I will certainly be purchasing it. But will it include the Black Freighter animated story woven into the tale like the GN?

http://tinyurl.com/lgg3dy

the threat HAS to be from beyond.

oh right... this character is supposed to be badass all the way. no room for humor and sympathy for this guy according to snyder. precisely BECAUSE of these little nuances that he feels more human rather than an action hero, and hence why we feel for him at the end.

snyder couldnt even let him be misunderstood by his friends when he chased the midget into the toilet. he has to let the door slide open one more time for us to see what he's doing. the humors and subtleties are completely lost on snyder. please just stick to directing cartoon next time.

I dunno, that's what everyone says when I bitch about things changed/cut out from the last 2 Harry Potter films.

in the film, you get this B grade wannabe superhero punching ozy in the face for payback. it desipates his glory, gives us a release for our anger. it's a copout choice, made just to bring more box office dollars in. supposedly the darker the ending the less money a movie makes. this film is far far from being daring, despite what snyder has claimed.

The film did a much better job showing just how pissed everyone was there at the end. Therefore, his beatdown is justified and is good for the audience as a cathartic release. The world is still screwed. All Snyder did was give the audience *one* teeny weeny victory. That's it.

So I implore directors, get the theatrical release as right as you can please. Don't think that because you can add everything from the cutting-room floor onto the DVD that the theatrical cut is now a "paperback" to the DVD's "hardcover". If anything people buy DVDs because they liked the theatrical release.

Perhaps the theatrical release should be called "abridged" if any book terminology should be used, and the DVD "unabridged". But, much like comparing the latter Harry Potter books to the earlier ones, sometimes editing makes stories better.

i'm not disgusted by the violence in the film. but those new addition are unnecessary, while the gore and violence in the climax is a MUST to feel the complete visceral impact of what ozy had done. this is the climax we're talking about, the whole movie was leading to this one moment. making it bloodless dissipates the impact. replacing it with a hollywood explosion is just boring.

havent we got enough cathactic releases from all the spielberg films to last us a lifetime?

And while that may be the point, it doesn't leave viewers feeling entertained. Its still a depressing ending. The beatdown really doesn't hurt the film, especially as Ozy just takes it and really isn't hurt by it.

But again, its two different mediums. No cathartic release works better in a book than it does in a film.

also, when moore did the violence in the book, he was breaking taboos. what snyder did with the film accomplished no such things. we've seen that kind of violence in countless movies before, and potrayed more realistically. concrete smashing headbutts and bones protruding upon arm twisting is cartoonish. that's not realism.

which is why i said the change was made to rake more box office cash in. it has nothing to do with making the story better.

i know i know, flame away at me, but i really really like most of the comic and the movie, but in the last act when it has to wrap up the main plot, it unravels. To be honest i didnt want it to end, i just wanted to follow Rorsach and NightOwl around and see what trouble they got into.

Ozy taking a beatdown does NOT screw up the adaptation.

Also, like I said, film is a different medium. Audiences need catharsis of some sort, especially after seeing Rorsach die. The beatdown doesn't change anything. Nite Owl is the closest character to the "Everyman" in the film and the one the audience can relate to most. He should be upset his friend just got killed. Without it, its just a dangling plot thread, just as in the book, where an uncaring Dan thinks Rorschach just died in the snow.

when you want to adapt a seminal book like watchmen, it has to be more than just about making money. otherwise why bother, just make a movie about robots fighting each other. cant lose money there.

"did to superhero movies what Moore's Watchmen did to superhero comics in 1986."

You can't just type something like that without specifics to back it up.

That just might be the dumbest assertion I've ever read on a site that has trademarked dumb assertions.

Until there is a movie containing a giant squid, you can't say it would or wouldn't work, unless you were a completely brain-dead jackwit.

Even if there were a movie which contained a giant squid, and said giant squid was an utter, laugh-out-loud, Ed Woodian failure, you still couldn't say "a giant squid would never work in a movie." You could only say THAT giant squid didn't work in THAT movie.

It's like saying you could never end a movie with a forty-story-tall Stay Puft Marshmallow monster because that would be stupid.

To me, director's cut or not, the way the audience first experiences a film, for which ever medium it was originally intended, is the film. That's the movie warts n all. Anything else coming after is just extras - interesting but not final product.

GIANT PIG!!!

An utter pile of shit.

What does make me laugh though, is the sole creative decision made by snyder was changing the ending and that's what's got you fuckers up in arms.

Fuck the squid- that's frigging ridiculous and not in a good way.

PS- I feel that the unfair racism of Hulk not being allowed to free his green unit should end now Doctor Manhatten was able to stride around airing his blue junk.

the ending WAS changed. the point of displaying the monstrosity and countless bloody corpses in gory details in the book is to make us feel the horror in every sense of the word. instead, the reaction we got from snyder's version is 'wow. that's a cool cg explosion'.

the impact is much much lessened. done like the book, that ending splashed across the big screen could linger in your mind for a long long time. it'd be talked about just because it's so out of left field, so unpredicted, so shocking.

the explosion just bored me, left zero impact, and people just chalked it up as just another cg sequence.

Don't really know why I mentioned that but it has to be said you just can't please everyone. I know a guy who will never forgive Peter Jackson for not including the scouring of the Shire in Return Of The King as he feels it changes the entire meaning of the story. I kinda see what he means, but to say the movie is then worthless is a little too harsh to be taken seriously don't ya think?

going to get the 2 films i most want to see in 2009 out of the way in the same week.

Apparently you've never had an erection before... I'm sure as soon as your balls drop your chances will increase significantly.

To be fair to Snyder, even as a life long comic fan who bought WATCHMEN issue by issue in the mid 80s (when being a comic fan was even geekier than it is now), the property was probably never all the cinematic. Deconstruction just doesn't work unless what's being deconstruction already dominates the medium. There's lots of superhero movies, but not enough to decontstruct them in movies. Satire, yes (BLAZING SADDLES was a great satire but still a traditional western at heart)but not deconstruction.

It's as big a waste of everyones time as the Van Sant/Psycho debacle.

trick question--which is the better film--STAR TREK or WATCHMEN...i was blown away by both...probaly have to say Watchmen though..

BTW this isnt like seeing "the extremem unrated edition" with 2 seconds of shock footage..this is more along the lines of lord of the rings where it actually will expand on the story and universe. stop whining.

New Trek was just a thrill ride with a very likable ensemble. And it earned my respect with some very poignant moments, which elevates it for me.

The Watchmen, though, blew me away completely. I'd never read the graphic novel. I was enthralled by it. It was beautiful to behold, and I was riveted with how the story was unfolding. I don't understand why Zack Snyder catches so much shit. That just baffles me. He is truly a master of the craft in every detail, from dialogue, acting, and of course the gorgeous visuals.

I would say I 'enjoyed' New Trek more, but I regard Watchmen with a far higher degree of respect.

I'll wait for the complete cut, thanks. I'm disappointed to not be getting Watchmen in a couple of weeks, but it's the black freighter edit that I have been waiting for.

As for Star Trek, I enjoyed the film when I saw it, but it has been diminishing as I've thought about it.

Sir, we've come back in time. We can rescue Romulus from its terrible fate!

NOOOOOO!!!! We'll wait here for Spock!

But...we don't even know if he's here. Why don't we wait a little while and if he doesn't show up, we'll go save Romulus?

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! We'll wait for as long as we need to!

Well...I don't know...can we go hang out somewhere? You know? Get some drinks...some R&R? Maybe see Romulus, our home, once again?

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!! We will wait in the middle of nowhere FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES!

Umm...ok.

"Sneak a peek" was coined on seinfeld??????? Are you sure?

Maybe it was the first time you'd heard it (if so, maybe you should get out a bit more), but it's one of the oldest English terms still in use today.

As for Watchmen, have they already released a DVD of the theatrical cut? I didn't care for it that much, so I wasn't paying attention.

If they haven't, will it be included with the Director's cut? I mean, what if someone out there liked the theatrical version?

watch part 2 of reunion tonight..

Perhaps my friend's point was that Tolkien meant to say that in war everything is affected even if it's not directly involved, while in the movie this message was lost. It's a good point I think, but I still the movies are incredible cinematic achievements, so I can't dismiss them like he can. Watchmen also has some good cinema in it. I wonder why people feel the need to say it's completely crap when there is enough actual complete crap out there.

"but Snyder showed how ridiculous superheroes would be if they were real, just like Moore did."

You obviously saw a different movie.

Snyder fetishized superheroes. He slo-mo'ed the violence to make it look "cool." (say, DAREDEVIL) He made the costumes plastic so they would shimmer. (say, BATMAN & ROBIN) He focused on the romantic aspects of the story at the expense of the tone. (say, SPIDER-MAN 3) He played it close-up and sparkly and even glamorized it when it was ugly. He deconstructed nothing about superhero movies. His film, love it or loathe it, contains every single superhero movie cliche that THE DARK KNIGHT, love it or loathe it, avoided.

If you had said TDK is to superhero movies as Moore's WATCHMEN was to comic books, you'd've said something that was true (and has already been said a million times(.

But, you didn't say that. You said something indefensibly dumb and then you tried to clarify your point with flawed logic.

Everyone else-You don't get to dictate how I feel about a movie. It seems like most of you missed the point, anyway. So eff off. July 21st cannot get here soon enough.

Because your eyes and your brain don't work right.

WATCHMEN, the film, was a giant disappointment to many and a huge success to some. And to some, its existence is simply further evidence of a society with its head up its ass.

But, we've all had this discussion. It's over.

Only a fucktard would think 3 more hours of shit would improve it.

i see what you are trying to say but really, does it need to be said? Snyder "meant" that first a book comes out in hardback and people are happy about it who want to read it right away...then the paperback comes out and that is usually people who dont want to pay a lot for a book and might want to read it. he sais this was the opposite of that. meaning--the theatrical version is something people wanted to see right away. the "hardcover" version is for the fans who want it all.

somethimes you have to read between the lines.

But, we weren't exactly arguing that, were we? We were discussing the "deconstruction" of the superhero movie.

The superhero movie isn't about believability or realism (Realistic superheroes? THAT'S a joke!) it's about costumes and glowing clouds of vague threatening computer-generated doom which some brave so-and-so-or-sos must save the world from.

Works as a synopsis of WATCHMEN. Not so much as a synopsis of TDK.

Stay on topic, champ.

and they will all be good.

Either way, Zack's metaphor is as tortured as my sense after seeing any of his films.

At least that's what I think it means.

Now, you tell me where Zack Snyder challenged any of the traditional superhero movie tropes. Tropes, in this case, being the visual characteristics of any other superhero movie. On the other hand, aside from the ridiculous new bat suit, Nolan avoided most of the same visuals.

Now, as to the other thing that is bothering you. One can dislike TDK while at the same time acknowledging that it is more of a deconstruction of the superhero movie-type than WATCHMEN.

It's similar to the notion that one can admit that red is a color but wouldn't wear a shirt that was red.

What I got from the movie was an empty exercise in playing dress-up. I respect that you disagree, but I insist Snyder got none of the cynical, paranoid tone onto the screen. He substituted, instead, bland parodies of "Nightline" and "The McLaughlin Group (really??!?)" while mis-appropriating some visuals from Kubrick.

That is my exact understanding of "puerile bastardization."

It is "could have" or "should have."

Not "could of."

I make grammatical errors, too. If it makes you feel better, The J. Geil's Band actually titled one of their songs "Must Of Got Lost."

Those dumbasses.

You have read the comic, right? Moore has flashes to Mason's past within the murder scene. But I'm sure the film version is just as gratuitously gory and graphic as the rest of the movie.

Even after I was nice enough to define it for you, you still want to insist on your point.

You are arguing plot points which were part of the source material. Those do not belong to Zack Snyder to claim as his own. he was, after all, making a film of WATCHMEN, not of INCREDIBLE HULK.

His movie shies away from sex and violence by making it all slo-moey, sparkly COOL. Sex doesn't come with cinematography and an inappropriate soundtrack choice (unless you have no Marvin gaye cds and have to settle for Barry White, or something). Violence does not come with kung fu poses and slow motion.

Look, let's agree to terms.

I understand that you really like WATCHMEN, the movie. You understand that I don't. We can still hang out and drink a beer together. Mine will be something expensive and hoppy-tasting. Yours might be PBR Lite, but I promise not to point at you and make the waitress laugh.

You cannot claim Snyder deconstructed anything, when he didn't.

That's all.

Peace.

Oh Christ, they're not.

You're now applying a level of satirical sophistication to Zack Snyder for which there is absolutely no film evidence.

Man, you must have an entirely different way of seeing things than I.

Rain check on that beer, ok, man? I think all we'd end up doing is arguing, and you'd end up throwing PBR Lite all over my nice, clean red shirt.

The pacing's fucked- to begin with. It's hackneyed shit (The music is especially guilty of this), the ending is absolutely incomprehensible (the squid would have been worse) and exposition filled garbage. The acting, especially goode- but with the exception of haley, was dreadfully wooden.

It was just garbage fetishism.

Now, if you compare it to the overrated funnybook, it gets even worse, because it isn't an adaptation (with the exception of the end), all it is, is just moore's work literally vomited across the screen with nary a thought for how it would work in a different medium.

Sadly, it is one of the better films of 2009, but look at the competition. It's like winning gold in the special olympics.

TO be absolutely fair, if you are either a massive fan of the comic, or totally ignorant of the comic then I'd imagine it's quite good. If you're like me and read it once, but it didn't really do anything for you, then the film is indefensibly boring.

besides, Snyder is as old as I am. He ought to know that "The McLaughlin Group" and its style of argument-journalism wasn't prevalent until the Clinton Administration.

It's one thing to say he missed it. it's another to say he got it wrong.

Plus, the superheroes of WATCHMEN, the movie, are not the schlubby, impotent heroes of the comic. They are always larger-than-life, even when they are pouting.

It isn't impossible for film to capture the nuances of literature. I've seen too many Kurosawa films to ever say that.

I can only say, from my individual point of view, this film-maker didn't deliver any of the nuances I expected from this source. I will not say that any other film-maker couldn't have done better.

I see, it's deconstructivist because it has gore in it?

You've stretched so far you can throw that PBR at me from across the room while using your other hand to tickle the waitress in the bar next door.

HOwever, it should never have been in the film. It was the cherry on top of the embarrassment pie of that scene.

It was effective in the book, I'll admit, but juvenile and asinine if you've just sat through an eternity of poorly simulated sex to a cliched soundtrack.

Whatever. You've shamed me.

Now, I leave you to the last word.

Come on.

You know you want to.

Hit me with your brains, smart-stuff.

I admire the fact that Snyder wanted to stay as true as possible to the novel because not too many comic adaptions do that. Changes did and always will have to be made when you adapt comics to the big screen. From what my buddy (who saw the film with me) told me, the changes they made were well done and even though he liked the original squid ending better, he thought the new ending serviced the film fine. I will definitely see the directors cut, I am interested to see if it makes the movie better or worse.

i remember when i was young i thought Dark Knight Returns was the best (comic) book id read until my friend dropped watchmen in front of me..the film was very faithful to the look, the tone, everything. it was like a live action comic book.

Don't let people on here get to you, the one's who think that their opinion is the definitive one are the ones who probably live at home and have nothing better to do but to feel superior in the eyes of total strangers....it's kinda sad when you think about it, the need to feel superior among people you have never met and probably never will.

I wouldn't know how sad it is to live alone with nothing better to do, though. So, maybe he's absolutely right.

Either way...pot, kettle just called you the n-word.

First off, I said "dont let PEOPLE on here get to you" I never mentioned your name did I? I was generalizing. I also said "are the ones who PROBABLY live at home" Never said anyone in particular lied at home. So why take it as a reference to you when I never mentioned you?

Without decent performances, one cannot make a film that's much good.

When will anyone learn that we all have different opinions and while we may agree with the opinions of others, we should, at the very least, respect the fact that we are individuals with opinions of our own. No one opinion is better or more correct than a another, and those who think that they have the definitive opinion and all other's opinions are shit are just sad people with the need to feel superior. The need to insult someone just because they like something you don't is childish and stupid, period.

Kidding. But it's nice to see unanimity of niceness.

So basically what I am saying is people need to stop this childish need to criticize someone for "butchering" the English language when people are doing their best to communicate with us even though it is not their first language. Jeez isn't there enough childish banter on these TB's already? We sure don't need more.

But, I stand by the idea that people who come here to complain about people who complain about people complaining are black kettles. And have no right to point at ebony pots and say, "pooh-pooh"

Coming in to a Talkback and typing "I love Zack Snyder, so blow me, you queer" is pointless. But, coming in and typing "Zack Snyder is a queer, so blow me" is discussing the merits of his film-making.

Can't you see that?

Just don't mix metaphors. Ever.

Second graders won't understand.

I think it's made clear that the characters consider themselves damned lucky not to have been seriously injured or killed during their adventures. Let's not forget, also, that Dollar Bill was shot, The Silhouette was brutally murdered and The Comedian was nearly stabbed to death.

Fine I can deal with it being in, if there hadn't been the excrutiating shagging first.

Or alternatively show the shagging and not the juvenile and asinine flame spurt.

One or the other, not both.

That's what I mean about a translation as opposed to an adaptation.

Skip the DVD as well. I would.

i believe snyder has stated that he uses the slo-mo to emphasize the coolness of the scene (or panel of book). if you want to get technical, all comic books are really still frames to show the action. basically snyder was slowing it down.

and who really knows waht happened way back when anyway, history is written by the winners and passed on as legend. which is what they were doing in the film--a soldier was telling the legend of king leonidas to incite his men to stand up and fight harder than theyve ever fought before.

if yu take it from this point of view, does it really matter if its true or not..

i take more offense to Patch Adams, based on true events, than 300.

Superheroes are stupid. Get it?