Who else is excited about the Watchmen?

[Redmage]

Clearly, you haven't read almost any of my other posts.

I figure any guy who gets freaked out by seeing another guy's cock on a movie screen probably needs to face his fears.

 

[locker669]

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I saw the movie the last thing I was looking at was Dr. Manhattan's Penis.

Awesome movie but they cut a bunch of it out (you can figure that out if you watch through all the credits). I think this will be like LOTR movies where the die hard fans will get the special edition that is 3+ hours long.

 

[Soda Bobinski]

I figure any guy who gets freaked out by seeing another guy's cock on a movie screen probably needs to face his fears.

Ha! Yep ... I won't deny that.

 

[Goodieluver]

Clearly, you haven't read almost any of my other posts.

I figure any guy who gets freaked out by seeing another guy's cock on a movie screen probably needs to face his fears.

It was very essential because it shows Manhattans fall from humanity. I mean yeha he had tights on in the 50-60s when he was in vietnam and other public events but when he is on another plane of existence and simply sees everything how we cant, why would he care about modesty.

 

[CarolinaTickler]

completely agree with you Goodie. The nudity was meant to symbolize the fact that, though not completely void of human emotions, Dr. Manhattan has lost some human emotions like fear or shame.

I thought the movie was good and I thought they did a good job of keeping it authentic in relation to the original story.

 

[Sandrock74]

So, why did they change the end of Rorschach's dealing with the child murderer? In the book, Rorschach disposed of him in a vaguely "Saw" like way. In the movie, he just plants a meat cleaver in his head.

I liked the book version of that scene better.

 

[Goodieluver]

So, why did they change the end of Rorschach's dealing with the child murderer? In the book, Rorschach disposed of him in a vaguely "Saw" like way. In the movie, he just plants a meat cleaver in his head.

I liked the book version of that scene better.

An excuse to show a gorier scene prob and to show the drastic change from him caring to just becoming a blunt vigilante tool. They prob felt just watching a burning building wasnt "Exciting"

Btw, im bothered by this walkout trend i am hearing about. Honestly, what did people expect from an R rated movie?

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune...o-watches-those-who-walk-out-of-watchmen.html

 

[Redmage]

I'm a little surprised to see people walking out, but I suppose I shouldn't be. If the linked article is typical, then there were two main reasons. I wonder though how many of those "walkouts" were really just people going to the bathroom during the 2 hours and change the movie took.

Some left because they couldn't follow the plot. Considering how pared down the movie was compared to the book, I think we have to write those off as acceptable losses. My wife hasn't read Watchmen, and she had no problems keeping up or figuring out where the action was in time. It couldn't have been trimmed any more than it was, I think.

Others apparently left because they couldn't deal with the show's violence, or nudity, or both. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I can't muster too much sympathy for anyone who brings pre-teen children to an R-rated movie. Sympathy for the kids, yes, but if the parents are uncomfortable about it that's their own fault.

On the other hand I think the movie advertising was targeted at (or at least hit) many of the same people who flocked to see Spider-Man or one of the other recent superheroes-as-mindless-entertainment movies. And that's so not what Watchmen is. Both the book and the movie are really biting social satire dressed up (so to speak) as a superhero story.

The violence is harsh, but never unnecessarily so - no one gets a bone broken or a face burned off just to be gory. The violence is intentionally sudden and shocking because it's meant to challenge our concept of what "superheroes" would really be like. In the comics, heroes and villains (even minor villains) get knocked hither and yon with scarcely a mussed hair or a wrinkled cape. But real hand to hand combat is ugly. Watchmen made it ugly, and I think some people weren't ready for that.

My hope is that the second wave of moviegoers will have been warned by their friends, and will be better prepared for what Alan Moore set out to do.

 

[locker669]

So, why did they change the end of Rorschach's dealing with the child murderer? In the book, Rorschach disposed of him in a vaguely "Saw" like way. In the movie, he just plants a meat cleaver in his head.

I liked the book version of that scene better.

I thought he burned the house down, but it was 10+ years ago when i read it.

 

[Garamonde]

I thought male frontal nudity in a major motion picture was refreshing. I've been in too many locker rooms for that to harm me.

I believe turnabout is fair play. If there's female nudity I see no reason why there shouldn't be male nudity too. Even for me, I think some of the leering camera shots over the body of the original Silk Spectre when she was in her prime were just as if not more titillating then female nudity could ever be to me. I love how they made her look like a classic pin-up girl. Awww, just soooo sexy.

 

[Goodieluver]

I'm a little surprised to see people walking out, but I suppose I shouldn't be. If the linked article is typical, then there were two main reasons. I wonder though how many of those "walkouts" were really just people going to the bathroom during the 2 hours and change the movie took.

Some left because they couldn't follow the plot. Considering how pared down the movie was compared to the book, I think we have to write those off as acceptable losses. My wife hasn't read Watchmen, and she had no problems keeping up or figuring out where the action was in time. It couldn't have been trimmed any more than it was, I think.

Others apparently left because they couldn't deal with the show's violence, or nudity, or both. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I can't muster too much sympathy for anyone who brings pre-teen children to an R-rated movie. Sympathy for the kids, yes, but if the parents are uncomfortable about it that's their own fault.

On the other hand I think the movie advertising was targeted at (or at least hit) many of the same people who flocked to see Spider-Man or one of the other recent superheroes-as-mindless-entertainment movies. And that's so not what Watchmen is. Both the book and the movie are really biting social satire dressed up (so to speak) as a superhero story.

The violence is harsh, but never unnecessarily so - no one gets a bone broken or a face burned off just to be gory. The violence is intentionally sudden and shocking because it's meant to challenge our concept of what "superheroes" would really be like. In the comics, heroes and villains (even minor villains) get knocked hither and yon with scarcely a mussed hair or a wrinkled cape. But real hand to hand combat is ugly. Watchmen made it ugly, and I think some people weren't ready for that.

My hope is that the second wave of moviegoers will have been warned by their friends, and will be better prepared for what Alan Moore set out to do.

Spiderman was not rated R though. The only R rated movies to date based on comics off top of my head are the Blade Trilogy and Punisher War Zone. So the marketing and allure are completely different from different comic movies

And as your experience with the mrs., this movie did not need prior knowledge to enjoy. Like my article stated which pissed me off "Why is he blue" WHY DOES THAT MATTER?! This movie could easily pass as a regular sci fi movie. Its alternate history so things are different and there are costumed heroes. It doesnt take rocket science to get why Manhattan went to Mars

 

[Redmage]

Spiderman was not rated R though. The only R rated movies to date based on comics off top of my head are the Blade Trilogy and Punisher War Zone. So the marketing and allure are completely different from different comic movies

Not really. For one thing the marketing wasn't different at all - same fast action-based trailers that you'd expect for any superhero movie. And the fact that so few "comic movies" are R-rated is likely to lead people to simply assume that Watchmen would not be either. It's up to them to check the ratings on the movies they go to, sure, but lots of people would just figure "superheroes=PG13, tops."

 

[Goodieluver]

Not really. For one thing the marketing wasn't different at all - same fast action-based trailers that you'd expect for any superhero movie. And the fact that so few "comic movies" are R-rated is likely to lead people to simply assume that Watchmen would not be either. It's up to them to check the ratings on the movies they go to, sure, but lots of people would just figure "superheroes=PG13, tops."

Yes but also using the 300 association in the creation of would also show people they were in for a violent movie

 

[Mark Diplock]

Am a hero fan. I love this kind of movie. Will be lookng for the best seats for this one..

 

[Mark Diplock]

Spiderman was not rated R though.
Not sure what rated R is over here in England. Someone enlighten me please. Just curious.

 

[Redmage]

Yes but also using the 300 association in the creation of would also show people they were in for a violent movie

I don't think so. Ron Howard, for example, directed The Da Vinci Code, and also directed How The Grinch Stole Christmas. I didn't take their citing of Snyder's work on 300 as a tip that "Hey, this is going to be violent." It was just a recent work of his and so would be easily recalled by the viewers.

I really think the movie had the same sort of issue that the book did: it redefined the superhero genre, and in the process surprised some people.

 

[Redmage]

Spiderman was not rated R though.

That's sort of my point. Because Spider-man and such films typically aren't rated R, I think filmgoers perceived Watchmen as another movie in the same mold, and didn't expect an R rating there either.

Not sure what rated R is over here in England. Someone enlighten me please. Just curious.

There isn't an exact analogy in Britain. An R rating means that no one under 17 should be admitted unless accompanied by a parent. An X rating (which is almost never applied to anything but porn films) means that no one under 18 will be admitted even with a parent.

So an R rating is somewhere between the British 15 and 18 classifications. I suspect Watchmen will be given a 15 when it gets there.

 

[Goodieluver]

Spiderman was not rated R though.
Not sure what rated R is over here in England. Someone enlighten me please. Just curious.

Restricted, i believe 16 or older over there, im not confident on that

But here, its 18 and under need a guardian with them

 

[Goodieluver]

I don't think so. Ron Howard, for example, directed The Da Vinci Code, and also directed How The Grinch Stole Christmas. I didn't take their citing of Snyder's work on 300 as a tip that "Hey, this is going to be violent." It was just a recent work of his and so would be easily recalled by the viewers.

I really think the movie had the same sort of issue that the book did: it redefined the superhero genre, and in the process surprised some people.

But was davinci code promoted as "From the visionary genius of ron howard" or vice versa?

Also Howard is known for a variety of genres and films(apollo 13, etc)
Other than 300, the only major role for Snyder has been dawn of the dead but for most mainstream normies, they would only know him for 300

Its like how LGF continued their sabotage in their marketing for repo: the genetic opera. When promoting it to screeners, they said it was "A new film by darren bousman, creator of saw(enter whichever number!) and people went in there expecting a gore\torture fest and were disappointed by what they saw.

The DoP was from 300 as well, which yes avg people wouldnt know, so it had the same violent closeup\gore factor as 300

So 1.When u get to the theatre you see its R rated
2. Coming from the director of 300 is enough proof for most normies to know what to expect. Only a credible and major director would go against what he's known for with a "visionary Art piece
3. Its just demonstrating the lack of atleast american attention span to enjoy a epic film. I do place this film in the top 5 of all time for me that i have seen just as i place watchmen in the top 15 books i have read of all time. The visuals are amazing and the story\plot changes so much through each part plus im a history nerd and i loved the changes they made to certain historical scenes due to the super hero presence. The soundtrack was also epic too(Loved how they used Phillip Glass for the Manhattan\trailer theme) The song is somber and depressing which fits so epically for the transformation of Doc Manhattan

 

[The Sean Man]

Being given the "visionary" label above your name is a curse. Just look at what happened to M. Night Shyamalan.

I just hope Watchmen turns out to be a success, because I really enjoy Zack Snyder as a director.

 

[Redmage]

But was davinci code promoted as "From the visionary genius of ron howard" or vice versa?

Most of the time, movie blurbs that pimp the director cite the most recent big-box-office film he made, because that's what most viewers will remember. The exceptions are the HUGE director names like Quentin Tarrantino, the people that are household names in and of themselves.

Also Howard is known for a variety of genres and films(apollo 13, etc)
Other than 300, the only major role for Snyder has been dawn of the dead but for most mainstream normies, they would only know him for 300

Exactly - so that's the only movie likely to be cited in a trailer for another of his films. Also 300 was another graphic novel adaptation, which is a draw for those fanboys who know that (they'd also know Watchmen was a GN).

But these things don't say "violence" to most people, particularly not with what comes across on the trailers as just another superhero movie. Those of us who had read the book knew what to expect based on that, but I believe you'll find that most who went in "cold" (without even a warning from fans of the book) went expecting a superhero escapism movie.

Heck when I picked up Issue #1 of Watchmen, back when, I was taken aback by the very first frame and the quote from Rorshach's journal: "Dog carcass in alley. Tire tread on burst stomach." I thought, "Oookay, this is not what I was expecting in a comic book." I think many people had the same kind of surprise at the theater.

Its like how LGF continued their sabotage in their marketing for repo: the genetic opera. When promoting it to screeners, they said it was "A new film by darren bousman, creator of saw(enter whichever number!) and people went in there expecting a gore\torture fest and were disappointed by what they saw.

I didn't hear about any great disappointment in Repo, but I would have predicted it, just based on the fact that it's a musical with a complex plot - not the sort of thing most Americans like to watch. Fortunately I didn't hear about the association with Saw until after I watched the DVD, or I probably wouldn't have - I just thought those were really bad movies.

But let's face it, there was a fair ration of gore in Repo, as far as that goes.

3. Its just demonstrating the lack of atleast american attention span to enjoy a epic film. I do place this film in the top 5 of all time for me that i have seen just as i place watchmen in the top 15 books i have read of all time. The visuals are amazing and the story\plot changes so much through each part plus im a history nerd and i loved the changes they made to certain historical scenes due to the super hero presence. The soundtrack was also epic too(Loved how they used Phillip Glass for the Manhattan\trailer theme) The song is somber and depressing which fits so epically for the transformation of Doc Manhattan

No arguments with most of that. (I'm not sure yet that I'd place it among my Top 5 Movies, but it's in the top 10 or 20.)

I think there again the superhero genre worked against it: people who go to see superhero movies usually aren't looking for epics. Again, it's very much like the book: a lot of people dismissed Watchmen without reading it, because it was "just a comic book." No one expects serious literature in a comic book, unless they're already familiar with the work of Alan Moore.

On the other hand, none of this seems to have hurt the movie TOO much - it took in almost $60 million the first weekend. I think it'll go down in the win column for Snyder, and I won't be shocked to see an Academy nomination or two for it (Best Director for Snyder, and Best Actor/Supporting Actor for Jackie Earle Haley).

 

[SlaverTickler]

I Watched the Watchmen...

My mutant ability to see past all things CGI as well as hype about the book allows me to tell you the truth about this crappy movie based on the single most over rated comic book story in the history of comics.

Nite Owl was still a pussy, Dr. Manhattan was still boring, Ozymandies was really fem' but at least Rorschach was still awesome. Worst of all was the fact that they changed how Roch kills the kidnapper, and cut out his Origin. I would have much rather seen this brought to life on screen then that ass hole Manhattan saying "In 5 minuets blah blah blah, 10 years ago blah blah blah, in 30 seconds blah blah blah." A friend of mine came to see the movie (who hadn't read the book) and while Manhattan was talking to Silk Specter II on mars I yelled out "You're supposed to be Crime Fighters kick somebody's ass!". That was the only real reaction he showed during the film, and he thought it was funny.

Basickley Watchmen is allot like The Dark Knight. In Dark Night when the Joker isn't on camera the movie isn't even worth watching because Batman is so portrayed by Bale that you almost wish he'd died so somebody good could play him. I could almost guaranty that if Ledger hadn't died most people would have seen past the hype and realized what shit movie it really was. In Watchman when Rorschach isn't kicking ass and investigating the Comedian's murder there is jack shit going on except for a bunch of pussies whining about how much there life suck, and Dr Manhattan thinking backwards an forwards in time.

 

[BlackestLily]

I yelled out "You're supposed to be Crime Fighter kick somebody's ass!". That was the only real reaction he showed during the film, and he thought it was funny.

I'm glad I wasn't in the same theatre!

 

[SlaverTickler]

I'm glad I wasn't in the same theatre!

Nothing, and I mean nothing that wasn't Rorschach related got a reaction in that theater. Nobody cared about the effects, nobody cared about Nite Owl and Silk Specters love scene (witch they ruined with a shot of Nit Owls fat ass). Everything else in the move was just a building up anticipation for when Rosrchach would show up again. I've read Watchmen, and I also read Kraven's Last Hunt. You can find the same depth of character in KLH as Watchman, and still have a crime fighter who actually fights crime.

 

[SlaverTickler]

3. Its just demonstrating the lack of atleast american attention span to enjoy a epic film. I do place this film in the top 5 of all time for me that i have seen just as i place watchmen in the top 15 books i have read of all time. The visuals are amazing and the story\plot changes so much through each part plus im a history nerd and i loved the changes they made to certain historical scenes due to the super hero presence. The soundtrack was also epic too(Loved how they used Phillip Glass for the Manhattan\trailer theme) The song is somber and depressing which fits so epically for the transformation of Doc Manhattan

It wasn't epic, it was a drawn out boring piece of crap. A movie about Crime Fighter who spend all there time wining about there problems instead of fighting crime. A good Spider-Man arch can give you all the internal pains and trouble of the hero, while still telling an action packed adventure. Gee look at that, good ol' Stan Lee could do it all and leave that freak Alan Moore in the dust.