Watchmen (2009) *Beware : Spoilers are now rampant!*

[Jimmy]

New pictures have been released from Zach Snyder's adaptation of Alan Moore & Dave Gibbons "Watchmen" film being released in 2009. For you Watchmen fans out there, you WILL recognize the locations in the pics, as well as the semi-blurred appearance of one of the main characters.

http://images.comicbookresources.com/reel/watchmen/watch-1317_select.jpg

http://images.comicbookresources.com/reel/watchmen/WMD-21550_select.jpg

http://images.comicbookresources.com/reel/watchmen/WMD-22669_select.jpg

http://images.comicbookresources.com/reel/watchmen/WMD-22648_select.jpg

I am VERY happy to have seen these. Snyder's attention to detail only makes me know that this movie will be amazing.

[fernandito]

Rorschach. :wub:

[fernandito]

I can't wait to see what the Night Owl looks like.

[Jimmy]

This picture is from the official Watchmen movie site. If you look behind Zach Snyder you will see a blurry shot of the entire cast in costume.

http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/Watchmen-nov2b.jpg

It's the best we can do for right now.

[Spencer]

VERY cool pics! I hope they do Moore's masterpiece justice.

[fernandito]

Thanks for the pics Jimbo!

[Jimmy]

Thanks for looking at them. Laura can only take so many of my geekfest "Ohmygodohmygodohmygod" comic book moments before she snaps and kills me.

[fernandito]

The two books I'm currently reading will be put on hold; I think it's time for a Watchmen re-read. :D

[Aaron]

Oh, awesome. I am just under halfway through the book now and absolutely loving it. This will make a great movie.

I hope.

:shoot:

[fernandito]

I think this will be an amazing movie; Snyder's attention to detail and love of comics will make sure of that.

[fernandito]

Who will sue the Watchmen?


http://movies.ign.com/articles/851/851384p1.html

[Aaron]

We are reading Watchmen for my comics class and someone posted this. Pretty cool, I think. I hope the legalities get ironed out.

http://www.watchmen-the-movie.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/watchmen_comp_big.jpg

[Scoogs]

From scifi.com

Butler Voices Watchmen's Freighter

Gerard Butler confirmed to Empire Magazine that he will lend his voice to Tales of the Black Freighter, the comic-within-a-movie that is part of Watchmen, the superhero film being directed by Butler's 300 helmer Zack Snyder.

The Scottish actor had been linked with a role in Watchmen for a long time, but when nothing materialized, it seemed likely that he wouldn't appear in the highly anticipated film, based on the seminal graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons.

But Snyder hatched plans to film Tales of the Black Freighter, which tells the tale of a castaway's mental and physical deterioration and damnation as he tries to intercept a ghost freighter headed for his hometown, and include it on the Watchmen DVD as an extra. Butler's name surfaced once more.

"I'm going to do the voice of the captain," Butler told the magazine. "They're going to do it in the style of a Japanese anime, and I'm totally stoked. I actually read the script before reading the comic book, and I thought it was awesome. Then I read the comic book, and it's great. The little bits that have been added define it so much more. It's very dark, and there's just something so descriptive and scary. It's this descent into madness but explained in such a sane way that you totally feel it yourself. By the end, my heart was pumping!" Watchmen is slated to open March 6, 2009.

[CyberGhostface]

Personally, I think Swank and Perlman look more the part for their respective roles, and while I can't judge Swank's acting ability I think Perlman would have done a kickass job. Although I figure with makeup (just look at Sin City) anyone can look like anyone.

Robin Williams as Rorscach, though...pretty hard to see, although he has been doing some creepy roles. The current guy looks suitably freaky though.

[fernandito]

:)


http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/5166/watchmen200802200625520mt9.jpg

[Scoogs]

Snyder posted photos of some of the main characters on his production blog today.

http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/

[Seymour_Glass]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5e/NIteOwlliveaction.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/Img_watchmen_0603_5.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/Ozymandiasliveaction.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/SilkSpectreliveaction.jpg

[Old Man Splitfoot]

I think they guy they're getting to play Rorschach looks perfect. If his voice is gravely and creepy, he'll do great. I'm not to down with Nite Owl's costume, but I'm not going to bitch about it . . . I'll leave that the geeks on the Newsarama forums. Can't wait for this movie.

[fernandito]

My only gripe is the guy playing Ozymandias, isn't he a little too....young?

[Jimmy]

My only gripe is the guy playing Ozymandias, isn't he a little too....young?

I'm more worried about that uniform, blegh.

The only ones I'm happy with are Kovacs, Sally and Blake. Even though Blake looks like a tool with the fake looking white hair.

[Jimmy]

This was released today, and it is my new desktop background. There are no words to describe my happiness. :excited: :clap: :nana: :scared: :dance:

http://i32.tinypic.com/2gx06ki.jpg

[fernandito]

And now it's my cell phones new wallpaper! :lol:

I have blind faith in Snyder - I just know he's going to make this as amazing as possible.

[Jimmy]

The way this is gearing up, Snyder's going to get himself a few Oscars, and it's really going to raise the bar for other adapted films.

[Jimmy]

And The NY Times is reporting that 5 days after Watchmen is released, 2 DVD's will hit the shelves. "Tales of the Black Freighter." which will be animated and the lead voiced by Gerard Butler, and "Under the Hood." The article doesn't provide details about 'Under the Hood' other than to say it's been done documentary style. It draws on the back-page material of the comics, which presented the autobiography of the original Nite-Owl and will feature several segments.

Snyder also admitted that Watchmen will clock in at almost 3 hours long.

[Seymour_Glass]

I'm excited. The trailer was good, and Watchmen was amazing. You should try rereading it.

[Yaksha]

Watchmen sits at the top of my comic collection. I am very excited to see the movie. i am shaking i am so excited

[Rjeso]

The trailer is gorgeous. I haven't read much of Watchmen (yet), but I've read enough to recognize characters.

[fernandito]

I saw this trailer yesterday when I went to go see TDK. 'Psyched' doesn't even begin to cover it! :D

Chris - I'm going to merge this thread with another Watchmen thread that had already been started (it has set stills and stuff) so that we can have one gigantic Watchmen thread in anticipation for the movie.

[Seymour_Glass]

Gigantic threads are fun but intimidating.
Zach Snyder pretty much captured the visuals.

[bluelph24]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4blSrZvPhU

[fernandito]

If I had a penny for everytime I've seen the trailer, I'd have $2. :)

[Spencer]

There is no "THE" in Watchmen.

Just saying. :lol:

Trailer looked awesome, especially Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan. Hopefully, we'll finally have a movie that does Mr. Moore's work justice.

Ironically enough, does anyone agree that The Dark Knight is the movie that does Mr. Moore's work the most justice so far, even though it's not an adaption of a story of his?

[fernandito]

There is no "THE" in Watchmen.


:doh:

Sorry, I got stuck on the whole Who Watches The Watchmen thing. I'll change it.





Ironically enough, does anyone agree that The Dark Knight is the movie that does Mr. Moore's work the most justice so far, even though it's not an adaption of a story of his?

Agreed - and we should credit a large part of that to the late Mr. Ledger.

[Rjeso]

Okay, so I finished Watchmen and now i know why you all are so excited by this. It's luuuurvely.

[fernandito]

Who was your favorite character, Laura?

[Erin]

So how do you guys pronounce "Rorschach"?

I've heard people say "roar-shock" and "roar-shack".

[fernandito]

Roar-shack

[Aaron]

Both Hannah and I got all crazy excited when the preview came on when we saw TDK. The visuals look awesome, especially the Mars fortress sequence. It made me think of the first Superman movie, only better.

[Unfound One]

"Roar-shock" for me.
And he's my favorite character.
What a badass. :wub:

[RUBE]

I just finished reading Watchmen and it was awesome. I can't wait for the movie. I just hope this Fox lawsuit thing doesn't screw it up or delay it. Also, on a Dark Tower related note, I thought it was kind of cool that a person talked about in the book (but never actually seen) had the name Robert Deschaines.

[Gileadean Knight]

Well I havn't read any of the comics so I'm not a watchmen fan by any means but the trailer blew me away. I just kept thinking "wow, they have finally got it right with turning comics into live action films" Stuff like the fantastic four, spider-man (especially) or even x-men in some respects, wasn't sitting to well with me and the best stuff to date, by far, is Batman Begins and the Dark Knight. So it was a combination of the dark and visceral feeling that permeated throughout, the stylized filming such as the slow motion that snyder implemented, the chilling line at the end of the trailer and the fact that they played a cool smashing pumpkins song since I am a huge pumpkins fan that impacted me so profoundly with the teaser-trailer.

[Unfound One]

Yeeeaaaaaaah Boooooiiiiii!!!!

I'm pumped for the movie.
Oh, and you sbould probably read Watchmen. It kicks major ass. :thumbsup:

[fernandito]

I got to see the trailer on the big screen yesterday, again. :D

[Rjeso]

So how do you guys pronounce "Rorschach"?

I've heard people say "roar-shock" and "roar-shack".

Roar-shack, because that's how it's pronounced when regarding the actual Rorschach blots.

[RUBE]

I am really pumped about this movie even though I just read the graphic novel for the first time.

For those of you that may not know, it is the only graphic novel on Time's 100 greatest novels list.

Apparently the novel gets enough respect that a professor is using it for his/her introduction to literature class here. I noticed that we were selling them for the class and that is part of what inspired me to read it. (That and the kick-ass trailer.)

[Harrald]

I am hoping that the same thing that happened after I finished reading the book happens again.


I sat for 10 minutes with my mouth hanging open and just stared into space in disbelief.

[Unfound One]

Sooooo you may have all seen these, but I'm gonna post 'em just in case.
(Plus I just wanted to bring this thread back... :D)

http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m367/movie_picture/watchmen-1.jpg

http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m367/movie_picture/watchmen-2.jpg

http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m367/movie_picture/watchmen-3.jpg

http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m367/movie_picture/watchmen-4.jpg

http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m367/movie_picture/watchmen-5.jpg

http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m367/movie_picture/watchmen-6.jpg

[RUBE]

New pictures have been released from Zach Snyder's adaptation of Alan Moore & Dave Gibbons "Watchmen" film being released in 2009. For you Watchmen fans out there, you WILL recognize the locations in the pics, as well as the semi-blurred appearance of one of the main characters.

http://images.comicbookresources.com/reel/watchmen/watch-1317_select.jpg

http://images.comicbookresources.com/reel/watchmen/WMD-21550_select.jpg

http://images.comicbookresources.com/reel/watchmen/WMD-22669_select.jpg

http://images.comicbookresources.com/reel/watchmen/WMD-22648_select.jpg

I am VERY happy to have seen these. Snyder's attention to detail only makes me know that this movie will be amazing.

One little thing that bothers me about these pictures is that the cars do not appear electric and the plugin that the cars use to charge is not next to the newsstand. I wonder if they are going to avoid that part just so they do not have to get a buch of special vehicles.

[fernandito]

The new Watchmen trailer -

http://movies.ign.com/dor/objects/34260/watchmen/videos/watchmen_trlr_111408.html


[nerdgasm]

[Unfound One]

...loading...loading...loading...

[Unfound One]

:excited::excited::excited::excited::excited:

[fernandito]

I was a little iffy on the music at first, but as the trailer went on I realized that it complimented the tone perfectly :D

[Unfound One]

I love the music! The second half is Muse. :)

I don't know how I feel about Jon now that I hear his voice...
I guess I imagined him speaking slower and more, I don't know... robotic? With less feeling?
I dunno. I did however like this part....

LEAVE ME ALONE!!!

Badass.

[Harrald]

This trailer was OK, but I like the first one better.

I really hope the general public understands this movie.

[Seymour_Glass]

The only problem I have is with Rorschach's voice. The Batman growl was kind of hard to swallow in Batman, and it doesn't fit Rorschach at all. He's supposed to be deadpan and monotonal.

[fernandito]

Personally, I pictured Rorschach with a bat-growl like voice while I read the comics.

[fernandito]

Director Discusses Watchmen Squid
Zack Snyder on Alan Moore, Dr. Manhattan's penis and that controversial ending.
by Orlando Parfitt, IGN UK

UK, November 14, 2008 - The UK press were invited to a screening of 30 minutes of footage from Watchmen this morning. The scenes were saw were the same ones spied by US journos last month, so for a full breakdown of what we saw read IGN's account here. Suffice to say, it looks stunning.

Afterwards Zack Snyder - who introduced the footage - was on hand to answer questions from the assembled hacks, along with Watchmen artist Dave Gibbons. Here's what they had to say.

Were you disappointed that Alan Moore didn't want to be involved?

Zack Snyder: Alan asked if his name could be removed from the film and not to be mentioned at all in relation to it. Although I was disappointed, I still wanted to respect his wishes anyway. He's someone who doesn't want to be contacted and I have to respect that.

Dave Gibbons: The thing is we know Alan has had bad experiences working with Hollywood previously. So by not getting involved at all he is taking a stand. It is a shame however, because I've had such a great experience working on this project and he has missed out on that.

The big question: What have you got against the squid?!

ZS: I had a bad calamari experience as a child! Look I've got nothing against the squid. When I sat down with the studio and talked about the film, we had to make a decision about what stuff we included and what stuff we wouldn't. For me Watchmen is all about the characters, whereas if we included the squid, I would have to illustrate it in the story and cut out some of the character. So I wanted more character and less story.

So we came up with something else - no-one knows yet what we've done but we hope it's similar in philosophy to the ending of the graphic novel. I mean the end is all about taking a superhero all the way - you know it's the bad guy who is the one who wants world peace. It's a moral dilemma for all the characters involved.

DG: The tone of the graphic novel - the message, the moral ambiguity - has still been left intact. Also it's not a squid; it's a fifth dimensional phalymapod!

How long will the movie be?

ZS: Our theatrical cut is around two-and-a-half hours. On the DVD there will probably be a three-hour cut, and a version with the 'Black Freighter' stuff [the Pirate comic running simultaneously through the plot of Wachmen] that is around three-and-a-half hours long. We'll also have the 'Under the Hood' mock documentary which we've shot. Which is supposedly shot in 1985 and about a TV show from 1972, and it has interviews with all the Watchmen, and has the comedian telling them to f**k off and so on. It's cool.

Will there or has there been pressure on you to cut out some of the sex and violence to make it a PG-13?

ZS: There probably will be more, but I think that, you know, you can't not show Dr. Manhattans' penis! It looks really weird to me having it blurred out in the trailer.

Did you have any other battles with the studio?

ZS: I did about including certain elements, but you know I don't want to be a dick about it and say like "Oh I don't care if no-body sees my art movie!" Obviously I want lots of people to see it, but I also want the audience to have the authentic Watchmen experience, because in the end the stuff I fought to leave in helps the movie and makes it better.

[Hannah]

You certainly can't leave out Doc Manhattan's penis. What kind of Watchmen would it be without it?

[Matt]

No kind of Watchmen I know.

[Hannah]

:lol:

I'd boycott the film if Doc Manhattan's penis was excluded. I mean, that's really the only reason I'm going to see it. Gotta get me some of that action.

[Still Servant]

You heard it hear first, (well, maybe not) Watchmen will be a box office disappointment.

I have nothing to base this on. I've never read the comics and I know nothing about the film other than the original trailer.

I just think that as the first big superhero film released since The Dark Knight, it's going to have a hard time living up to that.

Judging by the trailer, I'm not sure the general public is going to "get" the film. That could be a disaster.

Another thing Watchmen lacks that other superhero films have is a brand name cast. I'm not saying you need big names to make a good movie, I just think it helps bring people to the theater when there are faces that they recognize.

[fernandito]

Watchmen is going to be one of the biggest movies of 2009! Mark my words!

[Harrald]

I have to disagree with this. The critics will not understand it but will review it favorably because of the respect the GN has been given over the years. The general public will walk out completely confused and dislike it because the subject matter will be alien to them.

This isn't a Superhero movie. It's a character study dressed up as a superhero movie. I think about half way through the film folks will be getting bored and by the end they'll be upset because they don't understand it and instead of admitting that it was over their head they'll just bash it as a "Stupid" movie.

The GN set up what was happening very well and you had time to digest the story. The majority of "movie" goers couldn't sit and read a short story let alone an entire full length GN. The people on this web site are readers. Most folks read just the headlines from the local tabloid and call it a day.

I hope the movie does well and that I'm completely wrong but I think most of the people I work with and know will look at my like I have two heads after this movie comes out.



Watchmen is going to be one of the biggest movies of 2009! Mark my words!

[Hannah]

I hope that a lot of the people who go have read the graphic novel and will therefore base their expectations and understanding of the movie on that.

And I tend to give the general public more credit than just "they won't understand it." I think it won't be huge, but I think it will still do well.

[Brice]

Just think Hannah the general public is the people you work with. :lol:

[Hannah]

Ew! Gross.

(thanks for the reminder, Brice. :lol: )

[Brice]

No problem! :rofl:

[fernandito]

Harrald - I don't think you're giving the audience, or Snyder for that matter, due credit. I have several friends whom haven't read the book that are really psyched for the movie, and I think that many people will go see it simply because it's Snyder whose at the helm, knowing how well he did with his previous comic adaptation, 300.

I'm convinced that this movie will be a major critical and commercial success, but we'll see.

[Harrald]

I guess I'm just cynical because I work in TV and see the dumbing down of what we do.


Like I said......I hope I'm wrong and it gets the reception it deserves.

[fernandito]

Now that we can both agree on!

Damn, this movie is going to kick so much ass! :excited:

With that said - how do you feel about the possible exclusion of the squid, Harrald?

[Harrald]

I'm not thrilled about it. But I can understand why they would change it to a bomb. That would be a bit more accessible to the general public. A giant squid would cause laughter from the audience.

[Seymour_Glass]

I actually think it was a good decision. Damn, I was gonna come in here and tell you about my mixed feelings, but after reading the interview they've diminished considerably.

[fernandito]

My friend works for a company that distributes movie posters throughout L.A, and he was able to get me a sweet poster of Rorschach walking down the street, with his 'I've seen this city's true face' quote above him. It's awesome.

I'll post a picture of it later when I pin it up on my wall :)

[Rjeso]

:totallyjealous:

[Aaron]

I think they can still make it work without the squid, but in order for the message to work the "bomb"--which is what it appears to be from the trailer--needs to still come from some type of extraterrestial force. Otherwise it would spark war rather than prevent it. As long as they stick to that premise I think it's going to be fine.

[Unfound One]

I think they can still make it work without the squid, but in order for the message to work the "bomb"--which is what it appears to be from the trailer--needs to still come from some type of extraterrestial force. Otherwise it would spark war rather than prevent it. As long as they stick to that premise I think it's going to be fine.

Well said. And my thoughts exactly.

[Rjeso]

We're almost in the correct year for Watchmen... it's so close. Gonna have to reread one more time before the movie comes out. Oh, darn. :D

[Unfound One]

Yeah... It's only three months away.

Whoa. :excited:

[Spencer]

I think they can still make it work without the squid, but in order for the message to work the "bomb"--which is what it appears to be from the trailer--needs to still come from some type of extraterrestial force. Otherwise it would spark war rather than prevent it. As long as they stick to that premise I think it's going to be fine.

The problem is, they don't seem to be sticking to that premise. If what's in the spoiler tags here is true, it's a MAJOR spoiler, fair warning.
I've read multiple sources that say there's some crappy "timely and topical alternative energy sources" subplot that results in Ozy making a machine to provide some of that alternative energy, but what he's REALLY doing is building a machine that will blow up shit and fry people, (like Rorschach was, do you see where I'm going with this?), and that the "energy signature" of this machine is a duplicate of the one eminated by Dr. Manhattan. <_< Now, we've seen Doc kicking ass in Vietnam in the trailer, and it's well known to the world that he's a weapon OF THE UNITED STATES. How in the hell that's gonna translate to a threat that people want to unite against instead of just getting pissed at the U.S. is beyond me.

[Spencer]

and here's the ominous quote from the director himself:
""I won't say exactly but... Dr. Manhattan has a certain energy signature, it's clearly his thing...so you know."

[fernandito]

Do you have a link to the article, Spence?

[Spencer]

I'll find it and link ya. :D

[Spencer]

Here it is:
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/081107k.php

[Aaron]

Perhaps rather than people uniting against aliens

they are uniting against Dr. Manhattan as the common threat?

[Spencer]

Maybe, but again, I don't see how that's workable since he's an agent of the US and should be seen to be on their side. However, I have heard some rumblings that there's a giant voice that tells everyone to "Stop dropping bombs on each other or I'll kill everyone in the world." or something to that effect, simply scaring humanity into peace, but, again, the logic seems flawed. I'm not hopeful that the ending will be awesome, but I'm definitely INTERESTED to see exactly what it is. :lol: The rest of the movie leading up to antarctica is said to be amazing, and I love the trailers.

Speaking of trailers, take a look at the 53 second mark, and, oh looky, it's BLUE.
YouTube - Watchmen Quantum of Solace Trailer EXCLUSIVE!!!!

[Aaron]

But he wouldnt be seen as being on America's side if he attacked New York...

It would something of a Dark Knight ending. Sacrificing his own image for the greater good and all. No?

[Spencer]

If the thing I've heard about the voice is true, then yes. It's actually Ozy making the threat, but maybe Manhattan allows people to think it really was him and leaves like in the novel.In a previous script that they apparently retained elements from, something similar happens, but Manhattan isn't framed, just an ominous threat from the nether realm for folks to stop killing each other.

[fernandito]

Fox Wins Watchmen Ruling
Judge decides studio owns distribution rights.
by Jim Vejvoda

December 25, 2008 - Warner Bros. must be having a very blue Christmas.

Variety reports that a federal judge in Los Angeles has ruled that 20th Century Fox has the right to distribute Watchmen, thrusting Warners' plan for a March 2009 release of the Zack Snyder-directed comic book movie into doubt.

The paper quoted the ruling as declaring "Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the 'Watchmen' motion picture."

A more detailed ruling is reportedly expected soon.

[Unfound One]

There was a preview for Watchmen before The Dark Knight last night. :excited:

[RUBE]

Fox Wins Watchmen Ruling
Judge decides studio owns distribution rights.
by Jim Vejvoda

December 25, 2008 - Warner Bros. must be having a very blue Christmas.

Variety reports that a federal judge in Los Angeles has ruled that 20th Century Fox has the right to distribute Watchmen, thrusting Warners' plan for a March 2009 release of the Zack Snyder-directed comic book movie into doubt.

The paper quoted the ruling as declaring "Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the 'Watchmen' motion picture."

A more detailed ruling is reportedly expected soon.


Please let this come out in March. Make them pay Fox a percent or something but do not stop it from hitting the theaters. That would truly suck.

[Arthur Heath]

If Fox cock blocks Watchmen Im boycotting Wolverine Origins.

[Harrald]

If Fox cock blocks Watchmen Im boycotting Wolverine Origins.


DITTO!!!

[fernandito]

UPDATE, 12/26: Some readers have been confused about this story since it was previously reported that the case would go to trial January 20. But as The New York Times reported yesterday, "At an earlier hearing, the judge said he believed that issues in the case could be settled only at a trial, which was scheduled for late January. On Wednesday, however, Judge Feess said he had reconsidered and concluded that Fox should prevail on crucial issues."

Deadline Hollywood Daily says "the judge himself advised both Fox and Warner Bros to settle or appeal. 'The parties may wish to turn their efforts from preparing for trial to negotiating a resolution of this dispute or positioning the case for review,' he said. But if WB goes down the appeal road, then Watchmen may not come out until 2011 considering the glacial speed with which the court system moves."

DHD also points out "this interesting footnote" about producer Lawrence Gordon's lack of testimony in the case and what the judge thought of that.

[Aaron]

This is horseshit!

I hope they realize that coming to a settlement is the best thing for all parties involved, including the fans. Fucking Fox :shoot:

[Spencer]

Yeah, I think Fox just wants some compensation, and they'll settle.

[turtlex]

Ruling Jeopardizes Watchmen Release

Dateline : 12/29/2008

Los Angeles (E! Online) – Twentieth Century Fox has won a key battle in its mission to halt Watchmen's release. But the war goes on.

A federal judge in Los Angeles has issued a preliminary ruling backing the studio's claim to an ownership stake in the Zack Snyder-directed flick that could prohibit Warner Bros. from unspooling it on March 6, much to the dismay of film geeks everywhere who've been anxiously awaiting a big-screen version of Alan Moore's famed graphic novel.

"Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the Watchmen motion picture," read the Christmas Eve opinion issued by U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess.

The case is set to go to trial on Jan. 20. But all that could be avoided if the two rivals reach a settlement, which is apparently what the judge is recommending.

"The parties may wish to turn their efforts from preparing for trial to negotiating a resolution of this dispute or positioning the case for review," Feess wrote.

Watchmen is based on the limited comic book series penned by Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons and stars Patrick Wilson, Billy Crudup and Jackie Earle Haley as a band of outlaw superheroes who aim to stop a nuclear war from being launched by one of their own.

Fox sued Warner last February, alleging the studio failed to acquire all the rights from producer Lawrence Gordon when it put the project in turnaround in 1994. Some of the interests Fox contends it still retained were distribution and sequel rights that gave it a share of any profits if another studio made the film. Warner Bros. initiated work on the would-be blockbuster in 2005 and claims it had purchased all the rights fair and square.

A more detailed ruling on the matter is expected in the coming days.

[bluelph24]

just got myself the rorschach poster with him crouched on a building. fairly cheap off of ebay, if you're interested. ranging from 5 on up. got mine for 15, 18x27, so i'm pleased

[fernandito]

Watchmen Delay Sought
Fox aims to block film's March release date.
by Jim Vejvoda

December 29, 2008 - Watchmen is slated for release March 6, 2009, but that won't remain the case if 20th Century Fox has its way.

The studio, which won a ruling last week in federal court stating that "Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the Watchmen motion picture", is seeking an injunction to delay Warner Bros.' proposed March release date for the film, according to the Associated Press. U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess said the case will go to trial as planned January 20 in order to settle remaining issues, such as damages and if the film's release date should be blocked.

Warner Bros. issued the following statement in regards to last week's ruling: "We respectfully but vigorously disagree with the Court's ruling and are exploring all of our appellate options. We continue to believe that Fox's claims have no merit and that we will ultimately prevail, whether at trial or in the Court of Appeals. We have no plans to move the release date of the film."

Entertainment Weekly's Hollywood Insider Blog reports that the judge's ruling "concludes that [producer Lawrence] Gordon never properly presented Fox with the option to produce and distribute the version of Watchmen developed by director Zack Snyder. He also makes it clear that neither Gordon nor Warner Bros. had bought out Fox's interest before Warner Bros. went into production. Indeed, Feess' ruling includes a rather sarcastic footnote blasting Gordon for his conduct in resolving this dispute. In section 3, Feess remarks that during Gordon's deposition, the producer claimed he couldn't properly recollect his contract with Fox. Feess seems so dismissive of Gordon's allegedly faulty memory, he makes the following side ruling: Should Gordon suddenly remember some salient bit of information that could now help Warner Bros.' cause, he should go back to conveniently forgetting about it. '[T]he court will not, during the remainder of this case, receive any evidence from Gordon that attempts to contradict any aspect of this Court's ruling on the copyright issues under discussion.'"

[flaggwalkstheline]

I think that watchmen will be good, although I always thought the squid/ alien was a litle bit off kilter in the book not that it didnt work
I can now answer the question "who watches the watchmen?"
Answer: Me

I think the general public will like it after all people liked the incredibles which is basically watchmen for kiddies, the diet watchmen

[bluelph24]

yeah, the incredibles was strikingly similar to the watchmen. in fact, so was the evil plot in season 1 of heroes. both were highly acclaimed. i think watchmen, as long as fox doesn't do anything, will do fine

[Seymour_Glass]

I'm glad someone else noticed the Watchmen/Heroes similarities. I remember watching Heroes and saying "That's so Watchmen", but nobody knew Watchmen. Now, thanks in large part to the upcoming film, they do.

[Empath of the White]

My biggest fear with Fox taking control of the movie is their love of 90 minute runtimes. There's no way they could get away with that.

[Spencer]

I'm glad someone else noticed the Watchmen/Heroes similarities. I remember watching Heroes and saying "That's so Watchmen", but nobody knew Watchmen. Now, thanks in large part to the upcoming film, they do.

I'm pretty sure we discussed this on page 1 of the thread, I'll find that and quote it, If I'm having a mental lapse and we haven't discussed it, I'll post an article on the subject.

[Spencer]

I had a mental lapse. :lol:

WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS FOR THE GRAPHIC NOVEL AND MOVIE "WATCHMEN". DO NOT READ THIS POST IF YOU WANT TO BE SURPRISED WHEN YOU READ OR WATCH IT. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. :D

'HEROES' PULLS RUG FROM UNDER 'WATCHMEN'
By STEPHEN LYNCH
April 24, 2007

AFTER helming the surprise Spartan war smash "300," director Zack Snyder could write his own ticket in Hollywood.

So he did what any comic book fan would. For his next project, he chose "Watchmen."

Written by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons in 1986-87, "Watchmen" is considered a classic - perhaps the best comic book ever made. Sophisticated in its theme, complicated in its telling, Moore described himself as trying to make "a superhero 'Moby-Dick,' something that had that sort of weight, that sort of density."

It is also cursed, at least in Hollywood terms. Development of a "Watchmen" movie has bounced around for two decades, with everyone from Terry Gilliam to Joel Silver to Darren Aronofsky attached.

Snyder may have the clout to get it made. But it seems the curse has struck again in the form of a television show. "Heroes" - the popular series on NBC - not only swiped "Watchmen" 's climax, it may have stolen its thunder.

(This is the part where those who don't want to know what happens in "Watchmen" or last night's "Heroes" should stop reading.)

"Watchmen" centers around a group of vigilantes who fight crime with their fists and gadgets, not unlike Batman. But public sentiment turns against the "masks," and they are all forced into retirement, except one - the only one with actual supernatural powers, the nuclear-altered Dr. Manhattan. The retirees find life more than a little boring, as they become paunchy middle-age once-weres (similar to what "The Incredibles" did to comedic effect).

But the murder of one of the vigilantes, the Comedian, sets off an investigation by the surviving masks, including the mentally unstable Rorschach and the good-hearted but uncertain Nite-Owl.

What they discover is a plot by one of their former teammates, the wealthy Adrian Veidt, who goes by the ancient Egyptian name Ozymandias.

Ozymandias has staged a fake alien invasion of New York, killing half the city's population in the process, in an effort to stop the Cold War and save the Earth from nuclear crisis by uniting the world.

Not only are the masks too late to stop Ozymandias, Veidt's plan actually works. And all the masks are faced with the ethical dilemma of telling the world what they know - and risk destroying the peace. Dr. Manhattan even kills Rorschach rather than have him reveal the secret.

"Heroes" centers around a similar catastrophe - a nuclear explosion that, coincidentally, wipes out half the population of New York at some undetermined future. In last night's episode, the mob boss Linderman (Malcolm McDowell) reveals that he knows the bomb is going to go off and wants it to - because the destruction of New York will unite the world in peace behind a new president he is grooming.

At the end of the episode, that candidate - Nathan Petrelli (Adrian Pasdar) - hinted that he was going along with the plan, even if it means the death of his brother, because of the good it will bring.

Tim Kring, the creator of "Heroes," was out of the country, but has said in interviews in the past that he doesn't know comics that well - similarities are coincidental. And one could argue that the show is a patchwork of popular comic book themes beyond "Watchmen," taking the mutant gene, for instance, directly from "X-Men." Or that the plot is different enough because Ozymandias plans the attack, while Linderman simply does nothing to stop it (as far as we know).

But Snyder and his bosses are probably more than a little ticked off. For a movie that will cost hundreds of millions, and could star Tom Cruise as Ozymandias if the Hollywood rumor mill is right, it can be galling to see such a pivotal plot twist used elsewhere.

Fans have waited two decades to see "Watchmen" put on-screen. The last thing Snyder wants is for people to think they already have.

[Sam]

I just finished reading this critically acclaimed book. I worked through it in several days, but I hate to say that I am not impressed. It was ok at best, but I am not looking forward to the film anymore. As for Moore's idea of making his own "Mody Dick", I think he succeeded. I didn't care much for Moby Dick and thought the author was running off at the mouth way too much. The same with Watchmen. Kingdom Come was a better story.

I will say that Moore certainly DID tell his story well and kept the surprises well hidden. I applaud him for that and give him his due. Far too many writers try to make a mystery and fail to keep hide the surprises from the audience until time for the reveal. Moore surprised me several times during the story. I just wish it was a better story.

[RUBE]

What didn't you like besides Moore "running off at the mouth" and what exactly do you mean by that anyway? That he is too long winded or that he preaches too much?

Anyway, I have been re-reading parts of the Watchmen and decided that I love the way the flashbacks are constantly mixed in with the present story. The chapter "Watchmaker," which tells Dr. Manhattan's story, is just one that uses this method really effectively.

[Sam]

He just was too long winded. The story languished in places. Not sections of character development or anything to further the story, just spots of languishment. I agree that the use of flashbacks was a great element, but it was things like the comic book inside the story that, while it did sort of parallel the story, was completely unnecessary. The story with the news stand guy would have sufficed. There were a few other parts that just seemed put in there for the hell of it.

Mostly though, the story just didn't really hold my attention. Honestly, I finished it because I wanted to see what all the hype was about. In a twelve issue series, I was finally into the story enough to WANT to finish it by issue 8. That is WAAAAY too far into a series of that length for me to have continued with it had I been reading it by the issue.

[Seymour_Glass]

There's such an amazing level of detail in the comic, and I'm wondering how that's going to be replicated in the film.

[RUBE]

There's such an amazing level of detail in the comic, and I'm wondering how that's going to be replicated in the film.

It can't be exactly replicated but I am sure Snyder will squeeze as much as he can in. One detail that was missed (and that I have already mentioned) is that the cars in stills from the movie look like they are gas-powered not electric.

[Spencer]

OK either a deal has been worked out or Warner Brothers is REALLY stupid. :lol:

No one pays NFL advertising rates unless they're pretty sure that what they advertise will be available.

[RUBE]

Also, the theaters are plastered with posters and other ads. They must be pretty confident that they are going to get the movie out on time.

[Aaron]

I just hope that they dont let us down. I really cannot wait to see this movie; it's been long enough already.

[fernandito]

A question in regards to Rorschach's voice -

Spoilers I guess...

After they capture him and remove his 'face', will he still be rocking the Batman voice while he's face to face with the psychiatrist? The reason I ask is because maintaining that voice for long periods of time and not showing a bit of facial strain must be very difficult, and it would look kinda weird if Haley isn't able to make it seem natural. Either that or there would have to be copious amounts of cuts in that scene.

What do you guys think?

[Aaron]

Hearing Cancelled,
Settlement Likely?
From MTV SplashPage

Another day, another piece of news involving the legal battle over the “Watchmen” movie. Today, The Hollywood Reporter has word that the court hearing scheduled for next Tuesday, January 20th has been canceled, fueling speculation that a settlement has been reached.

Just a day ago, we had word that Warner Bros. was meeting with Fox in an attempt to hammer out the no-doubt complicated settlement that would allow Warner to release “Watchmen” on its scheduled date of March 6. While full details of a settlement are, even when officially announced, probably going to be kept mum, rumor has it that Fox is expected to take in tens of millions of dollars and may very well wind up with their logo attached to prints worldwide.

This story has been building since last year when Fox announced the plans for the “Watchmen” lawsuit but really came to a head this past Christmas when a federal judge ruled on Fox’s behalf.

Oddly enough, Fox faced a lawsuit with its own Alan Moore adapted “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” when screenwriter/director Larry Cohen accused the studio of ripping off one of his ideas. The ensuing lawsuit forced Mr. Moore into the courtroom in Fox’s defense and is cited by Moore as the chief reason he wants nothing to do with Hollywood adaptations of his works.

Popular comics columnist Rich Johnston suggested some time ago that the real target of the Fox/WB “Watchmen” lawsuit might be the 1960s “Batman” television series. Because Fox owns the show and Warner the right to distribute, the situation mirrors what is happening today with “Watchmen”. If this is at all the case, then fans should, in the long run, benefit from the dispute, hopefully getting access to two very different comic book properties.

[fernandito]

Watchmen Case Settled
Studios reach an agreement; movie to be released March 6.
by Jim Vejvoda

January 15, 2009 - Our long national nightmare is over.

Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox have settled their legal dispute over the long-awaited Watchmen movie. The movie will be released as planned March 6.

Warners still gets to distribute Watchmen, while Fox will reportedly receive an upfront multi-million dollar payment (Variety pegs the confidential amount as between $5-10 million) to cover its legal fees and development fees.

Fox will not have its logo on the film when it's released, but it will receive a cut of its box office gross. The studio will also receive gross participation points in any potential sequels or spin-offs.

The studios said in a joint statement, "Warner Bros acknowledges that Fox acted in good faith in bringing its claims, which were asserted prior to the start of principal photography. Fox acknowledges that Warner Bros. acted in good faith in defending against those claims Warner Bros. and Fox, like all Watchmen fans, look forward with great anticipation to this film's March 6 release in theatres*."

Fox sued Warners last spring over the rights to the film, and a federal judge ruled in December that Fox actually did own the copyright to Watchmen.


---

*Oh STFU!

[Harrald]

I'm feeling much better now.

If I'm lucky I'll be able to see an advanced screening. In case I can't I've already called my boss and told him I'll be sick on 3/6/09. At least he's half a nerd and understands.

[Unfound One]

Well thank bob for THAT.

Sheesh.

49 days.

:cyclops:

[RUBE]

You all should check out the official movie site. It has some pretty cool little clips for each character.

[Unfound One]

48 days.

[Seymour_Glass]

A question in regards to Rorschach's voice -

Spoilers I guess...

After they capture him and remove his 'face', will he still be rocking the Batman voice while he's face to face with the psychiatrist? The reason I ask is because maintaining that voice for long periods of time and not showing a bit of facial strain must be very difficult, and it would look kinda weird if Haley isn't able to make it seem natural. Either that or there would have to be copious amounts of cuts in that scene.

What do you guys think?

I dunno. I wasn't a fan of the voice in the Batman films, and I think it's kind of a bad choice for Rorschach.

[bluelph24]

i got my rorschach action figure today :thumbsup:

[fernandito]

Pics, or it didn't happen.

[Unfound One]

37 days.

[bluelph24]

i'll try to get a picture up later

[Unfound One]

Dude. Check this out!

http://entertainment.todaysbigthing.com/2009/01/23

[Clacke]

This is cool.

YouTube - The Keene Act & YOU (1977)

23 days to go.

[Aaron]

Awesome! I can't wait.:shoot:

[RUBE]

Here is an interesting picture from Watchmen:

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/6369/wmpr08ma28ti1.jpg

What is even more interesting is the symbol at the bottom corner.

[fernandito]

http://i330.photobucket.com/albums/l416/feverishparade/rorschach2.jpg

[The Cosmic Geek]

Great pictrure of Rorschach. He and Night Owl are my favorite characters.

[Unfound One]

18 days! :excited:

[Clacke]

Some new footage :excited:

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/world-exclusive-watchmen-clip
http://movies.sky.com/new-watchmen-clip

[RUBE]

Those were not the most exciting clips to be released. What is the deal with the music in the first one? Maybe I should stay away from any new small clips so they do not kill my excitement for this movie.

[flaggwalkstheline]

I downloaded My Chemical Romance's cover of Dylan's Desolation row which is gonna be on the watchmen soundtrack and maybe the end credits: absolutely epic

[Clacke]

Those were not the most exciting clips to be released. What is the deal with the music in the first one? Maybe I should stay away from any new small clips so they do not kill my excitement for this movie.

I think the music is being played by the crowd as they gather to demo against the masked vigilantes: 1977, disco fever, the Keane riots. Though it does come across as strange, out of context in that short clip.

'Exclusive clips' starting to appear all over the place now:

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=f415cb4c-5e1a-435c-9386-5f966fa41e7f&from=&fg=rss
http://www.accesshollywood.com/watchmen/access-exclusive-scenes-from-watchmen_videotab_1020301
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/article2246642.ece

[RUBE]

Those were not the most exciting clips to be released. What is the deal with the music in the first one? Maybe I should stay away from any new small clips so they do not kill my excitement for this movie.

I think the music is being played by the crowd as they gather to demo against the masked vigilantes: 1977, disco fever, the Keane riots. Though it does come across as strange, out of context in that short clip.

I realize that the song fits the time-period but it doesn't really fit the mood of the scene nor does it seem realistic to think a crowd in the midst of a protest would be playing it.

I do not like Snyder's use of slow-mo in either of the clips that I have seen it in now. It just seems unnecessary

[RUBE]

Sorry to post twice in a row but I just can't let this one die. The most recent Entertainment Weekly has a cover story on the Watchmen. It revealed a few changes I don't like beside the change to the end. Mainly, however, it focused on whether the movie can draw a main stream crowd or not.

[Mike Beck]

oh no. a change to the end?? :(

i don't like hearing that. i really don't want them to eff this up, man.

[RUBE]

oh no. a change to the end?? :(

i don't like hearing that. i really don't want them to eff this up, man.


That news has actually been out for awhile. I think they might have an idea to pull it off but I guess we will have to wait to see. If you would like to know what the difference is open the spoiler:
They removed the "giant squid" and all references to it. That means that the sub-plot about the missing artists and scientists is gone as well. Most people's guess is that Veidt will make the attack seem to come from Dr. Manhattan instead. That is why the previews show a blue energy exploding in New York.

[turtlex]

Fandango is showing many midnight shows.... anyone going at 12:01am ?!?

If I have some time off saved up, I'll be going.

[Harrald]

Midnight show? I can't stay up past 11pm anymore. I may have to work on the 6th afterall but I'll get out ASAP, drive home to pick up my bride and then head to an early (1PMish) show.

It should just be us and a few dozen fanboys (girls)

[turtlex]

I love going to "first showing" midnight show!

Around where I am, people sometimes dress as characters and usually it's a gauranteed completely silent movie theater when the film starts ( :sigh: heaven ).

[Spencer]

and don't forget that one subplot that's been dropped has been replaced with a "timely and topical alternative energy resources subplot". that might float, or it might sink like a brick.

[Merlin1958]

Advance reviews so far have been stellar. By the way rumor has it that they imbedded some CGI stuff in the "Blue Flame" scene to please the fans!!!!!

If you want to know check out AICN

[Spencer]

I love going to "first showing" midnight show!

Around where I am, people sometimes dress as characters and usually it's a gauranteed completely silent movie theater when the film starts ( :sigh: heaven ).

Those are fun for sure, especially the Star Wars ones.

[Spencer]

Advance reviews so far have been stellar. By the way rumor has it that they imbedded some CGI stuff in the "Blue Flame" scene to please the fans!!!!!

If you want to know check out AICN

I have no idea what any of this means, not even the "aicn" (?) that I'm supposed to check out. :|

[Spencer]

aicn.com redirected me to:

http://www.smartcreditcards.com/

ain't THAT an oxymoron. :lol:

[Spencer]

OK, I googled "aicn" , and it seems it's an acronym for "Ain't It Cool News" and the site seems to have comic news and stuff, so it looks like I'm at the right place. "aicn" is nowhere in the URL, the link is:

http://www.aintitcool.com/

You're welcome. :lol:

[turtlex]

Rotten Tomatoes show Watchmen at 89% based on 9 published reviews ( so far ).

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/

[Merlin1958]

OK, I googled "aicn" , and it seems it's an acronym for "Ain't It Cool News" and the site seems to have comic news and stuff, so it looks like I'm at the right place. "aicn" is nowhere in the URL, the link is:

http://www.aintitcool.com/

You're welcome. :lol:


So Sorry!!! Thought folks here would be familiar with the site. yes it's Ain't it cool news and its a big geek Movie and TV site that also has comic reviews and such.

To explain further regarding the movies end scene. Word has it that there is a figure imbedded in the CGI that creates the "Blue Flame" you see in the trailers. This hidden and subtle figure is designed to please fans of the graphic novel. The minor spoiler is revealed in one of the threads at Aintitcool.com

[Spencer]

I've been looking there, seen a lot of cool reviews, but nothing on the flame. :lol: I'll keep looking, it's a fun place to surf.

[Spencer]

Can't find it anywhere, would you mind posting it with spoiler tags?

[fernandito]

"It's the Watchmen movie you always wanted to see but never expected to get."

GAAAHHHH!! I can't wait!!! :excited:

Does anyone know if you can reserve IMAX tickets through their website, or do you have to buy them at the theater?

[Merlin1958]

"It's the Watchmen movie you always wanted to see but never expected to get."

GAAAHHHH!! I can't wait!!! :excited:

Does anyone know if you can reserve IMAX tickets through their website, or do you have to buy them at the theater?


I checked and (at least here in my area) they are not allowing advance purchases until the 1st or 2nd. You have to keep checking.

[Spencer]

Thanks for the help, merlin!

The figure that's supposed to be hidden in the blue flame as an easter egg is the squid.

[Spencer]

VERY disturbing quote from Snyder last night on a TV special:

"If Superman were real, he'd gather all the world leaders together and say 'Behave, or I'll kill you.' "

First of all, NO HE WOULDN'T. There have been countless stories about that very dilemma, and he always chooses NOT to do that, and even stands up to Batman when HE starts acting that way in "The Dark Knight Returns" , which Snyder says he's read. <_<

Secondly, if the ending is what I think it is, that's not done by a hero in the movie either. I'm really trying to get behind this movie, and I DO think i'll enjoy it, (until the final sequence starts, anyway), but Snyder just rubs me the wrong way.

[Sam]

I read the GN, and I must say that this is one comic film that I am not looking forward to. I didn't enjoy the book. It wasn't a great read, it wasn't anything that I found to be really compelling either. It took me quite a while to force myself to finish it. That hasn't happened to me in a very long time with any book, novel or comic. I'll be waiting for the dvd and may wait even longer.:(

[Matt]

I'm hoping the movie version of this will be easier for me to understand. :lol:

We're seeing it for sure and I don't say that about many movies.

[Spencer]

I'm hoping the movie version of this will be easier for me to understand. :lol:

It should be, but I'd caution that people seeing the simpler explanations and then thinking, "So THAT'S what was going on in the subtext of the comic" will be very wrong. :lol:

[Sam]

So true.

[RUBE]

Wow. This thread had been pretty much died and suddenly it has an explosion of posts.

I am becoming a little more skeptical of how this movie will turn out but, that being said, I still can't wait to go and judge for myself. I hope it is good enough that I can recommend it to friends who typically would not watch a "comic-book" movie.

[Harrald]

ONE WEEK!!

This time next week I should be on line with a cup of coffee in hand and my wife by my side.

I now know I don't have to work and I'm feelin' groovy.

[fernandito]

Watchmen AU Review
The movie you always wanted to see but never expected to get.
by Patrick Kolan, IGN AU

Australia, February 23, 2009 - What is Alan Moore thinking right now? Is he Googling headlines, perhaps browsing forums and taking in the early consensus on a project that many said could never be properly adapted to screen? Does he care in the slightest? Should this matter? It's his baby, after all; a story he committed to the ink press more than 20 years ago that has never been more timely than this moment in the unsettled and frantic year of 2009.

Turns out, it wasn't impossible to do Watchmen justice on-screen – it just took a long time, many different points of view, scripts drafted and deals done and dusted. Moore's 338 pages have been condensed into 150-odd minutes of the finest super-hero movie ever made, hands down. Zack Snyder is the man who accomplished it, but Alan Moore was the artisan author who made it possible. Hopefully, if Alan Moore is thinking anything at this moment, it's a small concession of thanks to a director who really did right by him – and by the fans who sat aside and waited, wanting and hoping.

If it could be said that The Dark Knight legitimised comic book films with a level of maturity and sophistication that caught cynics off-guard, then Watchmen cements comic book films of this calibre as equals among any other, irrespective of genre.

The United States is on the brink of all-out nuclear war with Russia. 'Tricky Dick' Nixon remains in power, his gnarled and ageing finger hovering over the Red Button that ends the world. Super-heroes and masked vigilantes, after decades of notoriety and mixed reactions from the public, are on the way out, as congress signs a bill outlawing super-heroics. Everyone is alienated. People in the streets are powerless to improve their situation, and that creates anger and volatility – aggression that eventually embroils the main characters in the world of Alan Moore's Watchmen, faithfully and carefully adapted to screen.

Rorschach sits at the heart of the tale. Someone is systematically targeting super-heroes and Rorschach wants answers. His is an anti-hero for the ages – classically flawed, motivated by his own need to clean up the streets – and appease his turmoil – by any means necessary. He dons his 'face' – a constantly shifting Rorschach pattern that hides Walter Kovacs, played superbly by actor Jackie Earle Haley. He is, as is every other character in this adaptation, perfectly realised and uncompromisingly accurate – down to his speech patterns and short, scrawny build. Watching Earl Hayley's dark eyes and shock of red hair as you listen to his gravel voice draws you into some of the most powerful moments in the film – particularly recollections of his downward spiral into uncompromising violence. His diary entries, scattered throughout the story and capping both ends of the film, narrate his investigation into the murder of The Comedian (the always charismatic Jeffrey Dean Morgan) –a chaotic steam-train of testosterone who laughs at life if only to keep from crying.

As the Doomsday Clock inches closer to midnight, the tale eventually pulls together two retired heroes – Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II, along with Doctor Manhattan – a man-made-god who insists he isn't. Between these three, an emotional core is forged throughout the film. Once again, Snyder displays his knack for provocative visuals; Nite Owl II, played by Patrick Wilson, is the soft-faced, weak-chinned hero, pulled straight from the pages. Wilson's slightly downturned lips and the gentleness of his delivery captures the character precisely. Malin Ackerman's Silk Spectre II, daughter of the classically beautiful 40s-era Silk Spectre, puts in a solid performance. Her delivery does falter occasionally, but during her intimate scenes with Nite Owl II, there is genuine chemistry and warmth.

Perhaps the most surprising performance comes from Billy Crudup as Doctor Manhattan. Crudup, who is only visible in the flesh for a few short sequences, adds a gentleness to a humanoid rapidly losing touch with humanity. His undistorted voice maintains an almost monotonous tone throughout much of the film; it's so passive that it's almost serene, suggesting the mindset of a being who knows all the answers the universe hides from the rest of us.

Rendered entirely in CG, this is the perfectly proportioned blue wonder brought to life with striking realism. A few small liberties are taken – he has a bigger penis, for one, and a slightly translucent cast to his skin – but the dignity and other-worldly presence is there. Snyder also gives this incredible character a generous nod by preserving much of his mid-story monologue. Every character has enough screen time to provide audiences with solid back-story, but you really do feel for both Rorschach and Doctor Manhattan the most.

Then there's Ozymandias, the world's smartest man seated atop the largest and wealthiest corporation on the planet. How he factors into the story is something best left for you to discover. Matthew Goode, who portrays Ozymandias, is the only character who seems a slightly miscast. He has the clean-cut edge to his image, but lacks the screen presence his character demands. He's a fine actor, perhaps a little mumbly at times, but never the enormously powerful and persuasive figure that you want to see. He's also not a natural blonde, which makes the roots of his facial hair look out of place, which can be distracting.

Ask most people about their thoughts on The Cold War or the place of science and theology in government and you'll likely get a few blank looks. Watchmen circles around these themes, throwing in sexuality, rape, murder, relationships, family, responsibility and humanity into a story arc that jumps through time periods, contexts and order. By shying away from traditions of the super-hero genre, the Watchmen story stood out. But the real question is, will audiences take as much away from the film, which digests and condenses a whole hell of a lot into two-and-a-half hours, as those who have read the novel beforehand?

It's an important question and one that clearly Snyder considered too. He answers it by providing you with a beautifully shot titles montage that takes you through the rise of street heroes and super-heroes, their fame and infamy and eventual decline. He weaves world history into their presence in society. Suddenly JFK's assassination takes on a whole new light; with a super-being on the US' side, the Vietnam War ends smoothly and quickly, while Richard Nixon keeps office for many years to come. It's an intelligent way of trying to bring viewers up to speed within the limits of cinema.

Snyder shoots his sequences, both action-filled and passive exchanges, with tight choreography to ensure he replicates the source material as closely as possible, while still being palatable to cinemagoers. As demonstrated in 300, Snyder is a master of composing a scene or sequence for maximum visual effect. Fights are graphic, often far more impactful and grotesque than originally rendered on page. Bones snap through skin, a man's head is repeatedly cleaved with sickening viscerality – and yet, it is handled delicately, not indiscriminately. Every time Doctor Manhattan extends his pulsating blue arm and blows someone apart, it's within the context that Alan Moore created. The violence is graphic in the comic, and Snyder emulates it with horrific precision. For fans, it's a relief that Watchmen does not pull its punches.

There's a gritty texture to the settings that, when complemented by a colour scheme of purples, oranges, yellows and blues, really manages to capture both the era of the setting and the colouration of the original comic pages. Some liberties are taken here and there – but largely the sequences closely mirror the actions of the panels. For those put off by 300's overuse of slow-motion to emphasise and imitate still frames of illustration, Watchmen keeps this to a minimum, and the film's pace is better for it.

The score must be mentioned because it provides yet another angle for fans to appreciate. Alan Moore quotes lyrics from Bob Dylan, Hendrix, Elvis Costello and Sidney Claire, capping off each issue and also figuratively scoring his words in the minds of readers. Watchmen integrates these tunes, along with a handful of other era-appropriate pieces. The background music, original compositions by Tyler Bates, takes gentle guitar licks and blends them with soft reverb. At other times, the tone shifts to synth keys and street pop beats. If a comparison could be drawn, Watchmen's score sidles up against Vangelis' work for Blade Runner. It's evocative stuff that feels suitably worn.

Critically, Watchmen succeeds because it retains the most important sequences in the novel – moments that flesh out the back story and depth of the characters, rather than simply throwing another explosion at you or splattering a wall with gore – though, there are certainly plenty of moments like this. In fact, I'll elaborate a little more; the greatest success that Zack Snyder can proudly call his was the careful selection of essential plot threads, tied together with clever editing and dialogue either directly lifted from the source or alluding as closely as possible to it.

(Jackie Earle Haley's portrayal of the damaged anti-hero Rorchach steals scenes with his powerful and often violent performance.)

The last 30 minutes of the film are arguably Watchmen's weakest – though, 'weak' is a relative term for a film as consistently excellent as this. The pace falters just a little bit, and there's a sense that some of the build-up towards the climax goes to waste. Two critical changes are made to the original storyline, but they lead to the same outcome. It's strange, but in some ways, the film actually ties together some plot points that Moore never capitalised on – you'll understand when you see it. Is it a better ending? Is it more 'Hollywood'? That's a matter of personal preference, and one best left to the forums. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. The mood and the sentiment are preserved and it's arguably a better fit for the screen.

It's the Watchmen movie you always wanted to see but never expected to get. Snyder's Watchmen is a celebration of how films can add worthwhile dimensions to a beloved story – at all times reverent to the original, but careful to remind us that costumes and masks are never as colourful as the people underneath.

[turtlex]

I am pissed! I just found out that I will be oncall for work for the whole first week that Watchmen is out .... that means no movies for me !!! Blast it !!!!

[fernandito]

It's alright Pam, I'll tell you how it is...


:evil::cyclops::evil::cyclops::evil::cyclops::evil ::cyclops::evil::cyclops::evil::cyclops::evil::cyc lops::evil::cyclops::evil::cyclops::evil::cyclops:

[turtlex]

Oh, I am completely going to be living vicariously through this thread until I get to go!
Rely on it !

( PS - I actually have time scheduled off so I don't miss the opening of Wolverine! )

[Merlin1958]

Got my Imax Tix today for next Saturday showing!!!!!

Woot!!!

:rock::panic::rock::drool::rock::P:rock:

[flaggwalkstheline]

I dont have a job so I'm not going to get to see this film unless I get one like NOW:angry:

[turtlex]

I dont have a job so I'm not going to get to see this film unless I get one like NOW:angry:

Well, at least you get to go opening week ( trying to look on the bright side for you )

[Spencer]

I've got some filming to do from 5PM till 1AM on the 6th, and a show the next night. <_< I'll catch it when I can.

[Whidden]

I am super curious as to what I'll think of this movie.

The first trailer blew me away. The second made me question...

I've seen a few clips on the net that make it look just awesome, and a couple of clips that make me cringe. The Night Owl clip with Silk, busting into the prison was awesome I thought.

I think I may be wanting the movie to be exactly like the graphic novel, and Dr. Manhattan's voice isn't anything like I imagined it to be in the book and Veidt went from a tough looking fellow to a bit of a dandy. Little crap like that is going to ruin this movie for me if I don't get my head together. I'm going to focus, just go in with a good attitude, not compare it to the graphic novel and enjoy it or hate it for what it is.

[Clacke]

What I'm going to do is go to the movie and enjoy it for what it is: Watchmen on the big screen.
When the directors cut DVD comes out with the extra forty minutes back in, that I will compare to the GN.

[turtlex]

Clacke - That is so me! I always look at comic book movies ( especially ) this way. I go in expecting to get the cool extra footage on the DVD later on!

[Unfound One]

Finally got a chance to read through that review and now I'm even more excited!

I must say though, I sure hope the ending isn't a major disappointment - especially with the review saying the last 30 minutes are the film's weakest...

We shall see!

IN 6 DAYS!

[Unfound One]

Also - here's the full soundtrack listing.
I'm interested to see where they put these in the movie...

1. Desolation Row (My Chemical Romance)
2. Unforgettable (Nat King Cole)
3. The Times They Are A-Changin' (Bob Dylan)
4. The Sound Of Silence (Simon & Garfunkel)
5. Me & Bobby McGee (Janis Joplin)
6. I'm Your Boogie Man (KC & The Sunshine Band)
7. You're My Thrill (Billie Holiday)
8. Pruit Igoe & Prophecies (Philip Glass)
9. Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen)
10. All Along The Watchtower (Jimi Hendrix)
11. Ride of the Valkyries (Budapest Symphony Orchestra)
12. Pirate Jenny (Nina Simone)

[Spencer]

What I'm going to do is go to the movie and enjoy it for what it is: Watchmen on the big screen.
When the directors cut DVD comes out with the extra forty minutes back in, that I will compare to the GN.

The ending is still gonna be the ending, director's cut or not. :lol:

[Jon]

What I'm going to do is go to the movie and enjoy it for what it is: Watchmen on the big screen.
When the directors cut DVD comes out with the extra forty minutes back in, that I will compare to the GN.

The ending is still gonna be the ending, director's cut or not. :lol:


Director's cut?

NOT IN OUR BUDGET.

[Spencer]

What I'm going to do is go to the movie and enjoy it for what it is: Watchmen on the big screen.
When the directors cut DVD comes out with the extra forty minutes back in, that I will compare to the GN.

The ending is still gonna be the ending, director's cut or not. :lol:


Director's cut?

NOT IN OUR BUDGET.

:O

YouTube - Spencer Chestnutt Promo - VCW TV Week 4

Damn Camera Guys and producers.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

The movie will be released on March 6.

The animated feature "Tales of the Black Freighter" , which was supposed to be in the movie but was cut for time, will be released on DVD March 24.

The Director's Cut, with the Black Freighter footage edited back in, will be released to theaters in July, (around the time the movie is released on DVD), if the original movie is financially successful, however the studio defines THAT. :lol:

[Spencer]

MOVIE REVIEW
'Watchmen'
With lesser superpowers, 'Watchmen' fails to live up to its graphic novel origins. But then, how could it?
By Kenneth Turan FILM CRITIC
March 5, 2009

Alan Moore was right. There isn't a movie in his landmark graphic novel "Watchmen" -- at least not a really good one. What we get instead is something acceptable but pedestrian, an adaptation that is more a prisoner of its story than the master of it.

The difficulty is not with a lack of fidelity to this dark tale's narrative about an apparent plot to eliminate costumed superheroes from the alternative reality America they've protected and defended. The changes to the story, including updating its 1985 situations to include a subplot about the energy crisis, are so nonessential that you might wonder why Moore has, in addition to taking his name off the project, vowed to "spit venom all over" the film version.

Director Zack Snyder's nonstop public pledges of fidelity to the story notwithstanding, the core of what made "Watchmen" "Watchmen," what turned it into the only graphic novel to land on Time magazine's list of the 100 best English-language novels, is by its nature next to impossible to re-create on screen, even with a 2-hour and 41-minute running time.

For "Watchmen" on the page has the kind of structural denseness and complexity, a heft and texture that are difficult for film to deliver. Moore and his co-creator, artist Dave Gibbons, added layers on top of layers to the story, for instance ending each of the 12 chapters with different kinds of printed textual material, including book chapters and psychiatric reports. There is even a comic-within-a-comic, "Tales of the Black Freighter," now scheduled to become a separate animated piece with its own DVD release.

All these elements, and more, inform, expand on and comment about the core story in an almost Talmudic way. As Gibbons himself has said, the graphic novel "became much more about the telling than the tale itself. The plot itself is of no great consequence . . . it just really isn't the most thrilling thing about 'Watchmen.' "

To be fair, on the other hand, "Watchmen's" plot is in no way chopped liver, and reverentially sticking to the source material, as the first "Harry Potter" films did, is the only thing that gives this film what watchability it has. Even if you haven't read the book, even if your first exposure to the story is in this denatured form, you can at least sense the power of the original, and that's what will stay in your mind, not what's on the screen.

The story, as scripted by David Hayter and Alex Tse, begins, as all good mysteries do, with a murder. A man named Edward Blake, otherwise known as the superhero the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), is brutally killed in October 1985, and lots of people want to know why. This murder takes place in an alternative universe very much like our own but with key differences. Richard Nixon is an American president in both, but in the "Watchmen" world he's been elected to five terms. This universe has a tradition of masked crime fighters. A group of them banded together in the 1940s as the Minutemen, and another group was formed decades later.

Since the 1977 passage of the Keene Act, this new generation of so-called vigilantes has been forced to retire, and that's what Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman), Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) and Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) have done. Still active, each in his own way, are the most compelling of the group, Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) and Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley).

Dr. Manhattan, once physicist Jon Osterman, is the only being in the "Watchmen" world with true superpowers, courtesy of your standard scientific experiment gone horribly wrong. Often seen pale blue and naked (don't ask), the good doctor is a master of space and time, capable of bending matter to his will. He works for the government now, serving, among other things, as a one-man shield against the ever-increasing possibility of Russian nuclear attack.

At the other end of the spectrum is the hunted Rorschach, the sociopathic terror of the group, given to writing things in his journal like "the night reeks of fornication and bad consciences." With his face a mask of shifting inkblots, he is the first to suspect that "somebody's gunning for masks" and the first to investigate what that might mean.

Given that this is just the hint of an outline of "Watchmen's" complexities, it's not clear what any director could have done with the material, though many big names, including Terry Gilliam and Paul Greengrass, were given a shot. Though Snyder does not exactly embarrass the material, his selection has not had inspiring results.

For one thing, Snyder has been unable to create a satisfying tone for the proceedings. While the graphic novel played everything as realistically as it could, the film feels artificially stylized and inappropriately cartoonish. That, in turn, undercuts the film's key point that these superheroes have very human flaws and limitations.

With only "Dawn of the Dead" and "300" in his feature background, Snyder does not have a lot of experience with emotional reality and, except for Haley's bravura performance as the lunatic Rorschach, that hurts everyone.

Unlike "300," which was visually striking (albeit moronic dramatically), "Watchmen" plays it safe cinematically. Despite being prematurely canonized by the film's publicity apparatus, Snyder stands revealed here as more of a beginner than a visionary in his uncertain approach to making an on-screen world come alive. His decision to up the novel's violence quotient to at times grotesque levels doesn't help.

Ultimately, however, it's hard to fault anyone for this "Watchmen's" disappointments. It's not a wasted opportunity; it never should have been turned into a film in the first place. But when hundreds of millions of fanboy dollars are at stake, that is not going to happen. Maybe in an alternative reality, but not in ours.

[Merlin1958]

MOVIE REVIEW
'Watchmen'
With lesser superpowers, 'Watchmen' fails to live up to its graphic novel origins. But then, how could it?
By Kenneth Turan FILM CRITIC
March 5, 2009

Alan Moore was right. There isn't a movie in his landmark graphic novel "Watchmen" -- at least not a really good one. What we get instead is something acceptable but pedestrian, an adaptation that is more a prisoner of its story than the master of it.

The difficulty is not with a lack of fidelity to this dark tale's narrative about an apparent plot to eliminate costumed superheroes from the alternative reality America they've protected and defended. The changes to the story, including updating its 1985 situations to include a subplot about the energy crisis, are so nonessential that you might wonder why Moore has, in addition to taking his name off the project, vowed to "spit venom all over" the film version.

Director Zack Snyder's nonstop public pledges of fidelity to the story notwithstanding, the core of what made "Watchmen" "Watchmen," what turned it into the only graphic novel to land on Time magazine's list of the 100 best English-language novels, is by its nature next to impossible to re-create on screen, even with a 2-hour and 41-minute running time.

For "Watchmen" on the page has the kind of structural denseness and complexity, a heft and texture that are difficult for film to deliver. Moore and his co-creator, artist Dave Gibbons, added layers on top of layers to the story, for instance ending each of the 12 chapters with different kinds of printed textual material, including book chapters and psychiatric reports. There is even a comic-within-a-comic, "Tales of the Black Freighter," now scheduled to become a separate animated piece with its own DVD release.

All these elements, and more, inform, expand on and comment about the core story in an almost Talmudic way. As Gibbons himself has said, the graphic novel "became much more about the telling than the tale itself. The plot itself is of no great consequence . . . it just really isn't the most thrilling thing about 'Watchmen.' "

To be fair, on the other hand, "Watchmen's" plot is in no way chopped liver, and reverentially sticking to the source material, as the first "Harry Potter" films did, is the only thing that gives this film what watchability it has. Even if you haven't read the book, even if your first exposure to the story is in this denatured form, you can at least sense the power of the original, and that's what will stay in your mind, not what's on the screen.

The story, as scripted by David Hayter and Alex Tse, begins, as all good mysteries do, with a murder. A man named Edward Blake, otherwise known as the superhero the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), is brutally killed in October 1985, and lots of people want to know why. This murder takes place in an alternative universe very much like our own but with key differences. Richard Nixon is an American president in both, but in the "Watchmen" world he's been elected to five terms. This universe has a tradition of masked crime fighters. A group of them banded together in the 1940s as the Minutemen, and another group was formed decades later.

Since the 1977 passage of the Keene Act, this new generation of so-called vigilantes has been forced to retire, and that's what Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman), Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) and Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) have done. Still active, each in his own way, are the most compelling of the group, Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) and Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley).

Dr. Manhattan, once physicist Jon Osterman, is the only being in the "Watchmen" world with true superpowers, courtesy of your standard scientific experiment gone horribly wrong. Often seen pale blue and naked (don't ask), the good doctor is a master of space and time, capable of bending matter to his will. He works for the government now, serving, among other things, as a one-man shield against the ever-increasing possibility of Russian nuclear attack.

At the other end of the spectrum is the hunted Rorschach, the sociopathic terror of the group, given to writing things in his journal like "the night reeks of fornication and bad consciences." With his face a mask of shifting inkblots, he is the first to suspect that "somebody's gunning for masks" and the first to investigate what that might mean.

Given that this is just the hint of an outline of "Watchmen's" complexities, it's not clear what any director could have done with the material, though many big names, including Terry Gilliam and Paul Greengrass, were given a shot. Though Snyder does not exactly embarrass the material, his selection has not had inspiring results.

For one thing, Snyder has been unable to create a satisfying tone for the proceedings. While the graphic novel played everything as realistically as it could, the film feels artificially stylized and inappropriately cartoonish. That, in turn, undercuts the film's key point that these superheroes have very human flaws and limitations.

With only "Dawn of the Dead" and "300" in his feature background, Snyder does not have a lot of experience with emotional reality and, except for Haley's bravura performance as the lunatic Rorschach, that hurts everyone.

Unlike "300," which was visually striking (albeit moronic dramatically), "Watchmen" plays it safe cinematically. Despite being prematurely canonized by the film's publicity apparatus, Snyder stands revealed here as more of a beginner than a visionary in his uncertain approach to making an on-screen world come alive. His decision to up the novel's violence quotient to at times grotesque levels doesn't help.

Ultimately, however, it's hard to fault anyone for this "Watchmen's" disappointments. It's not a wasted opportunity; it never should have been turned into a film in the first place. But when hundreds of millions of fanboy dollars are at stake, that is not going to happen. Maybe in an alternative reality, but not in ours.



Man! No disrespect but, Spencer, you really seem to want this movie to fail huh? I mean, for every negative review you want to post here, you can probably find 2 positive one's. Why not give it a chance, go see it tomorrow and at least THEN tell us how much you hate it. I for one am looking forward to it with great anticipation having read and thoroughly enjoyed the Comics.

A lot of folks have also sung its praise and it was difficult material to translate to the Big Screen.


Beside's, its just a comic book. A very good one, but a comic nonetheless. Its not like this was LOTR, Of Mice and Men or Moby Dick to name a few literary classics or even TDT.

Since I am sure I will now be roasted.....I'm out!!! lol lol

[fernandito]

What I don't like is that a lot of negative reviews base their argument on the fact that "It's not as good as the comic", rather than arguing whether or not the movie is good or bad on it's own terms. No movie will ever be as good as the book it's based on.

I've been looking forward to seeing this movie, I have been since it was announced that it would finally hit the big screen, and no amount of negative reviews on earth are going to dampen my enthusiasm.

1 more day!!

[Seymour_Glass]

I have to agree with feev. It should be judged by its own merits.

Also, I'm sorry Merlin, but I've gotta roast you. After reading all the great comics I've read, I have to roast anyone who speaks of them condescendingly.

[RUBE]

Entertainment Weekly gave it a so-so review but surprisingly the guys that replaced Ebert and Roper (whatever the hell their names are) both said it was good. I say hold judgement until you see it yourself because many times the critics do not agree with the average movie patron.

[Girlystevedave]

I never listen to anyone's opinion about a movie. Most people are stupid, especially critics.

I am super excited for tomorrow. :excited:
Hopefully I'll get to see it this weekend.

[Merlin1958]

I have to agree with feev. It should be judged by its own merits.

Also, I'm sorry Merlin, but I've gotta roast you. After reading all the great comics I've read, I have to roast anyone who speaks of them condescendingly.

Wasn't trying to be condecending about it at all. I read it and loved it! Comics can be a great medium but they are not accepted as true "Literature" just as best Sellers often are not as well (including unfortunately Sai King). I guess what I was trying to say was that he should calm down a little more as Its not like making a movie about the constitution (which you better get right to the last detail). he just seemed to be getting really worked up over a piece of entertainment.

Don't know if I expressed all that properly but hopefully you all get the gist of it.

Got my IMAX Tkts for Saturday!!!! Can't wait!!!

[turtlex]

Okay..... who went to the Midnight show last night?!?

Report in here !

[Mai]

My boyfriend went. He had a guys night and they wanted to see it. I need to find someone to go with now but he saw it last night at midnight.

[fernandito]

I have my IMAX tickets for the midnight-esque showing tonight! :dance:

[idk, my bff jill?]

I'm going to watch it tonight! :excited:
Can't wait!

I just have to find a theater that won't be packed with people.
I hate going to the movies when a million other people are there, too.

[Merlin1958]

Great Quote:

Dr. Manhattan do you remember being human?

i don't know hum a few bars. LOL

from Roger Ebert review at www.aintitcool.com

[Aaron]

I will be watching this in IMAX in nine hours and forty-five minutes! :excited:

[Unfound One]

Gah! I have to wait until Saturday night! :cry:

[valtr0n]

Wasn't trying to be condecending about it at all. I read it and loved it! Comics can be a great medium but they are not accepted as true "Literature" just as best Sellers often are not as well (including unfortunately Sai King). I guess what I was trying to say was that he should calm down a little more as Its not like making a movie about the constitution (which you better get right to the last detail). he just seemed to be getting really worked up over a piece of entertainment.

I think the fact that Watchmen was named one of Time's Top 100 Best Novels means that comics are accepted as true literature, ranked right alongside A Catcher in the Rye, 1984, and The Grapes of Wrath.

[Merlin1958]

Wasn't trying to be condecending about it at all. I read it and loved it! Comics can be a great medium but they are not accepted as true "Literature" just as best Sellers often are not as well (including unfortunately Sai King). I guess what I was trying to say was that he should calm down a little more as Its not like making a movie about the constitution (which you better get right to the last detail). he just seemed to be getting really worked up over a piece of entertainment.

I think the fact that Watchmen was named one of Time's Top 100 Best Novels means that comics are accepted as true literature, ranked right alongside A Catcher in the Rye, 1984, and The Grapes of Wrath.

I don't want to get into a pissing match but, Time magazine is a pop Mag and not exactly the English department at Harvard. I'm not cutting on it but, come on its not listed on High School or college Reading lists. I think calling it "classic Literature" is not quite right and quite frankly not what the writers probably intended for it either. I'm not saying that what the literary community deems classic is undisputable or absolute, they certainly got their noses in the air when it comes to SK and other Best Selling authors but, Watchmen is still a work comprised of 60% picture content and 40% written. So give it another category if that do ya but, Catcher in the Rye, Of Mice & Men, The Invisible Man (Ellison), the works of Dickens or Shakespeare its not. And I don't think it was meant to be considered a "Literary Classic" like those other works mentioned. perhaps, time will change that in the future.

Having said all of that I still totally enjoyed the Graphic Novel and will probably read it again after seeing the movie.

[Spencer]

Why not give it a chance, go see it tomorrow and at least THEN tell us how much you hate it.

OK, I will. :lol:

Loved the movie, hated the ending. :lol: As I suspected. I'll give no spoilers, just speak in general terms. Just one example of how dumb this ending was is that the villian of the piece explains why they killed someone simply by saying "They figured out what I was up to." :orely: Now in the book, this is all explained, but, with the new ending here and the way the movie is set up, there is NO way that Person A should be in a position to "figure out" what Person B is up to, they just DID. :pullhair:

I'd give it a 4 out of 5. A VERY good movie, but the ending, even without comparing it to the original, pulls it down, WAY too many holes in it, more of which I'll explain when more people have seen it.

[Sam]

Pm me your thoughts on it Spencer. I haven't seen the film, but have read the book. Should I even bother with going? I think no but would love to hear your thoughts.

[Sam]

On the subject of some of the greatest Graphic Novels (such as Kingdom Come, 300, Watchmen, V for Vendetta, and others) being compared to great literature like Hemingway and Steinbeck, it's no comparison. Kingdom Come is a far superior work to anything that Hemingway every thought of writing.

**begin rant** Most of the "Great Literature" that was shoved down my throat in high school and college was no better than most of the stuff being published today. The greatest books I have ever read have been discounted by most "scholars" as being nothing more than fluff, and yet it was those works that inspired people. The Old Man and The Sea hasn't inspired much that I've known of, while books like Stranger in a Strange Land inspires people to take a closer look at humanity. Comics in general have done quite a bit for people too. After all, it was Ben Parker who said "With great power comes great responsibility." **end rant**

[idk, my bff jill?]

¡JODER!

It seems Watchmen won't be coming to Puerto Rico until next week.
Fuck!

[Merlin1958]

I'm sorry say all you want......Its a fucking Comic Book!!!!!


I'M out!!!!!

[idk, my bff jill?]

Please forgive me if you've mentioned this before or something, but do you dislike comic books?

[Merlin1958]

Please forgive me if you've mentioned this before or something, but do you dislike comic books?


Not at all. Just don't think the medium is as "important" as some would have it. It's entertainment, Good entertainment but nothing more. Sorry!!!

[Sam]

Do you apply the same to any written medium Merlin so long as it's fiction?

[Spencer]

Pm me your thoughts on it Spencer. I haven't seen the film, but have read the book. Should I even bother with going? I think no but would love to hear your thoughts.


Oh you should go for sure!!!! It's an amazing ride, just be prepared to poke holes through the ending. Another hole, in order to accept things, you have to believe that other world leaders would take Richard freakin Nixon at his word. :lol:

Won't have time for a PM today,(work today, show tonight), but I'll write you something soon.

[Brice]

I haven't read it but sight unseen I'm willing to grant Watchmen a place in the literary canon...it can replace Jane Austen's writings. It cannot possibly be worse. :lol:

[Hannah]

I'm sorry say all you want......Its a fucking Comic Book!!!!!


I'M out!!!!!

Each to their own. I would say if you don't like it, and don't want to say anything that actually matters a whit then you shouldn't come into the thread. It seems to me to be counteractive to any productive or interesting discussion, but more so an attempt to just annoy people who actually do like comic books and post in this thread for that reason.

Moving on ...

I loved the movie. It was really, really good. Aaron and I saw it on IMAX last night, and aside from the nerdy teenage boys that seemed to fill the theater and talked and reeked of cheap booze, it was a great experience. Plus, Dr. M's penis was like 3 feet tall. :scared:

[fernandito]

I saw it on IMAX last night/this morning as well. Amazing x infinity.

And seriously, how fucking awesome was Jackie as Rorschach? Unbelievable.

[Hannah]

I was worried he wouldn't be good, but he was amazing.

My favorite scene with Rorschach was the part where...

he says "you don't understand, i'm not locked in here with you ... you're locked in here with me."

[Sam]

That was my favorite part of the entire book too Hannah. It reminded a lot me of Frank Castle.

[Harrald]

Freakin' great!!!!


Spoilers below....I can't get the spoiler tag to work.












My wife and I had a great time. I missed the Squid...But in a post Sept. 11 world, the re-write is almost a necessity. I can't wait for the directors cut.

[sarah]

oooo I'm so glad everyone was loving it. I won't have a chance to see it until next week. I'm so happy it doesn't suck. I was nervous that it would.

[fernandito]

My favorite scene with Rorschach was the part where...

he says "you don't understand, i'm not locked in here with you ... you're locked in here with me."

That was my favorite part too :wub:

And in close second - the scene where Blake jumps off Archemedes and lands in the midst of the riot below in slo-mo! :drool:

/nerdgasm


oooo I'm so glad everyone was loving it. I won't have a chance to see it until next week. I'm so happy it doesn't suck. I was nervous that it would.

You need to see it while it's still in theaters sugarpop! And in IMAX, if you can :D

[turtlex]

I'm sorry say all you want......Its a fucking Comic Book!!!!!


I'M out!!!!!

Sorry, saying "Watchmen" is a Comic Book... is like saying "Maus" is a graphic novel. Or The Dark Tower Books are a good story.

Watchmen - so much more. Either you get it, or you don't.

I'm hoping to get to a show on Sunday - I'm on call, so am not supposed to be out of touch, but well... come on! If I don't get there tomorrow, it will be a whole week before I can even attempt it. And, well, I may go nuts!

Feev - I've heard all kinds of good stuff about JEH!

[Unfound One]

I'm going tonight I'm going tonight I'm going tonight.

[turtlex]

Unfound One - Have a great time! Report in when you get home, now.

[Unfound One]

Oh I shall, have no doubt!
And you can call me SJ. :)

[flaggwalkstheline]

I just saw it, got home from the theater 10 minutes ago, Wow was that good
Wow
Just Wow

[SigTauGimp]

I watched it last night. :rock:

I thought it was vuuurrrry good, and agree with what most other's have said. I really like how they portrayed NiteOwl, too...I didn't really care for him in the comic, but seeing him in the movie actually changed my mind a bit.

[flaggwalkstheline]

I was actually quite surprised how dan and lorry kill some of the thugs they fight in the alleyway

[Tatts4Life]

I went with a group of friends to go see this last night. My wife and i thought it was a great movie. Of course during a few scene with Dr. Manhattan the women in the group couldn't hold in their girlish nature.

[Seymour_Glass]

Wasn't trying to be condecending about it at all. I read it and loved it! Comics can be a great medium but they are not accepted as true "Literature" just as best Sellers often are not as well (including unfortunately Sai King). I guess what I was trying to say was that he should calm down a little more as Its not like making a movie about the constitution (which you better get right to the last detail). he just seemed to be getting really worked up over a piece of entertainment.

I think the fact that Watchmen was named one of Time's Top 100 Best Novels means that comics are accepted as true literature, ranked right alongside A Catcher in the Rye, 1984, and The Grapes of Wrath.

I don't want to get into a pissing match but, Time magazine is a pop Mag and not exactly the English department at Harvard. I'm not cutting on it but, come on its not listed on High School or college Reading lists. I think calling it "classic Literature" is not quite right and quite frankly not what the writers probably intended for it either. I'm not saying that what the literary community deems classic is undisputable or absolute, they certainly got their noses in the air when it comes to SK and other Best Selling authors but, Watchmen is still a work comprised of 60% picture content and 40% written. So give it another category if that do ya but, Catcher in the Rye, Of Mice & Men, The Invisible Man (Ellison), the works of Dickens or Shakespeare its not. And I don't think it was meant to be considered a "Literary Classic" like those other works mentioned. perhaps, time will change that in the future.

Having said all of that I still totally enjoyed the Graphic Novel and will probably read it again after seeing the movie.

Before I get into the actual movie discussion let me say that a lot of the "literary classics" were considered pop entertainment in their own times. And you're right that comics are a visual medium. I compare comics to films more often than I do to novels.

And yeah, it is a fucking comic book. But, If you let me rant a bit here, it's just as valid a medium as film or prose. The sheer room for detail really outweighs a novel, because you can have a very detailed, well-defined room without having to tediously explain every detail. But it can be pored over like a book. Visual connections can be made in ways that can't be done in film without a maddeningly slow pace or a ready pause button. Huge amounts of symbolism can be put into a single panel.

Also, because of the hoity-toity academics who refuse to accept them (I'm not including you in that category), there's room for real experimentation. No worries about how it will be received. Comic creators can say "fuck you" to critics more easily than people in any other medium. Do they? Mostly, no. They trod out the same old shit. But that's no different from anywhere else. And there are some people, even some superhero writers (*cough* Grant Morrison*cough*) who are willing to experiment in ways that often the babymen who live in their mother's basements can't understand, and therefore hate.

And there are people, like you, who just haven't really read any stories that validate the medium. And some people think Watchmen is the cream of the crop, but those people aren't comic fans. They haven't sifted through the average to find the gems. But the gems are there. Though maybe you have to dig deeper than you care to.

But in the end, fuck it. it's just a comic book. Whatever that means.

[Seymour_Glass]

About the actual film. I apologize for the longishness of the above post. This one might be longer.

The opening scene had me worried. it was really over-the-top actiony, and it didn't click the way the rest of the fight scenes did. It took too long, i thought. I would have gone with the original opening.

The credits were interesting. I don't know if I enjoyed them or not.

Jackie Earle Haley was amazing as Rorschach. Nuff said.

The soundtrack was interesting, but I liked it.

Nixon was weird.

The ending was a disappointment. The big change kind of made it more plausible, therefore better superficially, but it lost the great irony that instead of a solution, Adrian really escalated the conflict to inter-world as opposed to international. This one had a sort of God-looking-down effect which didn't really better the story.

The lack of Rorschach's monologues about his father and President Truman really took away the irony and contradiction in his character as he applauds Truman for making the decision he refuses to at the end of the film. That contradiction really made his character for me. It humanized him in a way that I really liked. but Jackie Earle haley did a phenomenal job.

The lack of buildup between the newspaper vendor and the boy made their embrace at the end meaningless, shattering the moment that to me was on of the most heartbreaking of the comic.

The reveal that the Comedian was Laurie's father was a lot less graceful in the film. in the comic it was amazing.

The transition to the Dr. Manhattan on mars flashback sequence was clunky.

Dr. M deciding to help was a really weird thing that felt sudden and forced.

[Spencer]

I'm right with you about everything in the spoiler tags. As far as the ending being more plausible, I disagree, for reasons I'll get into when more people have seen the movie.

As far as the big reveal, what bothered me is this. The original scene was filmed, you see it there on screen. I personally, was waiting for the parts of the key sentence to be replayed in fragments and then put back together, just like it was in the novel, but it wasn't, instead, the big reveal is just proclaimed, a "OK this is what it all means" moment. I was like "a movie director who's crowing about how faithful he is to the comic couldn't find an editing machine to cut that scene the mindblowing way it appears in the comic? Hell, I could have done it with 2 1980's era VCRS and a pause button!" :lol:

[Seymour_Glass]

Yep.

And I just think it was more plausible because I never found any mention in the comic book to how they made the freaking squid.

[Spencer]

Here's a paragraph on the ending from ign.com, which echoes what I said a couple of months ago, but more articulately. :lol:
the logic of the new finale that Snyder and the writers came up with doesn't hold up under the least bit of scrutiny. On the surface level, making Doctor Manhattan the scapegoat sounds like a great alternative... until you realize that there is simply no way the countries of the world are going to set aside their differences and join hands in peace after America's ultimate super-weapon -- which he has been touted as for the whole film -- is to blame for the deaths of millions. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. are at the very brink of war, remember. Complete and total nuclear annihilation is at hand, with the rest of the world wondering if America might use the blue-skinned ace it has up its sleeve (as it did to win in Vietnam). So given that state of anxiety, if Doctor Manhattan took out the world's major cities, why would any foreign nation now want to work with America for a better future? If there was ever a time when they'd want to wipe us off the map, it'd be after such an attack. As silly as the squid was, it worked because it was an external threat that united these disparate human factions in a common cause against a more powerful outside force. Imagine if the world knew that the squid was an American creation, there would have been no Utopian outcome. Also, by losing the squid and Veidt's experiments in genetic engineering that created it, the inclusion of Bubastis in the film makes absolutely no sense. It's completely random: "And now, for no apparent reason, a blue tiger with antlers."

[Spencer]

Yep.

And I just think it was more plausible because I never found any mention in the comic book to how they made the freaking squid.

It's right there in Adrian's monolouge in Issue#11. I'll quote it when I get home and can grab my book

[Seymour_Glass]

That ign thing was right. And I would look back to 11 if I hadn't let my friend borrow Watchmen.

[Spencer]

That ign thing was right. And I would look back to 11 if I hadn't let my friend borrow Watchmen.

I'll quote it later, no worries.

and that IGN thing is only ONE of my issues with the ending. :lol:

[Spencer]

A funny twist from a reviewer on the overuse of the word "visionary" to describe director Zack Snyder:

Alan Moore, who has refused to have his name on the movie (ditto its Moore-based predecessors, "V for Vendetta" and "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen") and who has declined all reimbursement to protest the entertainment industry's fundamental lack of respect for intellectual property, counts as a bona fide visionary.

[Seymour_Glass]

What are your other issues with the ending?

[Spencer]

What are your other issues with the ending?

I've got a whole list, i'll post it when others have seen the movie, so we don't have to discuss everything in spoiler tags. :lol:

[Seymour_Glass]

But I wanna know now, dammit!:P

[Merlin1958]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40347

[Dave!]

I'll also reserve any spoiler-esque comments until more have seen it. However, let me say that Rorschach's character was one of the most captivating screen personalities I have seen iin a long while. A story based just around him would have been a better one, in my opinion. Maybe I am at a loss here to the rest of you guys, but I have not read any of the literature associated. No graphic novels, ect. The movie and trailers are the first I had heard of it. So I bought some advance tickets and went to see it last night. Theater not packed, but fairly full. By the time we left (2 hours into it) fully 1/4 of the people had walked out. Some with smaller children, not knowing what they were taking them to see, left when the "intimate" scenes came up. Some walked out at the first sight of the blue penis. I liked a lot of it. Shook my head in disgust at a lot of it as well. I would like to see the ending, but to keep the date on course I knew when it was time to pack up camp and head out. Neither of us were into it. Matter of fact, another guy on our heels stopped us outside the door and asked "Did you guys think that was as bad as I did? Man, I'm let down! I've been a fan for a long time and couldn't wait, but this is an abortion compared to what it could have been."
I tended to agree. With all of the hype I expected something that would make it onto my "must purchase" list of movies when it came out for sale. What I got instead was a mediocre waste of twenty bucks. The acting was superb. The characters were well done, for the most part, and the portrayals were great. I give the acting content a 9.8. But the screenplay/script/story's contiuity was what killed it for me. I kept waiting for the movie to "start". I kept waiting for it to flow better and make a little more sense. I got the gist of it. I understood that it was dark and showed the "behind" lives and personas of superheroes. It gave backstory and all. I get that. I can appreciate a dark movie, and one off the mainstream view. I.E.-The Dark Knight. But this as just...bad. I felt the same way I did when I went to see Cloverfield. I left with a distaste and a feeling of "WTF!?"
I'm sorry to offend the ones who will have tattoos commemorating the movie and name their offspring in respect to the characters they liked so well. I hope that no one blasts me too badly here that actually loved it, but I was just dissapointed in what I got versus what I expected is all. I knew from the get-go that it wasn't X-Men or Fantastic 4. I thought it was gonna be greater. I may (may being a strong approximation of my interest) rent it when it comes out just to try again and see how it ends. Maybe then my view will change, but for now this is the most honest OPINION I can give about it. Sorry to offend anyone if anyone takes it that way...
-Dave

[Spencer]

No offense taken at all, and totally understand your complaints about the story being VERY hard to follow and get invested in if you hadn't already read the book. Part of that was the changes to the story, but most of it was this:

Alan Moore is a crotchety, pissy old bastard. Adaptations of his works are typically, in the oft-used critical parlance of our times, teh suck. His magnum opus is “Watchmen,” a deconstruction of the superhero, a 12 issue miniseries so dense it could be classified as an element on the periodic table, its entry represented by a shifting inkblot. Alan Moore has said it is an unfilmable property. Alan Moore says a lot of things, so it’s easy to dismiss his goofy, hairy ass. Dude wears those gaudy Saturday market rings where a purple rock forms the torso of a pewter scorpion. Genius or no, you can’t take a guy rocking one of those things that seriously.

Unfortunately, Moore was right this time. Watchmen is unfilmable. Or more to the point, the things that make Watchmen work haven’t been captured on film. Zack Snyder tried. The effort expended, the sweat, the passion for the book, it’s up there. It’s visible. This is a beautifully constructed work of art, much like Jon Osterman’s Glass Ship on Mars. It cracks easily and doesn’t hold together too well.

[Whidden]

Just got back from seeing it.

I loved it, my wife hated it.

I went in thinking it would be a giant turd, but wanted to check it out anyway, just to see if I could glean some good. I think this movie is like they say, you will either love it or hate it, and thankfully I wound up being one of the personality types that really dug it.

Sound was awesome. Acting was good. Which I thought it wouldn't be from watching some of the clips on the net.

Loved the fight scenes.

Music wasn't my style of music, but I liked all the songs anyway.

I closed my eyes in the grinder jail cell arm scene, but other than that, the gore wasn't that bad.

The new ending pissed me off reading about it, but watching it in the movie, I was cool with it.

I felt connected with the characters, even Veidt, who I thought was too young. But the actor did fine, pulled me around.

With so many people, including my wife, not liking this flick, I was surprised I loved it so much, I normally am picky with movies.

I only had one complaint moment during this film, and it was the JFK scene. They could have done it without showing the brutal detail of the head shot, and Jackie crawling through the car. Seeing the detail was too real.

Other than that, I thought it was pretty slick.

[Ka-mai]

I basically think, if you hadn't read it, you wouldn't get it. Which makes it absolutely useless as a movie meant for mass-marketing.

Honestly, any movie that can't be understood without first reading the book is a total letdown for me.

I gave it a solid 8. The casting for Nite Owl I and II, Rorshach, Silk Spectre I, Comedian and Dr. Manhattan were very good. Veidt was a disappointment. Also, there was NO REASON for Bubastis to be there. At all. They just wanted to make something cool with their CG toys. The ending worked better, film-wise, but doesn't hold up for the reasons above.

Also, am I the only one who thinks Alan Moore is less of a genius and more of a petulant child? Okay, he does good work, but he's still a pain in the ass who can't groom himself. I don't believe "geniuses" should be held to less standards than the rest of us.

[Aaron]

I thought it was really excellent and was entertained throughout. I could nitpick it away all day long if I wanted, but I choose not to because it really was a great film and there is no sense in being critical just for the hell of it. Like someone said before me, you either love or hate this one. The only disappointing part of the entire film for me was that Rorshach's back-story felt a bit too rushed.

Oh, and I totally predicted the new angle they would take for the end like two or three months ago. I win! One to nothing!

[turtlex]

Oh.Man.This.Is.Killing.Me!!!

How come I have to be oncall this week! I wanna go !!!!! :end whining rant:

[Spencer]

Also, am I the only one who thinks Alan Moore is less of a genius and more of a petulant child?

I think he's a genius who KNOWS he's a genius, which is where the petulant child part comes in. :lol:

[Spencer]

OK someone asked for a book quote. Book and movie spoilers here, so I'll put it in tags.

From Issue 11, pages 24, 25, and 26:


(page 24)

Adrian: Meanwhile, taking advantage of new technology, I researched genetics...Bubastis was an early success... and teleportation.

(Then, later, Page 25)

Dan: How could genetics and teleportation end war?

Adrian: Well, without Jon's guiding mind, teleportation proved limited. Anything living died of shock upon transfer, or materialized in an occupied space and exploded... but that wasn't what Blake found on the island. He found A collection of missing artists and scientists, working upon a monstrous new life form.

(Finally, still later, page 26)

Rorschach: Said teleportation unworkable.

Adrian: It works fine, assuming you WANT things to explode on arrival. Teleported to New York, My creature's death would trigger mechanisms within its massive brain, cloned from a human sensitive, the resultant shockwaves killing half the city.

Hope that helps.

[flaggwalkstheline]

Also, am I the only one who thinks Alan Moore is less of a genius and more of a petulant child?

I think he's a genius who KNOWS he's a genius, which is where the petulant child part comes in. :lol:

He is very good But I think Brian Michael Bendis is the best comic writer around

[Spencer]

I do like most of Bendis' stuff, I just don't think he's written that timeless work yet, while Moore has several.

[EdwardDean1999]

My first impression on changing the ending: Dr. Manhattan is the scapegoat? Well, it's better than an invasion by giant alien squids. Personally I think the story of the giant squids and the disappearance of those who worked on the project was the weak point of the graphic novel. The movie was already too long without having to explain why missing writers and artists (wtf?) can construct a realistic extraterrestrial. I really approve of neither aliens nor Dr. Manhattan as believable scapegoats. I mean, really? Dr. Manhattan can't be defeated. What's the point of joining forces against him?

My biggest complaint is of Veidt. His presence in the film did not seem to match the comic book. I mean in terms of screen time. It's like they replaced his screen time with that horrible Nixon impersonator. Nixon was more of a footnote in the graphic novel.

Best adapted character: The Comedian. Awesome!

Worst Adapted character: Bubastis. (I'm sure it confused the hell out of those unfamiliar with the graphic novel)

What I missed the most from the adaptation:
The average Joe perspective. I'm talking about the kid who reads the graphic novel within the graphic novel and the newsstand operator.

and

The Halloween murder of Night Owl I.

[EdwardDean1999]

Also, am I the only one who thinks Alan Moore is less of a genius and more of a petulant child? Okay, he does good work, but he's still a pain in the ass who can't groom himself. I don't believe "geniuses" should be held to less standards than the rest of us.

If he was a genius he would have the sense to...

A: avoid having his "Unfilmable" work optioned at all.

B: Shave the squirrel off of his chin.

http://bewareoftheblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/alan_moore.jpg

It's been said by those smarter than me: There is a line between genius and insanity. I think Mr. Moore falls on the side of insanity. His stories while wildly entertaining and beautifully imaginative are less the product a creative genius and more (Moore) that of a paranoid schizophrenic. He is as nutty as the squirrel living on his chin.

[Spencer]

A: avoid having his "Unfilmable" work optioned at all.


He tried. In his words, DC comics "successfully swindled" him. I'll find a quote.

[Spencer]

Here it is:

Despite the acclaim, though, Moore's relationship with DC Comics was gradually deteriorating over issues like creators' rights and merchandising. Breaking point was reached in 1989 when he objected to a contract clause that stated the rights of his books would revert to him when the titles went out of print, a clause that was meaningless as DC never intended to stop reprinting the books. Moore's reaction was decisive. "I said, 'Fair enough, you have managed to successfully swindle me, and so I will never work for you again.'" In a radical move, he tried to get his name legally removed from some of his most famous works, but failed in the attempt.

[Seymour_Glass]

My first impression on changing the ending: Dr. Manhattan is the scapegoat? Well, it's better than an invasion by giant alien squids. Personally I think the story of the giant squids and the disappearance of those who worked on the project was the weak point of the graphic novel. The movie was already too long without having to explain why missing writers and artists (wtf?) can construct a realistic extraterrestrial. I really approve of neither aliens nor Dr. Manhattan as believable scapegoats. I mean, really? Dr. Manhattan can't be defeated. What's the point of joining forces against him?

My biggest complaint is of Veidt. His presence in the film did not seem to match the comic book. I mean in terms of screen time. It's like they replaced his screen time with that horrible Nixon impersonator. Nixon was more of a footnote in the graphic novel.

Best adapted character: The Comedian. Awesome!

Worst Adapted character: Bubastis. (I'm sure it confused the hell out of those unfamiliar with the graphic novel)

What I missed the most from the adaptation:
The average Joe perspective. I'm talking about the kid who reads the graphic novel within the graphic novel and the newsstand operator.

and

The Halloween murder of Night Owl I.

The whole Dr. mannhattan thing is that people think he was "punishing" them for fighting. But I prefer the alien squid because it united the world against an alien menace. I liked the irony of how it really elevated the conflict instead of stopping it.

I completely agree about Bubastis.
And, because of flagg and Spencer's opinions, I have to cordially tell them to stuff it and bow down the Grant Morrson.GOD OF ALL COMICS!

[Spencer]

Well, I'd agree about Morrison, except for that whole Final Crisis debacle. :lol: Really, I have to read a crossover to figure out what's going on in Batman, and I still don't understand the crossover OR Batman books when I'm done?

[fernandito]

My biggest complaints with the movie were :

-Like Edward said, the scarce amount of time that Adrian Veidt received. He is such an instrumental component to the overall plot, and I felt like if he was nothing more than a drawn out cameo. I know a lot of people had problems with Goode being cast as Ozymandias, but I thought he was ok. Not good, not bad , just ok.

-I really wanted to see that exchange between between John and Adrien after the latter blows up New York and he says something to the effect of "Did I do the right thing?", I feel like it was an important part of the story that was needlessly left out.

Other than that, I really enjoyed the the movie. Rorschach and The Comedian were handled expertly by Jackie Earle and Jeffrey Dean, and I've made my peace with the ending (flawed is it may be) because the whole squid thing would have taken a lot more screen time to explain.

[Seymour_Glass]

Well, I'd agree about Morrison, except for that whole Final Crisis debacle. :lol: Really, I have to read a crossover to figure out what's going on in Batman, and I still don't understand the crossover OR Batman books when I'm done?

I really enjoyed Final Crisis and his Batman. Although Batman was kind of hard to get.

FC7 is probably my vote for single issue of the year.

Batman RIP was really overhyped by DC.