The Zone

by **DennisMM** on Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:56 pm

Mark Hinnegan wrote:Watchmen Domestic Gross - 107 million and change.
Transformers Domestic Gross - 337 million and change.

That is twisted. Transformers made waaaaaay too much.

Supposedly, the director's cut will play for a week in a few cities just before the DVD is released.

I won't be buying the DVD, personally. I'll wait for Christmas when the DVD that includes "Freighter" is supposed to be released.

by **Fried Gold** on Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:48 pm

Compared to Transformers 2, Snyder's Watchmen was Citizen Kane.

by **Bloo** on Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:58 pm

compared to Transformers 2 my poop is Citizen Kane

that's not fair, I actually liked some of TF2...just not enough

by **DennisMM** on Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:56 pm

But compared to Watchmen, X2 was The Magnificent Ambersons.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 3:23 am

X2 was, is and never will be anything special. I still think the first twenty minutes of X-MEN is as good as those bullshit movies ever got.

by **Bloo** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:18 am

caruso_stalker217 wrote:X2 was, is and never will be anything special. I still think the first twenty minutes of X-MEN is as good as those bullshit movies ever got.

X2 has Brian Cox therefor X2 is awesome, case closed you can't even argue with me caruso, Brian Cox is god, therefore everything Brian Cox does is better because Brian Motherfucking Cox is in it

it's the same with Harry Dean Stanton

by **caruso_stalker217** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:36 am

Bloo wrote:
caruso_stalker217 wrote:X2 was, is and never will be anything special. I still think the first twenty minutes of X-MEN is as good as those bullshit movies ever got.

X2 has Brian Cox therefor X2 is awesome, case closed you can't even argue with me caruso, Brian Cox is god, therefore everything Brian Cox does is better because Brian Motherfucking Cox is in it

it's the same with Grande Rojo Dean Stanton

Dammit! I forgot the Law of Cox.

by **Bloo** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:08 am

caruso_stalker217 wrote:
Bloo wrote:
caruso_stalker217 wrote:X2 was, is and never will be anything special. I still think the first twenty minutes of X-MEN is as good as those bullshit movies ever got.

X2 has Brian Cox therefor X2 is awesome, case closed you can't even argue with me caruso, Brian Cox is god, therefore everything Brian Cox does is better because Brian Motherfucking Cox is in it

it's the same with Grande Rojo Dean Stanton

Dammit! I forgot the Law of Cox.

NEVER forget the Cox

by **caruso_stalker217** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:11 am

X2 really isn't special, though. Cox or not. Best Hannibal Lector, no question. In a Michael fucking Mann picture no less.

by **Bloo** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:34 am

we've had this discussion before and we're not going to settle it here

I'm still pissed that they never managed to cast either Brian in Harry Potter (that would be the Blessed Cox and you're right Manhunter does have the better Hanibal Lectar

by **Nachokoolaid** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:27 pm

Blessed Cox?

This thread is great. Hopefully they'll make up for it in The Hobbit and cast Blessed as Beorn and Cox as Thorin Oakenshield. I could think of worst actors to play them. In fact, that seems sort of spot on to me.

by **Bloo** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:30 pm

I was trying to make a bad pun

with the Potter films they cast everything just perfectly, I can't imagine HOW they would have cast Cox or Blessed (although if it was me, I would have put Cox as Mad Eye and Blessed as Slughorn but that's just me)

those two in the Hobbit would be gold for me

how did we end up talking about Cox and Blessed in a Watchmen thread?

oh yeah that would have been caurso and mine's fault, sorry

by **DennisMM** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:35 pm

I still think the school attack and what comes right after are the best moments in any of the X-Men films.

And Cox is, indeed, very special. I've said so since the Zone opened four years ago. "Would you like to leave me your home phone number?"

In any case, my point is that judged by the standards of the better hero movies, Watchmen is more pretentious than impressive. And that's allowing for the basic pretentiousness of the source material.

by **Nachokoolaid** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:35 pm

I realize that this is going way off topic, but the film that made me love Cox (HA HA, I just realized what I just typed!) was THE LONG KISS GOODNIGHT. I seriously find more to love about that movie every time I think of it.

by **papalazeru** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:57 am

Nachokoolaid wrote:I realize that this is going way off topic, but the film that made me love Cox (HA HA, I just realized what I just typed!) was THE LONG KISS GOODNIGHT. I seriously find more to love about that movie every time I think of it.

I agree, Long Kiss Goodnight is a superb film. I didn't like it the first time I watched it but it grew the more I relaxed and let it's cartoon style take over me.

by **so sorry** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:57 am

Getting back to the DVD release... I'm looking forward to this purchase. Never got out to see the flick, and I'm itching for a DVD purchase.

by **papalazeru** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:59 am

so sorry wrote:Getting back to the DVD release... I'm looking forward to this purchase. Never got out to see the flick, and I'm itching for a DVD purchase.

Same here. I've seen the movie now a couple of times and I'm still not bored of it. There's still so much going on in the film. I'd love to see all the extras for this as well.

by **DennisMM** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:43 pm

As I said, I'll wait for Christmas. No double-dipping for me. However, it is on my Netflix queue and I'll be pushing it to the top once it's released. The extras may wind up interesting me more than the film did after two viewings. And it's an excuse to drag out my notes and write a proper review.

by **Fried Gold** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:33 pm

I'm slightly confused by this. When is the "Director's Cut" released?

I thought it was be later in the year, but Amazon US (and a few others US sites) seem to be saying 21st July.

Is the UK not getting it?

by **so sorry** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:35 pm

Fried Gold wrote:When is the "Director's Cut" released?

I thought it'd be later in the year, but Amazon seems to be saying 21st July.

Well there's your answer then!

by **darkjedijaina** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:45 pm

not sure about the UK but here's wiki's info:

Warner Bros. will release a director's cut on July 21, 2009, and the extended version with the animated film (Freighter) edited back into the main picture in December. Snyder said if the film does well enough, the director's cut will be simultaneously theatrically released in New York and Los Angeles.

by **The Vicar** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:21 pm

But the Tales of the Freighter subplot doesn't work without the "squid". All by itself, the TotBF stuff will be pointless.
Won't it?

by **tapehead** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:55 pm

I've been trying to find details of everything that will get stuffed into the upcoming 3 hour 'Ultimate Version' of Watchmen; So far as I can see, the Squid is not being put back in (good reviews here and here)

It's weird, because remnants of that overall story were left over in Snyder's theatrical version anyway - Bubastis was obviously an earlier experiment by Veidt with genetics, and we got to see the Magazine stand guy and the black kid who in the GN was reading TOTBF a dozen times in the film.

The WB are going to milk this; there's a separate 'Under The Hood' and 'Tales...' already, the theatrical release, an 'Ultimate' edition, a 'Night Owl' edition with neato scale model, a two disc Blu Ray, and still there's none of these that seems to have everything in it...

by **DennisMM** on Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:50 am

The Vicar wrote:But the Tales of the Freighter subplot doesn't work without the "squid". All by itself, the TotBF stuff will be pointless.
Won't it?

I would say "Freighter" works without the squid. It's a counterpoint/parallel to Veidt's hoax. In each, a supposedly good man becomes a ruthless murderer in order to protect a larger number of people, and finds his goodness cannot survive such violence. While the film's conspiracy doesn't parallel "Freighter" as neatly as the book's, I think I think it still work with the Dr. Manhattan hoax. We didn't get any of that deep guilt coming off Veidt in the movie, though, at least that I saw. Just some more lack of expressiveness from Matthew Goode. The real question for me is, without the newsstand, where's the departure point for showing us "Freighter," anyway?

Question - I keep meaning to ask this and always forget. It's off-topic here, but I'd better mention it while I remember to do so.

In the comic, The Comedian discovers Veidt's plot purely by chance when, returning to the USA by airship (I miss the airships), he sees undocumented behavior on the island where the squid is being created. He somehow reaches shore and investigates, learns the basics of what's going on, and as a result, cracks. Not very plausible, but as plausible as much of the comic. In the film, Nixon's paranoia has reached the point where he has taken to bugging not only the White House, but many other buildings, including Veidt's complexes. The Comedian is monitoring these bugs, learns of Veidt's plan, and cracks.

How plausible is it that the smartest man in the world, running a vast research program and associated megadeath conspiracy for years, wouldn't sweep his complexes for listening devices regularly, even DAILY? Wouldn't have security that prevented anyone from carrying in a bug, if not wouldn't have equipment to interfere with listening? Forget my dislike for the framing of Dr. Manhattan. The dumbing-down of Adrian Veidt, at that point, dropped right off the graph for me. As played in the film, Veidt is much more full of himself than in the comic. He's an arrogant ass, but he's not foolish and not arrogantly stupid.

by **magicmonkey** on Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:14 am

I've not got too much to say about the film, other than they really, really nailed the look. I saw the Director's Cut, well, I said saw, I kinda tuned out... The film lacked the intellectual distance that the comic book provides, in the movie I felt way too drawn (heh) to identify with the characters. I think it once again proves that comic books really are their own unique preserve. Having said this, it really is a treat for comic book fans, it packs a violent, nasty punch and handles style with aplomb.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:13 am

DennisMM wrote:How plausible is it that the smartest man in the world, running a vast research program and associated megadeath conspiracy for years, wouldn't sweep his complexes for listening devices regularly, even DAILY?

It's actually pretty plausible. He did leave that Ramses book next to his computer where anyone could look at it.

by **tapehead** on Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:23 am

caruso_stalker217 wrote:
DennisMM wrote:How plausible is it that the smartest man in the world, running a vast research program and associated megadeath conspiracy for years, wouldn't sweep his complexes for listening devices regularly, even DAILY?

It's actually pretty plausible. He did leave that Ramses book next to his computer where anyone could look at it.

It's not plausible, if indeed we are supposed to believe that he's the smartest man in the world. In the Comic he is a genius without peer (save Manhattan, who's concerns are drifting beyond humanity as the story progresses), whereas in the film Veidt has a vain pettiness to his character that makes you think he wouldn't be capable of orchestrating something like the Squid manoeuvre or it's movie variation, as he'd probably want to take credit for it's cleverness.

by **Fried Gold** on Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:31 am

DennisMM wrote:In the comic, The Comedian discovers Veidt's plot purely by chance when, returning to the USA by airship (I miss the airships), he sees undocumented behavior on the island where the squid is being created. He somehow reaches shore and investigates, learns the basics of what's going on, and as a result, cracks. Not very plausible, but as plausible as much of the comic. In the film, Nixon's paranoia has reached the point where he has taken to bugging not only the White House, but many other buildings, including Veidt's complexes. The Comedian is monitoring these bugs, learns of Veidt's plan, and cracks.

I must've missed that bit about the bug monitoring in the film. I just remember some stuff just happening saying that The Comedian "found out about it some how".

How plausible is it that the smartest man in the world, running a vast research program and associated megadeath conspiracy for years, wouldn't sweep his complexes for listening devices regularly, even DAILY? Wouldn't have security that prevented anyone from carrying in a bug, if not wouldn't have equipment to interfere with listening? Forget my dislike for the framing of Dr. Manhattan. The dumbing-down of Adrian Veidt, at that point, dropped right off the graph for me. As played in the film, Veidt is much more full of himself than in the comic. He's an arrogant ass, but he's not foolish and not arrogantly stupid.

Just another of the plot holes.

by **Bloo** on Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:17 am

tapehead wrote:
caruso_stalker217 wrote:
DennisMM wrote:How plausible is it that the smartest man in the world, running a vast research program and associated megadeath conspiracy for years, wouldn't sweep his complexes for listening devices regularly, even DAILY?

It's actually pretty plausible. He did leave that Ramses book next to his computer where anyone could look at it.

It's not plausible, if indeed we are supposed to believe that he's the smartest man in the world. In the Comic he is a genius without peer (save Manhattan, who's concerns are drifting beyond humanity as the story progresses), whereas in the film Veidt has a vain pettiness to his character that makes you think he wouldn't be capable of orchestrating something like the Squid manoeuvre or it's movie variation, as he'd probably want to take credit for it's cleverness.

I think that was whatchacallit....oh yeah sarcasm

by **tapehead** on Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:23 am

I think I got that - My response was more directed at the way the film's plot and conclusion erodes under scrutiny - Caruso is just pointing how how Dumbed-down Veidt is in the film, right?

If Veidt's not so smart, how does he fool everyone? I think next time I watch the film I'll try to consider that it's set in a similar but stupider universe than our own.

by **Bloo** on Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:38 am

alright it just seemed like you were taking him wayyyyy too seriously there

could someone refresh my memory how did NiteOwl discover the plot in the book

by **caruso_stalker217** on Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:33 pm

Yeah, there was a bit of sarcasm there. For being the smartest man in the world Veidt doesn't seem to show it much.

Bloo, if I remember correctly Nite Owl keeps trying different passwords until he comes to Ramses. Which still doesn't reflect well on the aforementioned smartest man on the world.

by **burlivesleftnut** on Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:17 pm

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Yeah, there was a bit of sarcasm there. For being the smartest man in the world Veidt doesn't seem to show it much.

Bloo, if I remember correctly Nite Owl keeps trying different passwords until he comes to Ramses. Which still doesn't reflect well on the aforementioned smartest man on the world.

Well it was written in an age where fancy pants passwords weren't necessary. Probably, since it took place in the 80s, it would have been more realistic for them to just turn the computer on and access everything without a password at all.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:33 am

But these were the '80s of DR. MANHATTAN! WITH FLYING CARS AND SHIT!

Which were sadly missing from the film.

by **Bloo** on Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:25 am

thanks for the reminder I thought that was how it went down but I wasn't sure, and at least Synder tried to explain how Nite Owl would come up with Rameses instead of just typing it in ya'know

but yeah no password would have made sense too

but then we'd be bitching about how he didn't use the password that was in the book

that problem was one of those damned if he does damned if he doesn't moments for Synder

if he just has Nite Owl trying different passwords then critics and casual movie goers are going to blast him for conviently coming up with the password (even though that's most faithful)

but he's also damned by trying to explain it (or if he would have done no password) by the fans of the comic

by **Spandau Belly** on Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:32 am

I'm surprised Snyder didn't change Veidt's password to 'Diamond Dogs' or 'Mick Jagger's thighs' or something.

by **DennisMM** on Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:18 am

caruso_stalker217 wrote:But these were the '80s of DR. MANHATTAN! WITH FLYING CARS AND SHIT!

Which were sadly missing from the film.

Sorry to shoot you down, but no flying cars in the comic. Lots of hump-backed electric cars, though.

As for passwords, why wouldn't there be passwords in 1985? The comic was written in 1986-1987, and Moore obviously knew they were common in high-security situations. Yes, it was a bit much that Dreiberg guessed Rameses so quickly, but he was prodded by 20 years of association with Veidt, who has a fascination with Rameses as well as Alexander.

In any case, the DVD/BR's out Tuesday, so prepare for a new thread!

by **caruso_stalker217** on Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:06 pm

Man, I could've sworn there were some fuckin' hover cars or some shit in there.

by **travis-dane** on Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:06 pm

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Man, I could've sworn there were some fuckin' hover cars or some shit in there.

Gettin' old brotha?

by **tapehead** on Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:13 pm

Probably the owl ship, which doesn't have pumping blue after-burner jets in the comic, but seems to glide about like an zeppelin or something.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:26 pm

travis-dane wrote:
caruso_stalker217 wrote:Man, I could've sworn there were some fuckin' hover cars or some shit in there.

Gettin' old brotha?

Working for Wal-Mart will age a man.

Well, there were those hover-sled things that they used in Antarctica. Maybe that's where I was getting it from. I'd have to go back and read the book again.

by **tapehead** on Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:55 pm

Sorry dude, the sleds don't hover either; least not in that 'above the ground' way I usually associate with hovering.

by **Lord Voldemoo** on Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:20 pm

tapehead wrote:Sorry dude, the sleds don't hover either; least not in that 'above the ground' way I usually associate with hovering.

maybe he's thinking of this?

god i want a hoverboard.

by **travis-dane** on Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:53 pm

tapehead wrote:Sorry dude, the sleds don't hover either; least not in that 'above the ground' way I usually associate with hovering.

Poor caruso. Tapehead is always a step ahead...
Walmart will do that to ya!

by **DennisMM** on Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:30 pm

tapehead wrote:Sorry dude, the sleds don't hover either; least not in that 'above the ground' way I usually associate with hovering.

On page 27 of chapter 10, Dreiberg specifically refers to them as hoverbikes, and they do seem to ride above the snow. They leave tracks of disturbed snow, possibly because of whatever makes them hover. In any case, they aren't resting on the ground. They're not rolling or being forced along the surface.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:42 pm

DennisMM wrote:
tapehead wrote:Sorry dude, the sleds don't hover either; least not in that 'above the ground' way I usually associate with hovering.

On page 27 of chapter 10, Dreiberg specifically refers to them as hoverbikes, and they do seem to ride above the snow. They leave tracks of disturbed snow, possibly because of whatever makes them hover. In any case, they aren't resting on the ground. They're not rolling or being forced along the surface.

... I didn't have one about vindication.

by **tapehead** on Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:52 am

Lord Voldemoo wrote:
tapehead wrote:
god i want a hoverboard.

One of those... and a jetpack

caruso_stalker217 wrote:
DennisMM wrote:
tapehead wrote:Sorry dude, the sleds don't hover either; least not in that 'above the ground' way I usually associate with hovering.

On page 27 of chapter 10, Dreiberg specifically refers to them as hoverbikes, and they do seem to ride above the snow. They leave tracks of disturbed snow, possibly because of whatever makes them hover. In any case, they aren't resting on the ground. They're not rolling or being forced along the surface.

... I didn't have one about vindication.

I'm offended... actually I have no idea what you mean, so I'm fairly nonplussed.

by **DennisMM** on Sat Jul 18, 2009 6:41 pm

caruso_stalker217 wrote:
DennisMM wrote:
tapehead wrote:Sorry dude, the sleds don't hover either; least not in that 'above the ground' way I usually associate with hovering.

On page 27 of chapter 10, Dreiberg specifically refers to them as hoverbikes, and they do seem to ride above the snow. They leave tracks of disturbed snow, possibly because of whatever makes them hover. In any case, they aren't resting on the ground. They're not rolling or being forced along the surface.

... I didn't have one about vindication.

WTF?

by **caruso_stalker217** on Sat Jul 18, 2009 6:52 pm

Who knows what goes on in my mind?

by **Bloo** on Sat Jul 18, 2009 7:44 pm

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Who knows what goes on in my mind?

The Shadow?

The Zone

(Rating The) WATCHMEN!