WATCHMEN Breaks R-Rated Record,To Play In Most Theaters EVER

[Ravage!!!]

Speaking of Watchmen, any of you have 99 Luftballons stuck in your head after seeing it?

Good god no... I had "where is the exit" stuck in my head.

[Charlie Brown]

I believe we have somebody that craves attention here and demands to let his voice be heard even if everyone drowns out his voice. What is the name for that?

Oh yes, it is:

[Ravage!!!]

I believe we have somebody that craves attention here and demands to let his voice be heard even if everyone drowns out his voice. What is the name for that?

Oh yes, it is:

Yet you keep responding to me. What does that make you? Oh yeah..... a Brown's fan

[xX-Bronco-Xx]

I bet this one ranks up there with the original Hulk, Dare-Devil, and Cat-woman as those comic movies that people DO NOT go see a second time.

Not only was it too long.. it was just too boring. BOR-ING.... boring boring

Did you read the graphic novel?

And if you did read the graphic novel then what did you honestly expect the movie to be like?

[Javalon]

I believe we have somebody that craves attention here and demands to let his voice be heard even if everyone drowns out his voice. What is the name for that?

Oh yes, it is:

Hey, Rav is entitled to his opinion... even if it's WRONG!


Seriously, not everybody is going to like it. But I thought it was a nice change of pace from your typical superhero flick. A lot more shades of gray with these heroes and more character driven than superpower driven. Plus all the litle details I'm sure I missed will definitely have me watching it again.

[RealBronco]

I bet this one ranks up there with the original Hulk, Dare-Devil, and Cat-woman as those comic movies that people DO NOT go see a second time.

Not only was it too long.. it was just too boring. BOR-ING.... boring boring

Bringing up Hulk, Daredevil and Catwoman in the same conversation as The Watchmen is like saying Star Wars is on the same level as some crappy Sci-Fi channel movie.

No one with any interest in comic books would agree with you that The Watchmen was as crappy or even close to as crappy as those three. Those three films should never have been made.

Also why didn't you include the "new" Incredible Hulk with Norton? That was just as horrible as Ang Lee's.

I'm not saying The Watchmen is the end all to film or comic book movies, but read below for more:

The movie was great and I loved the Graphic Novel. I plan on going to see it again. Why? Because I loved the Graphic Novel and loved the movie. One cannot compare apples to oranges and then go around and compare them to potatoes. Watchmen is not like Hulk or those other movies. Those are examples of failed movies that didn't even do their Comic characters any justice. Watchmen did its book justice. Unlike you, when I go to watch a movie based on a comic or some other book I want it to be a visual representation of the book and I want it to be like that book coming alive, the characters, the plot, everything. Go read Jurassic Park and tell me how faithful Hollywood made the movie. Go read Hannibal and see how faithful that movie was. The travesties they turned those movies into (not saying those movies are bad necessarily, but when compared to their counterparts) they are nowhere near the story nor the characters. They might as well be night and day. Watchmen, 300, Sin City you get those comics and you look at the movie and you will see the comic come alive before you. That is how Hollywood SHOULD be.

You see, this is exactly why The Watchmen is a success as a film. Even if it's not a hit, or people think it's boring, it actually does the GN justice I, like Mr. Brown here am tired of Hollywood taking good stories, novels etc and raping them and turning them into something that doesn't even resemble the original piece of work.

The great thing about The Watchmen, 300 and Sin City is that they are almost to the "t" to the GN's. Granted 300 added more of the queen than the GN had, but that's okay. The fact that Snyder literally used the GN itself as a storyboard for the film speaks volumes to his dedication to preserving the original story.

If you want to see a movie that butchers the original story, watch Jurassic Park and The Lost World or a thousand other book-to-movie adaptations.

I'm glad Hollywood, or at least a few directors are starting to realize that turning a novel into a movie actually means keeping the story the same.

I mean, I don't mind if a person doesn't like a film, but to not even give credit to how well the director and crew stayed true to the original, that's just asking Hollywood to make more Hotel For Dog movies.

Unless of course you're into that sort of thing then you should probably never watch another movie in your lifetime.

Good god no... I had "where is the exit" stuck in my head.

You know, if you had "where's the exit" stuck in your head, why didn't you relay that to your legs and go THROUGH the exit if you didn't like it? You have the option to NOT watch a movie that you don't like and even get your money back.

I just think this is a case of not knowing what you were going into and like a lot of other people that didn't like it (which was the same case with Cloverfield) you built it up in your mind or had some grandiose vision of what the movie was going to be, and went into the movie EXPECTING to come out of it going: "that was the most amazing movie ever" and then when it wasn't (which is obvious from the trailers that it was going to be exactly what it advertised to be, which was a direct adaptation of a graphic novel and nothing more) you decided it was horrible and boring because it wasn't all it was cracked up to be in your head.

I guarantee you the same thing will happen with Terminator Salvation. People are jacking that thing up in their minds hardcore because they think it's going to be amazing (and I don't know why because McG hasn't directed anything worth a damn to date in his career) and then when it's just another Terminator or worse....or on par with T3, everyone will come down hard on it because they blew it up in their minds because they fall for the hype too easily like you did with The Watchmen.

[Ravage!!!]

Why didn't I get up and leave? Simple.. I spent 10 bucks to see the damn thing, and after sitting for 2.5 hours I was ready to see how it ended.

But no. .I didn't read the graphic novel. If thats what it takes to enjoy the movie, then I think it fails to bring in and entertain the 99% of the people that didn't read the graphic novel.

I guess I didn't understand why we spent 2 hours remembering a hero, that EVERy character expressed they didn't even like. I wasn't involved enough with this character to have this 'sorrow' that I felt was poorly expressed in the film, especially since none really showed sorrow. Yet we continued to have backround clips of this guy as if he was the greatest thing.

I respect that those watched it enjoyed the movie...thats cool. I'm glad it did somethign for you. Personally, the only thing I got out of it was a tired butt and a impression as to how they could make this look like an action flic on the pre-views.

The best scene was the VERY opening fight... and to be honest, it gave the entire movie away if you simply listened to what the "comedian" said. Not hard to figure out here.

Then what was up with the not-so-subtle, ****-erotic, blue ***** that was walking around all the time???

Anyway.. :shrugs: I guess there are movies that just don't hit the target. If they were hoping to purely target the very few numbers that read the graphic novel, they wouldn't have advertised it as such an action movie. They would have advertised it as a 'exact depiction of the graphic novel'...which would have kept people out of the theatres.

Now worries here though. Lots of movies didn't make it as comic-book movies (and the Second Hulk was a TON better than the first , I can't believe you would even say it was a bad as the first )

[Ravage!!!]

and yes.. Cloverfield was another yawner...... you must just enjoy sitting in a theatre and being bored

[RealBronco]

Why didn't I get up and leave? Simple.. I spent 10 bucks to see the damn thing, and after sitting for 2.5 hours I was ready to see how it ended.

but uh... you get up and... go ask for you money back... and then you don't pay 10 dollars.. and if it took you 2.5 hours to realize it was boring it must not've been that boring.

I guess I didn't understand why we spent 2 hours remembering a hero, that EVERy character expressed they didn't even like. I wasn't involved enough with this character to have this 'sorrow' that I felt was poorly expressed in the film, especially since none really showed sorrow. Yet we continued to have backround clips of this guy as if he was the greatest thing.

well then you missed the ENTIRE point of the story Rav. The Watchmen has NOTHING to do with The Comedian. His death is just the driving force of the film, and the way in which the other characters go about discovering the bigger picture and the bigger story. The story isn't about the Comedian at all. If you missed how heavy-laden it was with political issues and social issues of the time period, then you truly weren't paying a lick of attention. I thought everyone (even those who haven't read the GN) knew what it was really about...

I respect that those watched it enjoyed the movie...thats cool. I'm glad it did somethign for you. Personally, the only thing I got out of it was a tired butt and a impression as to how they could make this look like an action flic on the pre-views.

aHA!!! i rest my case. the previews (all one word, not hyphenated) don't play it off as an action flick at all really if you pay close enough attention.

if we're going to talk "misleading" previews then there's a stockpile full that are worse than this. Like I said, the Watchmen trailers gave you exactly what it was about... or what it was going to be. A visual interpretation of the graphic novel... heavy-laden with stunning visual effects. I don't know how you could get anything else out of that.

The best scene was the VERY opening fight... and to be honest, it gave the entire movie away if you simply listened to what the "comedian" said. Not hard to figure out here.

nah, the best scene was the very well done Kennedy assassination scene. Which also lends to the overall theme and story of the film which again, didn't really have anything to do with The Comedian himself... there was a much bigger picture at work within the story.

Then what was up with the not-so-subtle, ****-erotic, blue ***** that was walking around all the time???

why does everyone bring this up like it's such a shocking thing? He's a blue dude... and he doesn't wear clothes.. so what.

you think people complained about Mystique going the entire movie sans clothing? No... or if Dr. Manhattan were female, do you think people would be making a big deal of it?

Anyway.. :shrugs: I guess there are movies that just don't hit the target. If they were hoping to purely target the very few numbers that read the graphic novel, they wouldn't have advertised it as such an action movie. They would have advertised it as a 'exact depiction of the graphic novel'...which would have kept people out of the theatres.

hmmm, see if you'd read the GN you'd know the trailers DO in fact advertise it as a close interpretation of the novel. heck, your very own favorite opening scene of the film is shot-for-shot straight from the GN panel-for-panel, word for word. so really, what's more confusing is how you are getting that it was advertised as an action film.

that's what it boils down to, and further solidifies my point. YOU were expecting something completely different than it was because you had no idea what it was supposed to be in the first place, and since you thought the opening scene made everything so obvious, you'd think one would be able to pick up exactly what kind of movie it would be from the trailers.

Now worries here though. Lots of movies didn't make it as comic-book movies (and the Second Hulk was a TON better than the first , I can't believe you would even say it was a bad as the first )

uh.. they were pretty much the same CGI over-done piece of crap dude. Norton's Hulk looked just as dumb as Bana's version... and there was really no plot at all... maybe a couple of scenes with a cool effect here and there, but really... ultimately they should never have redone it. if you can't make it better than the previous one, why try? it really made no difference.

overall i just think you have some sort of vendetta against comic-book related movies for whatever reason. I think if you take out the "superheroes" and replace them with regular people... or whatever and throw them in the same situation, you'd probably be raving about it...

in fact, if you really think about it... The Watchmen doesn't really even have anything to do with superheroes, and if anything kind of satirizes the whole notion of a superhero or costumed crime fighter. which was another sub-plot in itself as well anyway.

*shrugs* sorry you didn't understand the complexities Rav. And this is coming from someone who just thinks The Watchmen is an "okay" movie.. because by no means is it some revolutionary piece of cinema. the GN was groundbreaking for its time, yes... but really the only thing the movie has to offer is visual effects and staying true to the GN, which alone should be appreciated. And the subject matter of the film (cold war, nuclear holocaust, etc) is also intriguing. but the film as a whole? of course it's not anything spectacular or historical film-wise. i mean, the acting wasn't even that good...

[Ravage!!!]

Real...

Ive read several of your reviews.. and although I'm not going to read that huge post you just typed out (sorry).... I think i can pretty much say its easy to see that you and I have completely different tastes.

Thats ok though.

You enjoy your thing.. and I'll enjoy mine. I'm sure that Watchman will be up for 'most boring' award, and when the acadamies come out, you'll gripe about the nominations again

No worries..... but I stick by my review. BORING :thumb: No I take that back. Boring as HELL

[Ravage!!!]

OMG I skimmed that huge post.. and I find it funny that you think I missed all the "intricate" plots and submeanings to the story of the film

Dude.. seriously.. please. That movie wasn't hard to keep up with... it didn't go over my head. I'm quite capable of keeping up with eveyrthing that was being played out on screen

But thanks for typing it out.... but I find it pretty funny that you felt I couldn't "grasp" the delicate plots of this INDEPTH comic novel

Thanks!!

[RealBronco]

Real...

Ive read several of your reviews.. and although I'm not going to read that huge post you just typed out (sorry).... I think i can pretty much say its easy to see that you and I have completely different tastes.

Thats ok though.

You enjoy your thing.. and I'll enjoy mine. I'm sure that Watchman will be up for 'most boring' award, and when the acadamies come out, you'll gripe about the nominations again

No worries..... but I stick by my review. BORING :thumb: No I take that back. Boring as HELL

Well, if it DOESN'T get nominated, I'll be surprised. If it doesn't win, I won't be. I could care less if it wins or not. The only real Academy worthy thing it's got going for it is Visual Effects and perhaps Cinematography.

It's not really an Oscar type of film in that sense, however, since the Academy seems to think they're all about "fresh, new and provocative" I wouldn't be surprised if they grow a huge man-crush for The Watchmen just because it's a "comic" book movie that weaves political and social issues into it.

On the other hand, the Academy may treat it like every other "comic" movie and oust it, even in the few categories it might deserve (as I said before)... just for the fact that it's a "comic" movie...

but either way, just like Slumdog, it won't deserve more than maybe 2 nominations... *shrugs*

also i don't see why you're so stuck on the "comic book" part of it. that's why i think you have a grudge against them for some reason, like you think they're not real movies or worthy of film or something... and you're right, most of the ones you mentioned (Hulk, Daredevil, Catwoman) should never have been green-lighted, including Norton's (also another curiosity as you appeared to love that one for some reason... when it was no better than the other three).

it doesn't have to automatically be counted out just because the story has superheroes in it.

and, finally: just because it says "graphic novel" does not in anyway mean it's a "comic" The Watchmen happens to have superheroes in it... but it definitely isn't a comic or suitable for all audiences, and neither was 300 or Sin City... the latter two aren't even close to comics... maybe people get mixed up because they're paneled or what have you... who knows, but how do you even know what you're arguing if you don't even read my posts? you don't even know whether i'm agreeing with you or not and you're getting bend out of shape for nothing. but the point is, in the end, The Watchmen as a film works. Regardless of whether it follows the GN (which is a refreshing that it does) or whatever, it's still holistically not a horrible movie. It's got a great story, great ideas, interesting ideas, etc etc. Speaking of following the story... let's take The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (which, if my memory serves you didn't like either), that movie really shouldn't be called that at all, because the only resemblance to the short story Fitzgerald wrote was the fact that the main character ages backwards, and they didn't even do that right...

Say, what are your thoughts on Road to Perdition and The Fountain? How about A History of Violence?