Watchmen

I've had similar problems, MrSuper. My local Odeon isn't showing Watchmen either and I'm having to travel up to Dundee to see it. Can't really find any info why either.
 
But the film is basically a whodunnit, I don't know that character development is really necessary.



I don't think it's complicated (watch Primer if you want to see the most complicated film in the world ever :D), there's just a large amount of backstory, most of which isn't necessary to the movie. If you stripped Watchmen down to just the salient plot points, then it's pretty standard fare; the joy of Watchmen (the book) has always been in the character details and interconnections.

Personally, I think Zack Snyder's film points the way to a definitive film version, and a director with an ear for dialogue (and who isn't afraid of a long shot or two!) could really hit the mark.
 
Here is some news from aintitcool.com about the future DVD release of Watchmen:

"Zack Snyder is preparing two extended cuts for the DVD/Blu-ray release. The theatrical cut - which you'll be seeing in less than three weeks! - clocks in at 156 minutes. The Director's Cut will run 190 minutes. And then there will be a cut splicing in "Tales of the Black Freighter" that will run a whopping 205 minutes. Wow.
This has been expected, but it's the first confirmation we've received since Snyder finished the film."

By the way I saw a trailer on TV last night for Watchmen which looked really good!
 
Don't you think there is a note of hypocrisy in that he signed to the "big publisher", and willing signed away the rights to his work to them in exchange for money? In that respect, he did get paid - and hanRABomely - for his deal with DC. That they later use the intellectual property (which the bought off Moore) seems perfectly fair and normal (the contract Moore signed said they could). Whilst Moore doesn't get paid extra royalties for the film (yes, by his own choice), he still lives a damn good life off the money he made from his deal with the major publishers about whom he regularly has public hissfits.
 
And yet he agreed to work for DC and let them publish Watchmen so I think he is a hypocrite. He was working for British comic 2000AD and saw DC's interest in Watchmen as his way to break into the US comics scene. Had he been so principled he wouldn't have have done a deal with DC. He could have changed Watchmen so much that it didn't contain any DC copyright. I dunno, call it Clockmen with all new characters and try to get a UK publisher to release it. He didn't do that. He took DC's money, knew they had rights to his work. This is why people have lawyers - to check the fine print of contracts! I think he is a hypocrite of the first order but he's a fine writer nonetheless. My guess is deep down he regrets going with a big US comics publisher but I suspect he needed their money to pay his mortgage. Several 2000AD writers and artists were poached in the 1980s because DC could pay them more cash. Principles are fine in theory but people have to pay their bills!
 
lmao so the only reason it was rated 18 is because of 2 fight scenes? Oh yehhh, its gonna be a real hard 18 lol Pushing the rating to the limits lol. As long as the comic book fans enjoy it thats all that matters.
 
Never read the novel but loved the film.
Anyone wanting a feelgood experience will be very disapointed lol, it's very grim at times, makes the Dark Knight look like Toy Story!
But at least it treats the audience like adults.
Without sounding pretentious it seemed like more like an experience than a film.
 
I agree, the most complicated film of all time has to be Primer....but!!! to me its also one of the best sci fi films ever made.

Watchmen was just pretentious, as much as the writer taking his name off the film like he did with V. Get over yourself man, it's just a comic, be thankful it's been immortalised on film. Ok, some things have been changed a little...for the better?
 
Just came back from the cinema and I loved it. It was a tad long but it was faithful to the graphic novel especially the prologue and the title sequence. Jackie Earle Haley was great as Rorschach as was Patrick Wilson as Nite-Owl and Billy Crudup as Dr Manhattan. The changed ending worked better and made more sense on film than the orginal ending.

The sex scenes and someof the violence were a little unneccesary but apart from that, it was a great film.
 
That was down to legal wranglings between Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox over who actually had the movie rights to the Book,which turned out Fox did have the rights not Warners
 
Have to say I and many others chuckled a couple of times like a 5 year old when it came on screen. :o

I was expecting them to Action Man that part of his body if you know what I mean. ;)

Anyway, the film wasn't what I was expecting (I'd never heard of Watchmen before this). I thought it was your usual Spiderman/Batman thriller but they were quite right with the 18 rating. Extremely dark but not bad.
 
I liked it! My only real complaint was the length of the movie!

I thought the last 30m was the weakest tho!

l
oved the flashbacks, mainly because it meant we'd see more of the comedian! I was rather annoyed that JDM's character died almost instantly!

I think I'm going to ship Dan and Rorschach!
 
Snyder's made it excessively violent and it needed to be toned down. Sex scenes were the least of it, unless you find nudity unbecoming.

There are some major absurdities, like Nixon's excessively false nose. The rest may seem like absurdity, but it's the loss between translating comics to film. On the page it's poetry, IRL ludicrous.
 
Norrington gets a raw deal over LXG IMO.

The biggest thing wrong with that movie is Sean Connery who didn't understand the material at all & opted for standard Boy's Own heroics in his portrayal of Quatermain.
 
Back
Top