The Zone

by **DennisMM** on Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:55 pm

Al Shut wrote:
instant_karma wrote:Given that Manhattan had been a tool of the US government for so many years, I don't buy the US's cold war enemies just accepting that Manhattan has gone rogue and not suggesting that the attacks on the cities by Manhattan were done under orders of the US, with the attack on New York being an attempt to deflect blame.

If they wouldn't accept Manhattan gone rouge there wouldn't have been any action in Afghanistan and Pakistan and no imenant threat of nuclear armaggedon in the first place. The Russians have probably simmilar psychological profiles about Manhattan to the ones Veidt has.

But the whole point of Soviet action in Pakistan and Afghanistan is that the USSR isn't willing to accept existing US hegemony over what it sees as legitimate Eastern territory. As Jon's mentor points out in #4's back matter, the Soviets unreasonably fear territorial intrusions and threats to their existence (growing out of WWII). They will respond to such threats with all available force, down to the last man, including mutually assured destruction. Jon's presence as a US weapon is all that's needed to spur their "adventurism," not any fear that he will go rogue against the world. In the book, Jon is the equivalent of the real-world proposed antiballistic missile site in Poland - which currently is kicking up dust with the Russians - but times ten.

Did that make any sense?

by **SilentBobX** on Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:32 pm

No but then again politics never made sense to me, nor the entire cold war. I'm just glad that it's over and the world is at peace. No wars, famine, evil bankers.........oh wait the mescaline's wearing off........no no no no no no no no.................................

Mahalo

by **Retardo_Montalban** on Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:37 pm

Ribbons wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:again, not as a criticism solely of the movie, it doesn't make much sense that ozy would take out comedian if he knew he wasn't going to expose his plan. especially since he was willing to let rorshach walk out the door, knowing full well rorshach WAS going to expose the plan and try to undo everything he did. even manhattan wasn't willing to take that chance (in the gn or the movie). that was something i never really bought in the gn.

I may have misunderstood the explanation at the end of the movie, but the impression I got was that Veidt actually invited the Comedian to Karnak because he was one of the few people he thought wouldn't have any moral qualms about his impedning plan, but then he cracked. As for the Rorshach thing, I got the impression that -- in the movie anyway -- Ozymandias was ASKING Manhattan to go kill Rorshach for him as he walked out the door. Granted that also doesn't make a whole lot of sense since he could have easily killed him with his bare hands (and already had killed several people with his bare hands).

And that makes the movie Comedian a total pussy. Hey buddy, forget slaughtering helpless Vietnamese with your bare hands and killing presidents. we're going to sit back in my arctic lounge chair, push a button and incinerate millions of people instantly. Oh no, my fragile psyche couldn't possibly take such a detached and easily accomplished crime. I'm going to curl up in a ball and cry my heart out, now.

Yeah, in both the book and the movie, I had the feeling that Ozymandias knew Dr. Manhattan would off Rorschach. I also assumed that it is funner to manipulate people into doing things for you than doing them yourself. Especially a being who is practically GOD.

by **Al Shut** on Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:07 am

DennisMM wrote:But the whole point of Soviet action in Pakistan and Afghanistan is that the USSR isn't willing to accept existing US hegemony over what it sees as legitimate Eastern territory. As Jon's mentor points out in #4's back matter, the Soviets unreasonably fear territorial intrusions and threats to their existence (growing out of WWII). They will respond to such threats with all available force, down to the last man, including mutually assured destruction. Jon's presence as a US weapon is all that's needed to spur their "adventurism," not any fear that he will go rogue against the world. In the book, Jon is the equivalent of the real-world proposed antiballistic missile site in Poland - which currently is kicking up dust with the Russians - but times ten.

Did that make any sense?

But the action in Afghanistan didn't start until Manhattan left earth. So the Russians fear Manhattan enough to hold back when he's there and they buy that he has left earth and the US behind. It doesn't seem that unlikely that they believe in him going rouge too.

After all it is an alternative movie/comic reality, if the author says they believe it, than they do.

Retardo_Montalban wrote:And that makes the movie Comedian a total pussy. Hey buddy, forget slaughtering helpless Vietnamese with your bare hands and killing presidents. we're going to sit back in my arctic lounge chair, push a button and incinerate millions of people instantly. Oh no, my fragile psyche couldn't possibly take such a detached and easily accomplished crime. I'm going to curl up in a ball and cry my heart out, now.

But that's not that different from the comic comedian. Without a psycic brain actually exploding there isn't really that much horror to make him crack, all he could have uncovered was the plan itself and design scetches.

by **Retardo_Montalban** on Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:19 pm

Al Shut wrote:
After all it is an alternative movie/comic reality, if the author says they believe it, than they do.

Retardo_Montalban wrote:And that makes the movie Comedian a total pussy. Hey buddy, forget slaughtering helpless Vietnamese with your bare hands and killing presidents. we're going to sit back in my arctic lounge chair, push a button and incinerate millions of people instantly. Oh no, my fragile psyche couldn't possibly take such a detached and easily accomplished crime. I'm going to curl up in a ball and cry my heart out, now.

But that's not that different from the comic comedian. Without a psycic brain actually exploding there isn't really that much horror to make him crack, all he could have uncovered was the plan itself and design scetches.

Yeah, design sketches of a giant tentacled alien killing hordes of people with psychic brainwaves and burning images of horror into anyone unlucky enough not to get murdered by the squid including himself. I never took the Comedian crying at Moloch's as him not being able to take the pressure, but him realizing that someone else got "the joke" and sitting back and knowing he is going to have to be one of the useless sheep at the end of the punchline.

by **Al Shut** on Sun Mar 22, 2009 2:17 pm

I still don't get where the differeence between comic and movie in that particular instanc is supposed to be

by **Ribbons** on Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:21 pm

Here's a question for y'all: whose character or performance did you enjoy the most in the movie? I know that Haley and Morgan are getting a lot of attention, and deservedly so, but I think that Billy Crudup did some pretty amazing work as Dr. Manhattan. He had to be expressive while seeming (almost) emotionless at the same time, and the fact that every subtle facial expression came through so well is a testament to both him and the f/x guys in my opinion.

by **Nachokoolaid** on Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:32 pm

Definitely. I really didn't have an issue with the acting at all. I think that Ackerman's lines in her very first scene seemed really wooden, but after that, even she seemed okay with me.

In terms of Crudup, when I first saw that trailer and heard Crudup's natural voice for Manhattan, I was a little disappointed because I had imagined it a different way. But after seeing the film, he did an amazing job and I can't really hear his voice a different way now.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:35 pm

I thought Crudup was an excellent choice. This is the dude who narrates the MasterCard commercials, for Christ's sake. The sequence on Mars where he reflects on the accident and shit, man, I felt bad for the motherfucker. And a big chunk of that is Crudup's narration, which comes off as mostly emotionless, which I think is what makes it so sad.

by **DennisMM** on Sun Mar 22, 2009 6:16 pm

The only problem I had with Crudup is that his voice was very light. I'm not saying they should have given his voice a treatment of some sort - though that would have been faithful to the book, Zack! - but that he could have pitched himself a little bit lower. At times he was almost squeaky, which seemed incongruous with that blue bod.

by **Nachokoolaid** on Sun Mar 22, 2009 6:25 pm

And by "bod" you mean "cock."

by **caruso_stalker217** on Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:57 am

Okay, I've avoided mentioning the dong up until now because I didn't think it was such a big deal. But the third time watching the movie I sat in the front row. And when you're in the front row you can't really avoid it.

LIKE TURNING AIR INTO GOLD!

by **Spandau Belly** on Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:21 am

Ribbons wrote:Here's a question for y'all: whose character or performance did you enjoy the most in the movie? I know that Haley and Morgan are getting a lot of attention, and deservedly so, but I think that Billy Crudup did some pretty amazing work as Dr. Manhattan. He had to be expressive while seeming (almost) emotionless at the same time, and the fact that every subtle facial expression came through so well is a testament to both him and the f/x guys in my opinion.

Yeah, Manhattan came across the most as I how I read him in the comic book. But not only that I found his performance hypnotic and compelling. I think his voice was perfect, it's exactly how I imagined it. Not some booming James Earl Jones voice of a God, but the voice of a man who can see infinity but struggles against indifference and ambivilance.

Rorschach was great too. Actually, I liked the whole cast and their performances except Veidt. It's not just that they interpreted Veidt way different than I read him, it's that that take on the character didn't really work for me. I was fine with them changing stuff such as the climax, but making that character so foppish just didn't work for me.

But yeah, Crudup as Mahattan was great. The sequence of his origins was the best section of the film.

by **TheBaxter** on Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:32 am

Retardo_Montalban wrote:
Al Shut wrote:
After all it is an alternative movie/comic reality, if the author says they believe it, than they do.

Retardo_Montalban wrote:And that makes the movie Comedian a total pussy. Hey buddy, forget slaughtering helpless Vietnamese with your bare hands and killing presidents. we're going to sit back in my arctic lounge chair, push a button and incinerate millions of people instantly. Oh no, my fragile psyche couldn't possibly take such a detached and easily accomplished crime. I'm going to curl up in a ball and cry my heart out, now.

But that's not that different from the comic comedian. Without a psycic brain actually exploding there isn't really that much horror to make him crack, all he could have uncovered was the plan itself and design scetches.

Yeah, design sketches of a giant tentacled alien killing hordes of people with psychic brainwaves and burning images of horror into anyone unlucky enough not to get murdered by the squid including himself. I never took the Comedian crying at Moloch's as him not being able to take the pressure, but him realizing that someone else got "the joke" and sitting back and knowing he is going to have to be one of the useless sheep at the end of the punchline.

if i remember correctly, comedian was also pretty sloshed when he shows up at moloch's. so that might have had something to do with his mood as well.

by **TheBaxter** on Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 am

DennisMM wrote:The only problem I had with Crudup is that his voice was very light. I'm not saying they should have given his voice a treatment of some sort - though that would have been faithful to the book, Zack! - but that he could have pitched himself a little bit lower. At times he was almost squeaky, which seemed incongruous with that blue bod.

the thing i liked about his voice is that it was really the last part of him that was really human. i could even hear a slight accent or drawl in there once in a while. the incongruity of his voice with his appearance, in my mind, actually brought his otherworldliness to more attention, by providing that contrast between what he used to be and what he is now.

by **Nachokoolaid** on Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:31 pm

Maybe it's just the way he was drawn, but I had a hard time in the book taking Veidt seriously. He seemed like a big dumb jock or something. To me, it seemed like he was always drawn with a dumb, confused, or constipated look on his face. I started associating him with Dauber, that idiot from the TV show "Coach." It's pretty much the exact opposite of the smartest man in the world.

I just always thought that was funny.

by **Spandau Belly** on Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:43 pm

I always pictured Veidt as a young (40-ish) Robert Redford. Like Redford playing John Kennedy or something. Yeah, a bit of a jock, but more of an all around goldenboy and privledged son but with the engaging charisma of a self-made man.

I never got a glam rock fop vibe off him in the book. And I thought Goode's dry dainty portrayal made him come across more like a typical villain in a movie where the point was that there was no real villain other than maybe human nature at large.

by **Fried Gold** on Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:27 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/ ... words.html

by **Spandau Belly** on Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:28 pm

Fried Gold wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2009/03/blog_chat_watching_your_words.html

This fellow definately hit on something I felt too. Snyder made an adult film but not a mature one.

Snyder knows that blood, cussing, fucking, schlongs, tits, and homosexuality add up to an R rating but he doesn't seem to get that being thoughtful and patient in his storytelling add up to a mature resonating film.

The Dark Knight was rated PG or whatever but was a more mature movie because of how seriously it took it's characters and its pacing.

Snyder had lots of the pieces in place, but he couldn't resist his 14 year old boy instincts to shove in all those magic kick wire-fu sequences of guys who get kicked 20 feet through the air fly through a glass coffee table and smack their heads on marble floors and pop back up for more.

I've been thinking about it and I think that's actually the biggest slight to the movie's tone. The action style was cartoony. Sure it was bloody, but so is Itchy And Scratchy. Giving the characters superhuman strength changed the whole nature of the story. These were no longer regular people who just got themselves into great shape and designed some gadgets and set out to make a difference in the world around them, these people were like the X-Men or whatever. Born different.

by **DennisMM** on Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:26 pm

Nachokoolaid wrote:Maybe it's just the way he was drawn, but I had a hard time in the book taking Veidt seriously. He seemed like a big dumb jock or something. To me, it seemed like he was always drawn with a dumb, confused, or constipated look on his face. I started associating him with Dauber, that idiot from the TV show "Coach." It's pretty much the exact opposite of the smartest man in the world.

I just always thought that was funny.

Moore's notes indicate that he was supposed to reflect Kennedy and Redford in his look. I think he was meant to look smug more than once in a while, but to me he mostly looked vaguely upset - which makes sense when one becomes aware of what's happening behind the scenes. Perhaps that's what you read as "constipated." If one examines his expressions in context with his dialogue, I think they seem more than valid choices on Gibbons' part.

by **Gheorghe Zamfir** on Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:14 am

Two things Snyder got right: Rorschach and the decision for Ackerman to keep the boots on.

Things that didn't bug me that I've read bothered others: the old people make up looked fine to me (but Nixon was ridiculous, did no one have an actual picture of him to consult?), and I thought Malin Ackerman's performance was pretty good.

Beyond that, it was just a mediocre movie, with the laziest soundtrack I've ever heard (c'mon even Forrest Gump tried harder). A few odd choices as far as changes from the book, including the decision to make the super heroes actually super, but the ending didn't really bother me, maybe because I had lost interest by that point? I feel like the movie failed to find a narrative, it's like being told a story by an excited 8 year old "this happens oh then this happens but before that this happened but that actually started with this..." by the time we get to the ending it didn't really feel like a conclusion that's been earned, it was more like "jeez we've got 2 hours of film under our belt we ought to do something at this point." I'd have been happier with a short or longer film, if it had only had something it was trying to develop, rather than the kind if rambling effort this film was that ultimately just puttered out.

by **Chilli** on Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Eh, I really dug it. Granted as an entertaining film rather than the art of the comic-book, but the stuff they right (Doc M, Rorschach, The Comedian) they absolutely nailed.

by **RogueScribner** on Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:47 pm

I finally caught up with this movie and I was a little underwhelmed.

I don't think the movie was ever awful (aside from some musical choices), but it rarely rose above the trappings of a typical Hollywood movie. The heroes were a little too super in their abilities. The violence was a little too graphic. It just didn't seem to fit. I thought everyone acted their parts well, especially Jackie Earle Haley, Billy Crudup, and Patrick Wilson. The idea of the ending didn't bother me, but the execution of it did. There wasn't enough impact. We saw some blurbs on TV from Nixon about the devastation, but we really needed to see it through the eyes of the layman. It needed to be personal and it wasn't. And they needed to play up the idea of everyone being afraid of the angry god (Manhattan) more to properly sell the ending. That being said, they got a lot right and, knowing the production history of this property, this was probably the best anyone could have expected. I was hoping the film would tap into the zeitgeist the way TDK did, but sadly it just seems like an overly long superheroes vs. nuclear annihilation film than something deeper. Some things were said, but hardly any of it resonated. The text was there, but somehow, the subtext was missed completely. I'm no uber-Watchmen fan. I liked the graphic novel, but felt it could be a bit dense yet simplistic at the same time. And the monster ending never sat well with me. So I didn't despise many of the changes Snyder made in the effort to streamline the story, but I do think something was lost. That little thematic nugget that makes any movie matter was lost somehow. So in the end, while I was entertained, this movie isn't going to stay with me. In the end, this movie doesn't really matter. The graphic novel mattered.

6.5/10

by **TheButcher** on Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:24 am

From Variety: Zack Snyder fans fanboy flames

THOMAS MCLEAN wrote:"For me, the process of making 'Watchmen' and '300' into movies was about making something personal," he says of his connection to the material. "It's like getting a picture of your kids and having someone say, 'Do you want to make this into a movie?' You know how you feel about it instantly."

Snyder fought hard to make the film as complete an experience as possible, even animating a comicbook subplot and shooting a faux documentary for the "Tales of the Black Freighter" DVD release. The only major deviation was the movie's ending, which replaces a fake alien invasion with a threat from the superhuman Dr. Manhattan. Snyder says the new ending -- suggested to co-screenwriter David Hayter by a physicist fan of the comic -- let him avoid additional scenes that would take time away from the main characters.

Reaction to the film since its release March 6 has seen it declared everything from a masterpiece to a flop. Snyder says that's mostly what he expected.

"It's a difficult movie and challenging, and some people get it and some people don't -- and that's kind of how the graphic novel is," he explains.

For now, Snyder is working on the director's cut of the film, due out in July, which he says will be a bit more inside for fans of the comic and clearer to nonfans. His next projects remain genre-based -- the fantasy adventure "Sucker Punch," an animated film called "The Guardians of Ga'Hoole" and Ray Bradbury's "The Illustrated Man" -- but he says he'd do another comicbook adaptation if the right one came along.

"There are millions of genius pieces of work out there, but nothing's keeping me up at night," he says. "Nothing since 'Watchmen.'"

by **Bloo** on Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:34 am

TheButcher wrote:From Variety: Zack Snyder fans fanboy flames

THOMAS MCLEAN wrote:"For me, the process of making 'Watchmen' and '300' into movies was about making something personal," he says of his connection to the material. "It's like getting a picture of your kids and having someone say, 'Do you want to make this into a movie?' You know how you feel about it instantly."

Snyder fought hard to make the film as complete an experience as possible, even animating a comicbook subplot and shooting a faux documentary for the "Tales of the Black Freighter" DVD release. The only major deviation was the movie's ending, which replaces a fake alien invasion with a threat from the superhuman Dr. Manhattan. Snyder says the new ending -- suggested to co-screenwriter David Hayter by a physicist fan of the comic -- let him avoid additional scenes that would take time away from the main characters.

Reaction to the film since its release March 6 has seen it declared everything from a masterpiece to a flop. Snyder says that's mostly what he expected.

"It's a difficult movie and challenging, and some people get it and some people don't -- and that's kind of how the graphic novel is," he explains.

For now, Snyder is working on the director's cut of the film, due out in July, which he says will be a bit more inside for fans of the comic and clearer to nonfans. His next projects remain genre-based -- the fantasy adventure "Sucker Punch," an animated film called "The Guardians of Ga'Hoole" and Ray Bradbury's "The Illustrated Man" -- but he says he'd do another comicbook adaptation if the right one came along.

"There are millions of genius pieces of work out there, but nothing's keeping me up at night," he says. "Nothing since 'Watchmen.'"

Zach Snyder is trying to do THE ILLUSTRATED MAN...I could see him maybe doing a segment, but really?

actually now I kind of remember reading something about him trying to tackle THE ILLUSTRATED MAN but I don't remember the details was it going to be closer to the book or a remake of the film (which really had little connection to the book)

anyways, it's a choice I just don't see working

by **Retardo_Montalban** on Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:44 pm

I'm not saying this man disliked the movie, I'm just saying...
Man shoots himself during Watchmen movie

by **Nachokoolaid** on Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:00 pm

After seeing the film, I went and re-read the book, and the thing that strikes me now is how awesome of a job Crudup did as Manhattan. Sure, we all know Haley was kickass, but I feel that he sort of made Rorshach his own thing that was awesome while being not EXACTLY like the book. Crudup really nailed it in terms of capturing the character of Jon/Manhattan perfectly as portrayed by Moore/Gibbons. I can't help hearing Crudup's voic when I read Manhattan now, even though I wasn't the biggest fan of the voice at first.

And props to Snyder once again.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:57 am

Fuckin' Oregonians, man.

by **Bloo** on Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:57 am

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Fuckin' Oregonians, man.

just what are you guys smoking up there...oh wait never mind

by **caruso_stalker217** on Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:01 am

I sincerely doubt we're doing more drugs than anybody else.

Big meth problem, though.

by **Bloo** on Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:13 am

caruso_stalker217 wrote:I sincerely doubt we're doing more drugs than anybody else.

Big meth problem, though.

I doubt it too, but it's fun to pick on Oregon as a big drug problem

I would probably guess we have more marijuna use in Kansas, because I know for a fact tons of it gets grown out here

we have a big meth problem too

by **caruso_stalker217** on Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:19 am

So we've got something in common. Pot and meth!

by **Bloo** on Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:20 am

caruso_stalker217 wrote:So we've got something in common. Pot and meth!

FINALLY!

umm Watchmen is for potheads (I don't know I still haven't seen the movie, I'm just trying to stay on topic here now)

by **caruso_stalker217** on Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:56 am

I find myself quoting Crudup a lot lately. Especially the parts where his voice gets higher for no real reason. "You want to ask me to go out to dinner, like we used to. But you won't. So you'll call, Dan. Which is perfectlynatural. You deservethecomfortofanoldfriend."

by **TheBaxter** on Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:03 am

Retardo_Montalban wrote:I'm not saying this man disliked the movie, I'm just saying...
Man shoots himself during Watchmen movie

i KNEW snyder should've kept the squid in the ending!

by **Wiccan Woman** on Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:01 pm

Bloo wrote:
caruso_stalker217 wrote:So we've got something in common. Pot and meth!

FINALLY!

umm Watchmen is for potheads (I don't know I still haven't seen the movie, I'm just trying to stay on topic here now)

It wasn't a bad thought. However, seeing Watchmen after indulging, and then having to sit at the front of the theater....well, let's just say that it was difficult to *not* focus on the big blue dong. I'm saving the 2nd showing for dvd....less distraction. :wink:

by **caruso_stalker217** on Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:13 pm

Yeah, it's pretty much impossible to escape the dong when you're sitting in the front row.

by **Bloo** on Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:03 am

note to self: when watching The Watchmen don't sit so close to the screen

thank god this wasn't in 3-D

by **max314** on Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:02 am

Everything that was good about this film came from the graphic novel.

I'm not sure I agree with the glossy, Michael Bay style cinematography. The graphic novel always seemed very earthy and real to me; it's what made the superheroes stand out as oddities in an otherwise mundane world.

The only truly good (and it really is very good) contribution made by the filmmakers was excluding the interdimensional squid subplot and instead using elements and characters already set up within the story (i.e. Dr. Manhattan and his incredible abilities) to resolve the plot. Must say that was really quite impressive, and I would argue it's actually an improvement over Moore's original idea.

by **RogueScribner** on Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:04 pm

On that we agree.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:17 am

I also prefer the Manhattan ending. Well, I'm not sure if I prefer it, but it's definitely what should be in the film. There's just too much backstory for the fucking squid.

Still disappointed by the lack of bodies, though. Not a big enough impact.

by **TheBaxter** on Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:35 am

agreed here too, as i said in my original ending, the dr. manhattan as the boogeyman plot makes more sense and ties in with the characters better. but the execution of that idea was sorely lacking.

by **RogueScribner** on Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:05 am

Well, I don't think would have made sense to have a bunch of bodies strewn about when we've been constantly shown that Manhattan can just incinerate people. I think to give the moment more punch we should have gotten a glimpse into people's reactions to it, not just our heroes or politicos. People lost and confused at ground zero point 1, 2, 3, etc.

by **Ribbons** on Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:20 am

He doesn't exactly incinerate people, he almost makes them explode, or something. Like if you look at what he did to Rorshach and those two dudes with guns, there's all sorts of messy leftovers (or 'sloppy seconds' if you will).

by **RogueScribner** on Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:27 am

You're right. But it's still not a bunch of bodies strewn about. Blood, perhaps even some bloody pulp. It wouldn't be a visceral visual since we wouldn't have any faces or other identifying features to place with that. The only way to rectify this would be to show the incident happen, but then that ruins the reveal that it already DID happen. Maybe some windows of the skyscrapers could have been blown out and we could have seen streams of blood gushing down. Heh.

by **TheBaxter** on Fri May 08, 2009 9:55 am

this isn't actually about the Watchmen movie, but it's watchmen-related so i'll put it here.

i just started watching the Watchmen Motion Comics DVD... for the most part it's pretty good. it's a neat idea. but the one thing that really bugs the hell out of me is, they used the same guy to do the voices for all the characters.... and i mean ALL the characters... even the female ones! sorry, but every time silk spectre or silk spectre II have dialogue and it comes out in a reedy male-pretending-to-be-female voice that sounds like we used to sound in elementary school when we'd try to sound like girls, it completely takes me out of the story. jeebus, couldn't they afford to at least hire a 2nd voiceover actor to do the female parts? to go to all the trouble of animating the comic, and then blow it with the cheesy voiceover, just sucks. i almost want to just watch the rest on mute, but i do like the score and sound effects. maybe there's an audio option that lets you only play those parts, i'll have to check. the voiceover guy isn't even very good on the male parts (no dr. manhattan pun intended), but let's face it, i'll always hear jackie earle haley's and billy crudup's voices in those roles anyhow.

by **Mark Hinnegan** on Sat May 09, 2009 12:03 am

I agree with TheBaxter about the Motion Comics. Even though the guy that reads the dialogue is a professional audiobook man.... still.... he sounds like a bad drag queen when he's doing Laurie OR her mother.

As a closing note, I figured out what is wrong with Western Civilization.

Watchmen Domestic Gross - 107 million and change.
Transformers Domestic Gross - 337 million and change.

by **TheButcher** on Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:22 am

From AICN: Mr. Beaks Sneaks A Peek At Zack Snyder's WATCHMEN: DIRECTOR'S CUT!

From COLLIDER: Confirmed! WATCHMEN Director’s Cut to Show In Select Theaters For One Weekend in July

by **Fried Gold** on Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:27 am

...so the "director's cut" is more a "let's put every thing copied from the comic into the film and make it four hours long cos that'll sell some DVDs" cut.

by **John-Locke** on Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:16 am

We don't get the Directors cut in the UK until December, and the studios wonder why piracy is on the increase

The Zone

(Rating The) WATCHMEN!