight, it's never too soon") also take on a new meaning when you realize that superheroes are this alternate reality's "boogeymen" - it is an anti-mask riot, after all, and the heroes were always there to do whatever they could to help, day or night.<br> <br> The haunting epic from the Philip Glass Ensemble entitled "Pruit Igoe & Prophecies" is tailor-made for Dr. Manhattan's origin flashbacks and gives him an ethereal power deserving of not just a god, but THE God. Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" seems cheesy during the Owlship sex scene (there's a sentence I'll bet my mother never thought I'd write) but come on, don't even tell me that lame-ass Dreiberg wouldn't play it while romancing a lady. The use of "Ride of the Valkyries" in the Vietnam scene has been criticized as cliche, but in this alternate reality that IS their Apocalypse Now moment. Similarly, "All Along The Watchtower" has been tied to 'Nam etc. in our reality, but this alternate reality would be different since the US won the war, so while it's jarring at first to hear it in a new context, ultimately it's almost essential. Not to mention the lyrics were quoted in the book and fit the scene pretty damn well, while breathing new life into a classic song.<br> <br> And that's what irks me about the complaints that the songs are "jarring" or inappropriate in the context of the film. People love to categorize and pigeonhole. Of course some of the cues are a bit odd at first, because we've never seen a superhero/comic-book movie that used real, actual songs that are ingrained in popular culture and our public consciousness. Every song that's used in the film fits the scene, either through previous associations of the song (i.e. "Ride of the Valkyries"), the lyrics ("Unforgettable", "The Sound of Silence"), mood/tone ("Pruit Igoe & Prophecies") or meaning of the song ("99 Luftballons", which isn't on the soundtrack CD). If you love music and you know these songs and what they mean, it's exhilarating to hear them in a completely new context.

  • July 2, 2009, 6:02 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by CaptainAxis

    You forgot to explain the realism of the cloned psychic brain that was used to create the squid. Do you believe psychics are real?

  • July 2, 2009, 6:05 p.m. CST

    I liked it

    by foxthebloodied

    If you didn't, fine. If you do too, also fine. Must we do the endless kevitching everytime this film gets mentioned?

  • July 2, 2009, 6:13 p.m. CST

    Again, Captainaxis, we'll have to disagree

    by wookie1972

    I thought that Snyder was basically just using the musical cues laid out in the book, and when he did improvise it was weak. (Again, when I read the comic, and I imagined the two riders approaching over the snow, I heard Dylan's wistful version, not the overblown Hendrix vesrion.) "Don't even tell me that lame-ass Dreiberg wouldn't play it while romancing a lady"? Sorry, but I will tell you just that. The comic makes clear that Dreiberg's taste runs to 40s and 50s pop, especially Billie Holliday, which would ahve been much better than the atrocious choice of "Hallelujah" (believe me, it got guffaws in the theater) And I just don't buy your theory on "Ride Of The Valkyries." I just don't see Snyder putting that much thought into it. The one part that did work, I'll admit, is the Philip Glass stuff. The other problem I had was that. indeed, I never got the feeling from the music that this was a thought-out alternate reality with new aesthetics. While I will admit that Pale Horse was not essential to the plot, Snyder could have used the money he spent hiring My Chemical Romance to get someone good (I dunno, Beck maybe?) to mock up a Pale Horse song. As for Tarantino and Rob Zombie - seriously, the use of a "jukebox soundtrack" begins and ends with Scorsese.

  • July 2, 2009, 6:15 p.m. CST

    "realism"

    by wookie1972

    The psychic part was not exactly realistic, but it was within suspension of disbelief. The idea that ALL the good guys fight like Neo and Trinity stretched the bounds of possibility for me, anyway.

  • July 2, 2009, 6:15 p.m. CST

    Snyder, the professional adaptationist

    by ChocolateJesus

    If he repainted the Mona Lisa, he'd put a big, shit-eating grin on her face.

  • July 2, 2009, 6:32 p.m. CST

    wookie1972

    by CaptainAxis

    "I just don't see Snyder putting that much thought into it."<br> <br> I am so fucking sick of this criticism, I'm ready to scream. There is ample evidence that Snyder isn't some fratboy douchebag like Michael Bay, but in every Snyder-related talkback we see you and Asimov and others talking about him like he's some mouthbreather who just got off the short bus. He put a lot of thought into the choices he made, and it's obvious to anyone who paid attention. Read an interview with the guy, he's got a brain.

  • July 2, 2009, 6:38 p.m. CST

    Re: the violence

    by CaptainAxis

    Remember how some of you were SO sure that Snyder wasn't commenting on other films with the violence in Watchmen? Here's an excerpt from fantastic little interview I just found...<br> <br> Q: You employed a great deal of violence in your last two films. How do you think fans of 300 will react to a film like this, where the conflicts are more personal?<br> <br> A: To my aesthetic, I think the violence in Watchmen is very specific and designed to provoke thought, hopefully. Part of the reason the violence in the movie is so extreme, for me, is that I wanted the idea of a superhero movie to be broken down at every level, not just psychologically. The audience is so used to homogenous, PG-13 violence, that has been put in a clean wrapper and therefore is, in my opinion, irresponsible violence. The idea with the violence in Watchmen is to smash that concept as hard as possible; to smash the idea that violence has no consequence, and that when superheroes have confrontations, it’s easy and pain-free. People get knocked out, but no one really gets hurt, and I really wanted to smash that concept if I could, and that was a reason for the violence. In 300, we created an operatic of violence, that’s how I saw it. I’m not sure how people will react to it, but that was my intention.<br> <br> I realize none of you will admit you were wrong, but this does mean you can stop using the "Snyder is a meathead" line of criticism. You may not have appreciated it, and you still don't have to like the movie, but just STOP MAKING SHIT UP.

  • July 2, 2009, 6:49 p.m. CST

    Overblown Hendrix version?

    by blakindigo

    Wow.

  • July 2, 2009, 6:50 p.m. CST

    Never read the book...

    by Logan_1973

    Nor do I plan to. I'm a movie-man, not a graphic novel collector. As a film I thought Watchmen worked and was an excellent take on the superhero mythology. I'm interested in these cuts although I fear the pacing may suffer. We shall see...

  • July 2, 2009, 6:53 p.m. CST

    Asimov Lives

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    What films do you LIKE?<br /><br /> Are there ANY?<br /><br /> Every film you've attacked in these talkbacks has been one that I've enjoyed. And millions of people have agreed with me. <br /><br />You have the right to your opinion. But when you state your opinion so dogmatically and pedantically as if it's the ONLY opinion anyone COULD possibly have, you really do seem like an ASSHOLE.<br /><br />And your hatred for people like Zak Snyder and JJ Abrams seems completely misguided. These guys aren't hacks. Snyder made a movie out of a 20 year old graphic novel that many people thought was unfilmable. He got as much of it onscreen as he could, and with these extended cuts there's more coming. Abrams was handed a 30 year old 10 film franchise that was DEAD and he brought it back to life and made it more successful than it had ever been before.<br /><br />No film is perfect.You can disagree with their artistic choices if you want. But the way you attack these films carries no weight because you seem so ignorant of the director's intentions, and how they've gone about executing them. You see flaws that AREN'T ACTUALLY THERE. You exaggerate flaws that may be there with such ridiculously angry hyperbole that you become laughable. Kicking someone from one side of an alley to the other is VASTLY DIFFERENT from kicking them from one end of an alley to the other. And insisting on realistic fight scenes from a film based on a comic book where a blue guy who can rearrange his own atoms and transport himself to Mars has doubles of himself make love to his girlfriend while he works on a science project in the other room just makes you sound SILLY.

  • July 2, 2009, 6:58 p.m. CST

    A ten?

    by DennisMM

    Okay, that person's believability just went out the window.

  • July 2, 2009, 6:58 p.m. CST

    chocolatejesus

    by 6000_little_griglets

    "If he repainted the Mona Lisa, he'd put a big, shit-eating grin on her face." sums it up perfectly. I was starting to cool on my dislike for this movie... but this TB has reminded me of so many things that i had forgotten. the soundtrack was atrociously bad. The use of the hendrix version (yeah rocking! ride into the danger zone boys!) over the original dylan version was a groan out loud moment and sums up what Snyder thought would suit the tone of a watchmen film. And can people stop saying "we're lucky to have got any watchmen movie at all!" as if we should be thankful charity cases.

  • July 2, 2009, 6:58 p.m. CST

    Cymbalta4thedevil

    by ebonic_plague

    I know of one movie that AsimovLives REALLY enjoys; it's called Memories of Murder.

  • July 2, 2009, 6:59 p.m. CST

    blakindigo

    by Mr.Stiggs

    Thanks for the link. I'm sorry but that scene from Thunderball in no way represents a real brawl. I will admit that it lacks the over the top kinetic style that is the standard in all contemporary action films but I found it just as absurd. I've studied martial arts since I was 6 and I've worked in a lot of clubs/bars over the years. I've seen a lot of street fights in that time. Almost every single one starts with an initial unexpected blow which is followed 6 seconds later by clumsy clutching and frantic, unfocused strikes. Film fight sequences are obviously designed to entertain an audience. Therefore they will never replicate real life. Thank God...

  • July 2, 2009, 7:02 p.m. CST

    Captain Axis

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Thanks for that Snyder quote. I've made the same point you're making about the violence but it helps to have quotes from Snyder himself. It's obvious to anyone paying attention that the brutal violence in Watchmen is not meant to be KEWL as Asimov believes.

  • July 2, 2009, 7:06 p.m. CST

    all along the watchtower

    by Six Demon Bag

    was in the book though...and when i read it oh so many years ago, i hear Hendrix.<P>you can try to blast me all you want but Hendrix OWNS all along the watchtower<P>i even think i recall dylan saying something along those lines.

  • July 2, 2009, 7:09 p.m. CST

    Yeah, Hendrix > Dylan

    by ebonic_plague

    Fuck all you hipster purists. <p> Though, anything else > shitty My Chemical Romance cover.

  • July 2, 2009, 7:10 p.m. CST

    Snyder's thoughts on violence

    by DennisMM

    Captain, Snyder can talk it all he likes, but the violence, to me, did not "smash" the PG-13 violence of the typical superhero film. It just took me out of the movie, because it was incongruent with the physical realism portrayed otherwise. It was even less realistic than Dr. M, if that makes sense. I was able to suspend my disbelief for Dr. M more readily than for the overamped fight scenes.

  • July 2, 2009, 7:11 p.m. CST

    all along the watchtower

    by 6000_little_griglets

    was in the book... as a quote from Bob Dylan... it's not that Snyder took a liberty, it's that Snyder wanted the rockin' version for his rockin' watchmen adaptation.

  • July 2, 2009, 7:12 p.m. CST

    cymbalta

    by CaptainAxis

    No problem. The whole interview is a really interesting read that reinforces everything we've been saying. Snyder "got" the graphic novel (says he first read it in 1988) and its themes are all there in the film if you don't go into the movie determined to hate it. The haters, however, will more than likely ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Ironically, it was AsimovLives who brought up "cognitive dissonance" earlier, when he is a living breathing example of it.<br> <br> Here's the link to the interview - http://tinyurl.com/nothgy

  • July 2, 2009, 7:12 p.m. CST

    Reviewer: It's "Dialog" for christ's sake

    by ulcer

    "Dialog" (or Dialogue) and "Monologue" not "dialouge" or "monolouge ". wtf language did you grow up in where "louge" is pronouced "log"? Go play with your luge!

  • July 2, 2009, 7:16 p.m. CST

    Rorshach was definitely Realistic

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    I see people zooming up the sides of buildings with grappling hook guns all the time where I live.

  • July 2, 2009, 7:18 p.m. CST

    6000_little_griglets

    by CaptainAxis

    Or maybe he just wanted the better version. You know, the one that Dylan himself prefers and emulates.<br> <br> In the booklet accompanying his Biograph album, Dylan said: "I liked Jimi Hendrix's record of this and ever since he died I've been doing it that way... Strange how when I sing it, I always feel it's a tribute to him in some kind of way."

  • July 2, 2009, 7:18 p.m. CST

    Grappling hook

    by DennisMM

    Something Snyder changed, to look peppy and save time. In the book, R had to pull himself up twenty stories. lol

  • July 2, 2009, 7:19 p.m. CST

    watchtower

    by Six Demon Bag

    snyder probably didnt want 2 dylan songs in the film..who knows what moore was thinking when he wrote it too..WE are reading way too much into it..as for the film...HENDRIX was perfect for that scene, which is EXACTLY how it played out in the book.

  • July 2, 2009, 7:22 p.m. CST

    Watchtower

    by DennisMM

    I'm a massive Dylan fan, certainly more so than of Hendrix, but Hendrix is what I heard in my mind, at least initially, when I read the book.

  • July 2, 2009, 7:22 p.m. CST

    Moore and Gibbons

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    would be the first to tell you that taking superheroes SERIOUSLY is not the same thing as portraying them REALISTICALLY. It's a comic book that satirizes and comments on superheroes. Just like Snyder's movie is a superhero movie that satirizes and comments on superhero movies.

  • July 2, 2009, 7:26 p.m. CST

    DennisMM...

    by Mr.Stiggs

    It is really peculiar that many people have so many issues with the "unrealistic" fight scenes yet readily accept the other fantastic possibilities. How can one believe in a world inhabited by floating vehicles, a 40 ft. blue super powered man, genetically altered animals and decade spanning vigilantes yet be skeptic of a character's ability to fight? I'm not arguing that you "don't get it". I just think it's odd that the fight scenes that are the main problem that people seem to have with the film. I feel that it's a scapegoat for some of those critics that can't intellectually articulate their opinion of the movie.

  • July 2, 2009, 7:27 p.m. CST

    i like hendrix's version too

    by 6000_little_griglets

    but it wasn't perfect for that scene... because Dylan likes Hendrix's version, that makes it right for the film? subjective i guess.. i know what Moore was thinking: he quoted Bob Dylan...

  • July 2, 2009, 7:29 p.m. CST

    Bubastis was Definitely Realistic.

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Every billionaire worth a damn has a big genetically altered animal hanging around in his arctic lair. Trump is mad because Bill Gates' cat is way more purple than his.

  • July 2, 2009, 7:31 p.m. CST

    6000_little_griglets

    by Six Demon Bag

    so moore quoted dylan, that what you do in books, in film did you want morgan fuckin freeman to recite lyrics to the song? <P>it ruled, accept it.

  • July 2, 2009, 7:36 p.m. CST

    Mr. Stiggs

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    People complaining about the fight scenes wish the movie HAD ended with a big giant squid so they could complain that the squid wasn't "realistic" enough.

  • July 2, 2009, 7:36 p.m. CST

    yes, i see now that i must accept it

    by 6000_little_griglets

    and yes, i wanted morgan freeman reciting the lyrics: that's exactly how envisioned it when i first read the comic.

  • July 2, 2009, 7:42 p.m. CST

    He quoted Dylan

    by CaptainAxis

    BECAUSE DYLAN WROTE THE FUCKING LYRICS. Jesus Christ, are you really that stupid?<br> <br> As for the realism discussion, keep in mind the same people championing the "realism" of Watchmen were also pissed that Snyder changed the squid ending. Because it's completely realistic that a bunch of scientists and artists would agree to drop off the face of the planet to work on what they thought was a top-secret "special effect" for a movie. That's not even dealing with the realism of the squid itself, just the PREMISE of how it was made is pretty goddamn retarded.

  • July 2, 2009, 7:45 p.m. CST

    I accept the impossible

    by DennisMM

    when it's presented as a shock. "Holy shit, look at that giant squidlike thing that killed everyone!" But the "heightened realism" that so many filmmakers shoot for when portraying violence generally turns me off. Snyder is not the only offender. Tarantino is also guilty.

  • July 2, 2009, 7:46 p.m. CST

    Once again, I've opened my mouth

    by DennisMM

    when there's not much chance to do ANYTHING but for all of us to repeat ourselves. So I'll stop now.

  • July 2, 2009, 7:51 p.m. CST

    I hope you warmed up first, DennisMM

    by CaptainAxis

    Because you're really stretching now. So for you, shock trumps realism and story? No matter how ridiculous, as long as it's done for shock value, it's cool with you?

  • July 2, 2009, 7:53 p.m. CST

    Good call, Dennis

    by CaptainAxis

    Although I do hope AsimovLives returns to spout more of his irascible gibberish. See you in the next Watchmen DVD/Blu-ray talkback, gentlemen!

  • July 2, 2009, 8:03 p.m. CST

    DennisMM

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Your opinion is perfectly valid. I found the violence a little over the top at first. Once I realized that Snyder was COMMENTING on over the top violence I was able to embrace what he was doing.<br /><br /> But you have to admit the world of Watchmen is INHERENTLY UNREALISTIC. By the end of the book Ozymandias is basically a Bond villain. A slightly more muscular Bond villain who actually DOES outsmart the heroes for once, but a Bond villain nonetheless. That's the other thing that gets me about the talkbackers who didn't like the movie. They're actually complaining that Ozymandias wasn't portrayed more heroically. He's a billionaire with a purple cat who kills millions of people. He's not Superman. Talk about missing the point of a book completely. Does anyone out there think Moore and Gibbons AGREE with what Ozymandias does?

  • July 2, 2009, 8:04 p.m. CST

    This was even better...

    by Kelvington

    loved it in the theater, but this version was even better! Never for a moment did I notice that three hours were going by, it completely held my attention, and the additions were seemless and great!

  • July 2, 2009, 8:29 p.m. CST

    I've seen it! An extra surprising change is...

    by dihay

    ...it's a LION!!!...oops...wrong extended edition...sorry

  • July 2, 2009, 8:43 p.m. CST

    It's Pretty Obvious.....

    by closeencounter

    The folks complaining about me complaining about too many cock shots love their big blue penis pics.

  • July 2, 2009, 8:53 p.m. CST

    Squid is replaced by Giant Robot Lion.

    by Sal_Bando

    Who shoots the prezzie in the head(CGI Nixon) and takes over DC.

  • July 2, 2009, 9:02 p.m. CST

    Squid is replaced by giant Crab

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Dr. Manhattan recruits the Deadliest Catch guys.

  • July 2, 2009, 9:10 p.m. CST

    damn

    by ulyboy

    Well, I was half awake during the list making. Didn't bother spell checking it because I wasn't using word(I used notepad)plus I didn't think they would post it. Secondly there are two new scenes with the news vendor. And it went from 8 to 10 because they put back in everything that I wanted them to. Of course, thats with an understanding of what could be there. i.e. the scene is there, but a moment or two is missing. 8. reads that way because I thought that was the last one. But, I forgot hollis's death scene. Since there were so many little, hardly noticable things(literally some extensions last less an a second. For example, the where Janey hands Jon a beer starts like the orginal panel with Jon in frame and then zooms into the shot we saw start the scene in the theater. also the graffi(i know I spelled it wrong) has yes the word WING sprayed onto a poster for the new frontiersman. okay peace haters.

  • July 2, 2009, 9:11 p.m. CST

    Mr.Stiggs—I realize it's a 'movie fight scene' but,

    by blakindigo

    yeah, my point was that it seems more 'real' then many movie fights. I should've been more specific.<br><br>I've been in a few punch ups that seem like minutes but, in reality were probably under 5-7 seconds. Most end up with some kind of grappling on the ground. I totally agree that surprise and quick effective strikes are how most begin and end. And, real fights are just so damn ugly…

  • July 2, 2009, 9:13 p.m. CST

    Mr. Stiggs

    by Dapper Swindler

    I see you are complaining that someone else is complaining that the violence is "unrealistic" while ignoring the other otherworldly things like Doc Manhattan, etc. You sir, do not get it. You are like the people who don't understand why someone would call the monkeys or the fridge in Cystal Skull unrealistic but not the Ark. The very fact that Doc Manhanttan and a giant squid exist makes it all the more necessary for things like the fights to be realistic. It's not an easy thing to explain, and if you don't get it by default you wouldn't understand any explanation.

  • July 2, 2009, 9:33 p.m. CST

    can we get the Director's cut of that review?

    by Eats_sandwich_gets_laid.

    I want to see the review where this jackass respects the English language. It was a decent summary, but you guys need to get off your asses and learn how to spell and grammar check something before you post it. It's maddening.

  • July 2, 2009, 10:04 p.m. CST

    Dapper Swindler...Um, no.

    by Mr.Stiggs

    Complaining? Why is it when someone points out an opposing viewpoint to yours then you automatically propose that they are "complaining"? That's very childish. I understand what you are TYRING to say but your explanation just doesn't make any sense. I too can acknowledge when a movie breaks that thin line of reality and begins to lose credibility. Unfortunately your example does not support your argument. Indiana Jones is supposed to exist in a 1940-1950 real world environment so a sequence like the "monkey cavalry" really sticks out as bogus (The supernatural elements of the series are excluded due to the fact that most are based on religious beliefs). Any film risks alienating it's audience if it fails to adhere to its own interpretation of reality. A good example of this would be "From Dusk 'Til Dawn". Many people complained because the initial portion of the story revolved around a heist which "suddenly" turned into a horror movie midway through the second act. But if the film showed just a 3 second shot of a vampire in the opening credit sequence then the audience would have readily accepted it's sudden shift in tone. As long as a film adheres to its own established set of rules then anything goes . Watchmen set its extraordinary tone within the first few minutes and never really breaks from that heightened reality. That is why I can't accept an argument that "the fights were so unrealistic".

  • July 2, 2009, 10:23 p.m. CST

    Mr.Stiggs, I agree wholeheartedly.

    by blakindigo

    I'm curious, which martial arts do you study?<br><br>And, are you interested in "Ninja Assassin"?

  • July 2, 2009, 10:38 p.m. CST

    Can we stop talking about this movie. Please?

    by lockesbrokenleg

    PLEASE!!!

  • July 2, 2009, 10:39 p.m. CST

    A lot of good points in this TB

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    You guys are creeping me out

  • July 2, 2009, 10:44 p.m. CST

    lockesbrokenleg

    by blakindigo

    Sorry, that won't happen for a while. People have waited 20 years for this movie and have a lot to discuss.

  • July 2, 2009, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Snyder not understanding the comic

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I don't buy that idea. Why? Cause it's not that sophisticated. Now, did he did a good job translating it to the screen? That's another matter entirely, but I will say he translated it using his own "voice", for better or worse.

  • July 2, 2009, 10:54 p.m. CST

    I loved the book

    by nyj_et

    and I like the movie. I don't see where the hate for it comes from. I know this shouldn't be a measuring stick, but you can tell that it was made with a lot more thought, love and attention than that which will become the biggest box-office draw of the summer. That is all.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:07 p.m. CST

    blakindigo

    by Mr.Stiggs

    I actually started off as a boxer in my teen years but grew tired of getting punched in the face as I got older. I then began to study martial arts and have focused mainly on the Wing Chun discipline. I'm not sure what to make of "Ninja Assassin" as I've yet to see any footage. It sounds intriguing though.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:11 p.m. CST

    all along the watchtower was very out of place

    by supercowbell5THECOWBELLHASSPOKEN

    the music at the funreal and the opening comedian scene was fine, come on. all along the watchtower, while a perfect song and the best cover ever, shouldnt have been in that scene.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:16 p.m. CST

    Wing Chun is amazing—

    by blakindigo

    —I'm interested in Escrima myself. I lol at '…grew tired of getting punched in the face…' (aren't we all).<br><br>Apparently, Zach Snyder studies Jeet Kune Do(?) I'm not sure if that's right.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:24 p.m. CST

    blakindigo. So you like weapons.

    by Mr.Stiggs

    Jeet Kune Do is based on Wing Chun. It was founded by Bruce Lee and focuses on a less restricted type of combat.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:39 p.m. CST

    Thunderbolt Ross

    by subtlety

    Eh, it may not be super sophisticated, but it is pretty nuanced. Sydner nails some nuances (Rorsarch's unlikable but also sympathetic, for instance), but others like the complexities of Viedt and Laurie are completely lost. I mean, saying he told the same story in his own voice just doesn't really quite cover what happens when you alter characters and themes significantly enough that their original meaning is lost or adulterated. And none of these changes address that in any meaningful way. So, its possible he understood the comic and just chose to ignore some things. But I also think it likely -- given his previous work and everything I've read from him on the book-- that he didn't really understand, or at least didn't care about, a few ideas that I think are absolutely central to the point of the novel.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:43 p.m. CST

    I just love the arts—

    by blakindigo

    Oh, I am a HUGE Bruce Lee geek, so I know the history of Jeet Kune Do (I'm just not sure if that's what Zack Snyder studies). My height is an issue with styles that deal with 'inside' fighters, that's why I never looked at Wing Chun as viable for me. But, I've never really pursued it.

  • July 2, 2009, 11:43 p.m. CST

    cowbell

    by subtlety

    completely agree. Tho I do love the Dylan tune that opens the film, the music choices could hardly have been more cliche. Watchtower, especially. Even "Times they are..." is a ridiculously obvious choice, it just happens to work for whatever reason. But by the time they're hitting "Hallelujah" I could hardly believe anyone could take that shit seriously. (and yeah, its not the songs themselves -- they're great independently. its just their use in the film is so eye-rollingly trite).

  • July 2, 2009, 11:49 p.m. CST

    Subtlety

    by supercowbell5THECOWBELLHASSPOKEN

    i lovd the use of the times are a changin to be honest. if fits perfect, even if its a tune lots of people heard thousands of times. everything about watchtower in that scene was wrong. i didnt find the halleujah scene bad, because i thought it was hilarious (really not sure if it was meant to be though), i understand why people didnt like it though. it also went on forever. seriously. but we couldnt get veidt saying i did it! lame!!

  • July 3, 2009, 12:08 a.m. CST

    Sex scene went on forever?

    by CaptainAxis

    What was it, two minutes long? I pity your sexual partners.

  • July 3, 2009, 12:10 a.m. CST

    @Subtlety

    by CaptainAxis

    Which central ideas and issues are you referring to?

  • July 3, 2009, 12:20 a.m. CST

    Actually, i posted this

    by brokenheadstuff

    25 minutes ago

  • July 3, 2009, 12:36 a.m. CST

    I agree with you all that

    by Magnum Opus

    Watchmen is a masterpiece. Some of you have a funny way of expressing that knowledge...

  • July 3, 2009, 12:42 a.m. CST

    Buying this DVD, believe it or not . . .

    by Chief Redcock

    . . . will possibly be better than a ho down at Gus Van Rant's house on Christmas Eve!!!

  • July 3, 2009, 12:47 a.m. CST

    Why...

    by tensticks

    Are people still wasting electrons on this cinematic botched abortion? You can't polish a turd, Beavis.

  • July 3, 2009, 1:11 a.m. CST

    This TB sums up everything wrong with geeks

    by yiannis

    ... and I qualify that statement by classifying myself as a geek! My point is best summed up in question form:<br><br>Are any of you directors?<br><br>Are any of you DoPs? Editors? Actors? Screenwriters?<br><br>No, you're not. You are fans, consumers, viewers, whatever you want to call yourselves. What is more, we are lucky enough to live in an age where a lot of information is readily available about how movies are made. Magazines (I've bought Empire every month without fail since 1995), websites, commentaries and documentaries have all helped us to understand the process of making a motion picture, meaning we no longer run screaming out of the cinema if a train appears to be coming straight for us. You can call us educated fans, I guess.<br><br>The problem is that all this information has made every last one of us (and I include myself) think that we KNOW how to make a movie and are therefore qualified to make sweeping statements, opinions we try to make sound like facts, about every single aspect of filmmaking. We conveniently forget that making a film is a COLLECTIVE effort of anything up to 1,000 people or more, each with unique skills and training that qualify them for their role. We just assume in our arrogance that our "armchair" knowledge is sufficient to enable us to judge with impunity.<br><br>We happily mock plots and storylines written by well paid, professional writers, yet have any of us ever had a work of creative writing published?<br><br>We regularly mock CGI effects in films, but has anyone here ever actually produced animation on their computer that could better what $50 million or so of effects budget and a department of 100 people can achieve?<br><br>Has anyone on here ever even directed so much as a school play, or coaxed a performance out of an actor?<br><br>I don't believe it is an unfair assumption on my part if I think that the answer to all three questions will be almost universally "no", so why do we think it's perfectly ok to mock people who are actually earning their living producing these films for not doing their job properly when NONE OF US COULD DO THE JOB AT ALL?!<br><br>There is nothing wrong with having an opinion. If someone didn't like Watchmen, or Star Trek, or if someone liked I Am Legend, the fact that I have an opposite opinion makes neither of us wrong and NEITHER OF US RIGHT. Enjoyment, by its very definition, is an emotional response. It can be tempered and guided by more objective terms (e.g. "this plot point seemed illogical to me and reduced my enjoyment", "that piece of acting enhanced the character for me and increased my enjoyment"), but we should always remember how little actual standing we have for making these objective appraisals.<br><br>Let me put it to you by way of a real life example. I was lucky enough to come from a family that had a genetic history of musical talent and I was born with a natural gift for music. I have been classically trained on the piano since I was 4 years old (I am now 29) and have also studied music theory and composition to an advanced level. This does NOT mean in any way that my taste in music is better than anyone else's, because taste is opinion and can never be either right or wrong. What is DOES mean is that I am better placed than the vast majority of you to appraise music in objective terms.<br><br>Now, I do not particularly care for Mozart. I have studied (and played) a great deal of his music and appreciate his place in history and influence on pretty much everyone who came after him, but my tastes in classical music tend towards other composers, particularly Russian composers, who have a sound and style that appeals to me. Does this mean that I am perfectly entitled to write Mozart off as a talentless hack, or an idiot? Of course not! The fact that I do not enjoy his music as much as others do doesn't mean I can ignore that he had a level of talent I could never hope to achieve in a dozen lifetimes. I would be considered arrogant in the extreme if I were to say something like that, as I would effectively be claiming to have more talent than Mozart!<br><br>Now imagine what the reaction would be if some fat guy in an armchair, who cannot read music and has never played a single instrument in his life, let alone written a piece of music, was to also claim that Mozart was a talentless hack?<br><br>If people don't like a movie, say you don't like it. However, if you're going to mock the talents of those involved simply because you didn't like it, then until you go out and make your own film so that we can judge YOUR talent, you do not deserve to be taken seriously.<br><br>Rant over

  • July 3, 2009, 1:34 a.m. CST

    Mozart≠a talentless hack, or an idiot…

    by blakindigo

    Wonderful post, well considerd, thoughtful and full of venom.<br><br>But, it won't bring in $100 million dollars at the box office, so nobody will deem it credible.

  • July 3, 2009, 2 a.m. CST

    blakindigo

    by yiannis

    As Metallica once sang, sad but true...

  • July 3, 2009, 2:02 a.m. CST

    Ninja Assassin is pure fantastical hybrid arts.

    by Dingbatty

    At least from the stunt choreography reel, which looked like Tae Kwon Do mixed with Wushu; I didn't see any contemporary Bujinkan Taijutsu and Ninpo, or any recreated archaic Togakure ryu Bujutsu. Though maybe that'll be in the movie.

  • July 3, 2009, 2:03 a.m. CST

    by yiannis

    maybe if I called everyone cunts and put lots of beliderate spilleng mistaeks and not very well grammar that box office gold would be mine...

  • July 3, 2009, 2:09 a.m. CST

    BRILLIANT!

    by blakindigo

  • July 3, 2009, 2:20 a.m. CST

    People read EMPIRE magazine?

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Shit, that fucking ripoff is all ads and reviews and a free poster for 10 fucking bucks!

  • July 3, 2009, 2:32 a.m. CST

    lockesbrokenleg

    by yiannis

    Are you sure you're reading the same magazine as me?<br><br>First of all, find me ONE magazine, in any field, that doesn't contain ads and I'll show you a publishing company that's about to go out of business.<br><br>Secondly, surely one of the key attributes of a MOVIE magazine is their habit of REVIEWING MOVIES?!<br><br>Thirdly, are you REALLY complaining about getting free anything? If you don't want it, throw it away. After all, you didn't pay money for it.<br><br>Lastly, if you insist on buying an IMPORTED ENGLISH MAGAZINE while living in America then expect to pay import prices. I pay £3.90 myself, or about $6.<br><br>I won't even bother mentioning the - on average - 10-12 articles each month covering everything from production of current films and in-depth interviews to fan-voted "best of" lists and appraisals of classic movies.<br><br>What exactly are your criteria for a good movie magazine?

  • July 3, 2009, 2:35 a.m. CST

    just to qualify...

    by yiannis

    I admit I have never seen the American edition of Empire, which could quite well be inferior. The UK version rocks

  • July 3, 2009, 3:02 a.m. CST

    Alan Moore should be proud

    by Toby_FN_Wong

    His overrated comic has been turned into an overrated movie.

  • July 3, 2009, 3:10 a.m. CST

    I don't buy magazines much anymore

    by lockesbrokenleg

    I get all my news online. Most magazines that come out these days have months old information in them.

  • July 3, 2009, 3:17 a.m. CST

    TheLastCleric=professional

    by blakindigo

    Just reading over the posts again and his arguments remain the most persuasive and cogent.

  • July 3, 2009, 3:21 a.m. CST

    Great a longer version of shit......

    by gomez33

    sorry but that is a fucking shitty film. This site is obsessed with it. It doesn't work on so many levels its quite painful. Stick to the comic.

  • July 3, 2009, 3:21 a.m. CST

    Actually, I don't know why I'm assuming that

    by blakindigo

    TheLastCleric is male. My mistake if that's not the case.

  • July 3, 2009, 3:29 a.m. CST

    Hey Yiannis

    by Replicant23

    To address your rant, yeah, I've directed everything from indie feature films to plays to short films, animation, all of which I've written...so the fuck what? Oooohhh...how dare someone who isn't a writer critique something written by "gasp"...a "professional writer"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Holy fuck...a professional writer like, say Akiva Goldsman? Perhaps the most heinous hack ever to put virtual pen to Final Draft? The dumb fuck who wrote lines for Mr. Freeze like "Cool it" and "Chill"? Instant respect, he got a paycheck, is that what you're saying? Shut up, you're telling us, you're just the consumer. What gives us the right to judge? Are you fucking kidding? We're the BUYERS, the CUSTOMERS, that's how it works in a capitalist society. And strangely enough, I don't have to be a moron myself to opine that you sir are a moron. A few simple analogies refute your sad rant: I don't have to be a moyil to judge a moyil to be a lousy moyil when after the bris my baby boy has no dick left, right? I don't have to be a world-class chef to say that his food stinks when I don't like it, do I? Or are my rights to return a VCR for being defective curtailed because I've never engineered a VCR before? This is a movie review site Yiannis. People here watch movies and review them. Some of us also write them, direct them, whatever, but that's entirely inconsequential - by your logic, no one who hasn't written/produced/directed has any real idea that Battlefield Earth sucked...they may SUSPECT, but they cannot truly KNOW, and should just shut up. Surprise, surprise...people here have opinions about movies. Who'da thunk it? Now go fuck yourself, you self righteous little prick.

  • July 3, 2009, 3:38 a.m. CST

    Don't Mohelim perform circumcisions?

    by blakindigo

  • July 3, 2009, 4:08 a.m. CST

    best ovie of the year so far (doubt that will change)

    by lavatory love machine

    only Avatar, Ponyo on a Cliff or Thirst might be able to top it, also Shutter Island but I don't think so......morons at the time didn't like Blade Runner or The Shinning and called them "boring", it took them at least a decade to see the greatness, it'll be the same with this one

  • July 3, 2009, 6:32 a.m. CST

    yiannis

    by BurnHollywood

    I've never made either vinegar or wine, but if someone served me the former in a wine glass, I'd sure as shit spit it out.

  • July 3, 2009, 6:39 a.m. CST

    Extended sex scene?

    by BoyNamedSue

    Damn that scene was hot!!!

  • July 3, 2009, 7:23 a.m. CST

    Re: replicant23 and BurnHollywood

    by gls350

    I think you missed the point of his post... He was addressing the habit of calling people talentless (or much worse) because we think their product sucks, not that you think their product sucks. In that respect he's absolutely right.

  • July 3, 2009, 7:25 a.m. CST

    Ack...

    by gls350

    much like blakindigo I'm assuming yiannis is male. Not sure why this is so common heh. Apologies if you're not XD

  • July 3, 2009, 7:32 a.m. CST

    A Second Chance to Ignore WATCHMEN!

    by ThusSpakeSpymunk

    I CAN'T WAIT! Seriously, aren't they still licking their wounds from the cosmic ambivalence toward the 1st version? Can't they figure out Hollywood despises comic-book movies? What's that, you say? What about IRON MAN and DARK KNIGHT? You mean those movies that did everything in their power to divide the character from the source material by making them both stories about normal, driven men with issues who use semi-realistic but no-less-bizarre technology to deal with their inner demons? Where all the elements of comic-bookiness were excised, from dialogue to tropes to WHAM! BAM! POW!? Yeah, those. DARK KNIGHT and IRON MAN have as much to do with comic source material as STEEL did.

  • July 3, 2009, 7:33 a.m. CST

    Er, big mistake ...

    by ThusSpakeSpymunk

    The above should read "Can't they figure out America despises comic book movies?

  • July 3, 2009, 7:58 a.m. CST

    Want Proof America HATES comic books? Hollywood does, too!

    by ThusSpakeSpymunk

    From wikipedia:<p><p>Proposals for fifth film:<p><P>Superman: The New Movie<p><p>After the failure of Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, Cannon Films considered producing a fifth film with Albert Pyun as director. Financial troubles resulted in the film rights reverting back to Ilya and Alexander Salkind.[6] Salkind wrote the story for Superman V (also known as Superman: The New Movie) with Superboy writers Cary Bates and Mark Jones in the early-1990s.[1] The story had Superman dying and resurrecting in the shrunken, bottled Krypton city of Kandor. The premise of Superman's death and rebirth coincidentally predated The Death of Superman. Salkind, Bates and Jones developed two drafts of the script, with Christopher Reeve set to reprise the leading role.<p><p>Superman Reborn<p><p>"In any good Superman movie, the fate of the whole planet should be at stake. You've got to have villains whose powers and abilities demand that Superman (and only Superman) can be the one who stops them. That's the only way to make the movie exciting and a dramatic challenge." ——Writer Jonathan Lemkin on writing Superman Reborn. Upon viewing the success of The Death of Superman comic storyline, Warner Bros. bought the film rights of Superman from the Salkinds in early 1993, handing the project to producer Jon Peters. The studio decided to not continue with the Salkind, Bates and Jones script for Superman: The New Movie. Peters hired Jonathan Lemkin to write the script. Lemkin cited the project as both a mainstream and family film, claiming he was primarily advised to perform the script in a style for the new teenage generation of the 1990s, and making it toyetic. Major toy companies insisted on seeing Lemkin's screenplay before the deadline of the American International Toy Fair.<p><p> Lemkin's script, titled Superman Reborn, featured Lois Lane and Clark Kent with relationship troubles that are only resolved after Superman's battle with Doomsday. When he professes his love to her, his life force jumps between them, just as he dies, giving Lois a virgin birth. Their child, who grows 21-years-old in three weeks, becomes the resurrected Superman, and saves the world. Warner Bros. did not like the script because of similar underlying themes with Batman Forever.<p><p>Peters brought Gregory Poirier, his collaborator on Rosewood, to rewrite the script. Poirer's December 1995 script had Brainiac creating Doomsday, infused with "Kryptonite blood". Superman has romance problems with Lois Lane, and visits a psychiatrist. Superman is killed by Doomsday, and an alien named Cadmus, a victim of Brainiac, steals his corpse. Superman is resurrected and teams with Cadmus to defeat Brainiac. Powerless, Superman wears a robotic suit that mimics his old powers until he can learn to use his powers again on his own, which, according to the script, are a mental discipline called "Phin-yar", a concept similar to The Force. Other villains included Parasite and Silver Banshee.[6] Poirier's script impressed Warner Bros.,[8] but Kevin Smith was hired to rewrite.[9] Smith thought Poirier's script did not respect the Superman comic book properly.<p><p>Superman Lives Teaser poster that premiered at American International Toy Fair in 1997,[6] designed by Sylvain Despretz[<p><p>Kevin Smith pitched to Jon Peters his story outline in August 1996, in which Peters gave him permission to write a screenplay. However, Peters presented Smith with three rules, such as wanting Superman to wear an all-black suit,[7] feeling the more traditional suit was "too faggy"; not wanting to see Superman fly,[7] saying that Superman would "look like an overgrown Boy Scout."[6] (In order to deal with this, Smith wrote Superman flying as "a red-and-blue blur in flight, creating a sonic boom every time he flew."[10]); and have Superman fight a giant spider in the third act. Smith accepted the terms, realizing that he was being hired to execute a pre-ordained idea.[7] Peters and Warner Bros. forced Smith to write a scene involving Brainiac fighting polar bears at the Fortress of Solitude, and Peters wanted Brainiac to give Lex Luthor a space dog, stating "Chewie's cuddly, man. You could make a toy out of him, so you've got to give me a dog."[9] Smith claims this was because of the recent re-release of the original Star Wars trilogy, and claims that Peters wanted Brainiac's robot assistant L-Ron to be voiced by Dwight Ewell, calling him, "a gay R2-D2 with attitude."[9] Peters was able to recycle his giant spider idea in Wild Wild West, a film he produced.<p><p>Smith's draft (titled Superman Lives) had Brainiac sending Doomsday to kill Superman, as well as blocking out the sun to make Superman powerless, as Superman is fueled by sunlight. Brainiac teams with Lex Luthor, but Superman is resurrected by a Kryptonian robot, The Eradicator. Brainiac wishes to possess The Eradicator and its technology. Powerless, the resurrected Superman is sheathed in armor formed from The Eradicator itself until his powers return, courtesy of sunbeams, and defeats Brainiac.[10] Smith's casting choices included Ben Affleck as Clark Kent / Superman, Linda Fiorentino as Lois Lane, Jack Nicholson as Lex Luthor, Famke Janssen as Mercy, John Mahoney as Perry White, David Hyde Pierce as The Eradicator, Jason Lee as Brainiac and Jason Mewes as Jimmy Olsen. Affleck would later play George Reeves of the Adventures of Superman in Hollywoodland.<p><p>Robert Rodriguez was offered the chance to direct, but turned down the offer due to his commitment on The Faculty, despite liking Smith's script.[7] Smith originally suggested Tim Burton to direct his script,[9] and Burton signed on with a pay or play contract of $5 million and the studio set the theatrical release date in the summer of 1998, the 60th anniversary of the character's debut in Action Comics.[8] Nicolas Cage, a comic book fan, signed on as Superman with a $20 million pay or play contract, feeling he could "re-conceive the character."[7] Peters felt Cage could "convince audiences he [Superman] came from outer space."[12] Burton stated it would be "the first time you would believe that nobody could recognize Clark Kent as Superman, he [Cage] could physically change his persona."[13] Kevin Spacey was approached for the role of Lex Luthor,[13] while Tim Allen claimed he was in talks for Brainiac[14] (a role heavily considered for Jim Carrey).[9] Courteney Cox was reported as a casting possibility for Lois Lane, while Smith confirmed Chris Rock was set for Jimmy Olsen.[14] Michael Keaton confirmed his involvement, but when asked if he would be reprising his role as Batman (as he had done in Burton's Batman and Batman Returns), he would only reply, "Not exactly."[15] Industrial Light & Magic was set for work on special effects.[7]<p><p>Design for the Superman suit by James Carson and Sylvain Despretz[7]<p><p>It was announced in April 1997 that filming would begin early-1998.[16] That June, Superman Lives entered pre-production,[7] with an art department employed under production designer Rick Heinrichs.[13] Burton decided to hire Wesley Strick to completely rewrite Smith's script. In return, Smith was overtly disappointed: "The studio was happy with what I was doing. Then Tim Burton got involved, and when he signed his pay-or-play deal, he turned around and said he wanted to do his version of Superman. So who is Warner Bros. going back to? The guy who made Clerks, or the guy who made them half a billion dollars on Batman?"[7] When Strick read Smith's script, he was annoyed with the fact that "Superman was accompanied/shadowed by someone/something called The Eradicator."[7] He also felt that "Brainiac's evil plot of launching a disk in space to block out the sun and make Superman powerless was reminiscent of an episode of The Simpsons, with Mr. Burns doing the Brainiac role."[7] However, after reading The Death and Return of Superman, Strick claimed he understood some of the elements of Smith's script. Strick's rewrite featured Superman questioning his existence and abilities, thinking of himself to be an outsider on Earth. Superman is threatened by Brainiac and Lex Luthor, who later amalgamate into "Lexiac," described by Strick as "a schizo/scary mega-villain."[7] Superman is later resurrected by the power of 'K,' a natural force representing the spirit of Krypton, as Superman defeats Lexiac.<p><p>Art designer Sylvain Despretz claimed the art department was assigned to create something that had little or nothing to do with the Superman comic book. Despretz also claimed that Peters "would bring kids in, who would rate the drawings on the wall as if they were evaluating the toy possibilities. It was basically a toy show!"[7] Peters saw a cover of National Geographic, containing a picture of a skull, going to art department workers, telling them he wanted the design for Brainiac's space ship to have the same image. Burton gave Despretz a concept drawing for Brainiac, which Despretz claims was "a cone with a round ball on top, and something that looked like a emaciated skull inside. Imagine you take Merlin's hat, and you stick a fish bowl on top, with a skull in it."[7] Concept artist Rolf Mohr claimed he designed a suit for The Eradicator for a supposed scene when he turns into a flying vehicle.<p><p> "We got the Kevin Smith script, but we were told not to read it, because they knew he wasn't going to stay on the movie. So we used Kevin Smith's script as a guide to the sets we might be doing, and we waited and waited for the new script to come in, but it never did."<p> ——Art designer Sylvain Despretz on designing Superman Lives.<p><p>Burton chose Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania as his primary filming location for Metropolis,[7] while sound stages were reserved[7] but start dates for filming were pushed back.[8] A minor piece of the Krypton set was constructed but then destroyed, and Cage had even attended a costume fitting.[18] The studio was considering changing the title Superman Lives back to Superman Reborn.[19] The film's escalating budget (which went from $100 million to $190 million) forced Warner Bros. to ultimately put the film on hold in April 1998, and Burton left to direct Sleepy Hollow.[8] At this point in production, $30 million was spent, with nothing to show for it.[7] To this day, Burton has depicted the experience of Superman Lives as one of the worst experiences in his life, citing various differences with Peters and the studio, stating, "I basically wasted a year. A year is a long time to be working with somebody that you don't really want to be working with."<p><p> Aftermath<p><p>Warner Bros. enlisted the aid of Dan Gilroy to rewrite Wesley Strick's script as a means to lower the $190 million budget, which he brought down to $100 million. However, Warner Bros. was still less willing to heavily move forward on production, due to financial reasons with other film properties,[21] having Gilroy turn in two drafts.[22] Disappointed by the lack of progress on the film's production, aspiring screenwriter/comic book fan Alex Ford was able to have a script of his (titled Superman: The Man of Steel) get accepted at the studio's offices in September 1998. Ford pitched his idea for a film series consisting of seven films, and his approach impressed Jon Peters and Warner Bros., though he was later given a farewell due to creative differences.[6] On the experience, Ford quoted, "I can tell you they don't know much about comics. Their audience isn't you and me who pay $7.00. It's for the parents who spend $60 on toys and lunchboxes. It is a business, and what's more important, the $150 million at the box office or the $600 million in merchandising?"[<p><p>With Gilroy's script, Peters offered the director's position to Ralph Zondag,[7] Michael Bay, Shekhar Kapur and Martin Campbell though they all turned down the offer.[6] Brett Ratner turned down the option in favor of The Family Man.[23] In addition, The Hollywood Reporter claimed Simon West and Stephen Norrington being top contenders.[24] In June 1999, William Wisher Jr. was hired to write a new script, approaching Nicolas Cage on story elements.[25] Cage dropped out of the project entirely in June 2000,[26] while Wisher turned in a new script in August 2000, reported to have contained similar elements with The Matrix.[6] In October 2000, Comic book veteran Keith Giffen pitched a 17-page story treatment with Lobo as the main villain, but the studio did not proceed with further involvement.[7] Oliver Stone was then approached to direct Wisher's script, but declined,[6] while in April 2001, The Hollywood Reporter revealed Paul Attanasio was hired to completely start on a new script, earning a salary of $1.7 million.[7] Around this time, Jon Peters offered Will Smith the role of Superman, but Smith turned it down over ethnicity concerns.<p><p>[edit] Batman vs. Superman<p><p> Although it was widely reported that McG had become attached to Paul Attanasio's script, in February 2002, J. J. Abrams was hired to write a new screenplay. It would ignore The Death of Superman storyline, and instead, it would reboot the film series with an origin story,[28] going under the title of Superman: Flyby.[6] The project had gone as far as being greenlit, but McG stepped out in favor of Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle.[29] The studio approached Wolfgang Petersen to direct Abrams' script,[30] however, in August of 2001,[31] Andrew Kevin Walker pitched Warner Bros. an idea titled Batman vs Superman, attaching Peterson as director. Abrams' script was put on hold,[30] and for reasons unknown, Akiva Goldsman was hired to rewrite Walker's draft which was codenamed "Asylum".<p><p>Goldsman's draft (dated June 21, 2002), had the premise of Bruce Wayne trying to shake all of the demons in his life after his five year retirement of crime fighting. Meanwhile, Clark Kent is down on his luck and in despair. Dick Grayson, Alfred Pennyworth and Commissioner Gordon are all dead and Clark has just recently divorced Lois Lane. Clark serves as Bruce's best man at his wedding to the beautiful and lovely Elizabeth Miller. After Elizabeth is killed by the Joker at the honeymoon, Bruce is forced to don the Batsuit once more, tangling a plot which involves Lex Luthor, while Clark sways with a romance with Lana Lang in Smallville.[33] <p><p>Peterson had mentioned Matt Damon when stating what type of an actor he was looking for either of the two roles.[32] Inspired by Tobey Maguire's performance in Spider-Man (2002), Peterson was searching for actors who "can really act and give complexity and emotions, but would have the fun of being a great superhero and maybe pump up a little bit." Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell, James Franco, Jude Law and Paul Walker were reported to be Warner Bros.' choices as Batman and Superman.[30] Christian Bale was approached to portray Batman, both in Batman vs Superman and Batman: Year One (but preferred Aronofsky's script for Year One),[34] while Josh Hartnett was offered the role of Superman.[29] <p><p>Filming was to start in early 2003, with plans for a five to six month shoot. The release date was set for the summer of 2004.[35] Batman vs Superman was to relaunch both the Batman and Superman franchises respectively, with both sequels being reboots.[30] Within a month of the studio green lighting the project, Peterson left in favor of Troy.[32] Warner Bros. could have easily assigned a new director, but chose to cancel Batman vs Superman in favor of a recent script submitted by Abrams for Superman: Flyby.[32] Peterson still has expressed interest in directing the project sometime in the future (with Bale as Batman),[36] as has Bryan Singer.[37] In the opening scene of I Am Legend, a large banner displays the Batman symbol within the Superman symbol in Times Square. It is meant as an in-joke by writer Akiva Goldsman, who wrote scripts for Batman vs. Superman and I Am Legend.<p><p>Superman: Flyby<p><p>Turning in his script in July 2002, J. J. Abrams' Superman: Flyby movie was an origin story that included Krypton besieged by civil war between Jor-El and his corrupt brother, Kata-Zor. Jor-El launches infant Kal-El to Earth, thinking he would fulfill a certain prophecy and Jor-El is sentenced to prison. Kal-El is adopted by Jonathan and Martha Kent, and later forms a romance with Lois Lane in college, and at the Daily Planet. However, Lois is more concerned with exposing Lex Luthor, written as a government agent obsessed with UFO phenomena. Clark reveals himself to the world as Superman, bringing Kata-Zor’s son, Ty-Zor, and three other Kryptonians to Earth. Superman is defeated and killed, and visits Jor-El (who committed suicide on Krypton while in prison) in Kryptonian heaven. He's resurrected and defeats the four Kryptonians, while the script ends with Superman off to Krypton, leaving a cliffhanger for a sequel.<p><p>Brett Ratner signed to direct in September 2002, originally expressing an interest in casting an unknown for the lead role, while filming was to start sometime in late 2003.[39] Ratner approached Josh Hartnett and Jude Law as Superman, but conceded that finding a famous actor for the title role had proven difficult because of contractual obligations to appear in sequels. "No star wants to sign that, but as much as I've told Jude and Josh my vision for the movie, I've warned them of the consequences of being Superman. They'll live this character for 10 years because I'm telling one story over three movies and plan to direct all three if the first is as successful as everyone suspects."[40] Hartnett was offered $100 million for a three-picture deal, but turned down the offer.[41] Although Superman: Flyby was being met with a budget exceeding $200 million (not including money spent on Superman Reborn, Superman Lives and Batman vs. Superman), the studio was still adamant for a summer 2004 release date.[29] Christopher Walken was in negotiations for Perry White, while Ratner expressed an interest in casting Anthony Hopkins as Lex Luthor, and Ralph Fiennes as Jor-El (two of his cast members in Red Dragon).<p><p>Christopher Reeve was to be a project consultant, citing Tom Welling, who portrayed the teenage Clark Kent in Smallville as an ideal candidate. Reeve added "the character is more important than the actor who plays him, because it is an enduring mythology. It definitely should be an unknown."[43] In addition Paul Walker was offered the role,[6] while Ashton Kutcher screen tested[40] and Brendan Fraser and Matthew Bomer auditioned.[29] Kutcher decided not to accept the role, citing scheduling conflicts with That '70s Show and the well noted Superman Curse as well as typecasting. Jerry O'Connell expressed interest for the role,[44] while David Boreanaz auditioned, but dropped out due to scheduling conflicts with Angel. Victor Webster did an entire screentest that included wardrobe as both Clark Kent and Superman.[45] Joel Edgerton (who turned down the chance to audition as Superman) auditioned for Ty-Zor, before Ratner dropped out of the project in March 2003, blaming casting difficulties,[46] and violent disagreements with Jon Peters.<p><p>McG returned as director, while Fraser expressed interest, but had fears of typecasting.[48] Selma Blair was in talks for Lois Lane,[49] while ESC Entertainment was hired for visual effects work, with Kim Libreri as visual effects supervisor and Stan Winston designing a certain "prototype suit".[50] McG approached Shia LaBeouf for Jimmy Olsen, with an interest to cast an unknown for Superman, Scarlett Johansson as Lois Lane and Johnny Depp for Lex Luthor.[51] Neal H. Moritz and Gilbert Adler were set to produce the film. McG also commissioned Josh Schwartz to do a "polish" of the Abrams script. He wanted to shoot in Canada, which would have cost $25 million more than WB's preferred Oz locale. McG shot test footage with several candidates, including Jason Behr, Henry Cavill and Jared Padalecki.[41] McG dropped out of directing, blaming budgetary concerns and filming locations. McG opted to shoot in New York City and Canada, but Warner Bros. wanted Sydney, Australia. McG felt "it was inappropriate to try to capture the heart of America on another continent."[52] He later admitted it was his fear of flying.[53] Abrams lobbied for the chance to direct his script.[54] However, in July 2004, Bryan Singer replaced McG as director, resulting in Superman Returns.[55] Further information: Superman Returns#Production<p><p>[edit] Revival<p><p>[edit] Superman Returns<p><p>Main article: Superman Returns<p><p>Bryan Singer, a self-described childhood fan of the original Superman, directed Superman Returns. Following the departure of Ratner and McG, Bryan Singer, who was said to be a childhood fan of Richard Donner's film, was approached by Warner Bros. He accepted, abandoning two films already in pre-production, X-Men: The Last Stand (which, ironically, would come to be directed by Ratner) and a remake of Logan's Run. Singer's story tells of Superman's return to Earth following a five year search for survivors of Krypton. He discovers that in his absence Lois Lane has given birth to a son and become engaged. Singer chose to follow Donner's lead by casting relatively unknown Brandon Routh as Superman, who resembled Christopher Reeve somewhat, and more high profile actors in supporting roles, such as Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. Singer brought his entire crew from X2 to work on the film. Although Superman Returns received positive reviews, Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures were somewhat disappointed by the film's box office return.[56] In the words of Warner Bros. President Alan F. Horn, "I thought it was a very successful movie, but I think it should have done $500 million worldwide. We should have had perhaps a little more action to satisfy the young male crowd."

  • July 3, 2009, 8:03 a.m. CST

    Cliffs Notes Version

    by ThusSpakeSpymunk

    What you need to learn from this is the following: 1) Hollywood thinks superheroes are "faggy," and clearly kid do, too, since these toy ideas were APOROVED OF by the kids. Only steroid-driven killing machines like the DRAGONBALL characters aren't "faggy," though those are right on the cusp of becoming "faggy" to be replaced by real-life serial killers and bounty hunters, which is the current "hero" of the average American child. 2) Hollywood would rather do ANYTHING - A N Y T H I N G - than be true to the origins of the heroes. Hollywood and America hate superheroes SO much they'll spend $30 million dollars to AVOID simply telling a comic-book story. They'll include giant mechanical spiders, polar bears, gay robots, space dogs and anything they can come up with IN ORDER TO AVOID using elements of the source material. 3) Comics fans are 100 PERCENT IRRELEVANT TO COMIC BOOK MOVIES - they are not only NOT made for comic book fans, but they are specifically made TO GO AGAINST WHAT COMIC BOOK FANS WANT BY DESIGN. 4) Comics fans have ABSOLUTELY NO INFLUENCE ON COMIC BOOK MOVIES WHATSOEVER. So te next time you hear some Hollywood dip say "We did it because of incredible fan response!" know that it's a lie. The real reason is that someone, somewhere, thought that SAYING THAT was a good MARKETING PLOY, and nothing more. If a movie is CLOSE to the comic, then it's because the "visionary" director ... had no vision. 5) Comic book movies are made for moms who buy toys and lunchpails - NOT YOU. So get over yourselves, stop signing petitions, give up and STOP GOING TO SEE THESE MOVIES. You'll keep your blood pressure down, enjoy the comics, save money AND you won't be crying over how irrelevant you and your print medium really are.

  • July 3, 2009, 8:11 a.m. CST

    Oh, and Harry?

    by ThusSpakeSpymunk

    There's nothing - nothing - cool about a shot of Nite-Owl floating by glider with a FLASH GORDON sound effect going "ZOOOOOOP!" Nothing.

  • July 3, 2009, 9:07 a.m. CST

    This movie can actually be longer?

    by Charbarred

    It had about 90 unnecessary minutes to begin with.

  • July 3, 2009, 9:38 a.m. CST

    It seems comic lovers never understood the comic.

    by knowthyself

    At this rate they placed Moores book into such a high place it's even better than it really is.

  • July 3, 2009, 10:16 a.m. CST

    So Simple to Explain Things Like SQUID

    by ThusSpakeSpymunk

    "So, this is where you do that genetic research?" "We experiment with gene-splicing here. I can essentially create anything I want." Wow - that was COMPLICATED and WAY ABOVE THE AUDIENCE. Come on - they did it in JURASSIC PARK with a cartoon.

  • July 3, 2009, 10:43 a.m. CST

    Why the Dylan version was more appropriate, IMHO of course

    by wookie1972

    They're in Antartica, a place of near total silence other than the howling wind. The last thing I expected to hear was Hendrix's version, which, I'm sorry, I find overblown and definitely overused. I know Dylan has said he likes Hendrix's version and often plays the song in concert a la Hendrix. So what? I still think the original was more appropriate.

  • July 3, 2009, 10:50 a.m. CST

    Realism isn't really the point

    by wookie1972

    It's believability, which is something different. I just never believed for a second that an out-of-shape crimefighter (who relied on gadgets even in his prime) could suddenly fight like Bruce Lee. No, Watchmen was never a 100% realistic world. But the non-Manhattan heroes NEVER had extreme fighting skill, except possibly Ozymandias. They were street fighters, and in the case of Rorschach especially they should have been dirty fighters, not amazing acrobats.

  • July 3, 2009, 10:51 a.m. CST

    Captain Axis

    by subtlety

    There are many themes of the book that get short shrift in the movie, but two stand out in my mind as so inexcusable that they make me question whether or not Snyder even understood the book. <br><br> The First is Laurie, pretty much her whole character. Her youth (remember, she was like 17 when she met Jon!) her indifference to being a hero, her complicated relationship with her mother, and her conflicted desire for normalcy... pretty much completely gone from the movie. In the few cases where shreds of it remain (such as the mars scene) they only exist because they're inescapable plot points and are so poorly executed that I can't believe Synder cared about them even an iota about them. The Laurie in the movie is a confident sexpot and asskicking machine. Since "Watchman" is, if nothing else, an argument that people became superheros as part of their pathological search for identity, sidelining her character's neurosis is a near fatal flaw.<br><br> Likewise, Synder seems to completely view Veidt as a villain and Rorsarch as a hero. Moore seems to dislike them both about equally. By turning Veidt from a self-made master of all that he sees into a preening pretty boy (and even adding a painful speech by Dan at the end where he tells him he's wrong) you completely lose out on the possibility that Veidt may be right, and probably at least as moral as Rorsarch. <br><br> Without the moral ambiguity and themes of heroism as a search for identity, the movie loses a huge chunk of the book's original point.

  • July 3, 2009, 10:54 a.m. CST

    As for Snyder "getting it"

    by wookie1972

    I think Snyder "got" parts of it, but that doesn't mean he didn't make a superficial movie. Again, he was more concerned with the visuals than the story or the themes, and he had vritually no understanding of the way Moore told the story. Can anyone here truthfully say that the way the movie handled Laurie's paternity was satisfactory? It was treated as an afterthought - Manhattan zaps her and she has a flashback, boom. It was pathetic. I'm sorry if these criticism piss people off, it's a fricking movie, which means that not everybody is going to see it the same way or appreciate it the same way. I personally thought it was a loud, steroid-infused version of Watchmen. It may not have been what Michael Bay would have done, but it was close to what, say, Brian DePalma would have done.

  • July 3, 2009, 10:56 a.m. CST

    exactly, subtlety

    by wookie1972

    If I was going by just the movie, I would think that Rorschach was the unqualified protagonist of the story, essentially the same as the Punisher.

  • July 3, 2009, 11 a.m. CST

    Comparing to the Shining and Blade Runner

    by wookie1972

    First of all, The Shining was a HUGE success, Kubrick's third highest-grossing movie. As for Blade Runner, I'm sorry, but it just doesn't match up. Blade Runner created its own world out of PKD's vague descriptions, whereas Snyder had an obvious template, even a storyboard. None of the visuals (except maybe the violence) were uniquely his own.

  • July 3, 2009, 11:08 a.m. CST

    I DIDNT LIKE WATHCMENS !

    by petergrifin

    is so boring .the start is good bit but everthign else is is sboring reely and when i see it peeople are sleeping when they watch it !.

  • July 3, 2009, 11:09 a.m. CST

    Subtlely

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    Well that's just it - ignoring things that you think are important doesn't mean he didn't "get it" ... Everyone has different ideas beyond the grand themes - which are definitely in the movie - of what should be included. <i>I'm not saying he did a good job, but what I recognize is he did do it his way, which suggests he understood the concepts enough to filter them through his personal style as opposed to just parroting the comic for the screen. Personally, I don't really like how he did it but again, I think it's just a matter of taste. There's more than one way to skin a Bubastis.

  • July 3, 2009, 11:15 a.m. CST

    Cool

    by moneymouth77

    Cannot wait. Film was genius, this is the cherry on top.

  • July 3, 2009, 11:37 a.m. CST

    and yiannis

    by subtlety

    Yeah, it would be pretty stupid if some jackass didn't like Mozart's music and called him a talentless hack. But what about people who called Salieri less talented? It doesn't seem to hard to accept that he actually was less creative, influential and technically skilled (even looking at reality and excluding the Hollywood version). And then what happens when we compare Duran Duran to Salieri? And then compare Nickleback to Duran Duran? <br><br> My point is, there probably is such a thing as objective quality, even in something as subjective as art. We can argue, perhaps, about how exactly to gauge this, and perhaps have a legitimate disagreement over the artistic merits of some artists who could legitimately be considered peers, but at the end of the day, Mozart was more talented than the Monkees, and to argue otherwise would mean that no criticism has any legitimacy.<br><br> Now, "Brett Ratner's a Talentless hack!" isn't very good criticism. Obviously, it takes a certain amount of talent to just get a movie made, just like it takes a certain amount of talent to lip-synch on stage convincing. However, compared to other artists who do more, more successfully, a talent gap does become apparent. And, at the end of the day, we don't really need particularly detailed knowledge of the methods used to identify a finished product that fails on some levels. We know what a successful movie looks like, with some degree of variability based on how we evaluate success. Since ultimately, the success or failure is going to be based on the final product, and how well it does what it is intended to do, a personal knowledge of technical skills isn't really necessary. The successful artist, although it may help us to see and appreciate small parts of a whole which are particularly effective. Still, it is the final product and the way it impacts the audience which counts. The audience merely has to evaluate to what degree it was successful in communicating with them. If a pattern develops where an artist consistently produces unsuccessful art which also panders to the lowest common denomenator, I think the label of "Talentless Hack" could be fairly applied. <br><br> Now, personal preference certainly exists independently from artistic criticism. "Con Air" is a favorite of mine for esoteric reasons, despite the fact that it objectively fails pretty utterly to tell an effective or meaningful story. You don't like Mozart, I don't much care for Věra Chytilová's "Daisy". But I think we'd both agree that objectively, they have their merits, simply based on our long-term experience and careful consideration of the medium. And we can do this even for things which we cannot personally do, because we have experience in considering art and its meaning. Of course, if someone who had never seen a movie before or had only seen a few made a brash and highly critical statement, it would be highly suspect. However, since criticism is about experiencing art more than making art, long-term thoughtful expose is, in my view, expertise enough to offer valid criticism.

  • July 3, 2009, 11:49 a.m. CST

    Thunderbolt Ross

    by subtlety

    yeah, but to me, its not a matter of inclusion, its a matter of making fairly minor changes which profoundly alter the final point of the thing. To me, it is the point of the enterprise that the director should be trying to get across, not the minutia. He could have changed it plenty as far as I was concerned, as long as he kept a few of those ideas I was talking about intact. To me, (and, I think its fair to say, to Moore) those are the very heart of why Watchmen was written and why it is important. It is true that Snyder's previous themes of hyper-masculinity and assertive violence come through here, so yeah, you get his spin. No problem. But his spin actually kind of undercuts the soul of the book, where is where my problem comes from. Um, but yeah. I guess we were originally talking about whether Snyder "understood" the book. I guess its possible that he did, but chose to ignore some elements because he didn't agree with them or care about them. But I don't know that it counts as a simple difference in perspective. I would argue that perspective (as far as translating a work of art to a new medium or language goes) would be to tell a slightly different story with the same moral, rather than tell a pretty similar story with a different moral. But actually I can see how you might feel exactly opposite, too. <br><br> Holy shit -- are we having a polite, rational exchange of ideas?! In a talkback!?

  • July 3, 2009, 12:10 p.m. CST

    Subtlety

    by yiannis

    In a bizarre way, you have proved my point by disagreeing with it. Perhaps that says I didn't express myself well enough! Well, I was tired...<br><br>I don't, for a second, believe that all opinions of this nature MUST be purely subjective. Even the most inexperienced movie-goer should be able to grasp that a Scorsese or a Mann has more talent than a Uwe Boll, or that a Depp or Streep has more talent than an Eddie Murphy.<br><br>What I have a BIG problem with is the people (and there are many here) who, because they dislike a particular film, will make sweeping objective statements about EVERYTHING in the movie and use these statements to justify their dislike of it. You know the sort. "The CGI was shit!", "The script was awful!", "The actors can't act!" and "The director is a hack!". They will throw these and other comments around like gospel, often over and over again, and venomously insult anyone who dares to disagree with them. At the risk of being flamed by him for all eternity, AsimovLives is our most high profile example of this at the moment.<br><br>What you have done is express an opinion (in this case about my post) and used fact and objectivity to BACK UP your opinion, rather than express opinion AS fact. Your opinion is equally valid with mine, as both of our opinions are equally valid with everyone else's. The point I made, that you have proved, is that there are certain ways to express an opinion that are more valid than simply hurling insults.<br><br>So to my other naysayers, gls350 is correct (including about my gender - Yiannis is the Greek variation of John). I am not for an instant saying that you need 20 years in the movie industry before you're allowed to have an opinion. However, if a person's only way of expressing that opinion is to sling insults at professionals, then I continue to maintain that their opinion has been expressed poorly and such expression should not be given as much weight as someone who is able to present a reasoned argument. Again, though, EXPRESSION is qualitative, NOT the opinion itself.<br><br>Hope that clears things up...

  • July 3, 2009, 12:23 p.m. CST

    The complete, linear list of changes

    by Crestfallen

    1. Two police officers interrupt Rorschach’s search of the Comedian’s apartment. <p> 2. Rorschach is seen on TV as Dan is leaving Hollis. Hollis comments "It didn't stop him" (referring to the Keane act). <p> 3. Additional overhead shot of Dan walking home after leaving Hollis’ which features a Nostalgia billboard. <p> 3. Additional shot of Dan opening the door to his basement to talk with Rorschach downstairs. <p> 4. More Rorschach’s journal monologue once Rorschach leaves Dan. <p> 5. The line, “Possible homosexual … must investigate further” is added while Rorschach is infiltrating the military base to find Dr. Manhattan and Laurie. <p> 6. Two figures are seen sitting in a car watching Laurie once she gets into a taxi after leaving dinner with Dan; understood to be a government escort. <p> 7. Rorschach retrieves his costume from where he left it and comes upon a mugging in an alley. <p> 8. An additional continuous shot which goes from giant Dr. Manhattan to the Comedian riding in one of the helicopters, which then lands. The scene continues with the Comedian flaming the enemy soldier. <p> 9. A new shot of Kovacs walking past the entire funeral procession for the Comedian. <p> 10. The Watchmen’s (Crimebusters’) initial meeting has a longer beginning which features Dr. Manhattan’s teleportation of himself and Jenny Slater. <p> 11. A longer protesting crowd sequence before the Comedian jumps out of the Owlship to intervene violently. <p> 12. The procession out of the cemetery is extended; Moloch is shown to be leaving flowers on the Comedian’s tomb. <p> 13. Dan and Laurie entering the alley is introduced with a brief shot of the newspaper stand with Seymour, Kovacs, and the vendor interacting. (Hopefully more of this in the Ultimate Cut coming in Dec.) <p> 14. Jon teleports everyone else out of the television studio rather than himself. <p> 15. The sequence with Dan and Laurie post-alley fight is extended. <p> 16. Dan’s second beer session with Hollis is shown. <p> 17. A least one additional shot added to Dr. Manhattan’s history montage; particularly one of him turning a missile into leaves. Also added, "The boys in marketing wanted me to have a symbol. I said if I should have a symbol it shall be one I respect." <p> 18. A long sequence is added where Laurie is interrogated by government officials after Dr. Manhattan has vanished, during which she has a flash back to interacting with the comedian for the first time (the same scene she flashes back to while on Mars with Dr. Manhattan which makes her realize the identity of her father). <p> 19. Nixon’s first war room scene is significantly longer (“I’ll say when doomsday is approaching!”). <p> 20. Laurie’s interrogation continues; Dr. Manhattan is discovered to be on Mars. Laurie escapes from custody. <p> 21. Additional Rorschach monologue after Dan and Laurie leave the dinner. <p> 22. A large pair of tits is seen on a magazine cover while Rorschach is searching through Chess’ apartment. <p> 23. Slight additions to Rorschach’s capture at Moloch’s apartment. <p> 24. Extended dialogue between Kovacs/Rorschach and Dr. Malcom. The sequence where Rorschach kills the child murder is slightly longer. <p> 25. More dialogue between Dan and Laurie while in the Owl basement before she tries on the Owl goggles. <p> 26. During the burning tenement building rescue a child asks his/her mother, “Is that Jesus?” <p> 27. Extended conversation on the roof of the prison between Rorschach, Dan and Laurie. Night Owl announces that he had to disable the screechers. <p> 28. Some knot-tops are seen discussing Night Owl by the newsstand. Hollis calls up Sally; their conversation is interrupted by the knot-tops who beat him to death; during which Hollis flashes back a few times to his glory days. <p> 29. Dan and Rorschach’s exchange in the Owl basement is extended. <p> 30. During the bar questioning, Dan learns that Hollis has been killed from a news report on television and proceeds to bust the teeth out of a knot-top. <p> 31. Dr. Manhattan’s conversation with Laurie has a longer beginning, starting with his announcement, "You're going to tell me you have been having an affair with Dan.” </p>

  • July 3, 2009, 12:43 p.m. CST

    "Is that Jesus?"

    by ThusSpakeSpymunk

    I love when a line like this gets restored to a movie where it was cut, because it tells everyone just how sackless Hollywood is, how terrified of the religious right while still claiming to be morally ambivalent (while actually being deeply DEEPLY left). "Oh DEAR GOD! THERE'S A JESUS LINE! WE'VE GOT TO CUT IT!"

  • July 3, 2009, 12:45 p.m. CST

    Rev -

    by ThusSpakeSpymunk

    you'll be lucky to find the Director's Cut on DVD. This movie secured such freakishly intense ambivalence in the entire world as to be a footnote. **** you, comics fans. **** you, Zack Snyder. **** you all.

  • July 3, 2009, 1:04 p.m. CST

    Ultimate Cut coming in Dec?

    by lavatory love machine

    that's the one with the black freighter included and nothing else as far as we now, I guess I'll but them both

  • July 3, 2009, 1:04 p.m. CST

    By Their Works Shall Ye Know Them

    by Replicant23

    While I acknowledge the rampant hyperbole on these talkbacks (a feature, not a bug by the way), I also stick by my point. While it may technically be inaccurate to call a director "talentless" because you hate his work, his work is the only yardstick we have to measure talent. So I'm not overly disturbed by the hyperbole. Snyder is NOT talentless obviously - there's a lot to like about Watchmen and I admire both his balls in attempting a more or less literal translation and his technical vision - but I would defend any talkbacker's right to call him talentless based on hating his body of work. Seems like a fair measure to me, if not absolute and objectively conclusive.

  • July 3, 2009, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Replicant23

    by wookie1972

    I don't think Snyder it talentless - if I ever said that, I take it back. However, I think he was the wrong director for this movie. I disliked 300, but most of that was because I found Miller's politics reprehensible. However, in interviews Snyder clearly illustrated a lack of political sophistication, qs he had no idea why people might object to the portrayal of Persians. There are a lot of talented directors who nonetheless have obvious blind spots. DePalma (the director to whom I would compare Snyder most closely) is undoubtedly talented and extremely knowledgeable about movies, but he doesn't know the meaning of the word subtlety. I wouldn't trust him with a Jane Austen adaptation. Similarly, Snyder can make great action movies, but he has no ability when it comes to quiet, character-driven scenes, which I think are the heart of the story.

  • July 3, 2009, 1:35 p.m. CST

    Let me make something clear.

    by wookie1972

    I didn't go into Watchmen wanting to hate it. I knew about the changed ending and didn't like it, not because I wanted the squid so bad but because the idea of framing Manhattan made no sense to me. But when the first trailer came out, I actually got a little misty-eyed and applauded. But I felt that Snyder only scratched the surface of the story, and got some things very, very wrong.

  • July 3, 2009, 2:02 p.m. CST

    Wookie1972...

    by Replicant23

    I agree with everything you said. Snyder really did not convey the character subtleties that really made Watchmen shine as a novel. One of my favorite comic moments ever is the sequence on top of the building at the end of Chapter One, where Dan and Laurie are talking about the good old days, and about the pervert masochist. The camera keeps pulling up as Laurie asks "Whatever happened to him?" Dan says matter of factly "He tried it on Rorschach and Rorschach dropped him down an elevator shaft. Next panel, a little higher above them, and she laughs and laughs, then between chuckles apologizes: "I'm sorry...heh...I guess that's not very funny, is it?" and next panel, high over the city, Dan replies. "Nothing's funny anymore. The Comedian is dead." (Not exact quotes, but you get the idea.) That page is perfect to me, beyond my ability to describe, and Snyder just tossed it off as an awkward off-hand moment in a crowded restaurant while Dan oogles Laurie. That really hurt man. It really did, and from that point on I knew that this was going to be a pretty but ultimately empty spectacle. Sad...but hell, I still admire his attempt. He tried, he just can't direct drama. Your point is well taken Wookie...

  • July 3, 2009, 2:33 p.m. CST

    Quiet Character Driven Scenes

    by knowthyself

    I think when Dan stands in front of his nite owl suit naked is a great quiet character driven scene. It's not like Snyder's chosen projects that call for alot of those kinds of scenes. I do think he gets good performances out of his actors.

  • July 3, 2009, 3:41 p.m. CST

    "It's not like Snyder's chosen projects that call for a lot of t

    by wookie1972

    Well, he did one project that called for it, the one we're talking about right now. Watchmen is really not an action story at all. But in any case I think most of the perfomances were okay, with the very big exception of Malin Ackerman. She was incredibly, pathetically wrong for the part. The best performance, to me, was Matt Frewer as Moloch, and I credit Snyder for that, considering he also used him effectively in DotD.

  • July 3, 2009, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Watchmen theatrical cut is total CRAP

    by theplant

    BUT THE DIRECTOR'S CUT MIGHT IMPROVE IT ANYONE SAYING THE TC WAS A MASTERPIECE DOESN'T KNOW MOVIES - THE PUBLIC GOT IT RIGHT AWAY, THEY HATED THIS SHIT MOVIE AND STAYED AWAY IN DROVES - HOPE THE DC REDEEMS IT !

  • July 3, 2009, 4:44 p.m. CST

    I just watched the death of old night owl scene!

    by Orionsangels

    It uses that music used in Raging Bull. It's an artistic piece of work. Loved it.

  • July 3, 2009, 4:50 p.m. CST

    I've run into several types when it comes to watching Watchmen.

    by Orionsangels

    You have those that say it was boring. You have those who were confused and intrigued by what they saw. People who say it didn't do the graphic novel justice. Then you have people who loved it.

  • July 3, 2009, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Orionsangels

    by C A Iversen

    In some ways I'd compare this film to Natural Born Killers, which was at the time a bit ahead of the curve and not the success at the box office that it could've been either. It was hugely successful on dvd though. I have a feeling Watchmen is one of those things that the movie-going crowd is really into right now. On DVD and Blu Ray in particular, I believe it'll get a better reception.

  • July 3, 2009, 5:19 p.m. CST

    idonotseekabanning

    by CaptainAxis

    While I appreciate the lengths you went to to justify the bullet catch, nothing that you've suggested was even remotely hinted at in the book. It wasn't an illusion, because Ozy's hands are bleeding and he's holding the bullet. It was just an unrealistic "kewl" moment in a comic book filled with other unrealistic moments, but somehow people have convinced themselves that Watchmen was a gritty portrait of stark reality. Psychologically, philosophically, and politically, the realism is there, just as it is in the film. But to go beyond that and try to claim Moore's Watchmen was completely realistic or even physically believable is really stretching.

  • July 3, 2009, 5:37 p.m. CST

    i think we were spoiled for too long

    by 6000_little_griglets

    it IS a mammoth task to pull a movie together entirely successfully. I think we started to take it for granted... now it seems like a whole generation of mediocre directors has emerged; not completely incompetent, but not quite up to the standards of years gone by... we're not drowning in complete shit, we're drowning in mediocrity. snyder didn't do a totally terrible job overall, but he rendered a mediocrity of one of the greatest comics ever.

  • July 3, 2009, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Fuck. YES!

    by ParagonComplex

    I just want more Rorschach psychiatric visits. That was my favorite part of the book.

  • July 3, 2009, 6:08 p.m. CST

    It's not that it was completely realistic...

    by wookie1972

    It's that the way the characters fought in the book was believable, and I just found that it wasn't in the movie. The bullet catch didn't faze me, perhaps because I saw someone do it on That's Incredible once. But the bullet catch didn't break the book for me. The nonstop matrix style fights in the movie did break *that* for me.

  • July 3, 2009, 6:18 p.m. CST

    I agree with you C A Iversen

    by Orionsangels

  • July 3, 2009, 6:35 p.m. CST

    Watchmen - the most overhyped movie people no one saw

    by lockesbrokenleg

  • July 3, 2009, 6:40 p.m. CST

    Mr.Stiggs=Professional

    by blakindigo

    Read his rebuttal again.Each point is well considered.

  • July 3, 2009, 7:22 p.m. CST

    yiannis

    by subtlety

    ah! That makes sense. So your complaint was not about who should be allowed to voice their criticism, but rather the quality of the criticism itself. Which is a point I will happily concede.

  • July 3, 2009, 8:46 p.m. CST

    ozy was supposed to be..

    by Six Demon Bag

    worlds smartest and strongest man...he caught the bullet. <P>end of story.

  • July 3, 2009, 9:08 p.m. CST

    Subtlety

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I guess it also goes back to my original point, that the major themes of the comic are not inscrutable to someone of even average intelligence. The comic is full of subtleties (ahem), but the moral or whatever is not one of them. And that's not bad either - this is a work of popular fiction and needn't be difficult to parse. Much of its power comes from the statements it makes about things that are somewhat universal truths. <i>So my point was that Snyder may have missed out on some of the finer points, like certain character things, things that in the comic are certainly important but their non-inclusion doesn't add up to a lack of understanding. Personally, I think the most impressive and artful thing about the comic is its structure; I think there's more meaning in the intricacies of the thing than any of the major themes it addresses, which as I've noted I think are fairly common. And that's why a film really can't do it justice - its complexity is at the heart of what makes it work.

  • Honestly, when I left watchmen after seeing it in the theatre I thought it was good and enjoyed it. And I will enjoy the theatrical cut (even though I'm sure one with the black freighter included will come out). So I enjoyed it but unfortunately it has become one of the better films I have seen this year. Star Trek is probably second. Honestly every other film, especially these recent summer "Blockbusters" have dissapointed. So while I enjoyed Watchmen its says something sad that every other movie has been so average that Watchmen is elevated to one of the best of the year in my mind. Hopefully the fall will bring some good ones. I have my fingers crossed for "The Road."

  • July 3, 2009, 9:58 p.m. CST

    Six Demon Bag

    by CaptainAxis

    Then that also explains all of Ozy's actions in the film - he is an extraordinary person capable of superhuman feats.<br> <br> End of story, as you said.

  • July 3, 2009, 10:07 p.m. CST

    This is going to be in theaters?

    by lockesbrokenleg

    I just read this will be in theaters for one week. Is this true?

  • July 3, 2009, 10:14 p.m. CST

    Theatrical re-release of 'Watchmen' director's cut

    by blakindigo

    Limited release in Los Angeles, New York, Minneapolis and Dallas.

  • July 3, 2009, 11:03 p.m. CST

    Wow, weird list. No Chicago?

    by lockesbrokenleg

  • July 4, 2009, 12:20 a.m. CST

    Not a Chance

    by ThusSpakeSpymunk

    Maybe in 11 select theaters, but there's no way they'll waste movie space on this crap.

  • July 4, 2009, 12:56 a.m. CST

    no added scenes will make this shit better

    by cloudrider`

    the movie sucks not because of lack of scenes, it's because of the wrong aesthetic employed. the film should be directed with chinatown/french connection aesthetic in mind, not the matrix. <p> great directors will never conform to what's cool and trendy. slo-mo and kungfu should be the farthest thing from watchmen. it's not cool, it's just stupid. <p> and dont bother arguing with captainAxis. when someone can justify any stupid thing snyder did in the film, then he's just beyond reasoning. reminded me of harry's justification for the existence of jar jar in phantom menace.

  • July 4, 2009, 12:59 a.m. CST

    don't do things right the 1st time

    by Potatino

    so the customers/suckers can buy it 2 or more times. Thats what this feel like to me.

  • I mean posting here under pseudonyms -- many are as frustrated as fans are of terrible director's and writers getting cool gigs and messing them up, so they vent off in these talkbacks, while awaiting for the next phone call that doesn't come and that Brett Ratner or Akiva Goldsman gets instead.

  • July 4, 2009, 5:05 a.m. CST

    it is a lot better

    by Ace of Knaves

    and i already liked it, but seriously, i wish this was the cut they released. for me the real flaws with this adaptation are snyder's twelve year old boy leanings:the goddamn ultra gore, wire-fu superhuman fights, and slo-mo /fast-mo bullshit. everything else was pretty sweet, the movie works with the added scenes, there are smoother transitions, more fleshed out relationships, youd be surprised how much a difference all those little bits really make.When the events on-screen are set up as well as they are in this cut, they actually have weight when they occur. And the hilarity of actually hearing out loud "possible homosexual, must investigate further" never gets old, and is a prime example of the little touches that really make it come to life this time around. it is, however pretty exhausting in length,no matter how vibrant, especially if you already know the story and have seen the theatrical cut many times. i cant even imagine how bloated its gonna be with freighter stuffed in there. but overall, definitely worth a look, for both those who didnt and did like the theatrical cut.

  • July 4, 2009, 6:20 a.m. CST

    I always said it, the theatrical cut was crap

    by theplant

    Warner cut off it's own nose by cutting up the movie, THEY FAILED.

  • July 4, 2009, 7:45 a.m. CST

    Yes warners failed..

    by knowthyself

    They let Snyder release a two and ahalf hour R rated comic book film and let him keep so many things from the comic. Yes they LET him keep it because if the studios did not want a naked blue men you bet your ass he would have had some clothes on him. WB deserves credit for taking a chance on an art house blockbuster film. Just imagine what FOX what would done to the film.

  • July 4, 2009, 8:05 a.m. CST

    Watchmen will forever be debated

    by knowthyself

    Lovers. Haters. We will be talking about Watchmen for years and years.

  • July 4, 2009, 8:22 a.m. CST

    Totally wrong, WARNER FAILED

    by theplant

    It may now have a good life on DVD, but the theatrical release was the all important moment to cement the movie reputation. By releasing a cut movie, a compromised movie, they made a box office failure, just like they did with Terminator 4. Imagine Titanic cut off by 40mn, or T2 in a 1H45 version -- FAIL You don't cut a movie just to fit marketing decisions about making more showings a day, because if the released cut sucks, as the Watchmen cut did, YOU FAIL. These Warner idiots did the exact opposite of what they wanted to achieve, they compromised a movie thinking they would make more money a day in the initial run. THEY FAILED.

  • July 4, 2009, 11:13 a.m. CST

    "art house movie" doesn't alwasy mean good

    by wookie1972

    There are plenty of movies that directors have billed as "a big-budget art house movie" basically to innoculate themselves against criticism. If it fails, it's because the public "didn't get it." Hell, IO9 called Transformers 2 an "art movie." All the "art" in Watchmen comes from the original comic. The fact is that it's always a big risk when you adapt a well-loved book. I'd lump Watchmen in with such failures as the 70s version of the Great Gatsby, Bonfire Of The Vanities, and Memoirs of a Geisha. Few people talk about these movies years later.

  • July 4, 2009, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Yet I love the movie and will continue to enjoy it.

    by knowthyself

    Sorry Asimov.

  • July 4, 2009, 1:20 p.m. CST

    Asimovlives: pretty sure they were joking

    by wookie1972

    But saying "I'm making a big budget art film" is a copout that basically protects you from box office failure. If the movie tanks, it's because people didn't "get it." To all the people who say it will grow in reputation, I ask this: name one image from the movie that was wholly original, that didn't come directly from the comic. (I'll grant you that the opening titles were pretty good, but even there there were serious problems.)

  • July 4, 2009, 2:48 p.m. CST

    i think studios wrongly mistrust/underestimate the public

    by Ace of Knaves

    public taste seems to be growing up, and while we all will still glady swallow tripe like the new transformers, a lot of us will also pay to see something of quality that defies convention as well. for instance, if theyd released this longer cut, im sure it wouldve fared much better via positive word of mouth, thus putting more asses in seats, ensuring repeat business, etc. if only warners had had the balls. their strategy backfired. i would even venture to say if theyd ran with some of the comics supposedly less appealing features, ( nite owl being fat, comedian being hideously deformed, etc) it may have even worked out for the better crtitically and commercially.

  • July 4, 2009, 2:56 p.m. CST

    it's now even better with the added scenes.

    by Stalkeye

    ..the first notable 'extended" scene is when Rorshach sneaks into Blake's apt only to be confronted by the two cops.And then there's the part in which ror reflects upon the previous Minutemen/Watchmen lineup: "...Ozymadus may be a Homosexual, I'll have to investigate".A good movie now even better thanks to the restoration of omitted scenes and dialog that adds more pieces to the puzzle.<p>To sum it up nicely,Watchmen is the Goodfellas of superhero Movies.And thus far best Comicbook I have seen this year.

  • July 4, 2009, 4:38 p.m. CST

    People didn't see Watchmen caise the previews for

    by lockesbrokenleg

    the movie made no sense. It was just random shit and some voice over guy talking about nonsense. People went to it expecting another Dark Knight.

  • July 4, 2009, 4:59 p.m. CST

    lockes

    by Six Demon Bag

    i knew what i was expecting and i got more..loved every minute of it!

  • July 4, 2009, 6:38 p.m. CST

    Still?

    by CaptainAxis

    I posted a link to an interview in which Snyder explains why he made the decisions he did, yet there are still fucking toolbags like Asimov and Cloudrider babbling about how Snyder is a hack who just films shit he thinks is "cool". He had his reasons, whether you agree with them or not, so continually rambling on like autistic children repeating the same shit over and over just makes you look stupid. But then again, you're probably the same meatheads who get all wet for Stallone and Schwarzenegger movies.

  • July 4, 2009, 6:47 p.m. CST

    I liked 300. It was a cool ass action flick.

    by lockesbrokenleg

    With some nice speeches.

  • July 4, 2009, 8:07 p.m. CST

    ThusSpakeSpymunk... that Jurassic Park cartoon

    by MattmanReturns

    was one of the most brilliant condensed exposition scenes ever. It's strange that the very same director filmed one of the worst and most distracting exposition scenes ever (Temple of Doom).

  • July 4, 2009, 8:11 p.m. CST

    i dont recall ANY exposition in TOD

    by Six Demon Bag

    i must have been in the black sleep of Kali!!!

  • July 4, 2009, 11:28 p.m. CST

    Watchmen Sucked

    by Luscious.868

    Sorry people. Put lipstick on a pig all you want. The fact of the matter is that the movie sucked. Box office numbers back me up on this. Deal with it.

  • July 5, 2009, 12:56 a.m. CST

    Watchmen Extended Blue Penis Edition

    by Orionsangels

  • July 5, 2009, 1:05 a.m. CST

    The average moviegoer walks into Watchmen...

    by Orionsangels

    Thinking it's going to be Superman, Tim Burton's Batman or Iron Man. You know, with s real epic opening title screen. Superheroes fighting for justice against corrupt Villains. That's how my brother in law went into this movie. He came out dazed and confused. I mean when the opening title screen began with Bob Dylan singing. My brother in law turned to me and said, wtf is this shit? What you're treated to is a dark complex and tragic story about washed up superheros. The average moviegoer just wasn't ready for this type of superhero movie.

  • July 5, 2009, 2:07 a.m. CST

    the reason your brother in law turned

    by theplant

    is that the opening credits makes no sense whatsoever to anyone who have not read the comics, or seen "under the hood". It still doesn't make sense in the longer cut. Those Warner idiots should have released Under the hood online prior to Watchmen, rather than their poorly made trailers only. It would have educated the masses to the background of the movie.

  • July 5, 2009, 2:37 a.m. CST

    Extended version is superior, yet still flawed...

    by Mrhazard

    Watchmen is a very interesting film. It's one of my favorite movies of the year but it's still extremely flawed. The major mistake of the project is that they did what every comic fan complains about every other comic book adaptation. They made it TOO MUCH like the original comic.<p>A movie adaptation of anything should represent the source material but not duplicate it exactly. You have to omit and change certain things in the SCRIPT stage (not in editing) to have good pacing and a concise film. You should be able to tell any story in roughly a 2 hr movie.<p>It seemed like they were trying to make this as long as possible and for that reason the extended version works better than the theatrical one (which suffered from poor editing IMO). For the theatrical release, it seemed like they didnt cut entire scenes but little pieces here and there. A line here, a shot there, etc, and this just makes the movie feel choppy and uneven. <p> Also they cut out some GOOD scenes here. More Rorshack voiceovers, more violence, fight scenes, death scenes, etc. Its the one movie I can think of where the cut scenes are pretty damn entertaining. I also think you get more character development with the ext. version which is always good. <p> Again Watchmen is flawed but still an interesting experiment and a good movie IMO. I think you probably HAVE to read the comic to really 'get it' and thats probably the biggest flaw of the movie but I still like it.<p> Any Rorshack scene, the Dr. Manhattan origin sequence, and the Comedian in Vietnam are worth the price of admission IMO...

  • July 5, 2009, 3:02 a.m. CST

    The Dark Knight was dark and complex

    by lockesbrokenleg

    and it was a hell of a lot more fun to watch.

  • July 5, 2009, 3:31 a.m. CST

    The Dark Knight is a reinterpretation, not an adaptation

    by blakindigo

    Also, "The Dark Knight" is not adapting a specific graphic novel;it's an entirely original story, so the goals of each film is different. "Watchmen" is a deconstruction of the superhero genre as portrayed on film, and TDK is an exploration of the superhero genre as crime film.<br><br>More fun to watch is subjective and I do think "TDK" is a really good movie and highly enjoyable. But, again, "Watchmen" doesn't focus on the same themes at "TDK", so it offers a different type of enjoyment—"Watchmen" isn't as emotionally involving, at least not at first.

  • July 5, 2009, 6:34 a.m. CST

    Donald Rumsfeld doubletalk bullshit—LOL!

    by blakindigo

    That's hilarious. You're right technically, it is a type of adaptation, I guess I mean it's a reinterpretation (of a character with 70 years of history) in the context of the superhero movie as a crime film—not as a pure escapist adolescent child fantasy.<br><br>My problem is when people compare TDK approach of 'realism' with the deconstruction of the superhero film that "Watchmen,"—an approach that has no use for the realism of "TDK".<br><br>"Watchmen" the comic isn't 'realistic' and neither is the source material it deconstructs. Compare that with superhero movies since the rebirth of the modern era of superhero movies (I'd say "Blade"). Have any been 'realistic'? Not to my eye.<br><br>Interesting, that 'Star Trek' which was never a credible show in regards to sci-fi (try telling a SF author about how realistic the warp drive concept was in 1968 and see if they wouldn't laugh you out of the room) is turned into a summer adventure film and AsimovLives loses his mind. Lemme guess, not 'realistic' enough?

  • July 5, 2009, 8:30 a.m. CST

    HOLLIS MASON'S DEATH - THAT'S A KEEPER

    by deanmail

    if ever I saw one, the Raging Bull music and the flashback's just made it such a strong scene that added a sense of history to the movie, costumed hero history and not just real world history which may have upset the balance of the movie - That Hollis Mason death scene was a stand out adding so much to the films narrative, if anybody can PLEASE tell me why they cut that????

  • July 5, 2009, 9 a.m. CST

    It's too short. It's too long.

    by knowthyself

    It's too faithful. Its not faithful enough. People don't know what they want anymore.

  • July 5, 2009, 11:28 a.m. CST

    Asimov loves TDK? LOL

    by CaptainAxis

    Haha, I love The Dark Knight too but fuck man, it's FULL of plotholes, unrealistic bullshit, and those "cool" moments you hate so much. How does the Joker survive being flipped in the truck, with no injuries whatsoever? Why doesn't anybody in Gotham City bleed? What's with all the cute one-liners, like when Batman and Rachel fall 50 feet and crash on top of a car and she says, "Let's not do that again." The subplot with Lucius Freeman and the accountant who figures out Bruce is Batman - Lucius basically admits it, and the guy doesn't tell ANYBODY? The thing with the two boats - seriously, nobody on either boat pushes the button? The fake death of Jim Gordon was contrived and fucking lame. I could go on and on, but hopefully you see how ironic it is that you're trashing Watchmen for being too commercial and "cool" but you're championing TDK, which was your basic summer blockbuster and made a billion dollars. You're siding with TDK solely on aesthetics because it looks realistic, but the story and the characters underneath the facade are the same as any other superhero movie. That's fucking rich.

  • July 5, 2009, 11:41 a.m. CST

    But hey...

    by CaptainAxis

    At least there wasn't any slow-mo in TDK! That's all that matters, right?

  • July 5, 2009, 3:10 p.m. CST

    The Dark Knight and new Star Trek have a lot in common

    by lockesbrokenleg

    They took old themes and characters, and made new stories out of them while honoring the original works. Why couldn't Watchmen do that?

  • July 5, 2009, 3:25 p.m. CST

    Disagree with you on Star Trek, Asimov

    by wookie1972

    I liked it, thought it was fun, so sue me.

  • July 5, 2009, 3:29 p.m. CST

    Fair enough, AsimovLives

    by blakindigo

    I just don't take 'Star Trek' as anything other than light entertainment, so it didn't annoy me. The comparisons to 'Star Wars' or any other fantasy epic applies to the entire original series, IMO. <br><br>I do think that "Watchmen" the film did examine enough of the Moore's and Gibbon's themes well enough, and changed just enough to be enjoyable. I don't think the "Kewl" factor is really true, especially since many moments of dramatic emphasis are actually restrained, a major contrast to the risable '300'.

  • July 5, 2009, 3:34 p.m. CST

    lockesbrokenleg, I think "Watchman" is true to the

    by blakindigo

    spirit of the book—I just don't think it's a perfect adaptation.

  • July 5, 2009, 3:37 p.m. CST

    blakindigo

    by wookie1972

    I guess my problem was that they (let's not let Snyder's screenwriters off the hook) addressed the themes, but very superficially. I felt that Snyder did his best to get all the visuals right at the expense of the story. And, I guess I agree with Moore that it's ultimately unfilmable. A better director might have been able to make something out of it, but it would have to have been not a direct adaptation (I realize that might be counterintuitive, but I really believe that a less direct interpretation would have been more "true to the spirit" of the comic).

  • July 5, 2009, 3:41 p.m. CST

    BTW

    by wookie1972

    I still haven't seen anyone come up with an original image or moment that Snyder came up with.

  • July 5, 2009, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Again, that's also fair, wookie1972

    by blakindigo

    But, I think you can find some original images from Snyder—some of the changes in colour palette, his framing for the horizontal spaces, some time–condensing for exposition and effective staging. I would disagree that he was being 'slavishly faithful'.

  • July 5, 2009, 4:05 p.m. CST

    I don't understand all the "realism" arguments

    by LongJohnny99

    Let us begin with the notion that Watchmen, as a comic, was even an valid example of realism. The answer, especially in terms of tone and character depiction, is yes. At the time of its release it was very unique and it still holds up a story with multiple layers to peel back. However this does not discount the large number of comic book tropes which comprise the story. This is a story that is "realistic" only in comparison to other comic books. I have yet to see this film, so I cannot comment on the action scenes. There are some brutal moments in the comic, but I don't know that the style used in the jail scene is the way to go. But to suggest that a few Matrix moments somehow rob the film or story of its "realism"...well why don't I introduce you to my pal's genetically engineered cat that he keeps in his Antarctic hideout where he plans to save the world from itself by turning their attention to a false outward threat. We can even fly there in my Owlship. My girlfriend will be here soon after she gets done leaping from rooftop to rooftop, and kicking the shit out of wayward criminals. It will be good times. Realism my ass, people.

  • July 5, 2009, 4:07 p.m. CST

    I seee what you mean, Blakindigo

    by wookie1972

    But to me, it just wasn't enough, and actually I thought the change in the colors was a mistake. I realize that if he had left everything like the comic, it might have been considered too campy, a la Dick Tracy, but to me the color was an integral part of the comic. At the time, prestige projects like Watchmen and DKR were using more painterly coloring, and I felt that they made a conscious choice to use the flat 4-colour style they did, because this was a story "about" the silver age. My ideal Watchmen would look a little like Mad Men. A little incongruous, I admit, but that's sort of how I saw it.

  • July 5, 2009, 4:11 p.m. CST

    longjohnny, realism isn't the right word

    by wookie1972

    It's suspension of disbelief. I can believe that the world's smartest man could possibly genetically engineer a cat, and I can believe that a techno geek can build an owlship, but I can't buy that said techno geek could fight like clone of Bruce Lee 10 years after he hung up the costume.

  • July 5, 2009, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Yo, Wookie that's all well and good

    by LongJohnny99

    But my point is simply that any realism in Watchmen was the result of character depiction, not story structure. There are very few events in the story which could actually occur in the real world, so choosing just one to try to apply a lofty set of standards to is kinda pointless. If you think the fight scenes just aren't very good, ala the Batman films, or are not in agreement with the style that they are presented, cool. But to try to selectively apply logic to events in a movie where you obviously need to check your disbelief at the door is unfair. If they would have added a training/exercise montage that showed NiteOwl getting his mojo back would that really have helped the book or movie? He is depressed and alone, he gets laid, all is well. Back to asskicking.

  • July 5, 2009, 4:38 p.m. CST

    longjohnny99

    by wookie1972

    Snyder could have at least have him using the fricking gadgets he used in the comic, like the Screamers (some early reports claimed they were there, but I didn't hear them over the bad techno music). But no, he's fighting like Neo in the Matrix, breaking limbs and felling hardened crooks with one blow. I didn't buy it. It's like this: Obi Wan was a badass who could swing a sword, but if Lucas had him doing backflips and roundhouse kicks a la Jackie Chan, people would have called bullshit.

  • July 5, 2009, 4:48 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by Mr.Stiggs

    I don't have a problem with you expressing opinion but you seem hung up on obsessively blaming your incomprehensible disappointment with the film directly on Snyder. But you've repeatedly failed to take into account that Snyder was not the only one making all of the significant decisions on this show. You are aware that Snyder did not write the screenplay for Watchmen, right? A 100 million dollar film is not made by a single individual . The writers, cinematographer, editor, producer and studio executives all have a voice in a project the size of Watchmen. You're really not doing yourself any favors as you keep spouting profanity laced attacks on the director while failing to back up any of you diatribe with anything other than "It sucked because I said so". You've reiterated endlessly that Snyder is an untalented hack. I assume that you've never directed a film in your life. According to your logic that that would put the two of you at equal levels. So please bestow upon us your brilliant ideas for translating the graphic novel to the silver screen. Be particular in your pitch and let us know specifically how you would have tackled this project. But please keep in mind that you are directing a film that you did not write and are you are trying to appease a studio who has invested a significant amount of capital in the project and are expecting a healthy return on the venture. OK...go.

  • July 5, 2009, 4:49 p.m. CST

    mrstiggs, sorry, i dont buy it

    by wookie1972

  • July 5, 2009, 4:53 p.m. CST

    mrstiggs I dont buy it

    by wookie1972

    Alex Tse was brought in by Snyder to retool Hayter's script. He had ample opportunity to rework the script the way he wanted.

  • July 5, 2009, 4:58 p.m. CST

    wookie1972

    by Mr.Stiggs

    You don't buy what? That Snyder didn't write the film? That a studio producing a summer blockbuster doesn't have any input on the final cut? That the executives, editor, cinematographer, producer, costume designer, set dresser, sound effects editor, and FX designer don't provide any input into the making of a film? Are you serious...?

  • July 5, 2009, 5:01 p.m. CST

    Wookie1972

    by Mr.Stiggs

    "Alex Tse was brought in by Snyder to retool Hayter's script. He had ample opportunity to rework the script the way he wanted." Thats' not the way it works in a studio produced (Union) show.

  • July 5, 2009, 5:02 p.m. CST

    I dont buy that Watchmen wasn't Snyder's vision

    by wookie1972

    Hayter and Tse wrote the screenplay, but Tse was writing under Snyder's instructions. I just googled the original article and it says that Tse was hired "to clean out all the stuff from previous drafts" (paraphrasing here).

  • July 5, 2009, 5:04 p.m. CST

    In any case, the director is the final arbiter of what goes in t

    by wookie1972

    He gets final cut, unless the studio steps in. But Director's Cut or not, Snyder had the wrong approach, IMHO of course.

  • July 5, 2009, 5:04 p.m. CST

    I think it came out too early in the year.

    by lockesbrokenleg

    It was forgotten in a month. It should have come out in August or September, but I bet they wanted it out earlier so they could release the DVDs before the Holidays.

  • July 5, 2009, 5:12 p.m. CST

    Oh...you googled it.

    by Mr.Stiggs

    As I said...The Writer's Guild would NEVER let a director dictate what was written by the screenwriter. He may have his suggestions for the overall tone of the piece but those are usually communicated indirectly to avoid any future arbitration. Snyder is not responsible nor wold he have the authority to hire writers. The studio has the last word on those type of decisions. Spielberg doesn't even have that kind of power.

  • July 5, 2009, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Bullshit Stiggs

    by wookie1972

    Directors often bring in writers to retool previously written scripts. Ang Lee had his longtime screenwriter James Schamus rewrite the script for Hulk. The director is ultimately responsible for the finished movie, period.

  • July 5, 2009, 5:30 p.m. CST

    In a perfect world, yeah...

    by Mr.Stiggs

    Director's on a studio produced film don't bring in writers or anyone. They may suggest the idea to hire a specific individual to the studio and hope that they agree. I understand that the end result may be the same but it emphasizes my point that the director is a gun for hire just like an actor, cinematographer or editor. He is responsible for the majority of the day to day decisions but he is not a complete autocratic dictator. Do you realize that an editor has COMPLETE control over the final production once principle photography has wrapped? Some director's often leave a project in someone else's hands once their part has been completed.

  • July 5, 2009, 6:20 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives defending TDK's plotholes

    by CaptainAxis

    So the things I mentioned are just subtleties I didn't understand? Um, what? I loved The Dark Knight, saw it in the theater five times and watched the Blu-ray more than that. But every time I watch it, I notice another plothole or "typical superhero/action movie" moment. How do you explain or tolerate the things I mentioned earlier? Rachel's cutesy one-liner after falling 50 feet; the invulnerability of the Joker; Lucius basically admitting to the accountant that he's right and Bruce is Batman; Two-Face surviving the limo crash; nobody on either boat pushing the button to blow the other up; Gordon's fake death - you think they might have noticed he wasn't bleeding after being shot. I'm sure I can come up with more nitpicks and plotholes, but I'll wait until you explain the "subtleties" behind these moments.<br> <br> I'll be waiting.

  • July 5, 2009, 6:29 p.m. CST

    Um, no, Mr. Stiggs

    by wookie1972

    The editor, if he ever wants to work with the director again (and I'm assuming William Hoy wants to work with Snyder again, considering he also edited 300), must edit the movie to the director's satisfaction. In some cases the studio takes the movie out of the director's hands, but this was not the case with Watchmen. (Snyder's final cut is the "director's cut," but the theatrical edit was done under his supervision). But in any case, the point is that Snyder's name is on the movie, and it's his baby, for better or for worse.

  • July 5, 2009, 6:35 p.m. CST

    captainaxis

    by wookie1972

    1) Lucius admits no such thing. However, you might recall that he actually *does* try to reveal Batman's identity. 2) The boat scene was, IMHO, well done. It made it clear that while everybody wanted to live, they didn't want to condemn somebody else to death. It's still an effective scene. 3) Have you ever witnessed a major violent crime? Gordon's assasination was so quick that eyewitnesses probably all had different accounts. We still don't know what happened on 11/22/63. As for the examples of characters surviving, I admit that they stretch credibility but they don't break it, and they could hardly be considered plot holes.

  • July 5, 2009, 6:38 p.m. CST

    In any case, you could pick apart any movie...

    by wookie1972

    As has been pointed out, Sonny Corleone is killed by multiple dum dum bullets, and he ends up with just a light splattering of fake blood for his wounds. So what? Godfather is still a briliant movie.

  • July 5, 2009, 7:12 p.m. CST

    wookie1972....

    by Mr.Stiggs

    The editor has total control over the EDITING of the film. If he wants to cut a scene to suit his own personal aesthetic then no one can say otherwise. He can be fired by the studio. He can be chastised by the director but it his job to cut the film as HE sees fit. Hopefully an editor and a director can work together in harmony but ultimately it is the editor who makes the decisions in a studio (UNION) production. These people aren’t just monkeys pushing whatever button their trainer indicates. An editor brings his own artistic inclination to the production. There are several films that have been “saved” by their editors. Spielberg has gone on record and admits that Jaws was a disaster before editor Verna fields got a hold of the footage. You really don’t seem to understand that a director does not oversee every single aspect of a production of this size. Haven’t you ever heard of second or third unit directors? Do you have any idea how much footage is shot by these secondary units? Snyder’s name is attached to the production so of course he is going to garner the brunt of much of the criticism. But do you really believe that Warner Bros. just handed him 150 million dollars and said “call us when you’re done”?

  • July 5, 2009, 8:14 p.m. CST

    wookie1972

    by CaptainAxis

    1) Lucius pretty much admits it with his cute little "And you think it would be a good idea to blackmail this person?" comment. The whole thing is actually his fault. If he hadn't asked the accountant to go over the numbers again, he wouldn't have discovered the "discrepancy." Lucius Freeman is a bit of an idiot, apparently.<br> 2) It's effective to get across the director's idealism, but it's not believable in the least. A boat full of hardened convicts and NOT ONE of them grabs the thing and pushes the button? And NOT ONE of the citizens on the other boat, with families and friends and goals and dreams, would do the same? Please, that's not reality, that's a fucking comic book.<br> 3) Other than the complete lack of blood, my problem with Gordon's fake death isn't so much with the assassination attempt, but the fact that it was so contrived and seemed to be done for "shock" value: "Oh I thought he was dead!" But we all know he has to become Commissioner Gordon, so he couldn't REALLY die. Again, I love the film, but to pretend it's some flawless slice of cinematic reality is silly.<br> 4) How does that stuff NOT break credibility? The Joker surviving a tractor-trailer flipping over and emerging with a slight limp, or Two-Face surviving the limo crash without any injuries whatsoever, isn't any more believable than Nite Owl being a world-class fighter or Ozy doing Parkour-style leaps. Do the villains in TDK have some kind of invulnerability powers?

  • July 5, 2009, 8:26 p.m. CST

    Fight scenes in Begins and TDK

    by CaptainAxis

    Also sucked. Batman moves way too slow to be believable and you can't make out a fucking thing most of the time. I know there are more than two ways to film a fight scene, but I'll take stylized slow-mo over jerky shaky-cam action any day.<br> <br> Bottom line, I think you guys wanted a "cool" and popular Watchmen movie like TDK so you could brag about how you were an original fan blah blah blah. Instead, you got a Watchmen film that exposed the ridiculous notion of superheroes (like the book did) which is why a lot of the criticisms I've seen here are backed up by examples of how the general audience reacted. People laughed at the sex scene? Good, because it was ironic and humorous in the book too. People were confused or bored? Who cares. It's funny how talkbackers only care about popular opinion when it suits their argument.

  • July 5, 2009, 8:38 p.m. CST

    Nolan can't film a fight scene

    by knowthyself

    To save his life.

  • July 5, 2009, 8:38 p.m. CST

    Asimov Lives

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    Zak Snyder and JJ Abrams make movies. <br /><br />They didn't break into your house, piss all over your Watchmen Graphic Novel, shit on your Star Trek DVDs and run away down the street laughing maniacally.<br /><br />The amount of venom and vitriol you spew towards these men, the withering contempt you hold them in, says more about your tenuous grasp on sanity than it says about any flaws in the films or their filmmakers.<br /><br />And while Watchmen was not as widely successful as Star Trek, it is currently at 77% among the Rotten Tomatoes community. 64% among critics. So the vast majority of filmgoers do not agree with the dozen or so AICN talkbackers who think the film sucks.

  • July 5, 2009, 9:13 p.m. CST

    Mr.Stiggs

    by Continentalop

    You are way off. I am an editor, been doing it for 13-years, and while I wish that if I "cut a scene to suit (my) own personal aesthetic then no one can say otherwise", the sad fact is that our job is to fulfill the directors vision. We can offer counter-arguments, alternatives, advice or our own insight, but the director has final say (or the producer). <p> Smart directors will of course listen to their editors advice and usually go with their instincts, but often when you are in an editing bay you'll have a director tell you to trim each cut or add head, or exchange shots. Almost nothing isn't at least tinkered with by a director. <p> So, no it is not an editor who makes the final decisions in a studio (union) production, it is the director or the producer (depending on the production).

  • July 5, 2009, 9:34 p.m. CST

    Continetalop. Are you in the Editor's Guild?

    by Mr.Stiggs

    I've never heard of a director throwing an editor out of an editing bay but I've definately heard of an editor throwing a director out (I've done it myself).

  • July 5, 2009, 9:49 p.m. CST

    Continetalop...not so much.

    by Mr.Stiggs

    Your trying to tell me that if multiple acadmey award winning editor Michael Khan is working on Uwe Boll's latest tragedy then he is going to cut the film exactly as specified by the director of Postal? Really...?

  • July 5, 2009, 11:16 p.m. CST

    God bless you folks in Local 700—

    by blakindigo

    Lifesavers…Pure and simple.

  • July 5, 2009, 11:56 p.m. CST

    After all the shit fights in the other Batman movies

    by lockesbrokenleg

    It was nice that TDK concentrated on confrontation more than actual fighting

  • July 6, 2009, 12:10 a.m. CST

    more enhancements to Watchman

    by bswise

    Now with 60% more speed ramping dueing the sex scene.

  • July 6, 2009, 12:34 a.m. CST

    Dark Knight is the more entertaining movie.

    by Orionsangels

    Yet both DK and Watchmen are fascinating in their own ways. There's parts of Watchmen that bore me and then there are parts that intrigue the shit outta me. The more I watch Watchmen. The more I learn and the more I like it.

  • July 6, 2009, 5:30 a.m. CST

    really, watchmen is retarded.

    by cloudrider`

    i've read the book more or less 5 times in the last 10 years. it's not perfect, but it's never ever retarded. the film however is just the opposite. <p> captainaxis is the standard think-he's-smart-when-he's-really-just-clueless geek who always come to the defend of this kind of pseudo intellegent movie. you've seen his kind vehemously defending the matrix sequels way back when. it's akin to someone who's been reading comics all his life and suddenly found out about books with no drawings in it. it makes him feel smart liking watchmen movie because he has never seen a smarter movie before.

  • July 6, 2009, 5:36 a.m. CST

    anything snyder said in interview must be gospel

    by cloudrider`

    so snyder told us WHY he chose to do things a certain way, and that's supposed to make us appreciate the film WHY??? <p> can you believe this captaintool? if it didnt work on the screen then it didnt work. nothing synder will say or do after the fact will make it work any better.

  • July 6, 2009, 7:11 a.m. CST

    I'll take Pseudo intelligence any day

    by knowthyself

    Over straight up dumb, which is 90% of most movies. And Watchmen is ten times more thought provoking than a film where the Joker has to literally sit there and spell out the themes of the film and his role in Batman's life.

  • July 6, 2009, 7:32 a.m. CST

    WATCHMEN?! REALISTIC??!! HAHAHAHAHAHA

    by ChoclateWoman

    God with blue dong = realism. Owl ship = realism. AHAHAHAAHAHAAA! Fucking dweebs on this TB need to get laid by a REAL woman, not the blow up dolls under their beds. And getting a hand job from your moms doesn't count either. Watchmen.. realistic.. pffft.

  • July 6, 2009, 10:19 a.m. CST

    Watchman sucked

    by Luscious.868

    The BO numbers prove it. Sorry fanboys. The movie blew.

  • July 6, 2009, 10:24 a.m. CST

    Box Office "proving" it.

    by knowthyself

    So I guess that means Transformers 2 must be the next Citizen Kane because it made so much money. And that also means that movies like Moon and There Will be Blood suck because they didn't make alot of money. We can play this game all day Luscious.868.

  • July 6, 2009, 11:57 a.m. CST

    mr stiggs, you have no clue

    by wookie1972

    Unless the studio specifically takes the movie away from the director, he or she has the final say on what goes into the movie. Once the screenplay has been submitted, the screenwriter has no say in the final movie. And your scenario of an editor hijacking a movie is pure fantasy.. In any case, it's pointless to argue this in the case of Watchmen, because Snyder hasn't said one word about studio interference, other than being asked to deliver a movie under 3 hours. It's Snyder's movie, period, and he gets the blame or the credit.

  • July 6, 2009, 12:05 p.m. CST

    CaptainAxis

    by wookie1972

    1) Again, he does not say anything incriminating. He merely points out that the accountant's plan to blackmail Wayne was not very well-thought out. Classic non-denial denial. A little shifty, maybe, but what should he have done? Had the guy killed? 2) That's your opinion. I thought it was a great scene. All the talk about "these men made their choices" was mere bravado on the part of the regular citizens; surely they must have known there were innocent guards on the boat, and nobody would have wanted that on their conscience. 3) You only know "he has to become Commissioner Gordon" because you know the background. As a movie scene, standing alone from the Batman mythos, it works. 4) These feats strain credibility, but they're internally consistent within the story. Judging entirely on the character as he is portrayed, Night Owl should not be able to fight like that.

  • July 6, 2009, 12:06 p.m. CST

    Rorschach solo movie...nuff said

    by joker40

    nuff said

  • July 6, 2009, 12:11 p.m. CST

    From IMDB

    by wookie1972

    "Typically, a director has complete artistic control over all aspects of the movie, but it is not uncommon for the director to be bound by agreements with either a producer or a studio. In some large productions, a director will delegate less important scenes to a second unit." Says nothing about the editor having final say.

  • July 6, 2009, 12:28 p.m. CST

    The DGA doesn't guarantee final cut

    by blakindigo

    That is given to very few directors, usually after a string of highly successful box office or critical hits. The conditions vary, but please understand this is one of the most sought after contract points during negotiations.<br><br>The number directors working on big budget studio features in which they have final cut are very small. Very small.

  • July 6, 2009, 12:38 p.m. CST

    blakindigo

    by wookie1972

    That's beside the point. It's the studio that makes that decision, not the editor.

  • July 6, 2009, 1:38 p.m. CST

    Absolutely wookie1972, but movies are collaborative

    by blakindigo

    the editor isn't the sole deciding factor, but a smart director will do their best to stay out of an experienced editors way. Once the director turns in his/her cut, then the producers and the studio executives in charge of the production make the final decision.

  • July 6, 2009, 2:07 p.m. CST

    wookie1972

    by Mr.Stiggs

    I graduated Summa Cum laude from one of the top films schools in the U.S. I'm a complete nobody when it comes to name recognition but I have worked on over 15 films and written/directed 8 shorts. Now I'm not claiming that I've seen an editor ever "hijack" a film, although I have heard of it, but there are strict guidelines that have to be adhered to if one is dealing with a member of the Editor's Guild. As I stated previously and editor isn't hired to just to push buttons and the Union certainly doesn't take kindly to directors that bully their contemporaries. You are correct in that an editor has to appease the director but his main duty is to turn in a cut that the producer's prefer. If you are shooting an independent project outside of the system then I'd assume that the director has more influence as he is not shackled by any union regulations . But imagine if you are a Academy Award winning editor and you are told by a director that you consider to be a hack that your work is "unacceptable". Would you make the changes that he wants and potentially damage your career and reputation or would you do it your way ?

  • July 6, 2009, 2:42 p.m. CST

    "his main duty is to turn in a cut that the producer's prefer"

    by wookie1972

    That's not what you said before. You wrote "Do you realize that an editor has COMPLETE control over the final production once principle photography has wrapped?" Which is utter and absolute nonsense. In any case, are you seriously saying that if we didn't like the movie, it's somehow not the fault of the person who was ultimately responsible for what goes onscreen, i.e. Snyder?

  • July 6, 2009, 2:52 p.m. CST

    All final decisions go through the producer and director

    by knowthyself

    From what I understand that as long as the Director has the approval of the Producer then all decisions filter through the director. They tell the editor what they want and the editor makes it happen. They watch it and then give more notes. Just like the director can approve of a score or tell the composer to go back to square one. There are many times where the producer or the studio will insist on certain decisions (actors are a big one) but as far the final product goes the director gets the last word on most of the artistic decisions as long as the producers are on their wave length.

  • July 6, 2009, 2:54 p.m. CST

    exactly, Knowthyself

    by wookie1972

    And the idea that the script is somehow sacrosanct once the writer finishes it is laughable. In Hollywood, the screenwriter is the lowest on the pecking order.

  • July 6, 2009, 2:54 p.m. CST

    exactly, Knowthyself

    by wookie1972

    And the idea that the script is somehow sacrosanct once the writer finishes it is laughable. In Hollywood, the screenwriter is the lowest on the pecking order.

  • July 6, 2009, 2:55 p.m. CST

    knowthyself=Professional

    by blakindigo

  • July 6, 2009, 3:01 p.m. CST

    I'm not even in the business lol

    by knowthyself

    And I understand how it works. Seems kinda obvious.

  • July 6, 2009, 3:04 p.m. CST

    Asimov

    by knowthyself

    You've got some mean words for Abrams but the truth of the matter is he's swimming in cash and your here complaining about him. I really hope you are living your dream because he's at least living his. Hack or not. And he's got the critics behind him and Hollywood knocking down his door.

  • July 6, 2009, 3:09 p.m. CST

    wookie1972

    by Mr.Stiggs

    I don't care if you liked the movie or not. I"m just trying to make the point that Snyder is not the sole reason why you have formed your particular opinion of the film. An editor, cinematographer, or actor works WITH the director not FOR him. I can't say it any simpler than that.

  • July 6, 2009, 3:12 p.m. CST

    But Mr. Stiggs...

    by knowthyself

    They do work for the director. Remember when Jackson took Howard Shore off King Kong because he didn't like the score?

  • July 6, 2009, 3:15 p.m. CST

    Again, Stiggs,you're backtracking.

    by wookie1972

    You wrote that the editor has "COMPLETE control over the final production" and you implied that the director had no control over the script, either. Both notions are complete and utter nonsense.

  • July 6, 2009, 3:18 p.m. CST

    knowthyself

    by wookie1972

    Jackson was also the producer of King Kong. Similarly, Lucas was producer of Star Wars, and fired the original editor. In any case, the idea that, in the Hollywood system, the director isn't the final abiter of what goes in the movie (within the guidelines of his/her contract) is ridiculous. If a movie is good or bad, the director gets the lion's share of the praise or blame.

  • July 6, 2009, 3:21 p.m. CST

    They do work with the director

    by knowthyself

    Why would a director choose an editor or composer they didn't like? So its a collaborative process but one where the director has the final say and in the end they are all there to fulfill his vision. But a producer has final say over the director and the studio has final say over the producer.

  • July 6, 2009, 3:25 p.m. CST

    I understand that, knowthyself

    by wookie1972

    However, directors often raise a stink if their movies are tampered with. Snyder didn't, which means that Watchmen (which you liked, I didn't) is his work. But mr.stiggs' notion that the editor controls post-production is pure fantasy.

  • July 6, 2009, 3:26 p.m. CST

    Wookie you and I see eye to eye

    by knowthyself

  • July 6, 2009, 3:28 p.m. CST

    btw, Dr. Uwe Boll produces his own movies

    by wookie1972

    So if he had Michael Kahn working on a movie and he wanted to fire him, he could.

  • July 6, 2009, 3:29 p.m. CST

    knowthyself

    by wookie1972

    My guess is we probably agree on at least a few movies (unlike Asimonlives, I loved Star Trek) except for Watchmen.

  • July 6, 2009, 3:31 p.m. CST

    Yup. Star Trek is great.

    by knowthyself

    Asimov takes movies too personally. I don't like X-Men Origins Wolverine but I don't want to kill the director or Hugh Jackman.

  • July 6, 2009, 3:43 p.m. CST

    Hugh Jackman's abs would rip you apart!

    by lockesbrokenleg

  • July 6, 2009, 3:52 p.m. CST

    wookie1972

    by Mr.Stiggs

    Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I may have been a bit overzealous when I stated that an editor has complete control of the final production but he is ultimately responsible for cutting the film. A director can not take over the responsibilities of an editor who is a member of the M.P.E.G. If the editors vision does not fall in line with the directors' then the producers have to intervene and come up with a amiable solution. A director can't fire him or take over his editing bay. The unions do not allow such actions. For example, a director working with a A.S.C. cinematographer who is a member of the I.C.G isn't even supposed to TOUCH a camera on the set.

  • July 6, 2009, 4:35 p.m. CST

    I actually think he meant to say Star Trek was...

    by odo19

    a great movie...which it was. Piece of shit was a good guess though Asimov. Keep trying.

  • July 6, 2009, 4:47 p.m. CST

    Wookie, Cloudrider, Asimov

    by CaptainAxis

    Wookie: I'd still like you to explain how the invulnerability of Joker and Two-Face is consistent with the "real-world" setting of the film. I'd also like to point out that the whole concept of Two-Face is unrealistic, as my girlfriend (who is a nurse) noted how his face would have been infected and his exposed eyeball would have been dried out. Funny how losing half of his face didn't affect his speech at all either. As for Nite Owl's fighting skills being out-of-character, the guy was a professional crimefighter; surely he wasn't just some sloppy brawler or he would have been killed his first night out.<br> <br> Cloudrider: Snyder's comments don't have to make you appreciate the film, but they should make you stop saying retarded shit about how he was just trying to be "cool" and the violence was pointless, etc. YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIKE THE MOVIE, obviously, but there was a reason for the violence and the sex. Look at your copy of Watchmen again and see how violent it was for its time. And sorry, as much as I love it, the book was retarded at times too - the ending and the whole concept of genetically engineering the squid using a cloned psychic brain. That's completely within the realm of possibility, right?<br> <br> Asimov: First of all, what the fuck does Star Trek have to do with any of this? I never mentioned it, although I found it entertaining enough, albeit with some massive plotholes. I wasn't a Trek fan anyway because it always seemed so stupid and cheesy, so I don't give a shit if JJ has "ruined" your precious geek franchise. As for TDK, I don't have a problem with the plotholes and lack of realism because I know why it was done, and the same goes for Watchmen. I just don't understand why you rant and rave about Snyder being a "dumb stupid hack" who set out to make a shitty movie. If you don't like the film, that's fine, but it's illogical to excuse TDK's faults because of "dramatic choices" while trashing Watchmen for the same thing.

  • July 6, 2009, 5:09 p.m. CST

    CaptainAxis

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Try not to waste too much time "debating" AssimovLives. His only intention is to declare his opinions as being superior to everyone else. His favorite targets are J.J. Abrams and Michael Bay (easy pickings!) and he makes a habit out of ceaselessly hi-jacking on/off-topic threads to post his repetitive, hate-filled diatribes against all and sundry.<P>You'll notice that he views TDK (and pretty much anything by Nolan) as being flawless despite certain facts to the contrary (loved the movie myself). I predict he will do the same to such upcoming films as MOON and THE ROAD. These are just two of the movies he's already declared his undying admiration for despite the fact that he has yet to see them. I won't be surprised if he heaps undue praise upon them no matter their perceived shortcomings.<P>He's a strange and peculiar fellow; one who spends an awful lot of time on this site saying the same things...over and over and over again. He is, without a doubt, AICN's most borish Talkbacker.

  • July 6, 2009, 5:40 p.m. CST

    CaptainAxis

    by wookie1972

    As I've said before, they sdtrain credibility but, for me, they didn't break the movie. Yes, Night Owl had *some* fighting skills, but he also relied on his gadgets. There is no way he would, ten years after giving it up,be able to fight like Jackie Chan/Bruce Lee/Neo.

  • July 6, 2009, 5:44 p.m. CST

    stiggs

    by wookie1972

    that doesn't change the fact that the director is, under the Hollywood system, the "author" of the movie. The contributions of everyone else changes nothing of the fact that the director is ultimately responsible for what is put onscreen.

  • July 6, 2009, 5:47 p.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius

    by CaptainAxis

    Thanks for the heads-up, I've only been posting here for a little while but I've lurked for years. I was wondering why he suddenly brought up Star Trek out of the blue and is now acting as if we'd been debating that movie. I never even mentioned it and now apparently it's a "beloved" film of mine. I'll try not to waste any more of my time feeding the troll.

  • July 6, 2009, 6 p.m. CST

    mr nice gaius

    by wookie1972

    most borish talkbacker? have you heard of DGDB?

  • July 6, 2009, 6:04 p.m. CST

    wookie1972

    by CaptainAxis

    I will again direct you toward the book, where Dan and Laurie lay waste to an entire gang of armed Knot Tops without the use of any gadgets. Oh yes, I know, they were winded afterward. That's the beauty of Watchmen - Moore used the superhero comic conventions and tropes (i.e. the idea that two "heroes" can take down a dozen thugs singlehandedly) just as Snyder did with the conventions and tropes of superhero movies, which includes hyperreal fight sequences and stylized action. It absolutely astounds me that some of the pseudo-intellectuals here can't grasp that concept, despite all evidence supporting it. If you do "get it" and you just don't like the approach, or you'd rather have another TDK film that pretends to be real, that's your opinion and you're absolutely entitled to it. Just stop with the baseless attacks on Snyder's intelligence as if you know the man personally.

  • July 6, 2009, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Spawn

    by CaptainAxis

    A bit off-topic, but I just read the Spawn Origins trade collecting the first six issues of Spawn. Why hasn't this been "rebooted" like so many other comic-book franchises? I think Zack Snyder's sensibilities would be perfect for a new Spawn film that stays true to the comic book. A stylized NYC with a real-world feel to it, dark imagery, copious blood and violence, cool special effects... what do you think?

  • July 6, 2009, 7:06 p.m. CST

    CaptainAxis

    by blakindigo

    Somebody would have to write a coherent story for "Spawn". Reinvent the entire character.

  • July 6, 2009, 8:16 p.m. CST

    Luv me spawn.

    by knowthyself

    McFarlanes been trying to do an indie film of Spawn for ages now. Never gonna happen I think.

  • July 6, 2009, 8:32 p.m. CST

    CaptainAxis

    by wookie1972

    And I would direct you to the fact that they don't actually kill any of the toughs, who definitely put up a fight. I have no comment on Snyder's intelligence. but I don't believe for a second that the fight scenes were "commenting" on anything. For one thing, those "hypperreal" fight scenes are not, from what I can tell, a particularly superhero trope. I associate them mostly with non-superhero movies like the Matrix. (X-Men admittedly had a bit of that, but nowhere near to the same extent as other action movies. And none of the Batman movies - even the Schumacher ones - had anything remebling that) I still argue that Snyder flattened many of the themes of Watchmen. It's not that he didn't "get them," it's more that he explored them on a very superficial level, and I really felt that he never solved the problem of actually adapting the book or doing anything interesting with the images. Again, it's like LA Confidential vs. Black Dahlia. Same author, different directors/screenwriters, VERY different results.

  • July 6, 2009, 8:36 p.m. CST

    You all like Spawn?

    by wookie1972

    That explains a lot.

  • July 6, 2009, 8:40 p.m. CST

    CaptainAxis

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    I hear ya. Bringing up STAR TREK in a WATCHMEN debate is just his way of trying to create and win some cheap point. It's like saying, "Oh, you liked that? Then you must love JJ's TREK bullshit movie." is his trademark tactic of winning an argument based totally on subjectivity. The kicker is that he does that shit ALL THE TIME. It's so redundant and annoying I'm surprised more Talkbackers don't slam him for it.<P>Anyway, welcome to the boards. Cheers!

  • July 6, 2009, 8:42 p.m. CST

    Mr. nice Gaius

    by wookie1972

    Again, I ask, are you aware of DannyGlover'sDickBlood? I thought he was the acme of dickish talkbackers.

  • July 6, 2009, 8:43 p.m. CST

    wookie1972

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Oh, I've heard of DGDB and I'm rather familiar with his level of toxicity.

  • July 6, 2009, 8:45 p.m. CST

    Explains what exactly?

    by knowthyself

    What's wrong with Spawn? I also love David Lynch annd Fellini. Does that explain alot as well?

  • July 6, 2009, 8:51 p.m. CST

    wookie1972

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    There have been a few notorious trolls on AICN over the years and there are Talkbackers who know, much better than I, about those who belong in the "AICN Troll Hall of Fame". I think DANNY would AT LEAST deserve a special mention for general dickishness.

  • July 6, 2009, 8:56 p.m. CST

    wookie1972

    by CaptainAxis

    And I would add that whether or not they killed the Knot Tops has nothing to do with the original point - Dan and Laurie, two supposedly over-the-hill and out-of-shape former crimefighters with (what you claim to be) slightly above-average fighting skills, take out A DOZEN ARMED THUGS barehanded, while wearing street clothes no less. That kind of flies in the face of your argument about the movie.<br> <br> I'll agree with you, in part, about having them kill a Knot Top in the film. Laurie stabbing him in the neck was a bit too much, but using him as a shield when the other guy shot at her was acceptable. Should she have just gotten shot, or maybe dodged the bullets Ozy-style? I think it was done more for the symbolism as Dr. M is simultaneously talking about the number of particles in a dead body and how there would still be danger in a world without nuclear weapons. Despite the flaws, that scene worked for me in much the same way the boat scene in TDK worked for you despite its flaws in logic and believability.<br> <br> Re: Spawn, please save us the sanctimonious horseshit. Spawn is no Watchmen, obviously, but it is possible to enjoy both. It does dip into the realm of politics and the darker side of superheroes.

  • July 6, 2009, 9:04 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives...

    by Mr.Stiggs

    Ridley Scott began his career as a cinemtographer and has been a registered member of the A.S.C. and the I.C.G. He is allowed to operate the camera on a studio picture as long as he retains that status.

  • July 6, 2009, 9:21 p.m. CST

    Hyperreal/stylized action sequences

    by CaptainAxis

    They're in every superhero movie, pretty much. There's no way that Michael Keaton's puny Bruce Wayne should be able to manhandle thugs, but he does whenever he dons the Batsuit. Batman & Robin is actually the best (or worst) example, when the Dynamic Duo fight Mr. Freeze's goons on ice skates. Blade, X-Men, Daredevil, both Hulks, and Spiderman are other good examples, unless you're going to argue that the action scenes in those movies are realistic in any possible way.

  • July 6, 2009, 9:24 p.m. CST

    DGDB

    by CaptainAxis

    How many talkbackers can say they were namedropped by a popular, successful director on late-night television? He deserves his own fucking wing in the AICN Hall of Fame.

  • July 6, 2009, 9:55 p.m. CST

    CaptainAxis

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Well, it's probably easy to do with a name as outrageous (some would say offensive) as DGDB. Of course, the irony is that he was name-dropped by someone he despises.

  • July 6, 2009, 10:38 p.m. CST

    CaptainAxis, for the record

    by ChoclateWoman

    DGDB was name dropped by Quint first in that interview.

  • July 6, 2009, 11:08 p.m. CST

    RE=DGDB

    by Continentalop

    I actually find him to be quite funny and charming. No really. <p> Once you get to know him he is a real sweetheart.

  • July 6, 2009, 11:14 p.m. CST

    Quint?

    by CaptainAxis

    I was referring to Judd Apatow's interview on (I believe) Conan, pre-Tonight Show.

  • July 7, 2009, 12:49 a.m. CST

    Ok, captain axis

    by ChoclateWoman

    I missed that one, because I have social life with lots of fucking, unlike you, a fat dickless dweeb. Just kidding. Gonna look up that interview now.

  • July 7, 2009, 2:22 a.m. CST

    captainaxis loves spawn

    by cloudrider`

    "I think Zack Snyder's sensibilities would be perfect for a new Spawn film that stays true to the comic book." <p> that explains everything about your taste. i dont know what's worse - that you like the comics spawn(mcfarlane is a shitty writer of the highest caliber) and actually want a movie that "stays true to the book", or that you want snyder to do it.

  • July 7, 2009, 2:38 a.m. CST

    Snyder is very gifted

    by Seth Gecko

    He made this film a near masterpiece from a book that is too deep to be made into one film. Excellent film and the blu ray will rock.

  • July 7, 2009, 2:44 a.m. CST

    the violence is unnecessary

    by cloudrider`

    so snyder said in interviews that he has valid reasons for the hyperreal and stylized action. and because it came out of his mouth, we just should believe it??? <p> anyone can rationalize shitty choices away, but that doesnt make those choices any less shitty. hyperreal and stylized actions do not belong in watchmen. they distract rather than complement the story. only a hack with no originality and imagination with do the watchmen matrix style.

  • July 7, 2009, 2:51 a.m. CST

    and i too think the new star trek is a crap

    by cloudrider`

    it's been shit after shit so far after year. maybe because we had it so good last year, the pendulum is bound to swing back.

  • July 7, 2009, 9:05 a.m. CST

    Hey AssimovLives...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...you really are a piece of work. When did I say anything about Nolan not being a great director? And how does someone's nationality have anything to do with a perceived taste?<P>You don't pay attention very well, Assimov. You're too busy trying to look like you know what you're talking about. That's why you continue to misunderstand the criticisms directed at you.<P>Godsdamn, you're a bore.

  • July 7, 2009, 9:06 a.m. CST

    CaptainAxis

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    See what I mean?

  • July 7, 2009, 9:46 a.m. CST

    Give me a break—

    by blakindigo

    Back to the same lame descriptions of things that have been articulated before. It's old hat now. AsimovLives and cloudrider are reiterating same complaints with scant evidence to back up their claims, at this point its just redundant and is getting obnoxious. Suddenly attacking other talkbackers as 'stalkers' and 'useless idiots' and that has completely derailed the topic.<br><br> AsimovLives your complaints are lazy, not filled with strong examples and your debating skills are suspect as you continually attack Snyder's character and NOT his films. A few weeks ago you wrote an excellent observation on why '300' failed as history (even though it was based on Frank Miller's reductive and reactionary book, that revised history so drastically as to be unrecognizable). Apparently, you 'blew your wad' after that post because nothing regarding 'Watchmen' or 'Star Trek' has been as well thought out and structured.<br><br>Cloudrider, too many posts have addressed your questions; and yes, we should believe a directors choices as what they are: ARTISTIC CHOICES—wether they achieve what they're attempting, is another matter, but to complain that someone is 'rationaliz(ing) shitty choices' reads like a simpleton rationalizing their straw-man argument. That's how these posts have derailed the original critique—hyperreal and stylized actions do not belong in 'Watchmen'? Do you understand that 'Watchmen' deconstructs superhero movies? Do you realize how appropriate those elements are to superhero movies? Treating this movie as if it was 'Taxi Driver' would only disengage people in the very concept of superheroes 'in the real world', would look ridiculous and heighten the pure artifice of the IDEA of superheroes. Complaining about the use of extreme slow motion in 'Watchmen' is like complaining about the use of extreme slow motion in 'Taxi Driver'; it's one of many tools a filmmaker can use to provide emphasis; in comics that effect is achieved by multiple panels to extend the action or by one massive panel. Comics do not equal film in their use of narrative, that's obvious.<br><br>Read someone like Scott Bukatman—his book "Matters of Gravity: Special Effects and Supermen in the 20th Century" addresses why culturally, a movie like 'Watchmen' is not only relevant, but vital in understanding the proliferation of the superhero movie and how that impacts the culture. Regardless of what you think of the movie or inexplicably, the directors 'intelligence,' the movie takes on its own cultural significance.<br><br>You lot should bring more weight to your arguments.

  • July 7, 2009, 12:45 p.m. CST

    asimov--i agree with you

    by Six Demon Bag

    you may not like the films (watchmen and Trek) but at least you gave detailed reasons MANY times as to why you didnt like them. i dont know where these guys are coming from. <P>its not like you are just posting "IT SUCKS". and then start insulting opposing TBers.

  • July 7, 2009, 12:47 p.m. CST

    and to the others

    by Six Demon Bag

    asimov has explained countless times as to why he doesnt like something..they are thoughtful and mature. i will argue with him any time about film, for i loved watchmen and trek.

  • July 7, 2009, 1:03 p.m. CST

    blakindigo

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Apparently, my calling out of AssimovLives' hypocritical stance on movies and non-stop repetitive bullshit is considered "stalking" in his eyes. I guess I can't simultaneously post on-topic and then call him out for being a bitch without some sort of "stalker" comeback.<P>And he thinks I'm always good for a laugh?! HA!

  • July 7, 2009, 1:05 p.m. CST

    ""Assimov", hem?"

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Witty? No. Just a tribute to your blowhard buffoonery.

  • July 7, 2009, 1:12 p.m. CST

    Six Demon Bag

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Come on, man. Don't be so passive in your assessment of ol' Assimov.<P>Quote: "...has explained countless times..."<P>Yes, his non-stop repetitive posts about the "hack JJ Abrams and his Jay Jay TREK" are now virtually countless. How long has it been since that movie premiered? And he's still beating a dead horse about in a WATCHMEN TB?! Someone has got issues...<P>Quote: "...they are thoughtful and mature"<P>You mean his "pieces of bullshits movies [sic] like Jay Jay TREK" posts? How are they mature?<P>Quote: "its not like you are just posting "IT SUCKS". and then start insulting opposing TBers"<P>Yes, he does and yes he did. The numerous STAR TREK related threads speak to this.<P>Besides, what would Egg Shen do?

  • July 7, 2009, 1:18 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by blakindigo

    The attacks on Snyder's intelligence are just ill-considered. I've seen many of your previous thoughtful posts and it just weakens your argument when you attack a director's character, because in many ways that's the equivalent as saying "IT SUCKS" and that becomes tedious. You're a better writer than that.

  • July 7, 2009, 1:34 p.m. CST

    No Blakindigo

    by knowthyself

    Asimov is not a better writer than that.

  • July 7, 2009, 1:35 p.m. CST

    gaius

    by Six Demon Bag

    but in previous threads and posts he explains why he doesnt like them..i dont agree with them but he makes a convincing argument considering. <P>i dunno, compared to TITBAGs posts, he is mature adn comes off actually civil.

  • July 7, 2009, 1:40 p.m. CST

    Six Demon Bag

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Fair enough, I guess. Just don't call him on his bullshit; it opens up a whole new can of WTF.

  • July 7, 2009, 2:35 p.m. CST

    Spawn represents everything bad about 90s comics

    by wookie1972

    The fetishization of violence, the brooding antihero, the nihilism.... and, while I won't speculate on Snyder's intelligence, MacFarlane is clearly not very bright and a bit of a dick.

  • July 7, 2009, 2:47 p.m. CST

    Watchmen the *comic* was a deconstruction

    by wookie1972

    I don't buy for a minute that Watchmen the movie was a deconstruction of anything. Snyder has a great visual sense, but I never thought of the action scenes as "commenting" on anything. Why? Well, for one thing, why only the action scenes? For everything else, he scrupulously (a nicer word that "slavishly) repdouced the comic. As well, why emphasize the gore, which has never been a part of superhero movies? They certainly didn't make me feel the consequences of the violence, the way Scorsese or Cronenberg's movies do. It was simply numbing, especially when people in the audience cheered it on. (If Snyder didn't want us to identify with Rorschach, why did he a) make the kidnapper more despicable than he was in the book and b) give Rorscach a Dirty Harry style line about "dogs get put down"?

  • July 7, 2009, 2:59 p.m. CST

    blakindigo

    by wookie1972

    I checked and Bukatman wrote his book in 2003, six years before Watchmen. So you're just speculating when you say that he might have seen Watchmen as "relevant." (Which means what, exactly? A movie like Save The Last Dance is "relevant" to our times, doesn't make it any good).

  • July 7, 2009, 3:04 p.m. CST

    Again, I want to stress that I didn't go in...

    by wookie1972

    wanting to dislike Watchmen. I wanted to like it a lot. But Snyder's choices were all wrong, IMHO. And part of what bothers me is the idea that people really claim that it will become a classic in the future "like Blade Runner." Blade Runner is a very special movie to me, and I just don't see the comparison. Blade Runner created wholecloth (except for the flying cars, pretty much none of the images come from PKD's original novel) its own universe. Watchmen the movie recreated the comic - a remarkable feat, I admit, but it was ultimately a hollow experience for me.

  • July 7, 2009, 3:59 p.m. CST

    The movies deconstructs the conventions of the

    by blakindigo

    superhero movie. Specifically by emphasizing gore and sexuality (which recall underground comics as did Moore's and Gibbon's comic book) it addresses the constant tease of using these elements without consequence without using the tidy conventions and tropes of 'normal' superhero films.<br><br> The world of 'Watchmen' is brutal and visceral, it's a world where mundane psychopaths like Rorscach, The Comedian, and the like depict an extreme response to crime, unlike say Wolverine or Spider-Man which present a fairly naive perspective. Depicting a more visceral edge in a movie about vigilante crime fighters offers a glimpse into how flawed individuals aren't anymore enlightened than the criminals.<br><br> 'Watchman' the movie revels in its violence in a much different fashion than Scorcese or Cronenberg. The violence in those directors is a reflection of physical reality in Scorsese's case, and a cerebral un-reality in Cronenberg's (except with his later work like "A History of Violence"). Scorsese's violence is used as characterization ("Goodfellas", "Raging Bull") and is off-putting and repellant, but fascinating. 'Watchmen' is also off-putting as we suddenly question why these 'heroes' are so brutal; the violence here describes a zealotry and arrogance that is above even Dirty Harry. These are humanities self-appointed guardians, who have positioned themselves above the law. They are also deadly, and at least two of them, literally, never compromise—even in the face of armageddon. <br><br>Contrast that with the birth of the first superhero, a man(?) who doesn't embrace the hero perspective but, adopts their methods to a degree (murder). He is trying to understand the nature of humanity and adopts the guise of a 'hero' to examine humanity as if it's some grand experiment.<br><br>The fact that some people in the audience cheered at the violence of the film isn't surprising. I've seen people laugh and cheer at the intense 'Do I amuse you?' scene in 'Goodfellas' AND at Tommy's death scene.

  • July 7, 2009, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Bukatman mentions the comic in his book—

    by blakindigo

    and his general thesis is a cultural critique and examination of superhero movies, the 'Watchman' film clearly meets his criteria.

  • July 7, 2009, 4:36 p.m. CST

    Ah, Todd McFarlane, where does one begin…

    by blakindigo

    He's a very tactical businessman. He does have some strong points to his cartooning; his exaggeration and dynamic, twisted shapes can be visually striking. But,he usually hires artists and their work is more dynamic and visually much stronger than his IMO. His concepts are kind of cool, but the scripts are terrible. Really one dimensional characters and false conflict. None of his characters have really interesting story arcs. God, what Garth Ennis, or Mark Millar could do with that material if given free reign.

  • July 7, 2009, 6:26 p.m. CST

    blakindigo

    by CaptainAxis

    Sadly, your insightful and articulate post will go unread and likely unanswered by the Wookies, Asimovs, and Cloudriders of the talkback world. But I wanted to say, kudos to you for putting forth an intelligent rebuttal and summing up our point of view so perfectly in your posts on these Watchmen talkbacks. Keep up the good fight and hopefully some of the fence-sitters will gain a new appreciation for the film.

  • July 7, 2009, 6:27 p.m. CST

    McFarlane? Is he still making those plastic statues?

    by lockesbrokenleg

    All I remember is a few years ago those things would be on 50 percent off sales.

  • July 8, 2009, 10:31 a.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by CaptainAxis

    Did you read any of blakindigo's posts explaining and detailing how the Watchmen film is a deconstruction and commentary on other superhero movies, in much the same way as the book was a deconstruction of superhero comics? I'd like to see a response from you that doesn't involve the following words: dumb, stupid, retarded, hack, shit, sucks, or any variation of those words. You're the one who has been dismissing other people's opinions of the movie with baseless character attacks on the director. Go on, show us how intelligent you can be, because I haven't seen anything of substance from you regarding the Watchmen film.

  • July 8, 2009, 4:35 p.m. CST

    Thank you, Asimov

    by CaptainAxis

    While I still disagree, this type of response is far more impressive than relying on personal insults and ad hominem attacks. I can better understand your point of view and I totally respect that. However, I really don't think the fight scenes in the film take away from the fact that Snyder got across the major themes of the book (unchecked power being the main one) and that he kept so many of the details and moments from the book. Just read through Sam Hamm's 1989 screenplay or David Hayter's modernized 2003 script (both available at http://tinyurl.com/clhcqc) and see the travesty that a Watchmen film COULD have been if it weren't for Snyder already knowing the material and demanding it stay true to the book. The film was going to be made as a PG-13 superhero movie with all of the offensive bits and moral ambiguity of the ending removed - in Hayter's script, Ozy is a total villain as he uses a "solar death ray" as his master plan and Dan kills him in the end. That would have been far worse than what Snyder did, and even you have to admit that.

  • July 8, 2009, 4:55 p.m. CST

    the movie doesnt deconstruct shit!

    by cloudrider`

    it's just funny looking at a long post made by an idiot who think he has written something intelligent. like they know what they're talking about when in reality they have no clue. not talking about you, Asimov. <p> the movie deconstructs superhero movies??? really? most superheroes movies have stylyzed and hyperreal actions, and so watchmen the movie adopt that same aesthetic to prove what point, exactly? to prove that they're silly & cartoonish? might as well add 'BAM' 'POW' 'OUCH' in big bold colorful letters like back in the day then. <p> the point moore was making in the book is violence when applied in the real world is not pretty. it's sick and have serious consequences. very different than how it's usually potrayed in comics world - all glamourous and cool. moore took what was cartoonish and made the impact real. <p> snyder made ozy do superhuman jump and heads smashed into concrete walls with no consequences. he did matrix style fight scenes at every given opportunity in the story. that's not deconstructing anything. that's just being childish and stupid. artistic choices my ass! jar jar bink was an artistic choice too. just ask george.

  • July 8, 2009, 5:14 p.m. CST

    judge the movie as it is.

    by cloudrider`

    comparing it the the sam hamm's script is akin to saying 'batman & robin' is turd, but at least that batman cowl still has bat ear. <p> it's the same kind of lame defense i've seen time and time again to defend a mediocre film. more variations: 'at least it got made'. 'at least it's no batman & robin.' 'at least there's no nipple on the costume'. oh wait, there is.

  • July 8, 2009, 6:08 p.m. CST

    Look at cloudrider

    by CaptainAxis

    Wailing away as if anyone gives a shit what he's bitching about. It's actually kind of funny, but really man, nobody cares. I'm the only one who responded to your childish and hateful posts out of pity. Fine, you hate the film, we get that. I hated Zack and Miri Make A Porno and every other Kevin Smith "film" but you don't see me obsessively ranting and repeating the same points ad nauseum in those talkbacks. Move on, friend. It's unhealthy.

  • July 8, 2009, 6:27 p.m. CST

    i dont give a shit if nobody gives a shit

    by cloudrider`

    when i see someone talk like they know what they're talking about when in fact they know shit, i just feel like responding. if that person keep insisting his opinion is right, then everyone else can keep repeating that he is wrong. look at your number of posts and mine in this thread. yeah, i am the obsessive one alright.

  • July 8, 2009, 6:33 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by CaptainAxis

    We agreed on something! I do hope you can also agree, honestly, that Snyder didn't try to be "kewl" with his adaptation. If that were true, many of the details from the book (such as Dan's impotence, Dr. M's philosophical journey, anything involving old-age Sally Jupiter, Moloch, the Minutemen) would have been omitted and contrary to what you've suggested, the fight scenes would have been filmed in handheld shaky-cam which is all the rage. The sex scene would have been "sexier" rather than humorously ironic, and the ending would have been similar to the one in Hayter's screenplay. The fact that general meathead audiences DIDN'T like Watchmen should be proof enough that Snyder wasn't out to make a "kewl" movie designed to appeal to the masses.

  • July 8, 2009, 7:38 p.m. CST

    Violence is a trademark of the super-hero genre

    by blakindigo

    From Alan Moore "…I wanted to hold up a mirror to those power-fantasies and show them as the sordid things that they were…But when you're writing dramatic scenes, to make them dramatic you do the Rorshach finger-breaking sequence, which on one level—yes, it's a more nasty and honest portrayal of violence than a lot of the typical Marvel-DC comics violence where people are punched through walls and there's not a scratch or bruise in sight. It's more honest than that, but at the same time it's also attractive, especially to boys, to think of going into a bar and being able to frighten everybody in there…I would like to be able to say that when I wrote "Watchmen" I was writing Rorschach purely as a wretched, unlikable figure. But in all honesty, I could have made him a lot more unlikable and that would perhaps have served my purposes better—but he wouldn't have been a good comic character. That's the danger of working in that super-hero adventure genre for me."<br><br>These lengthy quotes are from an interview done with The Comics Journal in 1990. My point for using them—is simply that Moore and Gibbons were using the language of the comic book super-hero narrative. Snyder is using the language of super-hero movies and has made the adjustments necessary to visualize them in motion. It seems that people complaining about the 'excessive' violence are, perhaps, missing the point. The juvenile and prurient attraction to visceral comic book fight scenes are part of the lexicon of super-hero comics. Essentially, it's like the money-shot in pornography—a convention that is required by the audience. This same convention is critical to the super-hero movie. Snyder exaggerates this within his 'Watchmen' picture not just for the visceral effect, it's clearly a comment on the super-hero movie, using a similar thematic pov to the original source.

  • July 8, 2009, 7:41 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by blakindigo

    Nice post. Good to see you back in good form and I can see your pov, even if I don't truly agree with most of those points. Well done.

  • July 8, 2009, 7:45 p.m. CST

    Additionally, I think Snyder 'got' the source material

    by blakindigo

    as the above quote I believe demonstrates. I don't think Snyder went too far off the mark—at least not in those instances of fight choreography.

  • July 8, 2009, 8:05 p.m. CST

    how anyone can digest that moore's quote

    by cloudrider`

    and still came to the conclusion that what snyder did in the film is following moore's rationale? <p> moore made a comic book world real, snyder made a live action world cartoonish. the two aesthetics are as different as night and day. and no, adding more gore and blood does not automatically make a scene more realistic. in fact, the bone protruding scene in the film has the opposite effect - it's jarring and feels like something out a silly gorefest, like friday the 13th.

  • July 8, 2009, 8:15 p.m. CST

    you dont even need to read his quotes

    by cloudrider`

    what moore intended can be read loud and clear in the book itself. and what snyder intended can be seen loud and clear in the film itself, despite what he said in interviews.

  • July 8, 2009, 8:22 p.m. CST

    cloudride, the comic book wasn't about the 'real world'

    by blakindigo

    It's a representation of a world that resembles ours, but it's still an adventure story. It is NOT about making the scenes 'realistic,' the comic book is about a world of heroes and the age of the 'super-hero'!

  • July 8, 2009, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Key words cloudrider: power-fantasy; dramatic scenes

    by blakindigo

    honest portrayal. NOT realism.

  • July 8, 2009, 8:51 p.m. CST

    "you dont even need to read his quotes"

    by CaptainAxis

    You are really outdoing yourself on this talkback, cloudrider. Now not only is your interpretation of the Watchmen film the only correct one, but now your interpretation of the book trumps the intentions of the author himself? "Fuck what Moore SAYS he meant, THIS is what he really meant!"<br> <br> Classic shit, man. You just proved why it's pointless to respond to any of your self-centered drivel. You're always right, despite any evidence to the contrary. No need to debate you.

  • July 8, 2009, 9:16 p.m. CST

    you gotta to be kidding me

    by cloudrider`

    moore deconstructed the power fantasy and made the impact real. snyder did the exact opposite when he added matrix like actions. of course it's still a superhero adventure story, but it's one that moore went to great length to anchor in a realistic world. what snyder changed/added, again, betrayed that realism. hyperreal actions belong in spider-man and fantastic four movies, not watchmen. those silly actions are not commentary on anything, they do not deconstruct anything, and they're completely out of synch with the watchmen universe. "not about making the scenes realistic"??? for pete's sake, what is "honest potrayal" if not 'realistic'?

  • July 8, 2009, 9:35 p.m. CST

    CaptainAxis

    by cloudrider`

    it meant in the end the work always speak for itself. <p> listen to dvd commentaries to shitty films made by hack directors. they always speak like they're making worthwhile films. but if the end result is a shitty film, then those words are pretty much worthless, arent they?<p> what moore said in the above quote is exactly what i get from the book anyway. a great artist communicate his intention clearly in his art.

  • July 8, 2009, 10:49 p.m. CST

    You know what else "betrayed Watchmen's realism"?

    by CaptainAxis

    Dr. Manhattan. The genetically engineered alien squid with the cloned brain of a psychic. Bubastis. Flying cars. Two regular people beating up a dozen armed thugs. Catching a bullet barehanded. All nations ceasing hostilities because a dead alien squid killed half of NYC. Average people making a career out of being costumed crimefighters.

  • July 8, 2009, 10:55 p.m. CST

    also...

    by CaptainAxis

    The Owlship. Teleportation. Extraspatial studies. Rorschach's mask. Dodging and deflecting a bullet in the same movement. A clockwork palace on Mars. Karnak in Antarctica. Scientists and artists willingly go missing in order to work on a top-secret "special effect" for a movie.

  • July 9, 2009, 3:56 a.m. CST

    'Watchmen' isn't an adventure book exactly, but

    by blakindigo

    it uses the trappings of an adventure book. It also uses the tropes of detective noir, science fiction and metafiction devices such as interviews and book excerpts. But, essentially, 'Watchmen' is about super-heroes; they may be flawed, confused and filled with the frailties of humanity, but at the end of the day, they are still super-heroes. Is there payment for being a 'professional hero'? What type of health insurance or pension do they get? Are they deputized by the city?<br><br>Again, the 'realism' of 'Watchmen' is relative to the constraints of mainstream super-hero comic books in it's time. Just because it's framework seems more 'honest' (to quote Moore here is shaky ground, I'll admit) does not IMO equal 'realistic.' It seems more accurate to say that Moore and Gibbons were dealing with topical and thematic concerns of the 80's using the language of super-hero comics. That makes compelling fiction, but it still remains fiction, not 'reality'.<br><br>I believe Snyder was attempting to depict fight scenes as stylized moments of choreography to trigger a response similar to the 'wire-fu' fight scenes in 'The Matrix' and 'Blade,' but, then force the audience to question the brutality of the heroes (I'm repeating myself here, but it's for a point). THAT in itself is not simple homage but, to me, suggests something more sophisticated. That takes thought and skillful execution. It may be cool on the surface, until the deeper consequences emerge. In Snyder's world, these 'heroes' SHOULD be outlaws and their vigilante attacks seen as gang violence in designer fabric. Who oversees these people?<br><br>Additional motifs: Snyder quotes 'Batman and Robin' by putting nipples on the costume worn by Ozymandias, a choice that seems informed by the disgust of the fan base and Snyder (for better or worse) grafts those affectations onto the 'villain' of the film, adorning him with the scorn and contempt worthy Viedt's hubris. Subliminal moments like that force me to acknowledge that there is a mind working to present, not a 'realistic' approach, but a reflexive one.<br><br>AsimovLives, I don't know if Snyder is'one of us'(cue the chorus from Brownings 'Freaks') and I don't know if he did this on purpose, but by reversing the idea of 'a more realistic depiction of super-heroes' within a medium that records and captures reality much more successfully than the static imagery of comic books, he internalizes those themes and translates them for the film medium; a medium that is exceptionally adept at dealing with 'reality.' Zack Snyder emphasizes the inherent artifice of the genre and how the comic book cannot be realistic, only more real than it's contemporaries. Seriously, the absurdities inherent in the genre are limitations filmmakers struggle with continuously. I think he succeeded, even if it may be in spite of his limitations as a filmmaker, rather than because of his strengths.<br><br>Even if the sum is less than it's parts, I believe the evidence is onscreen—this film is not just a shiny, art directed surface.<br><br>And once again, AsimovLives, great post. And kudos to you CaptainAxis for your sharp contributions.

  • July 9, 2009, 5:28 a.m. CST

    CaptainAxis

    by cloudrider`

    i've read your rationale before. it's possible to create a story about a blue naked being and still make the world around him feel realistic, just as it's entirely possible to create a story about a giant monster attacking new york and make it feel realistic(cloverfield). <p>by your rationale, since these things do not exist in the OUR real world, then anything goes. that's just as silly as saying 'oh it's okay to have a talking duck in watchmen since it has a blue being anyway, and both are just as unrealistic', 'it's okay for the cloverfield monster to suddenly do breakdancing since giant monster is not realistic anyway.' <p> like i said before, when you're a fanatic you can find justification for anything, even the moronic stuffs.

  • July 9, 2009, 5:40 a.m. CST

    wow. just wow.

    by cloudrider`

    "... THAT in itself is not simple homage but, to me, suggests something more sophisticated. That takes thought and skillful execution. It may be cool on the surface, until the deeper consequences emerge. In Snyder's world, these 'heroes' SHOULD be outlaws and their vigilante attacks seen as gang violence in designer fabric. Who oversees these people?" <p> "in snyder's world"? i thought that was the exact theme moore addressed in the book. but if you think the slo-mo fight has "deeper consequences" and "suggested something deeper" then i guess any silly movie is deep for you.

  • July 9, 2009, 7:11 a.m. CST

    bullet catch

    by cloudrider`

    i've seen the bullet catch scene uttered by few other posters as well to defend the matrix actions. i just have to chime in. the reason the scene doesnt take you out of the story is because while it is impossible, it still looks plausible. it's impossible for your hands to move faster a speeding bullet, but it's PLAUSIBLE that ozy with his cool calm demeanor and his trained reflexes could APPROXIMATE the path of the bullet BEFORE the bullet was fired, and reacted accordingly. even then he doubted he could pull it off. <p> but most important than that, the scene serves a function. the bulletcatch, just like his "i did it 35 minutes ago", just like his notes & letters that precedes the last chapter in the book... all those add up to ozy's legend. it creates the impression that this guy is formidable, makes us feel the good guys are in over their heads. it's always the little things that speak volumes. moore knew this. snyder gave ozy superhuman jump and kungfu skills. talk about lack of subtlety.

  • July 9, 2009, 7:20 a.m. CST

    ditto with bubastis

    by cloudrider`

    she was there in the comic to serve a function. she's there as a reminder that engineering a giant squid is possible within the story's universe. <p> in the movie, bubastis was reduced to just mere decoration because the squid never showed up. her existence served only to baffle audience since she's pretty much useless to the story and never explained. just like the hyperreal fights, she's there just to be there and add nothing but more distractions.

  • July 9, 2009, 7:39 a.m. CST

    sex scene in owlship

    by cloudrider`

    the corny playful nature of the sex scene works in the comic because of how niteowl is potrayed. he is a geek who loves hightech toys and birds. his costume looks geeky, his ship looks geeky, and he acts like a geek around laurie. he's potrayed as a romantic but geeky version of batman. so when that sex scene in archie came along, the tone of the scene fit with the character's theme. <p> in the film, snyder potrayed the character differently. his costume becomes cool, he fights like jason bourne and neo, he gets to punch ozy's face, he gets to screams "NOOOO!!!" like a man, instead of retreating to his inner sanctum like an impotent child. and hence when the sex scene is done with a more playful nature, it sticks out like a sore eye for some people. <p> the above are just a few examples of how snyder got it WRONG. i provided more in the earlier watchmen thread. snyder is more concerned with interpreting the visuals of the book onto the screen than he is with characters and themes. this is blatantly apparent. only a blind or clueless man thinks otherwise.

  • July 9, 2009, 11:43 a.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by CaptainAxis

    "He might kick and scream all he wants about how faithful he was to the comic, and how the movie is also deconstructive of the super-hero comcis and movies, thing is, that's not what's onscreen."<br> <br> Here's the problem with your argument - just because YOU didn't see it (more likely, you didn't want to acknowledge it) doesn't mean it's not there. Otherwise, how do you explain those of us who DID pick up on the subtext of the film? As with most films, I didn't read any interviews with the director until after I saw the movie. It already clicked with me what he was doing, and the interviews I read afterward confirmed it. Other people on this talkback and other message boards picked up on it too. How do you explain that? I had no attachment to Snyder, no reason to "rationalize" my enjoyment of the film. It was pretty clearly on the screen, unless you already had a hate-on against Snyder (which you admitted in the 300 tb) and weren't willing to look at the movie objectively.<br> <br> It's like the people who use the criticism that the movie was confusing to "anyone who didn't read the book," yet my dad and my friends who saw it were not confused and loved the film. Guess what, none of them knew anything about the book. The only conclusion that can be extrapolated from that data is that my friends and my father are smarter and more observant than those who were confused.<br> <br> @cloudrider: Disagree again. Dan is just as geeky in the film, and I do not see how anyone could see it differently. Dan's reaction to seeing Laurie enter the restaurant, the way he acts around her and their scene on the couch... he is absolutely NOT cool. He gets to "punch Ozy's face" but it's completely impotent and accomplishes nothing, which is symbolic of Watchmen's take on superheroes. How is screaming "NOOO!!" acting like a man?! He's powerless, and to relate it to your "impotent child" mixed metaphor, it's like a kid throwing a tantrum because he feels helpless. You are really stretching with your criticisms, or you're just not thinking them through.

  • July 9, 2009, 11:54 a.m. CST

    cloudrider, your talking duck line was HILARIOUS

    by blakindigo

    Funny as hell.<br><br>I think the sex scene is awkward and campy on purpose. Maybe that's just me, but it feels that way.<br><br>The Rorscharch/child killer scene IS a compromise—it would definitely remind audiences of either "Saw" or "Mad Max" and I think the substitution kinda makes sense, even though it's less effective. This is the moment where Rorscharch becomes an executioner. It's the moment that all lines are erased and his black & white worldview is justified. I would have preferred the comics depiction, but I understand the need for the compromise.<br><br>I agree that Bubastis wasn't necessary—but, that didn't take me out of the movie.

  • July 9, 2009, 12:06 p.m. CST

    RE: wow. just wow

    by blakindigo

    Yes that is THE major theme of the book. Wouldn't that prove that Snyder DID understand the main point? You may not of liked the movie but clearly, that does show that he not only comprehended the book, he visually demonstrated it.

  • July 9, 2009, 12:20 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by CaptainAxis

    "In the sceheme of the comic, that's the very point of it, no one man is justice, and those who think they are, are fools who believe in a self-justified illusion."<br> <br> And you don't think that theme was in the movie? Leaving someone with the choice to either saw off their own leg or die in a fire seems pretty fucking cruel and sadistic to me. I would have liked that scene in the movie too, but it would have been seen as a Saw ripoff by modern audiences who have already seen that kind of situation in countless other films.<br> <br> The thing that boggles my mind is that talkbackers are (or were) supposed to be smarter than the average movie-goer, and should thus understand the concept of compromise when it comes to adaptations. Sometimes studios and filmmakers go too far, as in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and they deserve all the venom we spew at them. But in the case of a film like Watchmen, where at least 90% of it is faithful to the source material... I'm not saying you have to love it or even like it, but to lump it in with shit like Michael Bay or even the new Star Trek (I enjoyed it but it's an average film with cool visuals and a personable cast) is unfathomable to me.

  • July 9, 2009, 1:08 p.m. CST

    okay...

    by cloudrider`

    @blakindigo: i agree the sex scene in the film is made corny on purpose, just as it was in the book with archie 'climaxing' to the cloud. but while that tone feels fine in the book, it seems out of place in the film due to the alterations made to the character. <p> @captainAxis: in the book, dan is dan, whether he's in or out of costume. i know that because the costume still reflects his personality. it's a supersilly costume. he thinks putting it on make him cool but it really doesn't. in the film though... he's dan out of costume but turns into batman when in costume. everything about him are suddenly made cool. he even enjoys beating up people the way he nods at silk spectre during the jail break. he relishes the opportunity. that is not dan. that is the comedian. <p> why the changes to the character's traits? does it make the character better, more easily identifiable, more original? no. the changes were made just to make the character cooler. and 'cool' should not be in dan's vocabulary. <p>and yes, a close up of a character screaming "NOOO!" is one of those cliched cool moment. i've seen it in quite a few action films by now. <p>

  • July 9, 2009, 1:38 p.m. CST

    compromise

    by cloudrider`

    i'm all for compromises in adaptations... IF the changes actually make the story better. i accept that certain things have to be tweaked to save the running time, but when snyder assumes he knows better than moore and just change things for the worse, then he deserves the shit thrown his way. <p> if you want to compromise with something like watchmen, you better bring your intelect to the table, not these juvenile stuffs like kungfu and blood and gore.

  • July 9, 2009, 1:46 p.m. CST

    but really...

    by cloudrider`

    cool reading some of your postings. you guys have been civil so far. sorry if i came on too harsh at times. cheers!

  • July 9, 2009, 4:44 p.m. CST

    cloudrider

    by CaptainAxis

    You really don't think Dan enjoys beating up criminals in the book? Maybe I'm forgetting some bit of dialogue where he says that, but I got the impression that he enjoyed his work. Why would he miss being a superhero so much if he abhorred violence as much as you think? Why would he team up with psychopaths like Rorschach or the Comedian? He's not depicted as a sadist in the film or the book, but violence is part of the life he misses. I never saw him as this naive boyscout you interpreted him to be. He doesn't want to put the costume on again because "he thinks it makes him look cool," it's because it makes him feel whole again, like a man. That's why he's impotent as just regular old Dan and why he can only "get it up" after he's put on the costume again. You have a very naive interpretation of Dan, which is fine, but don't blame Snyder because he didn't see it the same as you.<br> <br> Which brings me to my next point - Snyder has been nothing but respectful toward Alan Moore in every interview he's done. Sure, he could be lying and secretly have a burning hatred for the man, but I doubt it. I

  • July 9, 2009, 4:55 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by CaptainAxis

    Your argument is contradicting itself again. The themes of the book are in the film; if you want to make yourself feel better by calling it "osmosis" or whatever, the fact is that they are in the movie, which you repeatedly denied earlier. It didn't just happen by accident. If Snyder was only interested in making a "kewl" superhero movie, he would have stripped away all the layers and just had Dan as an ass-kicking superhero without any problems, and definitely wouldn't have kept him impotent - that's about as far from "kewl" as you can get.

  • July 11, 2009, 4:35 a.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by cloudrider`

    about blade runner, i never read the book so i couldnt make the comparison with the film. from what i understand, yes it did take a whole different approach and did it successfully. snyder on the other hand copied the sourse almost religiously and still he failed. all pretty pictures and no thought.

  • July 11, 2009, 4:54 a.m. CST

    CaptainAxis

    by cloudrider`

    i'm afraid it's you who have a very naive interpretation of dan. it's not suprising since you apparently love snyder's sensibility. <p> dan's idea of a superhero is a romantic one. that's why he built his ship with the shape of an owl. that's why his costume is the silliest looking of the bunch. that's why he still hangs out with the first niteowl. he is nostalgic for old school superheroics. that's why he put on the costume. he's not someone who relishes beating up criminals. that's the comedian. that's rorschach. and dan is not supposed to turn into rorschach when he's in costume - he is rorschach's direct contrast. <p> if you have read dan's written piece on owl, you'll get a much deeper understanding of the character. snyder's interpretation is cliched, all polished surface and no depth. that's snyder in a nutshell. <p> and i have talked about how he stripped the other characters of their nuances as well in another thread, especially rorschach.

  • July 11, 2009, 12:25 p.m. CST

    "dan's idea of a superhero is a romantic one."

    by CaptainAxis

    And you don't think that was portrayed in the film? I don't think he relishes beating up criminals in the same way Rorschach and Comedian do, but beating up criminals is part of those "old school superheroics" he longs for. There's no way he could be a superhero if he abhorred violence; hell, even Hollis Mason still enjoys reminiscing about the left hook that floored Captain Axis. Dan and Laurie also get a good laugh out of the Captain Carnage story, which ends in either death or crippling injuries. Not exactly a concerned reaction. Dan's smirk in the film felt true to the character - it was a bit goofy, and it got across the feeling of "completeness" now that he was the Nite Owl again. I didn't see it as sadistic at all, but he does enjoy his work.<br> <br> Once again, one of Watchmen's core concepts in both the book and the film is that these self-appointed protectors are really no better, psychologically and morally, than the rest of us. That's what separates Watchmen from the traditional superhero books and movies - their motives aren't entirely altruistic, as we are led to believe with Superman, Batman, etc. Dan misses the superhero life and all that comes with it. That doesn't mean he's as bad as Rorschach or Comedian, and I take issue with your comment about Dan "turning into Rorschach" when he dons the Owlsuit because I didn't see any evidence to support that idea. The film showed the differences between them in the riot scenes with Nite Owl and Comedian, and later between Dan and Rorschach when Dan relents and agrees to do things Rorschach's way. How can you keep saying there was "no depth" when Snyder fought to keep these key moments of character development in the movie?

  • July 11, 2009, 2:33 p.m. CST

    Just seen the director's cut—

    by blakindigo

    I'd love to continue this conversation with you guys when you've seen it.

  • July 11, 2009, 4:58 p.m. CST

    Thinking the same thing, blakindigo

    by CaptainAxis

    I haven't seen the director's cut yet, but it's probably best to put this discussion on hold until it's out on the 21st. I don't want anything "spoiled" for me and I refuse to watch it until I have the Blu-ray.

  • July 11, 2009, 10:42 p.m. CST

    dan, again...

    by cloudrider`

    you dont see the evidence or you dont want to see them? didnt dan break that thug's arm until the bone protruded? didnt he smile before he take on the prisoners? didnt he punch ozy's face repeatedly like a maniac? that sounds EXACTLY like what rorschach would do, when given the chance. <p> you really dont see the difference between moore's niteowl and snyder's? just keep track of the changes snyder made in the film for the character. sure, the obvious elements from book are potrayed in the film, but the nuances are diminished. little changes do add up, and the result is a more cliched interpretation of dan than moore created. notice the stark contrast in tone for the fire rescue scene - playful and goofy in the book, badass and dangerous in the film. that in essence is the difference between moore's niteowl and snyner's. the two are not the same, so stop making excuses for snyder by saying they are.

  • July 12, 2009, 11:57 a.m. CST

    Daniel

    by CaptainAxis

    "didnt dan break that thug's arm until the bone protruded?"<br> In the heat of battle against a dozen armed thugs, yes. But if you look at the scene in the book, one of the Knot Tops is laying on the ground with his arm broken in a similar manner, minus the protruding bone. Dan also busts open a Knot Top's nose in the same scene in the book.<br> <br> "didnt he smile before he take on the prisoners?"<br> He smiled at Laurie because he was back doing what he loved. It wasn't sadistic like the Comedian's grin, it was more of an acknowledgment that he was happy to be a superhero again. Not to mention it was shortly after the sex scene in the Owlship, so he had his mojo back. I can't believe you'd try to use that as a criticism.<br> <br> "didnt he punch ozy's face repeatedly like a maniac?"<br> Like a maniac? I don't think so. He felt frustrated and angry and powerless because of what Veidt did, but his "punches" were futile and really had no effect. There's a deeper meaning I explained already - the idea that superheroes are ineffectual. Dan can hit Adrian all he wants, but it won't change anything. It was hardly a "kewl" moment and certainly makes more sense than Dan and Laurie slinking off to fuck in the jacuzzi, as they did in the book. I have a feeling the director's cut will flesh out the characters even more, so I hope you watch it with an open mind.<br> <br> I never said Dan was EXACTLY THE SAME in the book and the movie, but the essence of the character is kept intact. I'm not making excuses for anybody, this is how I saw it so I am explaining it. Just like you've been telling me what you think was wrong. I just don't think the difference between "Movie Dan" and "Book Dan" are as great as you believe.

  • July 12, 2009, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Fire rescue scene

    by CaptainAxis

    Rescuing people from a burning building should have been playful and goofy? I don't remember it portrayed that way in the book at all, until AFTER the people were rescued. It would seem pretty stupid otherwise, since innocent people's lives were at stake.