Who Watches The WATCHMEN...?

Post by **eddievalient** » February 20th, 2009, 12:53 am

Meh. I'll probably get the Black Freighter dvd when it comes out and get the director's cut dvd in July. No problems here.

Post by **Ben** » February 20th, 2009, 4:28 pm

Rand...if they cut back on supplements on a later cut, the "old" version will still be out there.

As far as recent titles that had two differing cuts, both Mr & Mrs Smith (the theatrical with three commentaries and extras, and the extended cut with an alternate director's track and a second disc of extras) and Troy (the theatrical and the Director's Cut, which carried over some of those extras) are all still out there.

One would hope that BD would feature both cuts on one disc, but as George says that's a lot for even BD (in HD) and the longer cut may actually (like the two titles I just mentioned) actually be a differing version altogether, like the alternate Lord Of The Rings editions of those movies.

Personally, I actually prefer different discs for different cuts...like the Kong DVDs. I know the BD now has both on one, but all the extras got dropped!

Post by **Ben** » February 26th, 2009, 10:25 am

Renamed this thread and thought we could continue WATCHMEN discussion in here.

The reviews from the London premiere this week have been good and bad. Here's The Hollywood Reporter's take:

Film Review: Watchmen
By Kirk Honeycutt, February 26, 2009 03:35 ET

Bottom Line: Ouch.
It's not easy being a comic-book hero these days. The poor boys have taken their lumps in "Hancock," "The Dark Knight" and even "Iron Man." Self-doubts, angst and inadequacies plague them. And now comes "Watchmen." Its costumed superheroes, operating in an alternative 1985, are seriously screwed up -- and so is their movie. If anyone were able to make a nine-figure movie, something like "Watchmen" would have been the opening-night film at the Sundance Film Festival.

As stimulating as it was to see the superhero movie enter the realm of crime fiction in "The Dark Knight," "Watchmen" enters into a realm that is both nihilistic and campy. The two make odd companions. The film, directed by Zack Snyder ("300"), will test the limits of superhero movie fans. If you're not already invested in these characters because of the original graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, nothing this movie does is likely to change that predicament.

That's bad news for Warner Bros. and Paramount, which hold domestic and international rights, respectively. Opening weekends everywhere will reflect the huge anticipation of this much-touted, news-making movie. After that, the boxoffice slide could be drastic.

Snyder and writers David Hayter and Alex Tse never find a reason for those unfamiliar with the graphic novel to care about any of this nonsense. And it is nonsense. When one superhero has to take a Zen break, he does so on Mars. Of course he does.

The film opens with a brutal killing, then moves on to a credit-roll newsreel of sorts that takes us though the Cold War years, landing us in 1985 when Nixon is in his third term, tipping us that we're in an alternate 1985 America, where our superheroes have taken care of Woodward and Bernstein and other forces have evidently taken care of the U.S. Constitution.

The opening murder happens to a character called the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), who was once a member of a now banished team of superheroes called the Masks. Fellow ex-Mask Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) -- his mask one of perpetually shifting inkblots -- takes exception to his old colleague's death. He believes the entire society of ex-crime-fighters is being targeted even as the Doomsday Clock -- which charts tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union that could lead to nuclear war -- nears midnight.

His investigation and renewed contacts with former buddies fills us in on the complicated histories and problematic psychiatric makeups of these colleagues.

It's all very complicated but not impenetrable. We pick up the relationships quickly enough, but soon realize these backstories owe more to soap operas than to superhero comics.

The thing is, these aren't so much superheroes as ordinary human beings with, let us say, comic-book martial arts prowess. The one exception is Billy Crudup's Jon Osterman, aka Dr. Manhattan, who in true comic-book fashion was caught in a laboratory accident that turned him into a scientific freak -- a naked, glowing giant, looking a little bit like the Oscar statuette only with actual genitals -- who has amazing God-like powers.

These powers are being harnessed by an ex-Mask, Matthew Goode's menacing though slightly effeminate industrialist Adrian Veidt.

When Dr. Manhattan's frustrated girlfriend, yet another former Mask, Carla Gugino's Sally Jupiter, can't get any satisfaction from Dr. M, she turns to the former Nite Owl II, Dan Dreiberg, who seems too much of a good guy to be an actual superhero, but he does miss those midnight prowls.

The point is that these superheroes, before Nixon banned them, were more vigilantes than real heroes, so the question the movie poses is, ah-hah, who is watching these Watchmen? They don't seem too much different from the villains.

Which also means we don't empathize with any of these creatures. And what's with the silly Halloween getups? Did anyone ever buy those Hollywood Boulevard costumes?

The violence is not as bad as early rumors would have one believe. It's still comic-book stuff, only with lots of bloody effects and makeup. The real disappointment is that the film does not transport an audience to another world, as "300" did. Nor does the third-rate Chandleresque narration by Rorschach help.

There is something a little lackadaisical here. The set pieces are surprisingly flat and the characters have little resonance. Fight scenes don't hold a candle to Asian action. Even the digital effects are ho-hum. Armageddon never looked so cheesy.

The film seems to take pride in its darkness, but this is just another failed special effect. Cinematographer Larry Fong and production designer Alex McDowell blend real and digital sets with earthen tones and secondary colors that give a sense of the past. But the stories are too absurd and acting too uneven to convince anyone. The appearances of a waxworks Nixon, Kissinger and other 1980s personalities will only bring hoots from less charitable audiences.

Looks like we have the first real flop of 2009.

Ouch indeed! I don't know the comic, but I am very much looking forward to this and don't believe for a second that it will come over as campy as it sounds. I think the whole tone of the project sounds a little "flipped out" to begin with, so I think I'm in the right mindset for this one. I'll be watching the Watchmen myself, that's for sure.

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » February 26th, 2009, 11:18 am

Well,

To put the entertainment paper's reviews in perspective, consider this...

When Star Trek originally appeared on television 1966, it received very harsh reviews from Variety. The reviewer at Variety just didn't "get it" at all.

We all know how that story turned out just a few years later.

The series became a CERTIFIED phenomenal hit in syndication.

All evidence, based on demographics breakdown and sales of color TV sets in its time (Star Trek was one of the early full-color TV shows from the first pilot on which accounts for its psychedlic colors), is that it was a "hit" in that sense, too, and a real money-maker for RCA, the parent company of NBC, which was pushing color TV sets hard. Star Trek was the number-one full-color TV series for its era even in first run.

The demographics and ratings numbers Star Trek got back in the 1960s would be considered a hit today...

Of course, that little tidbit wasn't figured out until long after the show had been cancelled!

(Source: Inside Star Trek - The Real Story by Herbert F. Solow and Robert H. Justman. These were two of the guys who worked on Star Trek behind the scenes from about DAY ONE of the show's existence back in 1964! Solow was the executive in charge of production for Star Trek at Desilu Studios for its first two years of existence. Jusman was Associate Producer and basically Number Two on the show below Roddenberry. Solow had access to ratings and demographics information as well as inside access to what was going on with RCA and NBC. I think he knows what he's talking about!)

Watchmen may not be as big a hit in theaters now because of its timed March release but it should do very well on home video.

I don't care for the Black Freighter/Pirate side-story myself, but the main story -- if it's done well -- is a good one.

Post by **Rodney** » February 26th, 2009, 12:27 pm

I don't think that the fact it's released in March will hurt The Watchmen. Several, comic book/sci fi movies come out this time of the year. Most notably we had The Matrix.

Post by **Randall** » February 26th, 2009, 8:49 pm

When the reviewer actually mis-identifies Carla Gugino as the second Silk Spectre character, you have to wonder if he was even paying attention.

Other reviews have generally been positive, though stop short of calling it wonderful.

I suspect this movie just wasn't made for this reviewer. Personally, I can't wait to see it.

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » February 27th, 2009, 12:04 am

I still think Watchmen could do potentially better if it were released in May without much competition.

It should do okay in March unless it's really campy but we'll see.

I'm not expecting much of anything else to be very good this year to be frank. I can't think of anything else besides Ponyo that I care to spend money on at a theater this year. I know I'm skipping Marvel's stuff and there just isn't anything animated beyond Ponyo that I feel I have to see.

Post by **Rodney** » February 27th, 2009, 2:45 pm

There's always Up, if you're into Pixar movies.

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » March 1st, 2009, 12:21 am

If Pixar ever stops remaking its version of "Mario Bros." then I'll be back in the fan camp. Right now, I feel like they're making formula fans. Pass...

Post by **EricJ** » March 1st, 2009, 2:59 am

They're remaking Mario Bros?...Who gets to play the Mojo Nixon role?

Post by **Vernadyn** » March 4th, 2009, 6:17 pm

To tell the truth, I never really liked the "Black Freighter" story in the context of the whole graphic novel. It seemed to be a little slow, and too "on the nose" in illustrating some of the parallel concepts taking place in the main story. So in a sense, I'm kind of glad that it's being done separately.

In fact, that's probably my biggest complaint about the Watchmen graphic novel. I really like it and think it's an excellent story, but sometimes Moore and Gibbons push the symbolism a little too far, so that it's more "in your face." Well, not even that, I guess, as much as some of the themes are so baldly and blatantly stated, detracting a bit from the story.

I do like how Moore made a whole backstory on the development of the comics and their creators, though.

Post by **Sunday** » March 5th, 2009, 9:41 pm

Looks like I'm fairly alone in liking the original Freighter line. Seeing the same ideas play out, sure, but being absorbed and digested via the youth reading it made things dually interesting for me, like that might've been his only inlet to Moore's greater experience. Read it years ago, though, so maybe a re-reading wouldn't play out like I recall.

Post by **Vernadyn** » March 6th, 2009, 3:28 pm

I did like the story of the Black Freighter itself. I just didn't like how it was integrated into the main story. For me, though, the pacing was slow enough that I could see the ending coming long before it happened. As for the ending of the main Watchmen story itself...that truly knocked me out.

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » March 6th, 2009, 3:43 pm

I'm still going to see the film this weekend.

Right now, I sort of feel lousy (slight headache and fever) so Friday may be out of the question. Sunday at the latest, though...

Black Freighter and that motion comic DVD/BD release are things that I'll skip. If I want the Marvel Comics 1960s-style animation, I'll buy those shows when they get released on home video in R1 otherwise I could care less about the DC version. That's basically what the Watchmen motion comic is.

Black Freighter, as I mentioned earlier, is the part of Watchmen that I felt was totally unnecessary and irrelevant.

As much as I disagree with Moore's POV and politics in general, the guys does make you think and occasionally produces really good comics! Besides Watchmen which has ended up being the comic he'll forever be remembered for, V for Vendetta and the two trade collections of his Supreme run are well worth seeking out.

If you really want the best-written Superman comics of the last 3 decades, the Moore-written Supreme trades are the trade paperbacks you have to get. It really is a love-letter to the best aspects and most memorable characters and situations created during the Golden Age of Superman comics (1940s through early 1970s).

It's a shame DC Comics teed Moore off but he does tend to be a bit of a grouch and hothead at times. Moore could have easily been the best writer the Superman character ever had...

Post by **Dacey** » March 6th, 2009, 10:58 pm

Saw the movie today. It was AMAZING!

Now go see it already.